The interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Journal is arguing that women should not be permitted to know the gender of their unborn baby until 30 weeks gestation.
Why such a restriction? Because it might reduce the number of babies aborted by parents seeking to select the sex of their baby.
Recently, the New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists raised similar concerns regarding the release of an over-the-counter test that can indicate the gender of an unborn baby starting at only 10 weeks.
One of the dirtiest and most hypocritical secrets of modern “feminism” and its unqualified support of abortion on demand is the fact that abortion is very often done to ensure that the parents get the sex they want in their new baby–a practice that, in the vast majority of such cases, heavily favours baby boys over baby girls. One need only look at the demographic disaster in Communist China, where the “one child” policy has resulted in a staggering imbalance of young men over young women, for proof that abortion is a practice that disproportionately kills females.
In other words: the next time you hear a feminist claim that abortion on demand “protects” women, just remember that hundreds of millions more women than men never had the chance to be born and live to celebrate their “liberation” because they were slaughtered in utero.
That’s not the only way abortion is discriminatory. In the United States, abortion kills significantly more babies from black and low-income parents than other races and income levels.
It’s a shocking indictment of the moral confusion of our day when opposition of abortion is considered politically incorrect, but the fact that abortion kills more females, more of the poor, and more people of colour is something not worth talking about.
I’m not in favour of restricting pregnant mothers’ access to knowledge of the gender of their child. And as the New Zealand story shows, technology will soon render any such law obsolete (imagine the clandestine shipments of banned gender pregnancy tests to a “black market” of curious parents!). But, most importantly, this debate really is missing the fundamental point anyway.
See, the fact that our society simply doesn’t know what to do about the reality of abortions done to “flush the females” in favour of male children shows that our culture’s morality is built on a false foundation. It’s impossible to justify abortion as somehow “protecting” women when it kills more females than males and contributes to stark and unnatural gender imbalances. But, on the other hand, if abortion is simply a “woman’s right to choose,” full stop, then no one has any right to tell any woman not to abort, for any reason at all. We need to understand that the guiding moral principle is one of convenience and expediency–what makes me more comfortable is right–and, therefore, there is left no grounds to object to practices like the deliberate killing of girls to get a boy.
Let’s put it this way. Say a woman sleeps with two men, a white man and a black man (assume the woman’s white), and she becomes pregnant. Now let’s say that she prefers a white baby over a black baby. She finds out (let’s assume by some kind of DNA test) that the baby in her womb is black. She goes off and has that helpless little black baby hacked to pieces with a scalpel and sucked out of her womb through a vacuum at a Planned Parenthood clinic. (If that description shocks you, it should. “Abortion” is a too-clinical euphemism for what really happens).
Her decision to kill the black child because she wants a white one would, I think, would be reprehensible to any person with a semblance of morality. But according to the fundamental and non-negotiable principle of the pro-abortion lobby–the woman has the right to choose–no one has any right to tell her it’s wrong or try to convince her otherwise.
In other words, it’s okay to be racist, as long as the black/white/Asian/Latino/Arab/Jew/Indian you despise is in your womb. (And, because of the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion, as long as even just the foot of that baby is still in the birth canal, it’s okay).
Does that bother you? It should. But according to the law of the land, this is acceptable. According to the rules of our political culture, it’s totally fine for parents to be misogynistic, as long as the woman’s not born yet.
The only way out of this sick dilemma is to admit that an unborn baby is, in fact, a human being, and treat that human being with the dignity and respect it deserves.
To do that means we need to reject the foundational error on which abortion stands, the belief that what is right is what makes “me” happy or more comfortable or is more convenient. To do that means we need to recover the truth: that what is “right” and “wrong” has been defined, objectively and outside ourselves, and is a law that stands over and above us. And that objective moral framework can only exist when we submit to the God who put it in place.