The Toronto Sun’s Sunday Magazine of March 26 carried an article entitled ‘No Girls Allowed.”
We have all heard of the custom in China and other Eastern countries of killing baby girls—even after birth—as boys are a financial asset to the family, while girls are the opposite. According to statistics given in the article there are some 38 million more men then women in China because of this mass murder of female babies.
I was not aware that the custom of aborting female babies is, apparently, quite common in North America. The article says that, according to Gwynne Besen, of the National Action Committee for the Status of Women, “We have a particular perspective that it only happens in ethnic communities. But, it’s a whole lot more widespread than that. Even the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has endorsed sex selection for what they call family ‘completion.’”
Dr. Shree Mulay, who teaches Reproductive Endocrinology, is quoted as saying that she believes sex selection is happening in many large urban areas such as Vancouver and Toronto, with easy access to ultrasound and abortion. A women will explain that she already has three children and a small house, so she doesn’t want another child. She will not say, “another daughter.”
The article says that “femicide”—I presume from the Latin “woman killing”—is a very touchy subject. For that reason it is impossible to know how many of Canada’s 100,500 annual abortions are preformed because the baby wasn’t the right sex.
The article tells us that this problem is an obvious dilemma for feminists, who generally support a women’s choice to have an abortion but clearly have trouble with supporting abortion simply because of sex. NAC President Sunera Thobani compares sex selection to “selective breeding.” At Robert Scott’s abortuary in Toronto, abortions are done very early, usually before the sex is known. But a spokesman says, “This is not a big issue in abortion.”
Sunera Thobani and many other feminists profoundly disagree with this stance. Again to quote the President of the NAC, “the preference for boy children is relative to the status of women in society. We are living n a climate right now, where women are losing social status. This—the preference for boy babies—doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The gains women have made are eroding.”
Mary Rowell, a biochemist in the Hospital for Sick Children, says “It’s a slippery slope. If we are to select for gender what else are we willing to select for—only fair haired children?” I agree with Sunera Thobani that this does not happen in a vacuum.
When the Nazi prisoners stood before the American judge at the end of World War II, one of them said, “We never thought it would go this far.” The American judge replied, “It went that far the first time you condemned an innocent human being to death.” This is the very kernel of the problem.
We know that abortion was forbidden by the Code of Hammurabi about 1700 B.C., so it must have been in vogue even then. But the abortion holocaust that we know today in the Western world began some 30 or 40 years ago with the secularization of Western society. It probably began with the “life of the mother concept.” And that was the beginning of the “slippery slope.”
In the words of the famous Dr. Schwetzer, “Once you lose respect for human live at any point, you lose it at every point.” Every human life at an Image of God. Fundamentally, all human begins—born or unborn, old your young, rich or poor, clever or stupid, boys or girls—have an equal right to life.
Murder is defines as “the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” So, as long as the feminists are prepared to allow the murder of a baby for any cause, as most abortions are preformed today with no law against it, they have no right to pick and choose. If they claim that a woman has a right to do what she likes with her own body—which is ridiculous as the baby is not her own body—then they can’t claim the right to decide the reasons for which she makes her decision.
In other words, they can’t have their cake and eat it too.