Why Do We Cry Over Sex-Selective Abortions, But Not The Rest?

The “pro-choice” hypocrisy reaches insane levels over the issue of sex-selective abortions.

Human beings have turned rationalization into a sport; we can turn anything into something else with the help of a bit of wordplay, and make ourselves feel better in the process. We have told ourselves so many lies about the world that if those lies were stripped away for just a moment, in some grand cosmic experiment, society would collapse under the weight of the truth. One of the most egregious lies we tell ourselves is that some abortions are acceptable, while others are inhumane, and disgusting.

According to Austin Ruse of Breitbart, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber—you know, the guy who is on video multiple times saying it was the “stupidity of the American people” that got Obamacare passed–co-authored a paper in the 1990’s alleging that abortion is a “social good” because it eliminates “marginal children,” which helps save the government money.

The following is an excerpt from the paper:

Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.”

In essence, Gruber is justifying the termination of children by suggesting that they are better off dead than living in poverty, or living under difficult circumstances. This is eugenics territory. But what fascinates me most about this is that it’s news. Why is it that abortion suddenly becomes abhorrent when the reason behind it is specific, rather than vague? For example, according to a November 4th piece from The Telegraph:

MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favor of a motion declaring that sex-selection abortion is illegal. They voted 181 to 1 for a motion brought forward by a cross-party alliance of MPs in an effort to end uncertainty over whether doctors can be prosecuted for the practice. It will now have a second reading in January.

The idea of sex-selective abortions is so detestable to some that elected officials had to take measures to clarify existing laws. This even echoes the sentiment behind the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” used by many on the left, specifically Hillary Clinton. The left frequently opines that they want to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” but they never really tell us why keeping abortion rare is so important. “Safe,” and “legal” make sense from a pro-choice perspective, but why “rare?” Wanting to keep something rare implies a negative component; it implies that whatever is being kept rare has potentially negative consequences. If one believes that abortion is acceptable, essentially akin to removing a non-living tumor, why care if it is kept rare? Do we talk about mole removal the same way? Mole removal: keep it safe, legal, and rare!

In the same vein, if abortion is merely a procedure that removes non-living, non-human matter from the body, what does it matter the reasoning behind it? According to the Global Down Syndrome Foundation, 67% – 85% of prenatally diagnosed children with Down syndrome are aborted. That comes as a shock to many, because it seems so vile. Upon finding out that their child will have special needs the majority of parents decide to terminate the pregnancy. But once again, why? Why is this statistic so shocking? When approximately one million infants are aborted annually in the United States (40 million since Roe v Wade), why are we struggling with the reasoning behind why they were aborted? If it is a woman’s right to do what she will with this tumor called a child, what does it matter why she chooses to abort?

The “safe, legal, and rare” mantra reveals an inconsistency within the pro-choice movement. At once, they believe in keeping abortion legal, but they realize that it is indeed the execution of a child, so they want to keep it rare. They want free range to do as they please with the lives of unborn children, but also appear to be sensitive to the fact that these are in fact living children. They want to have their cake, and abort it, too.

So, Jonathan Gruber asserts that it’s a societal good to abort “marginal children.” So what? We abort many children. If abortion is not a moral wrong, if it is nothing more than tumor removal (a woman’s choice), who cares if gender, or economic status is the reasoning behind it? And if one believes that what is being aborted is indeed a living human being, yet is only outraged by abortions that target specific demographics, they are monsters living among us.

We have an incredible ability to rationalize, but our extraordinary ability does not mask moral inconsistency, it merely magnifies it.