Pro-Abortion Stance Must Include Killing Gays, Blacks And Girls In The Womb
Supporting abortion on demand, a “right to privacy” and being pro “choice” all encompass the concept that women, and girls, of any child-bearing age have, and ought to have, the right to end their pregnancies at any time during the nine months of fetal development. Supporting this stance also means that if a woman finds out there is a good chance her child will be born gay, or if the child’s sex is determined to be a girl, or if the child’s race (its skin color) is not what the mother expected it to be and she chooses to end the pregnancy – that right to abortion is fully supported by pro-abortion advocates. But, here’s the irony and the hypocrisy - pro-abortion advocates would never openly advocate any of these types of abortions.
Planned Parenthood does not have billboards, pamphlets or any type of literature telling women it’s o.k. if they abort a child who will be born gay, a girl, or a skin color they find objectionable. But Planned Parenthood will abort those babies if the mother tells them that is the reason why they want to end the pregnancy. Hence the “right to privacy”. Planned Parenthood certainly will not tell a woman she cannot have an abortion for any reason, which includes sexual orientation, sex and race. It would be bad for their business.
Likewise – all those radical feminists who support abortion on demand. Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill, Pat Schroeder, Pat Ireland, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam, will not openly say they support a woman’s right to abortion if that abortion is to end the life of an unborn female child. But they will still support a woman’s right to “choose” abortion for the purpose of sex selection.
How many pro-choice gays and lesbians would openly support a woman’s right to abortion if she found out her child would be born homosexual?
How about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Van Jones, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Mosley Braun, etc., ad nauseam? They all support a woman’s right to “choose”. That also includes a woman’s right to choose to abort a baby whose skin color might to too uncomfortably dark. But they would never openly admit that.
On the flip side of that – imagine a black woman going into a clinic for an abortion because her unborn child is too white. It happens. Talk about a “conflict of interest” where Planned Parenthood is concerned.
Ladies and gentleman – the pro-abortion side is advocating a lie. Namely, that an unborn child is not alive to begin with, until after it is born. But also, that the unborn child is not a separate life within the woman, but a part of the woman herself, no different from her bones, muscles, tissue, cells, etc., and akin to a disease, virus, tumor or cancer.
There is tremendous hypocrisy on the pro-abortion side. Where does that hypocrisy exist on the pro-life side? We support banning abortion in all cases – except to save the life of the mother when and where her life is legitimately threatened by the pregnancy and there is no known operation or procedure to reverse the threat. That means we who are pro-life do not want to see abortions occurring even if the child will be born gay, female or a skin color other than white.
So that, in turn, means the real threat to women, people of color, and gays and lesbians is on the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life side. To be pro-abortion is to be pro-death. To be pro-abortion is to support killing an unborn child who will be born gay; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born a girl; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born black, brown, or not white enough – or too white.
One column written has recently generated tremendous attention: Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards. In not one instance has there been a legitimate or provocative reason why abortion was/is necessary.
The pro-abortion side cannot have it both ways. They cannot fully support abortion on demand if they feel uncomfortable openly supporting abortion in cases where the unborn child will be born gay, female, or a color they don’t appreciate. Conversely, pro-abortion advocates cannot be “pro-choice” if they are uncomfortable, openly or in secret, opposing a woman having an abortion to get rid of a potential homosexual in the family, another girl or black baby.
If it is in fact a “woman’s choice” all pro-abortion advocates ought to revel and celebrate the fact that a woman has exercised that “choice” even to abort a gay child, a girl or black baby. And while they do, the fact that they do so in secret, rather than openly, shows the blatant hypocrisy and insecurities of their cause.
On the other hand – we could offer legislation to ban abortion in the case of sex selection, sexual orientation and skin color. What would pro-abortion advocates have to say about that? And what they do have to say, and what they keep silent about, will speak volumes about them and their real intentions and motivations – the foundations of which are built entirely on a lie.
The pro-life side? It’s based on the foundation that all life has value and worth, including that life which is yet unborn, even if it will be born gay, female or black. Does that sound like a lie to you?
- On This Mother’s Day – Would You Help A Woman Kill Her Unborn Child? (societybytes.wordpress.com)
- Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion (neosecularist.com)
- The Unborn Deserve Better Than Selfish Pro-Abortion Women Who Would Rather They Be Killed In The Womb (neosecularist.com)
- Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice (neosecularist.com)
- A secular case against legalized abortion (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
- Abortion, autonomy, and the Congressional Black Caucus (Hotair.com)