HomeschoolrsRUs
03-03-2007, 11:59 AM
The United Nations abortion dilemma::By Janice Shaw Crouse (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2007/03/02/the_united_nations_abortion_dilemma)
Let’s briefly review two contradictory United Nations (U.N.) talking points. (1) Abortion is a matter of “women’s rights;” (2) Killing a “girl child” in the womb is “the most extreme form of violence against women.” To hold both of these beliefs at the same time means to live with constant cognitive dissonance.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the U.N. is on the horns of a dilemma; that is, the two alternatives are mutually exclusive. Holding one point of view means that you cannot believe the other proposition. How can the U.N. embrace the position that abortion is morally unobjectionable while condemning abortion for sex selection? Having the abortion option, they claim, is regrettable, but necessary. Sex selection abortion, however, is a morally reprehensible crime against the “girl child.” Only in the U.N. universe would people think that this makes sense.
Let’s briefly review two contradictory United Nations (U.N.) talking points. (1) Abortion is a matter of “women’s rights;” (2) Killing a “girl child” in the womb is “the most extreme form of violence against women.” To hold both of these beliefs at the same time means to live with constant cognitive dissonance.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the U.N. is on the horns of a dilemma; that is, the two alternatives are mutually exclusive. Holding one point of view means that you cannot believe the other proposition. How can the U.N. embrace the position that abortion is morally unobjectionable while condemning abortion for sex selection? Having the abortion option, they claim, is regrettable, but necessary. Sex selection abortion, however, is a morally reprehensible crime against the “girl child.” Only in the U.N. universe would people think that this makes sense.