For some time, I have known that a conundrum exists between the values of non-discrimination and the so-called liberal value of a “woman’s right to choose.” The stereotype follows that both values are dogmatic in the belief system of any true liberal. In the proper context, with the right individual, I have desired to ask the following hypothetical:
In Country X, women are performing ultrasounds on their pregnancies. After the ultrasound results come back, the women discover they are having a female baby. The woman decides that this is an undesirable trait and aborts the baby. Abortions of female babies occur nationwide in a far wider rate than with males. In fact, 90% of aborted babies are females, and the remaining 10% are males. Given the facts, which value should be upheld: non-discrimination or choice?
I assumed that this would elicit a confused response in which a social liberal would make the “difficult” choice: noticing discriminatory conduct and eliminating it at the expense of eliminating a “woman’s right to choose” or allowing the discrimination in order to uphold their increasingly unjustified idea that life begins after birth. One would hope that the value of human life and protecting the right to be born trumps other rights. In other words, I was optimistic they would notice the discrimination and eliminate abortion, realizing the inherent value of an unborn baby's life.
This musing has removed itself from the realm of a hypothetical into a real-life “difficult ethical conundrum,” according to the National Review of Medicine. Doctors in
Unfortunately,
"Choice" has become the highest virtue. As a result, undeserved death increases. So does discrimination. Making that choice is baffling.
