American Gendercide

Pages: 1 2

While the Republican “war on women” may be a mythical creation, the war on unborn baby girls (and boys) is all too real as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats work to defeat a bill that would outlaw sex-selective abortions.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would have subjected abortion providers to civil and criminal penalties if they knowingly performed or forced someone to obtain an abortion based on the sex of the unborn child, recently failed passage in the House of Representatives.

Despite a strong majority of 246 mostly Republican House members voting to pass PRENDA, 168 mostly Democratic nay votes were enough to ensure that the proposed legislation fell short of the two-thirds margin of support needed for passage.

While supporters argued that PRENDA would protect the civil rights of unborn babies from being exterminated on the basis of being of the “wrong” gender, opponents decried it as part of a broader “war on women” and an assault on legalized abortion.

In fact, others, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, dismissed the necessity of bringing up PRENDA for a vote, calling it “yet another distraction and yet another day that this Republican majority fails to act on job creation.”

However, House Speaker John Boehner promptly rejected the accusation of political posturing, arguing that “This type of sex selection … most Americans find pretty repulsive. Our [Republican] members feel strongly about it.”

One such member was Republican Representative Chris Smith, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Rights, who called the practice of gendercide “the real war on women.”

That real war includes an escalating global campaign of gendercide aimed primarily at unborn female babies, an attack which has resulted in the deliberate killing of over 100 million unborn girls worldwide in nations with strong cultural preferences for male offspring.

While the epicenter for female infanticide is relegated to South and East Asian countries, most notably China and India, fears are growing that sex-selective abortions are gaining traction in the United States among parents not happy with the sex of their babies.

That acceptance is being fueled by widespread advances in prenatal sex-determination medical technology, such as the use of ultrasound and sperm-sorting technologies, as well as with the helping hands of America’s largest abortion providers.

That latter assistance was on full display in the days prior to and following the PRENDA vote when the pro-life group Live Action released three undercover videos as part of its “Gendercide” project which documents Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) support for sex-selective abortion.

Two of the undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood staffers in Austin, Texas and New York City offering advice to women on how best to proceed with a sex-selective abortion, while the third video shows NAF staffers at two clinics in Arizona — which has outlawed sex-selective abortions — coaching women to falsify their paperwork in order to conceal their illegal abortions.

It should be noted that since 2008, bills to outlaw sex-selective abortion have been introduced in 13 states but enacted in just four: Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

While the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) responded to the release of the Live Action videos by claiming it “condemns seeking abortions on the basis of gender,” it did acknowledge that PP clinics would only deny a woman a sex-selective abortion in states that explicitly prohibit the procedure.

Of course, it’s not surprising that the PPFA would be reluctant to support efforts to ban the loathsome practice of sex-selective abortion, given that the organization has stated that such slippery slope efforts could to lead to “curtailing access to abortion,” an endpoint that would dearly affect the organization’s financial bottom line.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://baersart.com Jane Larson Baer

    PInk Pagodas helps save some Chinese girls from gendercide. I dreamed last night of two babies who drowned becaseu no one cared … actually one was almost dead and one possibly going to live shivering…the boy baby was drowning in a crib left outside when I found him and the girl baby was left in the street in a mud puddle…I thought I was to blame for the girl baby because I had been too busy ot check on her and someone put her in the street. I know those who have had abortions and suffer from it subconsciously even the would- have- been relatives of the aborted fetus who find out about it later get bothered.

  • StephenD

    It wasn't that long ago here in America we looked on abortion for anything other than saving the life of the mother as abhorrent. Now we have folks selecting gender. I expect it could go to hair or eye color eventually. What is to stop it? If we look at the unborn as simply a mass of cells there is nothing to inhibit such practices. (Continued)

  • StephenD

    Here is my challenge; knowing it is wrong to kill a teen we all would look on killing an infant with more revulsion. Yet the differences are only 4. The infant is smaller, less developed, more dependent and less mobile. These are the EXACT same 4 differences between an infant and a fetus but we hesitate only momentarily before killing it. I know pro-abortionists would love to say my argument is religious but the truth is really very simple. If we all believe that murder is defined as the "purposeful taking of an innocent human life" than we must stop the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. If the mother’s life is at risk the fetus is no longer "innocent" but a threat in which case we should have no problem with the mother deciding the issue. Other than that, there is no excuse. Anyone willing to ignore these facts to my mind has the morals of a jackal and will find no friend in me.

    • RoguePatriot6

      After this post, their isn't to much to say, Stephen. I think you nailed it.

    • fightwarnotwars

      So by your statement, I must then conclude that you're staunchly anti-war and advocate for non-violence.

      • intrcptr2

        Soldiers can fight back, you dolt.

      • StephenD

        Fightwar, you understand the difference between the "purposeful taking of INNOCENT human life" and warring soldiers right? Even if innocent lives are taken UNINTENTIONALY this would not rise to the level of “murder” as does Abortion on demand; abortion for any other reason than saving the life of the mother.

  • RoguePatriot6

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Take this for whatever it's worth:

    Beware of people around you that would take a human life that poses no threat to them but be especially cautious of people who would do this and justify it with "it's not really a human being".

    A while ago, a man with a Charlie Chapman mustache, black hair and dark eyes used this reasoning and ruthlessly ordered the deaths of over 6,000,000 people. He too said, "….they really aren't human".

    If doctors could do this to innocent helpless babies because they're girls, boys or would be an inconvience to raise, imagine what someone like that is capable of doing to you or your kids.

    • fightwarnotwars

      Hilarious, sadly, a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast.

      It's funny to me that you people imagine that all women that decide to have an abortion are somehow just doing it because it's convenient when the truth of the matter is that it's an extremely difficult decision that many women take simply when they are not in a physically or psychologically healthy state. A lot of times they do it, because what's going in their bodies could be a cause of death. Expecting women to "self sacrifice" so you can feel better about yourselves because you think "abortion is murder" is just as bad as war mongering and then sending everyone else's children to go die in a war for you.

      • intrcptr2

        "…a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast. "

        If this were true, then you'd have had no need to identify the second egg as chicken…
        But then, I'm sure you are aware that breakfast eggs aren't even fertilized, right?

        What is pitiable is that you can still think that abortion opponents caricature women who get abortions that way.

      • StephenD

        " it's an extremely difficult decision that many women take…."

        Fightwar, Why on earth would it be difficult at all if it were not human? The science says you are wrong. Please, your argument is invalid.

        • fightwarnotwars

          "The science says you are wrong. Please, your argument is invalid. "

          Really? I've read otherwise… "Life does not begin at conception. It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it."

          There is also a lot of debate regarding when once could really say that one truly becomes a "human individual" instead of just a pile of flesh. This of course involves putting aside the religious superstition regarding the existence of "soul". Which really, is just a man-made invention to make ourselves to be more important on this Earth than we truly are.

          Scientifically speaking, a fertilized egg is not a human being. Developmental biologists pretty much agree on this.

  • RoguePatriot6

    "Hilarious, sadly, a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast."

    Typical liberal insanity or numbness due to their wallowing in the death they self-righteously create.

    Only a liberal would compare a a human embryo to a chicken egg in it's significance and value. Since many of them don't believe or choose not to believe in God, the fact that a human embryo or fetus has a soul, is just a joke. Most of the women I knew of that did this were doing it because they simply did not want to raise a kid or their boyfriend convinced them to do it. They are accomplices to murder as well as those who actually perform the procedure.
    Also, a fact that you fail to realize is, the chicken eggs we eat are actually, unfertilized.

  • mmichlin66

    As much as I hate it I must agree with Obama. Abortions are legal if performed within a period specified by the law – this is fact. I understand that religious people may be dismayed at that, but this doesn't make them illegal. Now, the law cannot define an action to be legal or not based on the person's intentions – I am not a lawyer, but I believe they teach it in law schools.

    Yes, it is disgusting when a PP employee says "if you don't like the gender, just perform an abortion"; however, it is legal if, again, the abortion is performed within the period specified by the law.

    • intrcptr2

      Defining actions as illegal based on intent is the basis of "hate crime". But then, such has always been a part of Western jurisprudence anyway; it is the difference between murder1 and manslaughter.

      The new angle is the disapprobation of certain thoughts; where our grandparents considered sexual perversion to be immoral, now we are being forced to accept it, on pain of punishment for bigotry.

  • http://buysteroidsuk.co/ buy steroids uk

    shocking that any american would abort based on sex of the unborn baby.