Continuing our commentary on Ms. Hvistendahl's book "Unnatural Selection", let's talk about the author herself. Ms. Hvistendahl is a journalist, whom the Wall Street Journal describes as a first-rate reporter. In her book "Unnatural Selection" she very aptly documents the effects of sex-selective abortions. Now, before we begin to think that Ms. Hvistendahl is writing this book as a condemnation of abortion, let's look a bit further into her thinking.
Ms. Hvistendahl is actually very worried that the "right wing" or the "Christian right" - as she labels anyone on the pro-life side - will be able to use this sex-selective abortion travesty as a weapon against a woman's right to abortion. It would seem her real concern here, is not the female babies, but the opportunity for pro-lifers to make a further case against all abortion. This, she fears, would be the "feminists worst nightmare". Mr. Last, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, wrote an article in a recent Wall Street Journal book review, on Ms. Hvistendahl's book, stating, "It is very telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion - and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls - as the "worst nightmare" of feminism". So, is Ms. Hvistendahl pushing for equal rights for male babies to be aborted as much as female babies? What is her real point here?
It would certainly appear, that while accurately describing one particular evil seed of the abortion industry, Ms. Hvistendahl still struggles to defend it. Mr. Last goes on to aptly comment, "After decades of fighting for a woman's right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right." This difficulty presents itself in Ms. Hvistendahl's book, when she struggles to find solutions to the sex-selective abortion problem. She even proposes banning the common revealing of the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing, going so far as to place rigorous government enforcements, such as sting operations that would send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail! She even proposes police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal? Illegal?
This is so schizophrenic - the persistence of keeping abortion legal, yet making it illegal in some instances? The desperation to defend the indefensible drives one to duplicity as well as madness! Mr. Last points out that, "Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice". And it seems that this reality is not lost on Ms. Hvistendahl, as she struggles with a crisis of conscience, while not admitting it to herself.
So, what do we call people who see the obvious right in front of them, yet persist in ignoring reality? Or those who are so stubbornly fixated on a particular ideology, that they become completely irrational in their determination to ignore the fact that their convictions just might be wrong? Reminds me of the Rain Man, who believed that his underwear could only be purchased from K-Mart .. to the point where he kept repeating K-Mart - K-Mart, like a mantra! So too, do those who push for a woman's right to have an abortion, keep repeating the mantra - "pro-choice - pro-choice", in spite of continuing and overwhelming evidence of the obvious horrors and realities of abortion - even those horrors, so aptly documented by one of their very own! Ms. Hvistendahl has seen the enemy, but refuses to admit that the enemy is herself and all others of her group think.
Ms. Hvistendahl is actually very worried that the "right wing" or the "Christian right" - as she labels anyone on the pro-life side - will be able to use this sex-selective abortion travesty as a weapon against a woman's right to abortion. It would seem her real concern here, is not the female babies, but the opportunity for pro-lifers to make a further case against all abortion. This, she fears, would be the "feminists worst nightmare". Mr. Last, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, wrote an article in a recent Wall Street Journal book review, on Ms. Hvistendahl's book, stating, "It is very telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion - and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls - as the "worst nightmare" of feminism". So, is Ms. Hvistendahl pushing for equal rights for male babies to be aborted as much as female babies? What is her real point here?
It would certainly appear, that while accurately describing one particular evil seed of the abortion industry, Ms. Hvistendahl still struggles to defend it. Mr. Last goes on to aptly comment, "After decades of fighting for a woman's right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right." This difficulty presents itself in Ms. Hvistendahl's book, when she struggles to find solutions to the sex-selective abortion problem. She even proposes banning the common revealing of the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing, going so far as to place rigorous government enforcements, such as sting operations that would send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail! She even proposes police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal? Illegal?
This is so schizophrenic - the persistence of keeping abortion legal, yet making it illegal in some instances? The desperation to defend the indefensible drives one to duplicity as well as madness! Mr. Last points out that, "Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice". And it seems that this reality is not lost on Ms. Hvistendahl, as she struggles with a crisis of conscience, while not admitting it to herself.
So, what do we call people who see the obvious right in front of them, yet persist in ignoring reality? Or those who are so stubbornly fixated on a particular ideology, that they become completely irrational in their determination to ignore the fact that their convictions just might be wrong? Reminds me of the Rain Man, who believed that his underwear could only be purchased from K-Mart .. to the point where he kept repeating K-Mart - K-Mart, like a mantra! So too, do those who push for a woman's right to have an abortion, keep repeating the mantra - "pro-choice - pro-choice", in spite of continuing and overwhelming evidence of the obvious horrors and realities of abortion - even those horrors, so aptly documented by one of their very own! Ms. Hvistendahl has seen the enemy, but refuses to admit that the enemy is herself and all others of her group think.
Posts
1 comment:
Excellent conclusion. People do not seem to realize that the "choice" not to have a baby because they are too young, poor, etc. slides very quickly into the "choice" not to have a specific type of baby - genetically "disordered", physically challenged, or even female. But it is never about love.
Post a Comment