Presently in the United Kingdom there is a campaign to clarify that abortions based on the sex of the unborn child are illegal. This may be necessary, as abortions there still occur more commonly than thought for such a reason, and they may even legally be permitted in some circumstances.

In her piece opposing the gender abortion ban for The Conversation, Pam Lowe attempts to turn the issue into “placing new restrictions on women’s rights” and something that “is not progress towards ending discrimination against women.” It may hardly be shocking for a pro-abort to claim that the right to kill one’s own child is about women’s rights. But it is nonsensical when the author is talking about such rights while completely ignoring the rights of unborn women killed solely because of their sex.

The piece further tries to skirt the issue in claiming that women being coerced into having an abortion based on sex is about domestic violence. Shouldn’t that be all the more reason to ban this practice? While Lowe does not condone domestic violence, she hardly calls for ending it, and she condemns a move that may save both women and girls. Lowe claims that “it will do nothing to really help.” How does she know? What are her suggestions?

Lowe also tries to approach the issue of what is a “good” reason or a “bad” reason for an abortion. If she sees no “bad” reason for a woman to have an abortion, then the implications of support for abortion for any and all reasons are frightening. But what can we expect from a woman who calls on others to, “[a]lthough it may seem counter-intuitive[,] … oppose the banning of sex-selective abortion”?

A piece for The Telegraph, on behalf of several female professors, offers a similarly weak argument opposing the gender abortion ban. The piece outlines three points.

First is the “serious claim” that abortionists would be doing something that “constitutes a form of violence and abuse and thus need to be prevented from harming women.” While girls are being aborted simply because of their sex, the signers have the nerve to discuss “the professional integrity of those who work in an already overstretched abortion service[.]”

The second argument is that it could require “ethnic profiling.” While abortions based on gender are wrong no matter the ethnicity, they are a particularly prevalent problem with Asian cultures.

And lastly, the letter takes issue with granting rights to unborn baby girls. Well, at least the signers are being honest. The letter concludes stating that “MPs should seriously consider if they want to take that step.”

The MPs who have taken such a step should be commended. It should not seem so bold or something to “seriously consider” when it comes to granting rights to unborn children, especially those who are killed merely because of their sex. But we live in a world where the abortion movement will protect abortion at all costs, relying on faulty arguments that show just how anti-women abortion for any and all reasons actually is, all while deceptively claiming the opposite.

Presently in the United Kingdom there is a campaign to clarify that abortions based on the sex of the unborn child are illegal. This may be necessary, as abortions there still occur more commonly than thought for such a reason, and they may even legally be permitted in some circumstances.

In her piece opposing the gender abortion ban for The Conversation, Pam Lowe attempts to turn the issue into “placing new restrictions on women’s rights” and something that “is not progress towards ending discrimination against women.” It may hardly be shocking for a pro-abort to claim that the right to kill one’s own child is about women’s rights. But it is nonsensical when the author is talking about such rights while completely ignoring the rights of unborn women killed solely because of their sex.

The piece further tries to skirt the issue in claiming that women being coerced into having an abortion based on sex is about domestic violence. Shouldn’t that be all the more reason to ban this practice? While Lowe does not condone domestic violence, she hardly calls for ending it, and she condemns a move that may save both women and girls. Lowe claims that “it will do nothing to really help.” How does she know? What are her suggestions?

Lowe also tries to approach the issue of what is a “good” reason or a “bad” reason for an abortion. If she sees no “bad” reason for a woman to have an abortion, then the implications of support for abortion for any and all reasons are frightening. But what can we expect from a woman who calls on others to, “[a]lthough it may seem counter-intuitive[,] … oppose the banning of sex-selective abortion”?

A piece for The Telegraph, on behalf of several female professors, offers a similarly weak argument opposing the gender abortion ban. The piece outlines three points.

First is the “serious claim” that abortionists would be doing something that “constitutes a form of violence and abuse and thus need to be prevented from harming women.” While girls are being aborted simply because of their sex, the signers have the nerve to discuss “the professional integrity of those who work in an already overstretched abortion service[.]”

The second argument is that it could require “ethnic profiling.” While abortions based on gender are wrong no matter the ethnicity, they are a particularly prevalent problem with Asian cultures.

And lastly, the letter takes issue with granting rights to unborn baby girls. Well, at least the signers are being honest. The letter concludes stating that “MPs should seriously consider if they want to take that step.”

The MPs who have taken such a step should be commended. It should not seem so bold or something to “seriously consider” when it comes to granting rights to unborn children, especially those who are killed merely because of their sex. But we live in a world where the abortion movement will protect abortion at all costs, relying on faulty arguments that show just how anti-women abortion for any and all reasons actually is, all while deceptively claiming the opposite.