England Allows Gender Selective Abortions—Why Is That Wrong?

“I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore.” -Dr. Beverly McMillan, former abortionist.

What does “life” mean to Liberals? Liberals clearly despise animal cruelty—rightfully so—but what makes a person who won’t tolerate abuse to animals tolerate and even endorse homicide of human beings? Is there a mental block, or is it something more complex?

The standard defense of abortion that I receive from my Liberal friends has to do with viability. Liberals declare that when an infant is viable, it should no longer be aborted. The definition of viable varies from person to person, however, ranging from the moment of birth, to the time period when an infant forms its brain and nervous system, and everywhere in between. There is no standard “viability.”

If viability is variable, defending it is impossible. Because viability is based only in personal opinion of what constitutes “human,” and “living,” it cannot be defended with any sort of logical grounding. Given that, what is wrong with gender selective abortions? If it is morally acceptable to terminate an infant at various junctures of viability, why is a line drawn at gender distinction? If the infant isn’t a viable human being—and therefore not living—why does gender matter?

According to Breitbart:

Pro-life advocates are expressing outrage at an announcement last Monday by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that states physicians are now free to carry out sex selection abortions. Up until this point, abortions based solely on the sex of an unborn child were widely considered illegal in the UK.”

The article goes on to quote Andrew Lansley, the former Health Secretary: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.

“Sex selection is illegal and morally wrong.” Why? If it’s ok to murder an infant, why is it not ok to murder an infant because they are not the gender one wanted? Abortion—except in increasingly rare instances—is always an elective procedure. It is a procedure based on a woman’s choice to no longer be pregnant, and her decision to not care for a child. That is abortion. This moral outrage has no foundation.

Roger Simon of Politico recently wrote this about Ted Cruz: “I am talking about the funds cut to nearly 9 million mothers and young children for food, breastfeeding support and infant formula. That is harsh. Making a war against babies is harsh…”

And The Huffington Post ran a poll asking the question: “Do You Believe People Should Be Allowed To Choose The Gender Of Their Baby?” Only 65% voted No. A combined 34% said either Yes, or None of my business.

The Liberals and their acolytes have absolutely no perception when it comes to inconsistency. They are completely blind to their moral ambiguity. It’s frightening to think that people can be so dense and still continue to live. They can’t even agree on the definition of viable! If viability is malleable, why don’t we just off everyone that doesn’t contribute to society? Let’s kill old people, mentally challenged people, disabled people, and anyone else who isn’t “viable.”

Jeff Jacoby said:

Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil. Otherwise its wrongfulness is a matter of opinion. Mao and Seneca approved of murder; we disapprove. What makes us think we’re right?”

Some would argue that the increasing subjectivity of American morality is not that big a deal, but it is the subjectivity that is directly responsible for the murders of approximately 1,000,000 infants a year. It is a big deal, and it’s our job to point out the inconsistencies of the Left. Maybe we can change a mind. Even if we don’t, we aren’t relieved of the moral obligation.