The National Post’s Kelly McParland is correct to wonder about the outrage over sex-selection abortions, stating that if one doesn’t have a problem with abortionhow does object to abortion to eliminate a child depending on whether it is male or female. As McParland says, “If a fetus isn’t human, its sex becomes irrelevant.” I agree with the premise of the argument but I want to state it more clearly: opposition to killing unborn baby girls because they are girls cannot be any worse than aborting unborn baby girls because it isn’t the right time for the mother to have a child or the baby has a genetic defect or the mother can’t afford the child right now or any of the hundreds of reasons women have for killing their unborn child. I find it particularly disturbing that while most people seem to oppose sex-selection abortions they don’t have a problem with eugenic abortions to snuff out the lives of people, for example, with Down Syndrome or a cleft palate; it appears our concern about discrimination is … er, discriminatory.