web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-San Francisco: A Feminist Contradiction- Supporting Sex Selection by Abortion?

by Dr. D ~ September 15th, 2014

USS San Francisco (CA-38) entering San Francis...

               (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A resolution to do away with the ban on sex selection by abortion is being seriously considered in San Francisco CA. The measure was sponsored by the large Asian community but surprisingly it is also supported by major feminists in the city even though baby girls will undoubtedly be the victims of the change.

Here’s a link to an article on the issue from SFGate: “San Francisco feminism: It’s OK to abort girls

Response: I would have thought that the feminist radicals in SF City would be against the resolution. It would appear to me to be a contradiction for the feminists to support a measure that would increase the number of girl babies aborted in the city. I would have thought that they would have been against any measure that supported an historical de-valuing of the female gender. I always thought that feminists were for women’s rights and equality for females but I guess that only applies to adults and not babies? I guess abortion rights overrides everything else including equality and common sense?

Meanwhile the Asian community is calling the ban ‘racism’ because it targets their cultural affinity for male babies. Sometimes liberalism just makes no sense particularly the bay area extremist form.             *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

2 Responses to -San Francisco: A Feminist Contradiction- Supporting Sex Selection by Abortion?

  1. Brian

    If we, as a society, are racist for viewing selective gender abortion as a moral wrong, then where do we stand on honor killings by an Islamic family? How can we say to the Asian community that we will not oppose you on practice “x” because it is (allegedly) part of your culture, then turn to an Islamic family and take a contrary position?

    Traditionally, in US society, assimilation meant adopting certain moral values and virtues. The unrecognized problem is that, prior to about 1965, almost all immigrants to this country came from Judeo-Christian backgrounds, and shared key moral values and core beliefs. After about 1965, we began to admit large numbers of individuals from non-European, and non Judeo-Christian backgrounds who do not share those core beliefs.

    American liberals have taken the position that “underneath the cultural differences, we are all fundamentally alike”. This is wrong. Underneath the cultural differences, there are frequently differences in very basic values, beliefs and attitudes.

    Now, being confronted with different core values, American liberalism lacks the stomach to confront any divergent value system and to say “you are wrong” in belief ‘x’.

    Brian

  2. Dr. D

    Brian,
    Diversity and cultural, moral,and religious equivalence is a major plank of liberal foreign and domestic policy. It used to be that the immigrants were forced to learn English and culturally assimilate. Now they are encouraged to maintain their ‘diversity’ and the government bends over backwards to print documents in every language. Here in So. California you can vote on ballots printed in the following languages:
    Spanish, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Khmer, Thai and Hindi. Arabic is being considered right now to add to the list. Citizenship really doesn’t mean much in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California. Drivers licenses and social programs are available to all who can make it across the border. The legal citizens just have to pay for it all.

Leave a Reply