We know from research that there are many reasons for women to choose abortion. The majority of those reasons can be summarized as for the convenience of the woman. We also know that various countries have eradicated various things like Down's Syndrome by simply aborting any baby that shows a propensity for Down's in testing. Those who support abortion for any reason and at any time, by definition support women having abortion for any reason. That leads me to wonder what they'd say if someone wants to abort because the don't want a boy (or girl). What about if a white woman drunkenly gets pregnant with a black man, and the woman doesn't want a black child? Or, what is they discover a "gay gene" (or "trans" gene), and the mother doesn't want a gay child?
It seems like if one was to choose intellectual consistency, one would wholeheartedly agree that if any reason for an abortion is appropriate, then every reason for an abortion is appropriate.
2 comments:
None of your examples would be acceptable to lefties and fake Christians from Kentucky. But it would seem to me one must be an intellectual to any extent to be intellectually consistent. That doesn't describe too many of the left.
Art,
I assume that your point is that Dan would object to aborting for reasons of sex, sexual orientation, or race, unacceptable, while still arguing that women should have unrestricted access to abortion at any time and for any reason. While not being cognizant of the inherent contradiction in his views.
It's much like his earlier claim that everyone should be able to "love" and "marry" whoever they wished, except for the sexual orientations that he doesn't like.
Post a Comment