Issue date: 3/12/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

Upon reading the latest editorial by our Spectator staff regarding sex-selective abortions, I was quite shocked not only by the opinions expressed, but also by the lack of substance that there was to the arguments.

Primarily, to suggest that in a time of economic crisis, all other issues should not just take lesser priority, but be essentially forgotten, is to disregard many great advances that have been made throughout our history.

During the oil embargo and economic crisis of the 1970s, should the civil rights movement have put off their agenda of continued racial integration? Should women's rights groups have withdrawn their efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment?

Likewise, to say that during the heart of the Iraq War, all legislation regarding domestic issues such as health care or education should not have been proposed until after the war was resolved is to completely disregard the importance of these issues. Although we are in a time of economic uncertainty, it does not mean that other fields or problems will cease to develop. And when these problems do arise, they must be dealt with as well.

That being said, I get to address this specific topic. With the continued scientific discoveries and progress in the fields of biomedical engineering, the prospect of genetically engineered babies is not too far in the future. Along with this rise in "selective pregnancies" will no doubt continue the rise of "selective abortions."

Not only will parents begin to decide whether they want a blonde haired or brown-eyed child, but they will also decide between a son or daughter.

This selectivity of babies has already been seen through the process of in vitro fertilization. Only the strongest of embryos are chosen to be implanted into the mother and those "weaker" embryos, those that may have birth or mental defects, are weeded out. This form of "genetic cleansing" is already carried out through selective abortions when a baby can be killed for any reason, whether it be that it has Down syndrome, a cleft palate, AIDS, or simply because of its sex or race.

Though the debate on the issue continues, a person's sexual orientation is based on their genetics. If a gene that determines sexual orientation is found and can be detected before birth, should the mother of a potentially gay baby be allowed to abort him or her simply because of that reason? I would answer with a resounding "No". And I would hope that both liberals and conservatives could find enough common ground to stand against such a practice as well.

Likewise, there should be no problem when it comes to determining whether we should allow or prohibit the same practice when it comes to a child's sex. When we rightfully condemn the abuses and devaluation of women throughout the world, it would be a great hypocrisy and stain on our nation if we decided that equality between men and women applied only after birth.

Finally, the editorial stated, "Members of certain religions, such as Hindus or Muslims, might feel discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."

Is The Spectator's staff really insinuating that Hindus and Muslims are more likely to seek abortions based on the sex of their child; that their religions are that unaccepting of women? And if so, that this is a reason not to pass a ban on the practice? I would certainly hope this is not what they intended, but I don't see any other way to read this line.

All in all, I am quite disappointed that these are the opinions of the editorial board of our Spectator. Though I respect the right of the staff to express their opinions, there must be some standards.

I suggest two options: either those members of The Spectator staff that would disagree with these views speak up and voice their opinions to the contrary; or if all are in agreement with this opinion, that new staff members be found.

Hamill is a junior political science major, former chair of College Republicans and guest columnist for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools