Sanctity of Life, Gendercide, and Science

Though it may seem like it's been around a lot longer, the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday was declared by President Reagan in 1984, eleven years after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand. In the ensuing years of this observance, the science surrounding the issue of abortion has changed considerably, but the emotions have not. To understand why, it's important to understand the ideological progression of this moral norm. As one author and professed noted, contributions from Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian sources expanded this idea in Western culture. 

Much of the history of the past two centuries has involved the expansion and enriching of the concept of life’s sacredness in various forms. It has expanded in that the logic of every human life has demanded universal application—to religious minorities, women, racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and property-less, the disabled, and so on. 

At one level, the Roe v. Wade decision represented an attempt to value the sanctity of women’s lives by providing a legal freedom that some believed was necessary to protect it. Thus the most charitable reading of that decision was that it was an effort to stand in continuity with the trend toward the expansion of human dignity, in this case on behalf of women.

For those of us who believe that decision was wrong, we still face the task of showing not just that Roe opened the door to the mass destruction of developing human lives in utero, and that this assaults life’s sanctity. We must also show why Roe does not succeed in advancing the sanctity of women’s lives, and must offer both on-the-ground and legal alternatives that can do better.

Abortion was and is valued by supporters because it is seen in the continuum of the long march for women's rights. While I support many of those rights, I cannot say that pitting the life of an adult woman against her unborn child is a step-up in that progression. I urge pro-abortion supporters to study and know the ideas of people like Margaret Sanger, who purported to advance the cause of women but actually held to the Nazi idea of eugenics that some lives are worth more than others. This is why less than 100 years after Sanger began her crusade for women's reproductive rights, somewhere between 100 and 166 million girls worldwide are missing due to female gendercide, largely because of sex-selective abortions. The terrible irony is that abortion did not ensure that the lives of women were more valued after all.

When Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the scientific argument in favor of it was based on the issue of "viability." Until a certain stage in the pregnancy, the fetus was seen as just an undeveloped blob of tissue and not a viable life. But even as that argument was being made in the early '70s, the ultrasound machine was being developed and our ability to actually see the wondrous development of human life undercut that argument. In fact, that development led to the famous conversion of an abortionist, a doctor who later made a film showing an abortion on ultrasound called Silent Scream.

With scientific advances like ultrasound technology and prenatal medicine, viability today is a medical collision course where doctors find themselves intervening to either create or save one fetus and then aborting another of the same fetal age. The only determining factor is whether the pregnant woman values or wants that life or not, a position akin to other abuses in history.

Therefore, as a culture we have not really made the progression in human rights that we believe we have.

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, since the declaration of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday in 1984, the ethics surrounding sanctity of life have only gotten more complicated. As one bioethicist told The New York Times, "In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I’m not saying we should have less choices; I’m saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be."

Though it may seem that the bitter disagreements surrounding this topic will never end, I see that some of the underlying assumptions for abortion have been challenged over time. Therefore, as some of us will acknowledge Sanctity of Human Life Sunday tomorrow, I hope we will not grow weary of standing up for the lives of the pre-born. I also pray our concern for the value of human life will also lead us to fearlessly challenge other human rights abuses, such as human trafficking, modern slavery, gendercide and more. 

To study this topic further, I recommend a new e-book by John Piper, made free courtesy of the Desiring God ministry.

Comments

[northridge community church]

those are some very interesting ideas, thank you for sharing.

[Savedaughters19.wordpress.com]

Beginning of December, a program aired on ABC 20/20 about India's deadly secret. It was about 40 million girls who have vanished. All aborted before they could take their first breath. Their crime was that they were girls. As you know the gender ratios is India are terribly skewed about 914 girls per 1,000 boys. In Punjab it is about 833 girls per1,000 boys. Unfortunately this happens amongst the privileged and the educated also. The only woman who has brought cases against her in-laws and husband is Dr Mitu Khurana. Please watch her story and sign her petition for justice. Please give those 40 million girls silenced forever, a voice. Please forward this to as many friends as possible.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/a-mothers-fight-to-save-her-daughters/

http://gendercide.epetitions.net/

After you sign the petition, there will be a request from the site for a donation. This donation is totally discretionary and does not in any way or form affect or benefit Dr Mitu Khurana. All she is asking for is your support (signing this petition) so that pressure can be put on the Indian authorities that the whole world is watching them in total disbelief as they make a young mother run around in vain for four years in search of justice

[Khairul]

Germaine Greer, that feminist of fesiinmts, has had some very harsh words for liberals in the West (she doesn't actually call them liberals, but that's what they are) who tell Third World women what to do concerning their health. She considers it arrogance of the worst kind for people in the West to assume that they know what's best for women's health in the Third World.So, Bob Rae and his ilk make abortions available to women in the Third World? What would that look like? Will there be clinics set up in out of the way places, or will a woman have to walk a long way to procure an abortion? Will there be emergency wards she can go to if there's a complication after the abortion? Will she have to walk a long way to get to one? Will there be medications for her to take if, and frequently there are, complications after her abortion? Where will she get the money? Will there be a pharmacy nearby where she can buy medications? Will there be a doctor available for after-abortion care? Will she have to walk a long way to go to him/her? Will she be able to have another baby after her abortion? Or, will she be one of the millions of women who are unable to either conceive or carry another pregnancy to term ?Bob Rae and all of the pro-abortion cabal in Canada have a real nerve assuming that women in the Third World will benefit from abortions. For most of them, for whom their children are the only social safety net they have, abortion is an appalling idea. For many of them, who are devout Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc., abortion is totally against their religious and ethical principles.Frankly, this whole idea of aborting Third World children AS A BENEFIT TO THEM AND THEIR MOTHERS, is despicable; it's a veiled form of genocide: In the guise of being compassionate and helpful, the proponents of Western-funded abortions are actually advocating the killing off of Third World populations: All the better to help you, my dears.In their view, Green and depraved as it is, they understand that the world will be a much better place with fewer humans in it: Why not fewer human beings in the Third World? We're actually doing them a favour!This is nasty stuff. I'm proud of the Harper Government for resisting this notion of family planning for Third World women and sincerely hope that they stick to their guns when the G-8 meet in Toronto this summer.