Though no one – man or woman or whatever else we have to choose from these days – in their right mind would deny that women should have the same rights as men, most of the various modern-day organizations and individuals promoting women’s rights often find a way to get behind some pretty illogical – and terribly self-defeating – ideas.
Take, for instance, Ms. (Wait … is it still considered professional to use that term or is it sexist now?) Wendy Savage. In her Twitter profile, Ms. Savage describes herself as a retired obstetrician – but her claim to fame these days is being a “voting member of the British Medical Association Council”.
From the name, you’d think this organization accepts only the most logical, intelligent, and professional Brits in the field. But at least in the case of Savage, that description seems a bit off.
In a piece published by The Daily Mail, Savage proposed expanding abortion regulations to allow women to abort simply for sex selection.
Think about the irony of that position for a moment … a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy simply because the “eventual child” (Savage’s term) growing in her womb is female.
As is customary in these instances, Savage claimed The Mail took her comments out of context, so she immediately did an interview with a group called Voice For Choice. The group posted that interview – and what it claims to be the full context of the interview with The Mail – on its website, and it’s an alarming read.
Among other things, Savage takes the position that gender-selective abortion is not a form of gender discrimination. Her reasoning? Only those who have been born can be discriminated against.
Now hang on for a moment … I know this is where you think we should attack that position and ordinarily you’d be right. But in this case, take a look at what Savage says next.
In case you’ve forgotten … she’s just confirmed that gender-selective abortion is not gender discrimination … here we go …
“It is a problem in India … It’s a problem in other parts of the world, because it’s affecting the sex ratio. But it’s not a problem here …”
So let’s paraphrase just in order to simplify. The good (?) former doctor says that aborting a female child because it’s female is not in itself a discriminatory act, but is discriminatory if it affects the female/male ratio among the living. In other words, the act itself isn’t right or wrong – it’s the conditions under which the act is carried out that make it right or wrong.
The simple truth is that the number one killer of women – both in the United States and in the rest of the world – is not breast cancer, not heart disease, not murder, not suicide, not terrorism. It’s abortion. In fact, the number of “eventual women” lost just to legal abortion in the United States alone since 1973 exceeds the number of women lost worldwide to breast cancer during that same time.
It’s a sobering fact – one that should cause any reasonable person to pause and ask – Why?