Here is a thought. Suppose I was to say a political party candidate has imitated Communist China’s abortion policy by allowing sex selection abortions, would you call that Party candidate an extremist? What if I were to say we had a candidate who when a state legislator opposed a bill that would have stopped the murder of a baby who survived an abortion, would he be an extremist? Or a candidate who viewed late term abortion as acceptable, would you consider him an extremist?
There is a candidate running for office that has supported all of the above, refusing to stop sex selection abortions or late term abortions. Before I list the candidate, let’s examine one reality, every example of abortion I have given are but a small percentage of abortions performed but these examples show an extremism that exists within the pro-choice movement. If anything, Pro-lifers have shown more flexibility in dealing with abortions than their pro-choice opponents. Yes, there are politicians who are against all abortion but there have been numerous opportunities in which Pro-life advocates supported exceptions including protecting the life of the mother or in the case of rape and incest.
The question that lingers is why are those within the pro-choice movement unwilling to set boundaries to protect life in some cases? Sex selection abortion is a reality in China where China’s aggressive policy to restrict their population has resulted in one child per family. Many Chinese prefer boys being born as opposed to girls, so sex selection abortion has resulted in a higher ratio of male to females than would normally be seen. (It has led to a quicker aging of the Chinese population; allowing one pundit to quip that China will get old before it becomes rich.)
During the 1990’s, a neonatologist in Wichita told a friend of mine that he was saving late term babies lives being aborted in an leading abortion clinic in town. The debate in the 1990’s dealing with late term abortions was that battle over what boundaries would be set on abortion. Note the phrase, setting boundaries over abortions but not making it illegal. The pro-choice advocates refuse to be willing to set any boundaries on abortions; leaving aside the question – are we talking being pro-choice or pro-abortion? The mantra “let’s keep abortion legal, make it rare” rings hallow when abortion for any reason is allowed.
In New York, there are more aborted African-American babies than born and Hispanics communities are approaching similar milestones. Overall, two out of every five babies in New York don’t get to breathe their first breath in the Big Apple and that is not a sign of a healthy society or a healthy community. Abortions among minorities occur at double the rates of whites and every year, we see some one million plus abortions performed; are we witnessing a coarsening of life?
Pro-choice advocates tell us they stand for making abortions rare while keeping it legal but when you have communities where babies are being aborted in greater numbers than being born, you don’t have a society not trying hard to make abortion rare.
Getting back to my original question:
While in Illinois, Obama had a chance to take a stand for setting boundaries against infanticide when he refuse to take a stand for rules to protect an unborn child who manages to survive an abortion. That is not abortion but infanticide and it is extremism in the defense of abortion. Obama has supported late term abortions and is willing to follow the Chinese model of allowing sex selection abortions. For gay rights advocates, here is a thought to ponder. If it could be determine if a baby will grow up being gay, Obama would support a parent rights to abort that child. A President who can’t be bothered to oppose sex selection abortion is not in position to talk about war on women for he is leading a real war on women. Obama is the extremist on abortion.