Friday, June 02, 2006


Daniel Mansueto (HT: Dawn Eden):
"But what can feminists like Ms Clinton say about sex selection abortion given their commitment to the so-called "right to an abortion"? Some feminists on the left say, not very loudly, that sex selection abortion is wrong, and is permissible to outlaw, because it discriminates based on sex. However, they cannot vigorously assert this argument without jeopardising the "right to an abortion" because the logic of the argument completely undermines that so-called "right." If an unborn girl has the right not to be discriminated against, she necessarily also has the more fundamental right to life. And if unborn girls have the right to life, it necessarily follows that all unborn children, whether male or female, have the same right."

Inded, how can one have the right not to be discriminated against if one doesn't have a right to live? It's crazy how legal abortion is seen by many women in the United States as a fundamental necessity which is integral in the struggle of females to have equal rights with males while some women use this "fundamental right," which is supposedly essential to giving females equal rights, to discriminate against other female human beings.

Bob making his contribution to the Ridiculous Pro-Choice Language Hall of Fame (HT: Serge) :
"As far as abortion is concerned, I can speak for myself in that the killing of a pre-sentient fetus does not equate to murder, any more so than the killing of a fly amounts to murder (and I can actually make the case that killing a fly is MORE heinous a moral act than permanently interrupting the development of a potential being)."

Besides the laughable euphemism for killing, one has to wonder how one could permanently interrupt the development of a potential being. If the entity involved isn't an actual being (just a "potential" one) then how is it developing and how can one permanently interrupt the development of a "potential being?"

No comments:

Post a Comment