by The feminists find themselves in an awkward situation. So tightly they cling to abortion at any time for any reason because they believe that any compromise would result in regulation and a “slippery slope” to banning abortion that they have to accept the hideous practice that is partial birth abortion. Yet they now have a new dilemma that’s causing them to be incosistent.
The idea that parents would abort children because they were a boy or a girl is on par with having them partially born and their brains sucked out. However, in this case, the feminists agree not to let parents choose to kill their child because of its sex. Huh?
If it seems inconsistent to you then you’re not alone. Why is there more concern about ending up with designer babies versus mass murdering them? I admit, I’m not fond of the designer baby solution myself, but that’s consistent with my position!
I like how Vox Day summed this up:
So, now that we’ve established that it’s acceptable to ban killing a baby because it’s a girl, how about we simply ban killing babies because they are human beings?
Amen and amen to the quote from Vox Day. It is a wee bit on the ironic side, though.
The biggest non sequitur that I see in the whole abortion debate comes when the same abortion proponents argue strongly against the death penalty.
Let’s see if I have their positions right:
killing an unborn baby for any reason except gender selection = good/fine/dandy
killing a convicted murderer = bad/despicable/evil
I just don’t see it.