There is apparently a “scandal” going on in Britain surrounding the Crown Prosecution Service’s recent decision not to prosecute two abortionists very clearly caught offering illegal gender selection abortions—an abortion performed for no other reason than that the parents don’t like the gender of their unborn baby.
According to the Abortion Act of 1967, abortion is legal only if “the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children of her family.”
It’s that mental health bit that provides so much leeway to pro-abortionists. The fact is that anyone who has the desire can make a case that pregnancy is a greater risk to mental health than abortion. I think they would be wrong, but it would be nearly impossible to prosecute them because of how vague “mental health” is.
Pro-abortionists are saying that the Abortion Act does not specifically outlaw gender selection abortion, so it’s okay. Some women only want one child—a boy. So having a girl would be an extraordinary emotional burden. Yeah. Does anyone else think this reasoning is gross?
The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has basically enshrined non-prosecution into their policy indicates just how useless the Abortion Act really is. Just go ahead and tell it like it is, Great Britain. Your people are free to kill their babies for whatever reason, just as long as those babies aren’t born yet. (Oh, and don’t forget to send the remains to hospitals for use as furnace fuel…)
CPS said they had enough evidence to prosecute the gender selection abortions. But they chose not to because they said it wouldn’t be in the “public interest.” What does that mean? You can’t prosecute any abortion-related crimes because then people might actually see how barbaric, brutal, savage, and selfish abortion actually is?
Recently, Hollywood has displayed a great deal of reluctance to portray the Kermit Gosnell story in film. One commentator said the reason Hollywood won’t touch the Gosnell story, though it will talk about a whole range of other disturbing topics—from the Holocaust to segregation to the AIDS epidemic—is because the Gosnell story hits “too close to home” to the liberal pro-choice mindset Hollywood has generally endorsed. But the fact is that abortion and infanticide are one and the same. Just listen to this “scholar” trying to describe why Gosnell is a murderer and a partial-birth abortionist is not:
When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered. So this technique that [Gosnell] does is nowhere in the lexicon of practice in abortion care. So, in terms of thinking about the difference between the way abortion providers who do later abortions in the United States practice, and this particular practice, they are completely worlds apart.
Ummm. No, They are not worlds apart. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. You just said the only difference was the fact that in one case, the baby is in the uterus. And in the other case, the baby is partially out of the uterus. I fail to see the grand “worlds apart” distinction you think is so clear there.
No. Abortion and infanticide, like I said, are one and the same. Hollywood knows this. Liberals know this. They just don’t want the masses to catch on. So they have to be careful what they condemn.
This whole so-called scandal concerning gender selection abortion puts leftist irrationality in high relief. Of all the people in the world, you’d think feminists would be outraged over gender selection abortion being effectively legalized in the UK. People are killing girls because they prefer boys. That really sucks, right? Where is NOW to condemn CPS for its cowardice and misogyny?
But no. Feminists can’t criticize gender selection abortion. Because that’s how absolutely inviolable the “right” of abortion must be. After all, we can’t do anything at all to curtail, delimit, or even define a woman’s free exercise of her reproductive rights.
Think about it. Who in his right mind would ever support partial-birth abortions under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever? That baby is actually coming out of the womb alive, people. That is so clearly murder, right? Who would defend that? Pro-Choice advocates, that’s who. Pretty much all of them. Why? Because you can’t let Pro-Lifers get a foot in the door.
These people defend the racism and eugenicism of Margaret Sanger. They protect pimps, johns, and child molesters. They harbor ideologies of the most sordid and debased kind in the world. And they aren’t willing to budge even a little. That’s how precariously the theory of abortion sits in their minds. Even the slightest movement exposes abortion for what it really is: the cold-blooded, selfish murder of the most innocent citizens in the nation.