The people who promote abortion say that it is somehow “not murder,” because a fetus is “not human.”
If that’s the position, then how could you possibly care who you kill?
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has released its annual State of World Population report, with 2020’s edition containing language that condemns using abortion specifically to exterminate girls while simultaneously rejecting laws to forbid the sexist practice.
“Decisions to carry to term male but not female fetuses is a reflection of gender-discriminatory views that women and girls are worth less than men and boys,” states the report, in a passage highlighted by Church Militant. At the same time, “bans on sex selection are often ineffective and also infringe reproductive rights, including access to safe abortion in countries where abortion is legal.”
The report seemingly tries to reconcile these two positions by blaming sex-selective abortions on the “persistence of deep-rooted stereotypes on the roles and responsibilities of women and violates the human right to be treated equally, without regard to gender.” Pro-abortion dogma casts legal abortion as a prerequisite for women’s equality, despite the number of women and women’s groups who emphatically oppose abortion.
The UNFPA goes on to declare that the solution to sex-selective abortions is not to protect female babies from intentional violence, but to “tackl[e] the preference for sons through changes in social norms.”
Why is an abortion “because it’s a girl” wrong but an abortion “because I don’t wanna get fat” right?
What difference does it make, exactly?
And how do you know if all of those fetuses identify as girls?
Also, notice how completely out of touch with reality these people are.
People in China and India and all these other countries don’t want sons because of “stereotypes” and “social norms” or any of the other gibberish, they want them for purely practical reasons.
Males are physically and mentally superior to women, so they’re better at working the farm, making money, taking care of their parents in old age, etc.
Why do you think parents giving dowries to their daughters’ husbands became a practice in virtually every part of the world?
You don’t pay people to take something off your hands if it’s valuable to you. You would only ever pay someone to take something from you if it is literally useless and you’re just trying to get rid of it.
Women aren’t good at doing anything other than producing babies, and the dowry is generally less than what it costs to feed them.
It’s no wonder that when you convince people abortion “isn’t murder” that they choose to get rid of the children that are just going to cost them a lot of money. The fact that people would so obviously use abortion for this purpose would have been a practical, apolitical and amoral reason not to allow people to have abortions.
Social norms aren’t things that just appear out of thin air, they’re things that people do so they don’t die off. Societies that developed efficient and effective social norms are the ones that survived, while many, many other societies stopped existing.
How can these imbeciles that are supposedly “elites” not get these very basic notions?
Sex-selective abortion is a persistent problem around the world, particularly in China, whose population-control policies have resulted in men outnumbering women by 33 million. Last year, a study published in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that sex-selective abortion has eliminated more than 23 million girls worldwide.
“UNFPA has strained against the restriction from officially promoting abortion as a human right, which nations imposed on the agency in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development at Cairo,” Dr. Susan Yoshihara of the Center for Family & Human Rights wrote, noting that the report’s conclusion undermines its own warnings that “unfettered abortion leads to other harms to women.”
Yep, makes absolutely no sense.
Giving women any decision power in general harms them, but especially when it’s about something as important as this.
Last May, United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas excoriated the court for its refusal to uphold a portion of an Indiana law banning abortions specifically sought due to a child’s sex, race, or disability.
“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” Thomas warned, a stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s “zealous” defense of the “rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination” in cases unrelated to abortion.
I know Clarence is supposed to be the smartest jogger in the world, but he’s absolutely wrong about this.
In a real eugenics program, women wouldn’t have a say in whether or not they get abortions, because when you give a woman choices, in 99 cases out of 100 she’ll pick the absolute worst one available.
What we have today is the exact opposite of eugenics, which is dysgenics.
When you have too much of that for too long, eventually nature is gonna come in and fix the situation for you in a much nastier way than any human being ever could.