This week, the board ruled that women cannot be refused an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, no matter why they choose to do it. And whether or not you agree with her reasoning, the ruling is sound. It is a woman’s right to have an abortion, no matter how flawed the logic of that woman may be.I don’t think “flawed logic” is the Swedish woman’s problem. I think it has more to do with morality. It’s not illogical to want to kill your 5th child if she’s a girl (after killing two other female children), it’s morally monstrous.
We have to be absolute in defending the right to abortion, without parsing the reasons behind it—otherwise, it’s a slippery slope to restricted access. All I can do is disagree this woman, and hold the personal belief that her use of an abortion to control the gender of her children is wrong. But as far as legality, her choice should be protected. No matter what.
To defend the legality of all abortions, Elisabeth Garber-Paul must defend sex-selection abortion even though she believes they are “wrong” (though she isn’t “control(ling) the gender of her children” - she’s killing those whose sex she doesn’t like). Why Garber-Paul believes it is wrong for women to choose to kill their daughters simply because they are daughters and not sons is left answered.
What Garber-Paul really wants pro-choicers to do is defend all abortions no matter how repugnant and morally wrong they are.
I always find it interesting when proponents of abortion on demand try to defend sex-selection abortion. Something innate moral sense in them seems to tell them how wrong it is but they typically defend the practice (or at least it's legality) because they can see how attacking the reasoning of one woman's choice quickly shows how fickle "choice" can really be.