Hillary Question: Should Sex-Selection Abortion be Legal?

Joseph Farah
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:00:00 -0700
Opinion

At its core, so-called "progressive" ideology is radical social engineering in the form of rebellion against Judeo-Christian morality.

From the perspective of someone who was immersed in left-wing ideas as a young man, I can tell you that is the only consistent thread you will find in this perverse and dangerous creed.

Let me give you an example of the way it works.
Updated: Wed Jun 22, 2016

At its core, so-called "progressive" ideology is radical social engineering in the form of rebellion against Judeo-Christian morality.

From the perspective of someone who was immersed in left-wing ideas as a young man, I can tell you that is the only consistent thread you will find in this perverse and dangerous creed.

Let me give you an example of the way it works.

In Great Britain right now, the clash between radical feminism and multiculturalism, two pillars of "progressivism," is on full display.

England, like its European neighbors, embraced radical feminism a generation ago, which brought with it abortion on demand, witnessed a plummeting birthrate among its citizenry. To counteract that crisis, Europe threw open its doors to unchecked immigration to sustain its workforce and its unsustainable welfare state. Those immigrants, naturally, brought with them values that often were not grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.

So, today, there is a political battle raging over which faction of the "progressive" coalition will prevail — feminism or multiculturalism. More specifically, the fight is over whether abortions for the purpose of sex selection should be prosecuted as human rights offenses.

In 2012, two abortionists, Prabha Sivaraman and Palaniappan Rajmohan, were recorded on video offering abortions to couples based on the sex of their unborn children.

Charges against the doctors were brought to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the case was thrown out on the grounds it would not be in the public interest to pursue it. The government found the "law does not, in terms, expressly prohibit gender specific abortions."

But later, the case was brought to England's human rights commission on the basis of anti-female discrimination — and the fact that those of certain ethnic backgrounds have a strong cultural bias for male children. After all, there are many laws in England, Europe and the U.S. against discrimination on the basis of sex.

It's a head-to-head battle between multiculturalism and radical feminism, focusing on abortion, which was originally pushed as a virtual secular sacrament by radical feminists. The question comes down to whether this ultimate form of discrimination by sex — the killing unborn girls because they are girls — outweighs the 50-year-old practice of unrestricted abortion on demand.

Fifty years ago, when abortion on demand effectively became the law of the land in the West, no one was thinking much about the consequences. But since ultrasound technology has improved, it is now easy to determine the sex of the unborn child at an early stage of development. This technology is widely used in China, India and even in the West to snuff out the lives of unborn girls by couples who would prefer to have a boy.

In China and India and other countries, the practice has resulted in what I dubbed many years ago a form of "gendercide," a term that now is used to explain the wide imbalance between adult men and women, numbered in the hundreds of millions, in those societies — one with grave consequences.

As Western societies, including the U.S., continue to embrace both abortion on demand and unchecked immigration policies, it's an issue that is just now emerging as a major conflict between two "progressive" principles.

So here's a question someone should be asking Hillary Clinton, an ardent defender of abortion on demand, this election year: Do you believe abortion for the purpose sex selection should be permitted in the U.S.?

Of course, I'm not holding my breath awaiting someone in the so-called "mainstream media" who supports, in knee-jerk fashion, both unrestricted abortion and unrestricted immigration to ask the tough question.

And that's how the West continues to stumble into the acceptance of such policies, defending them without any thought to the conflicts that will inevitably arise between causes whose only common denominator is spiritual and philosophical rebellion against the biblical morality.