Yesterday the American Conservative published an insightful piece, “Here’s the ‘Missing’ Evidence for S.D.’s Sex-Selective Abortion Ban” by Jonathan Coppage.

Coppage does excellent work researching and explaining the evidence behind sex-selective abortions in the United States, sadly concluding that the facts reveal this practice does, in fact, occur within our borders.

South Dakota just became the eighth state to pass a ban on sex-selective abortions, and in doing so, ignited rage from pro-choice advocates. They immediately conjured up the race debate, claiming laws against sex-selective abortions were inherently discriminatory toward Asian-American women and were entirely unnecessary.

Citing scholarly and journalistic works, Coppage debunks the theory that these abortions never happen in the United States, but gives the opposition a break. He says their arguments that this is not America’s primary domestic issue, and that laws alone won’t solve the problem, are viable.

This eventually leads him to conclude that both pro-choice and pro-life groups need to be more sincere. Pro-life advocates shouldn’t reduce this issue to a “war on women that feminists approve of”:

Both sides of the abortion debate can become so consumed with their own positioning in absolutist ideological wars that they overlook genuine opportunities to forge common ground in defending our daughters. Neither “the notion of absolute choice” nor the desire to use this issue as cheap leverage against feminists is equipped to mount the cultural defense these girls require. Both sides, then, face a test of seriousness.

Although I understand Coppage’s point of view, I think the pro-life community would do a disservice to the voiceless if they did not explore the inconsistencies of their opponents. The “reproductive rights” advocates’ brutal opposition to any bans on abortion has blinded them to the vulnerability of their own gender.  

Most unfortunately, Coppage’s hope that they will recognize their inconsistency is futile. To cry against the abortion of “unwanted” females undermines the entire argument of the pro-choice movement. They believe that the desires of the mother – of the independent woman – are the only concern. To insist that women carry female “fetuses” they do not want destroys the very foundation of their argument: babies don’t matter.

In reality, feminists aren’t really “all about women”; they are “all about me.” They don’t believe that the voice of the female trumps all. They believe that the voice of “me” decides what’s best. They don’t consider this ultimately an “anti-man” brigade, but an affront to anyone who stands against their personal whims and desires.

Occasionally, a baby girl gets lost in the shuffle.

We shouldn’t be afraid to point out this discrepancy: Women only matter to the liberals once they leave the womb.

Coppage is correct – laws won’t prohibit this entirely. Even still, legislation prohibiting sex-selective abortions should be a given. What we should focus on is how to dismantle a “me-centric” worldview that has led to a cultural acceptance of taking a life because it improves our own lives.

They can disguise the argument with race, choice and freedom, but don’t be fooled. This is a matter of life and death.