Legal, But Neither Safe Nor Rare

Jaw-dropping and chilling video, by way of The Daily Caller, of a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas advising the undercover patient on how to get an abortion because the baby would be a girl.

It’s well established that sex-selective abortions in Asia result in skewed sex ratios there. One would be naive to think that all Asian immigrants to the U.S. leave those cultural attitudes behind. Sex-selective abortion, distressingly, is practiced in the United States as well, mainly by those of Asian descent (and one hopes it’s just a tiny minority of them). It’s most apparent when looking at the statistics of third births. Following is excerpted from a study at the University of Connecticut Health Center:

Results: The male to female sex ratio from 1975 to 2002 was 1.053 for Whites, 1.030 (p < 0.01) for Blacks, 1.074 (p < 0.01) for Chinese and 1.073 (p < 0.01) for Filipinos. From 1991 to 2002, the sex ratio increased from 1.071 to 1.086 for Chinese, 1.060 to 1.074 for Filipinos, 1.043 to 1.087 for Asian Indians and 1.069 to 1.088 for Koreans. The highest sex ratios were seen for third+ births to Asian Indians (1.126), Chinese (1.111) and Koreans (1.109).

Conclusion: The male to female livebirth sex ratio in the United States exceeded expected biological variation for third+ births to Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection.

The above-mentioned video refers to an Economist cover story from two years ago that laments the abortion-induced gender imbalance in Asia.

Two thing about that article. On the plus side, give The Economist credit for presenting a topic that you would rarely or never see presented by another publication or news outlet comprised of (presumably) mainly pro-legalized-abortion reporters and editors.

On the minus side, The Economist flatly states in the article, “For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase)….”

But that’s a contradiction in terms. You’d think that editors, of all people, would recognize and avoid such oxymorons. If you think abortion should be legal, then you can’t expect that it will be rare – just as if you raise the speed limit to 75 mph you can’t expect that people won’t drive that fast. Before 1973, most unwanted children were given up for adoption, which is why one meets a lot more adopted children who were born in America before 1973 than after. After 1973, most unwanted children have been, to use the euphemism, terminated.

The Economist – and Bill Clinton – must think abortion is reprehensible if they think it should be rare. But if they really want it to be rare then they have to support making it illegal. I guess wanting to have it both ways fools themselves into helping them sleep better at night.

As for wanting abortion to be safe, by definition it’s not safe. That’s like saying killing should be safe. Oh sure, legalized abortion may make things safer for the mother who wants to carry out the killing, but as noted above, when you legalize abortion, you make the practice much more common. That means far more human lives are subject to terribly unsafe living conditions when the abortion doctor comes ‘a calling.

The New “Extreme”: To Let Live, Instead of to Let Kill

What would you call extreme: killing a human life, or letting it live?

The dictionary defines extreme as the farthest possible point from something. In the political arena, it means using violence to achieve one’s ends.

But the term is often misused and demagogued. One of them most egregious misuses of the term is when advocates of legalized abortion call opponents of abortion “extremists.”

Killing a life is the most extreme thing one can do, especially when it’s an innocent pre-born human life.

A letter to Congress co-signed by more than 30 pro-abortion groups stated a pro-life measure by a congressman (banning abortions motivated by the race or gender of the fetus) was “simply more of the same from the anti-choice extremists in the House.”

The irony is breathtaking.

It’s like as if Peter Singer, who advocates the legalized killing of already-born human babies – one of the most extreme things one could ever do – were to call opponents of that practice “extremists”.

It’s like Macbeth, where fair is foul and foul is fair. It’s like Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Love, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Plenty were responsible for doing the very opposite of what their names suggested.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,” says a character in 1984. People in the pro-legalized-abortion lobby could be thinking the same thing.