Roe v Wade: Protecting Women’s Rights or Sex-Selection Abortion?

Opinion   |   Steve Aden   |   Feb 13, 2012   |   9:18PM   |   Washington, DC

In the time leading up to the decision in Roe v. Wade, as well as the time right after, the argument was made that abortion would not become a post-conception contraceptive for mothers who simply decided they wanted a boy instead of a girl, or a child with brown eyes instead of blue ones, or a “normal” child instead of a handicapped one, and so forth. Instead, pro-life advocates were told abortion needed to be legal so that it could be a real option for situations where the mother’s life was at risk, or in similar extreme and rare circumstances.

Lucid opponents of the culture of death knew better, but although they stood their ground, abortion supporters celebrated victory with the Supreme Court’s decision in January 1973. And now, Planned Parenthood doesn’t feel the need to hide its real goals the way it did 39 years ago.

Thus, when celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade last month, Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada, actually spoke to gender-based abortions thus:

I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]… From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.

Stop and think about this—an executive director from Planned Parenthood, the abortion mammoth that performed 330,000 such heart-stopping “procedures” in America last year, is on record saying it’s not her place to denigrate a woman’s decision to abort a child based on that child’s gender.

In all honesty, how long will it be before an executive director of Planned Parenthood takes a stand with Peter Singer, chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University, who has advocated killing children well past birth, to say it’s not her place to denigrate a woman’s decision to kill her child via infanticide if she decides she doesn’t like the color of the baby’s eyes or hair within the first four weeks after the child is born?

We’ve already seen a broadening support for the abortion of handicapped children—mentally or otherwise—as the exaltation of a woman’s “choice” provides an avenue by which Singer’s central argument for abortion and infanticide can take root.

According to Singer:

Pro-life groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference… The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth.

The culture of death is not static. It incrementally permeates deeper and further until we find ourselves surrounded death and by those who celebrate it. Therefore, without shame, an executive director of Planned Parenthood says it’s not her place to speak for or against aborting a child because she is a girl.

There are already many millions of women demographically missing from the world because girl babies are not considered of “equal worth.” The Planned Parenthood director may not realize it, but she has already bought into Singer’s argument that all human life is not of equal worth. And once that lie has been embraced, there is no limit to the wickedness one person will commit against another in the name of convenience. Note: Steve Aden is the Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. This article originally appeared in Town Hall and is reprinted with permission.