Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Pro-choice . . . but which one?

Over at his blog, Dr. Mohler writes about a NYT article regarding selective abortions.
Side Note: Is it weird for me to be writing an article about an article about an article? It seems like some sort of joke waiting to happen.
The gist of the original article centers around decisions to abort for defects such as Down's Syndrome, which is relatively non-controversial in pro-choice circles. However, the more interesting part comes from the selective abortions which are starting to become more commonplace.

I've written about sex-selection abortions in India before on this blog. It's a horrible topic, partly because abortion itself is so horrible and partly because so many people are unwilling to say that such a thing is wrong, even the feminists. The NYT article seems to highlight the latter, as abortions for sex or for cosmetic defect are becoming more prevalent.

Is there no dignity left to mankind? Have we fallen so far as to think one better off dead than to live with even minor inconveniences?

I shouldn't have to say it, but selective abortions are the height of selfishness. It's not an abortion for reasons like, "I can't take care of the child, I want to pursue my career, my parents will be angry," etc. It's, "Oh, I want a child, just not this child." I cannot begin to describe how that attitude makes me feel.

To me, this is indicative of the problem of abortion in total. Let's say you wanted to outlaw selective abortions. How do you distinguish between selective abortions and those for "normal" reasons? It strikes me as similar to hate crime laws. Something that is legal (or a minor infraction) might become super-duper bad based solely on the mindset of the action. In this case, an action would be seen as bad based on one motive but good (or at least neutral) under another.

Shouldn't it be bad always? What makes the difference? Or is it a lack of imagination on my part to not see the distinction?

No comments: