baby girls either aborted in the womb or killed as infants

[jgredline]

As in the days of Noah....I was reading a few months back that in China girls are now ''worth'' allot of money as there is a massive shortage of wives...For every one girl there is now 3 boys and as a result many men are leaving China to find wives else place....This is upsetting the government...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon warned years ago that a contagion of "rights talk" was ruining our ability to conduct a serious moral discussion. When every major issue is reduced to "rights," the moral considerations go into a melt-down. When rights inevitably conflict and collide, there is no way to resolve the problem.

A clear example of this is found in developments at the Commission on the Status of Women, an organization of the United Nations. As Douglas A. Sylva reports in The Weekly Standard, an effort to save baby girls "ran afoul of dominant feminist orthodoxy." He explains:

The Bush administration introduced a resolution condemning the killing of girls, because they are girls. Such acts include old-fashioned infanticide, the kind of cultural practice the British tried to stamp out in the bygone days of colonial India, as well as the evermore popular use of modern sonogram technology in order to identify and eliminate girls before they are born--what is called sex-selective abortion.

And this is where the United States met the opposition of the European Union and its allies: abortion-on-demand orthodoxy seems to mean women's total freedom to choose, even if that choice eliminates the next generation of women, for the very reason that they are women.

Experts now estimate that there are over 100-million missing girls and women -- baby girls either aborted in the womb or killed as infants. They are being killed only because they are girls.

Sylva gets right to the point:

It is perhaps obvious why sex-selective abortion is an embarrassment to feminism: while the preference for sons is deeply rooted in history, the other factors, such as reduced family size and cultural acceptance of abortion, are central pillars of feminist thought. Since at least the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference, feminist champions have argued that international "gender justice" could only be established if women possessed the reproductive rights necessary to reduce their family sizes, thereby liberating them for higher education and successful careers. This is as close to established wisdom as is found at the United Nations, and it is so dominant that there is even a phrase--the "gender perspective"--suggesting that all problems, from peace keeping, to land mine removal, to water supply management, could be solved if they were examined through this proper feminist point-of-view.

So imagine the shock and shame when it became obvious that many of these newly-liberated women have been using their liberty to abort their own unborn girls. Research has even suggested that sex-selective abortion is especially prevalent among rich, urban, educate women in China, the pioneers, the type of women presumably leading the world into a genderless future. It is never pleasant to be forced to admit that one's revolutionaries have begun to devour their own.

An absolute "right" to an abortion for any reason or no reason at all -- a cardinal principle of modern feminism -- runs right into the fact that this means the killing of females by the millions. The United Nations, a body as obsessed with rights as any other, cannot even respond with coherent moral outrage.

No structure of "rights" can long survive without a clear and substantial moral foundation. In other words, matters of right and wrong must come before claims to abstract "rights." Just ask the millions of missing baby girls.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php

 

[Rick W]

Man has been tampering with nature ever since he thought to himself, "What if...". Well, ok, from the very beginning.
We know some of the results of our meddling with nature. I don't mean to imply all of it is wrong nor do I mean to imply that all of it is right. But up to a point nature has been able to absorb most of the impact.
We're beginning to realize, within the span of the past generations, the consequences of modifying our environment. Fact is, today it's an "in your face" issue. We understand the detrimental results of modification of nature but only in respect to evironment. What will be the consequences once we begin to dabble with the nature of mankind, modification to mankind itself?
This should serve as a warning but maybe it's just not strong enough. Yet. Are we then going to wait until the consequence is so far gone as to be outside the realm of rectification? If we cite our past track record of modification awareness then we'll indeed push the envelope until it pops.
(No, this isn't a plug for global warming)

We are venturing into the world of bio-engineering. We are just beginning to mix and match, copy/paste/delete the very molecular blueprints that life itself is based upon. All for the good? Yes, in cases such as research in immunization, the fight against cancers and in the field of agriculture for better yields from crops to meats. But we haven't yet turned that knowledge onto ourselves. Not quite yet.

But China has to a degree. Abortion, a genocide toward gender. Gendercide? And no, that certainly isn't the first time in history this form of social engineering has been done or attempted. But the practice of killing babies after birth isn't very appealing so because of the ugliness of the practice it's been dropped as an option for the vast majority of the cultures today.

However, abortion has eliminated the ugliness of gendercide.
No longer does the woman have to go through the experience of having her baby killed after childbirth. We can do it before the baby is born while still in the womb telling her it's not a baby yet, just a cluster of protoplasmic cells. No more, no less. It's not human, it's not a person and it's not a life. The horrors of gendercide are gone. (Post-abortion issues of emotional trauma to women is another subject though) The ugliness is gone but the consequences remain.

We're also at the doorstep of trait modification, "fixing" certain undesirable traits before birth. Again, while slaughter of babies with undesirable attributes is a thing of the past along with the repulsivness of the act, the repercussions will still be there. We will be doing the same thing Hitler attempted but we'll be doing it under the guise of "equal rights" and science. Nobody said Satan was stupid. Give man what Hitler didn't have, the technology/motivation to make it much easier, the general social acceptance to kill the babies while still in the womb and man will follow his pride to do what Hitler could not... make his ideas socially/globally acceptable ... even on an individual basis to kill the undesirables.