Posted on 09/10/2014 8:59:33 AM PDT by wagglebee
San Francisco, California is closer to becoming the most pro-abortion city in the nation. That’s because the city is about to go on record opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions.
Why would banning abortions done simply because the unborn baby is a girl be a problem? City officials opposing the ban make the claim that somehow it is racist.
From the San Francisco Examiner story:
San Francisco would become the first jurisdiction in the country to go on record opposing sex-selective abortion bans if a resolution stating they perpetuate racial stereotypes, being introduced by Supervisor David Chiu today, is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Sex-selective abortion bans prohibit terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex, and doctors who perform such abortions can face fines, jail time or lawsuits. The bans encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers, according to Chius resolution, and can lead to women being denied services.
Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women, states the resolution, which Chiu will announce at City Hall today.
So the excuse for justifying the sexist practice of banning sex-selection? Because Asian cultures tend to be the ones where the sex-selection abortion practice is most prevalent, banning it targets Asian-Americans.
Wesley Smith, a pro-life attorney who lives in California, commented on the logical absurdity.
“One would think that liberalsso opposed to real (and imagined) discriminationwould oppose abortion based on sexism. Nope,” he says. “San Franciscowhere else?could go on record opposing protecting female (mostly) fetuses from being aborted because they are the wrong gender.”
“I wonder if pro abortion types would oppose banning eugenic gay-selection abortion if a test could detect the sexual orientation of a gestating fetus,” he concludes.
Am I missing something here? The homo capitol of the world where sodomy and not heretosexual is the norm is one of the most pr-abortion areas on the planet?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Between those two approaches, it sounds like they are trying to reduce the city’s population.
So let me get this straight, San Francisco passes a ban on Happy Meals, even though blacks and latinos are more likely to eat fast food...but a ban on sex-selective abortions is racist? Idiots.
Be honest San Francisco has larget Chinese immigrant in their city so I have feeling that these Chinese folks who came over the boat who specified in boy only birth
That what I gather
Legal abortion itself is “racist” in its original intent and in its proportional effect. San Francisco should ban totally something so egregiously racist. The existence of legal abortion available in the city is a terrible blot on SF’s record as an anti racist mecca.
San Francisco continues to move relentlessly beyond the limits of depravity.
I know what’s right here but I find myself constantly struggling to avoid dropping all resistance to letting these morons kill their own young. I know it’s wrong; no doubts but if any cohort of the population needs to be reduced its these idiots.
I don’t like these proposals. Inherent in them is that SOME reasons are acceptable. Sex selection - bad. Sign of the Zodiac selection? - OK!
These are not serious pro-life ideas and I would argue hurt the cause.
They want more of those delicious boys . . .
That’s actually a good tack. Claim that “sex-selective” abortions are actually “sexuality-selective” abortions.
That Planned Parenthood has actually discovered a genetic “marker” in babies that doesn’t *cause* homosexuality, but *indicates* that *probably* male babies will grow up to be homosexual men. It doesn’t work with female babies.
Then, if people want sex selective abortion, PP tells them that the *homosexual* male fetus is a girl, so they will decide to abort it.
Of course it *sounds* outrageous. But homosexuals are so paranoid that they will believe that the other San Franciscans, and their city council, actually *hate* homosexuals and want to gradually eliminate them.
So let me get this straight (not a term used much in the Bay Area). They want to condone the most egregious form of sexism to avoid being seen as racist?
Just as the leftists in Rotherham sacrificed girls on the alter of political correctness, so do the leftists in San Francisco.
The funny thing is that you know 2 years ago these SF lefties were outraged at “binders full of women” and the GOP’s “war on women.”
“...false and harmful racial stereotypes” is left-speak for “well-documented facts that happen to conflict with my left-wing assumptions.”
And look at what has happened in China. There are now no women to marry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.