Feminist Dogma Favors Race and Sex-Based Abortions

A U. S. House of Representatives committee has recently approved a bill that would prohibit abortions based on sex or race. The bill is called “The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act,” and reports say that it would “bar doctors and medical staff members from performing an abortion if they know the intent of the procedure is based on race or gender.”

Representative Trent Franks is the bill’s sponsor, and he gives his rationale for the bill saying,

As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be the wrong color or because she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong.

I think the vast majority of people would agree with Franks’ reasoning on this. In fact, a recent Zogby poll indicates that 86 percent of Americans favor making sex-selection abortions illegal. Who could possibly oppose such a measure? You guessed it. The feminists.

I suspect that there is very little chance of this bill passing both houses of Congress, much less that it would ever be signed by the President. That being said, it is appalling to read the feminists who are trying to defend abortions designed specifically to kill children of a certain gender or race. In an incredible twist of logic, Rachel Kwan of Ms. Magazine comments that preventing race-based abortions is racist. She writes,

Black and Asian/Pacific Islander women have consistently fought for the right to make their own decisions about if and when they will have children based on the support networks and resources that are available in their communities. This bill attempts to drive another wedge between women and their reproductive health practitioners. It will exacerbate many of the existing structural barriers that we women of color must overcome in order to access reproductive healthcare.

Did you get that? Kwan’s argument is that we must keep it legal for women to kill their unborn children based on race and gender or else it will make it harder for racial minorities to get abortions. With a straight face, this feminist argues that killing an unborn child because of the child’s race is not racism but seeking to protect that same child is racism.

If you don’t think there is an entrenched feminist orthodoxy underwriting abortion rights in our country, then you are not paying attention. Only a dogmatist of the first order would accept the validity of this argument.

14 Responses to Feminist Dogma Favors Race and Sex-Based Abortions

  1. Paul February 28, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Well, I’ll accept part of the argument…

    Unless there’s something going on that I don’t know about, black people tend to have black babies. Are they going to try to abort their child based on the fact that it’s black? This kind of bill sounds like so much unneeded rhetoric on such grounds.

    Now, if instead we’re talking about the usually really “conservative” family that makes their daughter get an abortion after they’ve found out the father was (insert non-white race here), then doesn’t that kind of prove my point that we’ll never actually see abortion criminalized anywhere in the union?

    On the other hand, the gender issue does hold some water, even in these here United States. But even then, shouldn’t we assume that 99% of the time, people are splitting from oppressive countries so that they CAN have a girl, or two girls, or six girls without persecution?

  2. Daryl Little February 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Paul,

    That would be a nice assumption, but the numbers in Asian populations in North America tell a very different story.

    Culture is not so easily left behind. The move to this continent is more often for a chance at a more prosperous life, not a change in traditions.

  3. Paul February 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    fair enough. Then make a gender rule. The race part of it just sounds like political kerosene for the sake of political kerosene.

  4. Alex Humphrey February 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    I am constantly blown away by abortionists. And as soon as I think they’ve gone as far as they can go, something new happens…

  5. Don Johnson February 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    As I see it, abortionists MUST always extend their ideas into any potentially relevant area or else they would need to admit they are wrong and their ideas are evil. In other words, they simply cannot back down in any way or they would be admitting there is a fatal flaw in their reasoning. Some abortionists do figure this out and end up repenting, but most do not.

  6. JStanton February 28, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    This strikes me as far too similar to hate crime legislation. Now some want to penalize the thought that goes into an abortion? It’s either a crime or it isn’t. Who is honestly going to admit to having an abortion due to the race or gender? I don’t see what the point is or that it will reduce abortions.

  7. Lucas Knisely February 29, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Rachel Kwan knows that as soon as you stop abortions that are based on race/sex, you are admitting the baby is a person. Racist and sexist protections within the law are based on the view that all persons are equal. She is merely sniffing out the hypocrisy in pro-choice supporters who want racist and sexist protections for unborn children.

    • Paul February 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

      please show me the percentage breakout of babies that are aborted because of race.

      This is nothing but rhetoric.

      • Lucas Knisely March 1, 2012 at 1:00 am #

        Paul, the bill in question would do the following…

        bar doctors and medical staff members from performing an abortion if they know the intent of the procedure is based on race or gender.

        If someone stands against this bill, as Rachel Kwan is, it is because they sense the person-hood debacle. Once you admit that a baby should not be aborted because of race or gender you admit the baby is a person deserving of equality,

        • Paul March 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

          you just dodged that question masterfully.

          I don’t deny that people get abortions based on gender. That is awful, and yes, there should be protections against that. HOWEVER, throwing race in there too is just rhetoric. Haven’t we had enough rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake?

          • Lucas Knisely March 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

            I’m not dodging the question?

            If you think throwing in race is “rhetoric” then you can point that accusation at the bill. My use of “race” is just me using the vocabulary of the bill in question.

        • Paul March 2, 2012 at 1:22 am #

          my complaint about race as rhetoric here IS directed at the bill, or rather, the bill’s author.

  8. CMM February 29, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Don Johnson’s and Lucas Knisley’s comments above are spot on. This is the same reason that no one has taken any significant steps to prevent selective abortion of babies with disabilities and/or deformities. If they prevent abortion on any grounds, the entire argument for “reproductive rights” is compromised. Whatever the motivations, I do think that proposed legislation such as this at least draws attention to the personhood of the unborn, and puts the pro-abortion crowd in an awkward defensive position.

    • Paul March 2, 2012 at 1:25 am #

      No it doesn’t, and for the reason that I’ve stated. Until hispanics start aborting their babies for being hispanic (not going to happen), the race aspect of this bill takes a legitimate concern and makes it a laughing stock.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes