Gender-based abortions raise controversy in England, Australia

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • sharrona layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    RE: EternalPerspective, “God’s counsel.”

    God is the creator of the unborn. Psalm 139:13-16 (NLT) You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous--and how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.

    God has plans for the unborn. Jer 1:5 (AMP)Before I formed you in the womb I knew, and approved of you and before you were born I separated and set you apart, consecrating you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

    Jeremiah is not referring to pre-existence of man but rather the foreknowledge of God. Before He was born, God knew He would be a prophet.

    God who gives life to the dead and Calls into Being things that were not.(Romans 4:17 NIV)

    Oct. 15, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    Other cultures have had practices of killing off female infants and this is widely seen as barbaric.

    Now the left has set up a system that is so concerned with the mother's rights that we have the same barbaric practice in modern society. Funny how things come full circle. I will wait to see what justifications are put forth for this inhuman behavior by the extreme left. It will be interesting to see how they try to twist logic this time....

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:51 a.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel

    Church leaders, like God, respect our free will as to not create overly detailed rules concerning abortions, except to say they are only justifiable in cases of imminent danger to the mother or situations of rape, incest, etc. That is a minimum guideline to protect from temptations that can lead to hasty decisions and a lifetime of regret.

    This is not advocating selective abortion. Rather, free will is required to decide in extreme cases. Such decisions should be made carefully and prayerfully according to God’s laws and counsel.

    When the mother’s life is in jeopardy, then both lives must be considered. With rape, pregnancy resulted when free will was taken from the mother through a very grievous sin. These situations are so personal that only direction from the Lord can provide any certainty.

    The Lord has said, "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.”

    Why then should God’s laws be spelled out so exact that we could not exercise free will?

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:20 a.m.

    It is obvious from certain comments that truly anything can be debated and justified under the guise of moral relativism to rationalize away accountability and consequence.

    Aborting a baby because of gender is certainly murder in the eyes of God. That life would have been a physical vessel for one of God's spirit children if it was not for selfish motivations. It denies one of God's spirit children the privilege of progressing here on earth and thwarts the heart of His plan.

    Then, there was the argument that selective abortions create an all or nothing proposition. No abortion even under the most extreme circumstances of danger to the mother is an easy decision to make or live with afterwards. This is not just for those who esteem the sanctity of all life. Moral relativism makes life outside the womb somehow more tangible.

    For those who face such an awful decision from dire health reasons to the mother, it may be the ultimate test of sacrifice. The trading of one life for another is not just selectivity with what types of abortions are "permissible". Rather, it is a whole different case than all the other types.

  • Sunset Orem, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    @ Stalwart Sentinel

    Your last comment implies that you believe God and murder are incompatible. Presumably, your argument goes like this: "abortion is not murder because God sometimes approves abortion." This is a classic example of circular logic.

    More seriously, God's approval of murder (at least in Christianity) is fatal to your assumption. God clearly endorses the murder of the wicked (1 Nephi 4; Nephi slays Laban). But he also condones the murder of the innocent (1 Samuel 15:3, "but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...").

    You might admonish me to keep scripture in context, which proves my point. Moral decisions must be considered in context. For God, sometimes murder is sinful but others times it is not. Likewise, sometimes abortion is murder (or unethical) but other times it is not.

    So with all due respect, the burden is not mine to reconcile the mysteries and contradictions of God. If you wish to rely on God for your moral framework, you must deal with the fact that God does approve of murder, even of innocent children.

    An abortion to save a life very well may be moral. An abortion to ensure a white, heterosexual baby boy is not.

  • Sunset Orem, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:23 a.m.

    @ Stalwart Sentinel

    Unfortunately, you employ the same false dichotomy as those you oppose. Life is more complex. Abortion can be murder, or at least unethical, in certain circumstances but not in others.

    Consider three instances of a man stabbed to death. The action in question (the stabbing) could have different levels of moral culpability. One case could be first degree murder, another manslaughter, and another legal (and merciful) euthanasia. The moral action is the same in each case, as is the consequence (a man stabbed to death), yet we judge each case radically differently.

    A woman might have any number of legitimate reasons that excuse or mitigate an abortion. "Gender selection" is not among them. For one thing, it is arbitrary and serves no reasonable purpose (like preserving one's own life, sparing a damaged fetus unnecessary pain, etc.). More severely, it is sexist and perpetuates the oppression of women. It tampers with the human genome, placing political ideology above random natural selection. Such reckless arrogance could have profound repercussions for our species.

    I respect women's right to choose, but all rights have limits. Abortions performed solely to gratify and to magnify white patriarchy are outside those limits.

  • SenoraJefe orem, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:21 a.m.

    So... Aborting an unwanted baby is okay, but only if its not based on the gender? I hope this leads them to embrace the truth that all baby killing is bad.

  • Joshua H. Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    I'm befuddled by people who find the idea of aborting a baby based on gender abhorrent, yet, somehow they feel that simply killing a baby just because it's a baby is somehow more acceptable. It's like the case about a year ago where the boyfriend fed his girlfriend the day after pill. The man was being prosecuted for murder (and rightly so) but it leaves one asking why is it is legally ok for the mom to kill a baby without the dads permission but it's not ok for the dad to kill his baby without the moms permission. We live in a messed up world.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Oct. 14, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    1.96 - Church doctrine is clear, unfortunately not clear enough for you to correctly comprehend. Our Church views some instances of abortion unfavorably b/c it is viewed as an attempt to avoid consequences of a decision, not because it is murder.

    1 - D&C 59:6 has footnotes, one of them relating to the word "like". All references, Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10., are referring to sexual impurity, not killing. When reading the scripture in entirety with footnotes and punctuation, the "nor do anything like unto it" is exclusively referencing adultery.

    2 - When describing exceptions, the phrase "such as" suggests the list is not exhaustive. As I noted above, each scenario ought be the exclusive decision of those involved - not for the masses to determine.

    3 - As you note, an "approved" abortion is discussed w/ ecclesiastical leaders and God via "earnest prayer." This automatically implies that God can "okay" an abortion. So, is God sanctioning the murder of an innocent unborn child? That must be the case if your perspective is to remain consistent. Please, explain your inconsistency or explain why God inspires us to murder His innocent, unborn children.

  • brokenclay Chandler, AZ
    Oct. 14, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Feminists have reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy and horror in claiming to advance women's rights while at the same time mandating the homicide of an unborn human for THE SOLE REASON that she is female.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel-

    Church doctrine is clear on the matter. No need for debate. From True to the Faith:

    "Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. If you encourage an abortion in any way, you may be subject to Church discipline.

    Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

    But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

  • Galinda98 American Fork, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    In parts of British Columbia, Canada, while pregnant women do have ultrasounds during their pregnancies as per the general practice, they CANNOT be told the baby's gender. There are good reasons for that. Particularly in the lower mainland of B.C., there is a very large east Indian population. It is common knowledge that a male baby is prized over a female baby in the culture. Ergo, NO ONE, no matter what race they are, are told what their baby's gender is, because it is simply unconstitutional to take the baby's life based on gender. Therefore, my daughter and my son had to wait until their children were born to find out what gender they were, JUST LIKE I, AND WOMEN THE WORLD OVER HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!! It didn't hurt the parents one iota. They were glad that those parameters were in place.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    LOGIT: You took the words right out of my comment. Abortion has already lessened the community
    of Liberals, why not women. And if you don't believe it's true, just look at China, where
    the more wealth go into the back country of China to buy girls to be raised for their son's
    future wives.

  • Logit ,
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Those on the political right (like the Christian Concern) find this news abhorrent for all the wrong reasons. Abortion of female fetuses ought not be wrong because of some archaic, sexist, white-knight protection of the female gender. It's wrong simply because abortion is wrong.

    What's interesting here is the news' potential impact on the political left. What's going to happen when a woman's "right to choose" (which the left has worked so hard to pedestalize) so obviously and disparately impacts other females? Technology has finally caught up to abortion. It now reveals its irony: A woman's "right to choose" means passing along that same right to fewer future women. Priceless!

  • Zona Zone Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Pro-choice somehow means letting doctors making a choice of moral conscience. Bizarre.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Sounds like a hate crime to me....

    What's next? We'll have better and better technology to see what the genes before the baby is born.

    Oh... This baby isn't going to be that smart or that that athletic. Better abort.

    Pretty soon they'll be deciding on made to order kids. Just get rid of the rest... :((((.

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Stalwart is correct: This is the logical result of the "right to choose".

    If a couple can abort a baby because they can't afford it, or because it's too inconvenient, or because they "just don't want it", then why can't they abort a baby because it's the wrong sex?

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    A child is not a choice. This is tantamount to murder. Have the child and let it out for adoption, then have another if you wish. It is appalling to think of the trite reasons people have for doing abortions.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Oct. 12, 2013 11:08 p.m.

    PLM/Nan BW - Both of you list "exceptions" for abortion, so in those cases does God simply not consider the fetus to be alive? How and why does God pick and choose? And how is it that you both "know" which specific abortions God decides to "look the other way" on? Or, if rape/incest is involved, is the baby no longer an "innocent life" therefore making it worthy of termination?

    I'm sorry but either all abortions are murder/taking a life, no exceptions, or none of them are. You cannot simply drift between "murder" and "exception" based on your personal belief that the manner of conception, etc... matters.

    Further, if you're LDS, like I am, you are unfortunately mistaken to "believe" abortion is murder.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Oct. 12, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    Abortion is wrong. There are rare exceptions, but they are not for gender selection, convenience or any number of sad justifications for murder.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    Abortion is taking an innocent life - is the motive important? Babies have a right to life; no abortions except for incest or rape.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    Twin Lights,

    It doesn't matter whether you, I, and the doctor "approve" of the abortion per our personal moral convictions; it is a decision for the individual/couple.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel,

    Do you then approve of gender-based abortion?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Oct. 12, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    Thanks for the clarification, rightascension.

    Everyone hear that? By self-righteous moral decree, from hereon forward no one ought be granted an abortion lest rightascension approve of it. It shall no longer be known as "pro-choice" but rather "pro rightascension's choice".

  • VA Saint Chester, VA
    Oct. 12, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    There is absolutely nothing anyone could say that could justify this type of abhorrent action! Just horrible.

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Oct. 12, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    Should a couple be allowed to abort a child just because it is not the desired gender? No. It is like asking -- Should a child be allowed to get rid of a parent because the parent is not the child's gender?