Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The War on Women

While the radical feminists and pro-aborts like to attempt to argue that I, as a male, have no right to any opinion about abortion, I would submit that women might be interested in how abortion is being used throughout the world.  Abortion is being used to destroy women, and while this is certainly "off-message", it might behoove those of the "pro-choice" persuasion just how cultures are exercising that choice, and how the philosophical assumptions that prop up abortion impact our thinking about infants as well.

The first point to make is this article by Msgr. Charles Pope and his analysis of Nicholas Eberstadt's article about The War on Baby Girls.  Both are worth reading.  But here is the summary.  Globally, abortion is being used as a means of selecting the sex of a child, and the preference chosen around the world is exceeding tilted toward male children. Thus there is now an artificial imbalance between men and women in terms of numbers.  In China this is particularly problematic, as forecasts have predicted that a very large number of men will not have the opportunity to marry.

Lest we think this is isolated to those "weird" Asian cultures this issue has reared its head in Britain of all places.  While I don't know if the population shift is that bad, the practice itself is quite prominent.  Fr. Longenecker with the notable commentary on this.  This issue is hardly a local one, nor does it seem to be an anomaly for those who choose abortion.  Even in countries where this sex selection abortions are banned it seems to happen anyway, and the law itself ignored.

At first I thought that this just illustrates the "hypocrisy" of the "pro-woman" feminist movement in the modern age.  That abortion is the only sacrament and nothing can interfere with the reception of that sacrament, be it age, stage of pregnancy, or in this case, the sex of the "fetus."

But reflecting further I see why the silence is necessary from the pro-abortion position.  To admit to the lopsided nature of the exercise of "choice" would surrender two major planks of the pro-abortion position.

The first is that if the "choicer" would admit that they are uncomfortable with this would raise a really uncomfortable question.  Why is this disturbing?  Why is the exercise of the "choice" under this circumstance "wrong" but the others "right?"  If we suddenly admit that this might limit how and when "choice" can be exercised, then we have admitted that such a choice can be limited.  And if so we would then need to think how and more importantly why such choice should be limited.

The second issue is that to admit that this is an issue is to admit that it is "human" girls being killed.  Since the "fetus" is only a "potential" human, the couple who decided to exercise the "choice" of eliminating the "potential" human is not discriminating against women per se.  They are only choosing which potential humans to bring to fruition.  Thus from the perspective of the pro-choicer, this isn't really discrimination against women.  Yet women are disappearing from the human race.

Finally lest we think that will only be an issue relating to abortion, let us finally see how the boundaries of when a "person" is not a "person."  Out from Australia is a recent medical ethics journal about the morality of killing newborns.  As abortion becomes the norm, the boundary of what constitutes an abortion will only expand.  Thus it is likely that the killing of newborn girls (something that already takes place in China) will expand even further.

Far from freeing women, the abortion mindset allows for the killing of women in numbers not scene in history.  The women of tomorrow will have to "choose" between the right of "choice" or their self-inflicted regulation to minority status.

But then again.  I'm a male.  So I don't need to be listened to.  Right?

No comments: