Saturday, February 25, 2012

"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look

I just read a very disturbing article by, Allison Pearson, a British journalist writing for The Telegraph. The article was following up on the same subject I posted about yesterday - the fact that girls are being aborted now in the U.K. simply based on their sex.

The article is disturbing enough based upon the fundamental facts discussed - sex-selection abortions. What was also disturbing to me was the line of reasoning followed by the writer, who can't seem to follow a logical argument. She rightly criticized this practice of killing girl foetuses because it was against the law. She called the practice "Unbelievable. Horrifying." I couldn't agree more.

But this is where Allison and I part company. She went on to declare that she was in favour of abortion in general, based apparently on the "kind of life" some of these babies would have if carried to term. She goes on to rail against those women who use abortion as a form of contraception, giving examples of many who have had multiple abortions. She also quotes this alarming stat: "Over the past 40 years, there has been a 3,700 per cent increase in abortions." (Emphasis mine)

Here's a shocker, the medical director of the largest abortion provider in the U.K. shared this statement: "I’ve had a consultant colleague in the north of England who expressed a view – that consultant was from an ethnic minority –… he didn’t think [gender selection] was ethically wrong because he thought that the cultural reason why some communities may prefer to have four male babies is as good a reason as the, if you like, Anglo-Saxon cultural view of: 'Well I’m pregnant, I just don’t want it anyway’.”


The problem with this statement by the "ethnic minority" consultant was that he's absolutely right. We in the West have lost the moral ground to defend the life of a baby girl in the womb. It brings Psalm 11:3 to mind,
"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” What indeed?

Allison makes reference to the "slippery slope" that Western Civilization has been on but doesn't seem to recognize the fundamental issues involved. A history lesson is necessary here.

Our basic principles in the West have been based upon a Christian consensus. This is true of the U.K., most of Europe, Canada, and particularly the U.S. There was a common framework and worldview upon which to establish the role of government and even the laws by which we are governed.   

Delegates to the Charlottetown Conference assembled on the steps of Government House, also known as Fanningbank, the Lieutenant Governor's residence, 1864.
Delegates to the Charlottetown Conference
This worldview accepted the fact that there is a Creator God who is sovereign and who has established boundaries within which mankind should function in a civilized society. In Canada, our founding fathers looked to Psalm 72:8 to paint a picture of the future of the nation. Today the following words hang in the corridor near the Confederation Chamber in Province House: ‘In the hearts of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada.  Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew.’” 

The Us. Declaration of Independence presented, within it's preamble, the foundation for the decisions of future generations: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It was God who provided life - an inalienable right!

Over the past 50 years or so we have seen a rapid change in how we view government and its role and how we view ourselves and our rights. We have focused on individual rights versus the common good. We have "created" rights never intended by our forefathers, which have promoted selfishness and the breakdown of the family - the building block of a civilized society. We have denied that there is a role for God in culture and have therefore removed the very ground under our feet.

The result of our folly is the kind of faulty reasoning that Allison Pearson is using that says, in effect, "It's okay to kill babies in the womb, as long as you're not killing them just because they're girls." It also leaves us in the position of having to explain to those in India and China why it's wrong for them to kill their baby girls because they're girls, but it's okay for us to kill our girls or boys because it's inconvenient for us to raise children right now.

Face it, Allison, you have nowhere to stand. It's simply your opinion against theirs.

Why is sex-selection abortion wrong? It's wrong because that is a living child that is being killed, and that child has a God-given right to life. It's the same reason that abortion is wrong - period. If you deny that there is a God-given right to anything, prepare to lose your own rights, because they have no sustaining force other than the changing opinions of men.

We took the top off the bottle a long time ago and the genie doesn't want to return. This moral relativism we have been left with has given rise to organizations like NAMBLA, lobbying for the right to have sex with minors. What is our moral ground to refuse them? What about polygamy? Why can't a man have as many wives as he can support? And while we're at it, our health care system is under strain, wouldn't euthenasia take a lot of pressure off by doing away with the sick and frail? According to recent stats, 90% of all pregnancies of Down Syndrome children in the U.S. end in abortion. What if we end the lives of all children with a high likelihood of abnormality, even after they are born? After all, who are you to tell me that I should have to raise a child that I fathered? Isn't that my business, not yours?

It's a scary world when we remove an objective moral standard from the table. It was T.S. Eliot who said, "If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin." What he was saying was that in the absence of a moral consensus, it is simply survival of the fittest, and strong men rise to rule with an iron fist.

As Dostoevsky so eloquently put it: "If God is dead, then all things are possible!" Victims Against Crime, a South African organization, states that. "At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century... More people were killed by their own governments in peace time than were killed by foreign invaders in war time."


We rightly condemned Hitler for his barbarism during World War II, in his attempted annihilation of the Jews and others, but on what basis? Was Stalin wrong to kill millions of his own people during his reign of terror? What about communist China and their strict one child policy? This has resulted in millions of cases of infanticide, little girls murdered at birth. Of course these are wrong - all of them. They are wrong because they violate God's law.

We, all of us, have been created in the image of God. Every human being has rights that have been endowed by God, rights which no-one else has the right to violate. If we do not grasp this fundamental truth, we will continue down this road which leads to the victimization of the weak and the vulnerable.

Yes, it is wrong to kill our unborn baby girls. But please, Allison, understand this. It's wrong to kill the boys too.

Related Articles: 
Why the abortion issue won't go away
The Manhattan Declaration
Following Up - The Latest News






Post a Comment