Gender Abortion
Ethics & Morality

Christian legal challenge to outlaw gendercide abortion begins today

 

The Green Party in Northern Ireland called it ‘a momentous moment for women’, the British Humanist Association described it as an ‘enormous breakthrough’, whereas the British Pregnancy Advisory Service went further stating that ‘we should seek to remove abortion from the criminal law altogether’.

Yesterday’s ruling by a judge sitting at the High Court in Belfast that Northern Ireland’s law on abortion is a breach of women’s human rights was always going to please those who consider that abortion should always be a woman’s choice or even right. Once again we come down to an unholy battle that pits the supposed rights of a mother against her unborn child. In this case it was one man, Mr Justice Horner, concluding that current legislation in Northern Ireland relating to specific situations breaches article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires respect for a person’s family life and personal autonomy.

Even if this decision were to become law in Northern Ireland – and let’s be clear that without the backing of the NI Assembly, it’s a long way off – the restrictions limiting abortion to fatal foetal abnormalities and cases of rape or incest would still land far short of the effective state of abortion on demand in the rest of the UK that resulted in 184,000 terminations in England and Wales last year. But taking this into consideration there is still a worrying bias against the innocent and powerless child waiting to become an individual worthy of dignity and protection. It is understandable that in those rare circumstances where a foetus has such severe abnormalities that it will inevitably die prior to birth or within minutes of being born, all involved might consider it unhelpful to continue with the pregnancy, but to label this as a mother’s human right rather than a decision on medical grounds unnecessarily muddies the waters. This justification becomes further strained when the violation of the mother’s body through rape or incest automatically legitimises the destruction of another human being. As Peter Lynas, a barrister and also General Director of the Evangelical Alliance in Northern Ireland commented following the outcome:

Sexual crime is a grievous abuse of a woman’s dignity and rights. Abortion cannot undo the terrible harm, and tragically creates a second innocent victim.”

Today, in a confused judgment, the Judge ruled that a “foetus does not have a right to life under Article 2”, but that “pre-natal life here is given protection under certain statutes.” The Court appears to be dictating when the unborn baby has a right to life. At the same time the judge has worryingly reduced a mother to ‘merely a receptacle’.

It is alarming that human rights are being used to end human life.

Although in this instance, the application of human rights may have led to a range of limited justifications, it still rules most situations out. Interestingly the initial legal challenge that was brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission included an argument in favour of abortion when there is a serious, but not fatal, foetal abnormality. In this instance Mr Justice Horner has found that such abortions cannot be justified by way of human rights, nor did he find that abortion had to be legalised in general under the European Convention.

This is a far cry from another abortion case being brought by Pro-life campaigner Aisling Hubert and supported by the Christian Legal Centre which is due in the High Court today accusing Sir Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, of making a political decision not to bring charges against two doctors filmed by the Telegraph agreeing to terminate pregnancies on the grounds of gender.

Back in February 2012, the revelations prompted a public and political outcry which included MPs voting by 181:1 in favour of Fiona Bruce’s Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill. And yet after a police investigation the Crown Prosecution Service said that whilst there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, it claimed that it would ‘not be in the public interest’ to bring such a prosecution.

Some regard Northern Ireland being horribly out of step with the rest of the country on matters that have moral and religious dimensions. It may be the only place in the UK where abortion is regulated so tightly, but even though yesterday’s ruling has undoubtedly upset some pro-life groups, it still demonstrates a grave and serious attitude to the ethics of abortion that are increasingly ignored or dismissed elsewhere. In contrast, England, Wales and Scotland find themselves far down a well-greased slope. Can we not see that something has utterly failed when it takes a Christian group to attempt to hold the CPS to account for its apathetic attitude towards an abortion law which has already been repeatedly battered to the point of death?

Northern Ireland is a place where many still believe that we are all knit together in our mother’s womb, wonderfully made in the image of God, valued right from the moment of conception. The result is an attitude that celebrates our humanness and treats it with the respect it deserves even when dealing with painfully difficult scenarios. The eventual outcome of today’s court case in London will go a long way to revealing the depths the rest of this country has sunk to in comparison. If it proves to be the case that doctors can now carry out gender selective abortions without any fear of prosecution whatsoever then the fragile rights of an unborn child will have taken another devastating blow. Those in Northern Ireland should look on and weep.

  • David

    Well I can only agree with the author that it is indeed alarming that so called human rights are being used to end human life. That decision shows a very selective understanding of who enjoys any rights ! It also reveals in plain sight the poverty and shallowness of Humanism.
    The truth is that the whole of the west’s “let’s dump our Judaeo-Christian heritage” complex set of movements, results in withdrawing from the weak and needy the protections that they formerly enjoyed. So that the elites and the more powerful gain at the expense of the less strong. It is a mirror image, a reversal, of the changes that occurred across the Roman Empire, as it adopted Christianity as the social standard around the 4th C. For once we accept that we are all made in the image of God, then that confers a dignity on the least significant among us. A post-Christian society is a far more elitist society and potentially brutal one.
    But hope springs eternal. Forty years ago Russia was post-Christian, and now it is rapidly becoming more Christian again. So the forces of hope and life, centred around Christianity, need to continue working to expose the negativity and hopelessnesses of this shallow approach, that claims to uphold human life, but in fact is designed to bolster the powerful over the weak.

  • Slack Alice

    An excellent and sobering article.

  • Martin

    One has to wonder if the DPPs view of the public interest is avoiding the close questioning of the practices of abortion clinics. Abortion clinics were also revealed to have been forging the forms for abortions by using pre-signed and photocopied forms. Another investigation that was closed as not being in the public interest. Perhaps the closing of corrupt clinics would be too drastic a result.

    Of course there is also the point that research has found that continuing a pregnancy bears no greater risk to the mothers mental or physical health than terminating it. thus destroying the majority of justifications for abortions.

    • sarky

      Please cite this research.

        • sarky

          Cheers Avi, but was thinking more about the mental/physical health bit.

          • Most jurisdictions…Canada is notorious for this… do not classify, record or provide statistics on post-abortion health issues and scatter the evidence under various unrelated categories. Did it not ever syrike you as curious that with millions of “treatments,” you never hear of a single problem? That physicians are constantly hauled in for malpractice for this and that, charged with assault and whatnot in all areas, including dentistry, but never in abortion cases?

          • Merchantman

            Very interesting point and one worth chasing.

      • Martin

        Sarky

        I’m sure you can find it if you search hard enough. It’s hardly worth finding anything that challenges your beliefs because you’ll not accept it anyway.

        • sarky

          Right, so you made it up then.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You already pretend God isn’t real, why would evidence change your mind?

  • Busy Mum

    The irony of gender-selective abortion is that misogynistic sections of society will only produce baby boys whilst the misandrist sections of society (aka the indigenous feminists) will only produce baby girls. How much ‘choice’ do they think their baby girls are going to have when they are claimed by the baby boys who have been trained up in misogyny?

  • it [the CPS] claimed that it would ‘not be in the public interest’ to bring such a prosecution

    From The Sunday Times: ‘In London, at least, the organisation [the CPS] seems to be stuffed with people from ethnic minorities. It is worrying when you ring someone up about a case, often a serious one, and you have trouble understanding what they are saying. Or you get skeleton arguments or documents drafted that simply make no sense and are written in pidgin English.’

    Not being a subscriber, I can’t verify whether the page still exists:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7043985.ece

    For ‘not in the public interest’ read ‘not in the interest of the CPS’ ethnic minorities’. In many cultures, sex-selective abortion is practised without a qualm, and the CPS now appears to be awash with those cultures. In time, the whole country will be awash with them. Prepare to be sunk to even greater depths.

  • Anton

    That decision by Keir Starmer showed that he was unfit to be DPP.

    Any guesses for which community in our wonderful multicultural society prefers baby boys?

  • grutchyngfysch

    I nearly cried when I read the following line yesterday from the ruling:

    If it is morally wrong to abort a foetus in Northern Ireland, it is just as wrong morally to abort the same foetus in England. It does not protect morals to export the problem to another jurisdiction and then turn a blind eye

    Immorality elsewhere has become the reason to give up standing against it here. Lord have mercy.

  • preacher

    Aah ! But in terms of ” New Speak ” it is not a boy a girl a baby or a child, until birth it’s a foetus or an embryo or maybe a commodity. Perhaps an inconvenience or even a nuisance. Thus ‘ it ‘ is viewed as disposable or a source of spare parts for gain.
    Welcome to the 21st Century world of ethics & morality folks. Next stop Soylent Green ?.

    • chiefofsinners

      Next stop: donation of its organs unless it expresses a desire otherwise.

      • IanCad

        Yesterday that same law came into force in Wales.
        Maybe you were alluding to it in your post.

        • chiefofsinners

          I was indeed. The trade in foetus body parts has recently been exposed in the US. At least the Welsh have the choice to opt out.

    • Busy Mum

      Even when it is born, nobody can say for sure what it is because regardless of what the midwife sees on the outside, maybe it self-identifies as the alternative gender on the inside….

  • Inspector General

    Be in no doubt that our opportunist career politicians are on to the fact that the country has swung to the right this year. These crafty types may lack conviction in the main, but they score high on personal self-interest, to wit, keeping their seat. They will continue to work towards that aim, whatever the cost, as surely as they have done in the past.

    Socialism is probably finished in this country as a sole governing force. Instead, we can look to new standards of human decency and improvement of the national moral fibre. Everyone knows this has to be. The all too apparent threat that is Islam both inside and outside of the UK has convinced most something must be done before the Islamic proportion starts to seriously endanger everything we hold dear. Thus socialism, with its inherent favouring of the minority, in this case, the alien society and religion provided by Islam which threatens to engulf us, has to be swept away in a new realisation of where we stand.

    It thus falls to us to all to ensure we stop aborting ourselves which is propelling ourselves towards our own doom.

    It really is that simple, and the simpler things are, the more the population will appreciate the need for what must be done – a return to the pre 1967 position. It’s not as if it’s a revolutionary idea, after all.

  • I’m ambiguous about whether to play what has become a game of “it’s the woman’s right to choose…unless it’s about aborting a female.” As Preacher, below, said, “” it is not a boy a girl a baby or a child, until birth it’s a foetus or an embryo or maybe a commodity,” so I’m for holding the pro-abortionists to their absolute-right of choice and clump of cells positions until they accept that opposition to “gender-cide” changes the discussion.

    • Inspector General

      Greetings Avi. One has a theory about pro-abortionists, at least the female kind. Apart from a very small number of career feminists, the rest consist of half the girls from the local college. If there was any justice in the world, the aforementioned boot ugly things shouldn’t have to worry about getting pregnant.

      Once a woman ‘grows up’, she leaves politics behind in the main, and concentrates on pleasing her selfish genes. If abortion was to be banned tomorrow, there would be no riots over it. And rightly so.

      • And a good day to you, Inspector. Perhaps because you have found, as I have, ingenious ways to avoid the massive crop of retards generated and released into the general population by our universities on our dime, you forget the hefty cadre of male “feminists,” the ones some wags scandalously refer to as “manginas.” Like the randy knights of old, they will gird their aching loins and will man (a term I use loosely here) the barricades on the issue at the request and the pleasure of their hirsute and tattooed “ladies” waddling about campus.

        • Inspector General

          You remind a fellow, Avi. There was one such wimmins rights supporter on the other month. The Inspector suggested to him that he merely wished to ingratiate himself with the fairer sex by agreeing with them, only to enable himself, at a tender moment, to ease his chosen lady’s knickers down. He was outraged and signed off. Only to come back the following day to put his hands up. He’d been successfully rumbled!

          The male of the species, what!

          • I witnessed this “clever” courtship phenomenon at uni, Inspector. Typically the male wpuld spent good money on the female (who would graciously drop her insistence on equality of the sexes when it came to drinks, dinners and car rides), listen patiently to her diatribes and when he began his hinting, begging and whining routine for for the drop of the knickers, as you Brits put it, he would be shown the door…for not being manly enough!

          • Inspector General

            Apologies, Avi. One could have used a better phrase than “put his hands up” {Ahem}.

            The Inspector still has some yellowing notes on the subject of courtship. Ah, here we are, “How to drill a hole in a wall”. Oh no, next page it is then. Absolutely topper!, here they are… “If knickers are sticking along the way, liberally apply the liqueur “Southern Comfort” which acts as a leg oil. Doesn’t say where to apply liberally, though. Help a fellow out Avi, if you will…

          • Inspector, I’m afraid your yellowing notes would land you in a load of trouble today. Courtship conventions have progressed since the barbaric days of yore…meaning, a decade ago… and the presence of liquor on the premises and the absence of a notorized permission to proceed, or better still a barrister with a recording device to witness consent in the boudoir are now derigeur (or however the Hell it’s spelled). And even then, consent can be withdrawn retroactively, should you unwisely sneak out and not answer calls.

    • chiefofsinners

      Agree, Avi. Gender selective abortion exposes the moral and logical bankruptcy of the pro-abortionists.
      Keep watching. Linus reckons homosexuality is determined in the womb. Imagine abortion on that basis…

      • Or abortion on the basis of interracial relationships, which is already causing some squirming. The good news is that by creating protected classes, the doors are being opened for a challenge to abortion without limits.

  • Sirbastion

    Sadly here in NI new generations of young folk are predominantly embracing and espousing the humanistic tenets that have pervaded the rest of the UK.

    Traditions of biblical morality are being eroded and forsaken, and weak MLA’s who fear man rather than God are capitulating to the persistent pressure of the left wing lobby.

    Christians here and throughout the UK must stand fast in the truth, continue earnestly in prayer and withstand the tide of Godless indoctrination that is continuing against us and drip fed into the minds of our children. Stand fast brethren!

  • Jon Sorensen

    Interesting how 2000 years of Christian gender bias has influenced society so that boys are preferred and now Christians are upset that people have followed that bias. And this Christian gender equality initiative comes from the organisations that discriminates based on gender.

    Don’t Christians see the irony in this? At least non-Christians get a good chuckle from this eternal Christians hypocrisy and confusion…

    • chiefofsinners

      Yes, Jon, gender abortion is my fault because I believe there are differences between the sexes, rather than your fault because you support abortion. Never mind, when we’ve got a few more women bishops the problem will go away.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Thanks! When will you remove the negative references to women in the Bible and start teaching equality?

        • Anna

          There are no negative references to women, only about our common sinful tendencies.

          • Jon Sorensen

            It’s not that:
            “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”
            “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
            “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands”
            “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”
            “and the head of the woman is the man”

            but the fact the women are brainwashed with “we are all image of God” to accept the discrimination it all levels of Christian life. AND they defend this discrimination. Such power has religion

          • Anna

            I don’t see any negative references to women in the scriptures you quote, only tips to help us live our lives well.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I know. Christian women are often blinded faith and don’t see the equal rights. Does your church allow women in leadership position? Why is that?

          • chiefofsinners

            What you are missing, Jon, is the command to husbands which goes along the commands to wives. It is: “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.”
            That is a far greater demand on the husband than on the wife.
            Perhaps you would care to argue that the Bible discriminates against men?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “That is a far greater demand on the husband than on the wife.”
            No, but nice try. Surely it’s more demanding to be a slave owner than a slave…

            There should be no different laws for men and women.

          • chiefofsinners

            Why do you say “no”?
            The calling is to give up your life for your wife, to gladly suffer her punishment and to love her unconditionally – no matter what she does.
            Slave owners don’t do that for slaves.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “No” because both parties should be equal. Why is this hard to understand.

          • chiefofsinners

            Three of the best and longest serving supreme governors the Church of England ever had were Queens Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II. Being a Methodist didn’t stop Margaret Thatcher rising to the top.
            But it is a fact that men and women are different in many ways. Why are you trying to force on them your desire to make them the same?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Being a Methodist didn’t stop Margaret Thatcher rising to the top.”
            But she did not raise to the top of Methodist organisation. She got to the top of non-religious organisation.

            “Why are you trying to force on them your desire to make them the same?”
            The “made in image of God” crowd has real difficulties to understand this. Equal right people don’t want to me men and women the same. Equal rights people want equal right, and end of gender based discrimination.

          • chiefofsinners

            You also want to define those ‘rights’ yourself. What about the people who disagree with your definition of rights and prefer God’s definition?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Apologist knee jerk reaction is always to go to quick sand of word definition. Look at the word from dictionary if you are not sure.

            Once I can check what God’s definition is then we discuss about it. The problem is the God’s followers don’t seem to agree what God is saying. How do I know that you are not just making it up or hearing voices in your head?

        • chiefofsinners

          See Anna below.
          Then, why don’t you get cracking on removing the negative references to women from the works of Shakespeare before moving on to the rest of secular literature?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Once people use Shakespeare to justify discrimination, government policies, tax privileges and making laws, then maybe we should change Shakespeare too.

            Nice fallacy of false analogy BTW..

          • chiefofsinners

            You have misunderstood the analogy. The point is that I am powerless to rewrite the bible as you are powerless to rewrite Shakespeare.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Bible is the most change book in the history of humanity. Of course we can change it as Christians do it all the time….

          • chiefofsinners

            The bible exists in hundreds of languages and thousands of manuscripts written over thousands of years. It has one clear message: men and women alike are separated from God by their sin and need forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
            After that there are many other truths, including the fact that men and women are different but of equal value. If you want to argue for women’s rights you won’t find anyone to argue with here. You might try to find a website where people support Sharia law.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The bible exists in hundreds of languages and thousands of manuscripts written over thousands of years.”
            Which is irrelevant to my point

            ” It has one clear message”
            If something is clear is that the message of the Bible is not clear.

            “including the fact that men and women are different but of equal value”
            Famous excuse to give only men leadership positions, and people still buy it.

            “If you want to argue for women’s rights you won’t find anyone to argue with here.”
            Most people here don’t support women archbishops, popes, imams or rabbis. Women’s right is only supported outside Church context, so it is a fake support.

    • bockerglory

      Jesus was different to all others (including Buddah, Mohammed and the rest of them). He treated women as equals to men. God hates polygamy (that is why King solomon, King David, King Saul had problems because a man cannot be an effective father figure). So you see the old testament is about the sin of humans even the prophets. Jesus showed us that we were all loved by God. Unfortunately the church was riddled with human failings but it was not the failings of Christ. Jesus was the first feminist.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Jesus was different to all others (including Buddah, Mohammed and the rest of them). He treated women as equals to men.”
        You should read the Bible one day. How many female disciples did Jesus have again?

        “God hates polygamy”
        Again. Read your Bible. Polygamy was God’s plan and all his favorite people had many wives and slave-relations. It work our ok with Abraham too.

        “So you see the old testament is about the sin of humans even the prophets.”
        You should read the OT and talk to people who wrote it; the Jews. They should know what it means.

        “Jesus showed us that we were all loved by God.”
        Again. Read your Bible. Romans 9:13

        “Jesus was the first feminist.”
        LOL. Worst statement ever.

        • bockerglory

          Just because the apostles were men does not mean Jesus was against women. Most people don’t see a Fire Truck rescuing people and then announce the Fire Service is bad because all the crew were men!

          But of course you only see everything as a matter of “rights”. You remind me of the ex catholic who converted to Islam and spent all day criticising Christians based on the OT.

          I love the OT because it is a history of how each generation tries to understand and worship God in their different ways. Therefore the OT is all about how the prophets kept adding religious rules and burdens to keep the people faithful and it failed each time! In fact God told Moses and David and Solomon that they were sinners. Interestingly as for Polygamy God let his people choose but was not the preferred position – if Abraham had trusted God and not had Ishmael from a second wife we would perhaps not be in this current mess. interestingly the OT shows how men whine and moan about polygamous wives blaming the women all the time – these criricisms are from the prophets & not God. Lazy prophets trying to pass the buck! If anything the OT says, do not be a fool and have more than one wife otherwise see example of Solomon. These is why the prophets convey women as being jealous and deceitful! Jesus communed directly with women.

          So the OT is NOT AN example of how we should live now it is an illustration of how things can go wrong! The OT calls us to follow Jesus and by doing this we can apply Gid’s desire no matter the circumstances.in fact the OT shows why Sharia law will fail!!!!

          Jesus rebuked the religious who’s traditions including circumcision were a stumbling block to God.

          Jesus saves ALL those that turn to him.

          As for bullying chauvinists my experience is that arises in many men regardless of which faith.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I didn’t say Jesus was “against women”, but he did not care about equal right. He endorsed OT Law where women is treated as property.

            “But of course you only see everything as a matter of “rights””
            Privileged Christians don’t care about rights because they are in a privileged position. If you don’t have equal right then the right will mater to you.

            “OT is all about how the prophets kept adding religious rules and burdens to keep the people faithful and it failed each time!”
            This re-interpretation. People who wrote it do not share your view.

            Why are you so against polygamy when your God is not? What happen to our free will to choose?

            “If anything the OT says, do not be a fool and have more than one wife otherwise see example of Solomon.”
            Verse please.

            “So the OT is NOT AN example of how we should live now it is an illustration of how things can go wrong!”
            Again this re-interpretation. People who wrote it do not share your view.

            “The OT calls us to follow Jesus”
            Again this re-interpretation. People who wrote it do not share your view.

            You seem to try to make the text fit your agenda. Maybe you should study OT with open mind and with people you still hold the view like the writers of OT.

            “Jesus rebuked the religious who’s traditions including circumcision were a stumbling block to God.”
            verse please

            “As for bullying chauvinists my experience is that arises in many men regardless of which faith.”
            True, but Christianity has institutionalised bullying chauvinism.

          • bockerglory

            Luke 11:46

            Re-interpretation? Perhaps not. In Christianity since reformation we can challenge established entrenched man-made views. Jesus did this all the time.

            Cranmer’s blog is a forum for discussing such things.

            God Bless

          • Jon Sorensen

            The whole Christianity requires reinterpretation of OT….

    • LoveMeIamALiberal

      Everyone knows that sex selective abortions are not being practiced by Christians the UK.

      • Jon Sorensen

        So why is there a legal challenge?

        • LoveMeIamALiberal

          So you accept that Christians are initiating or supporting sex selective abortions and now change the subject.

          There is a legal challenge because the law is not clear.

          • Jon Sorensen

            If everyone knows that this is not happening why do we need this challenge? If Christians think there is a problem shouldn’t we treat the cause not the symptom?

          • LoveMeIamALiberal

            It is happening but it’s not Christians who are doing it. We know what the cause is (patriarchal Asian culture), but it’s not politically correct to address it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Christians are also doing it. It is happening in Christian
            countries like Georgia and Armenia, but it doesn’t seem to be an issues
            in developped Asian contries or Asian communities outside Asia. Japanese
            seem to even prefer girls. Do you have any data?

            Why
            do you think Christians don’t want to address sex selective emplyment
            rules in Churches and we do know it is being practiced by Christians the
            UK.

          • LoveMeIamALiberal

            I was discussing sex selective abortion in the UK but I see you’re now playing bait and switch by raising new topics, always a sign of someone losing an argument.

            For sex selective abortion rates around the world see here:
            https://napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Replacing-Myths-with-Facts-final.pdf
            – see tables on page 9. Lichtenstein is way ahead of anywhere else. Most of the countries with high male birth ratios are either in or around the Caucuses or in south east Asia or very small (San Marino and Grenada as well as Lichtenstein) – the latter group would immediately suggest there may be an issue with the collection of statistics as small variances could account for the results; note that 4 of the 11 countries with the lowest male birth ratios are Caribbean islands, thus also small. None of the reports I’ve looked at identify Christianity (or any religion) as a potential cause of sex selective abortion because there is no anecdotal evidence to warrant investigating such an assertion. All major Christian denominations oppose abortion so this is to be expected.

            Now back to the subject I raised…

            It is not politically correct to talk about sex selective abortion by Asians in the UK so official reports dodge it but if you read closely the inference is there. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456641/SSA_Systematic_map_report.pdf

            “Emigrants entering such [OECD] countries from regions where son preference enacted through sex-selective abortion is relatively common are likely subject to the same cultural pressures regardless of final destination.” (page 18).

          • Jon Sorensen

            Jon said first: “this Christian gender equality initiative comes from the organisations that discriminates based on gender”
            Jon said again: “Why do you think Christians don’t want to address sex selective employment rules in Churches”
            Loveme claimed: I was discussing sex selective abortion in the UK but I see you’re now playing bait and switch by raising new topics, always a sign of someone losing an argument.”
            Clearly I’m staying with the topic and false accusation is always a sign of someone losing an argument…

            “None of the reports I’ve looked at identify Christianity (or any religion) as a potential cause of sex selective abortion because there is no anecdotal evidence to warrant investigating such an assertion.”
            Like you said maybe it is “not politically correct to address it” (Just like it not politically correct to address Christian terrorism in the US) Why would that phenomena raise in the Christian culture? Why is so hard for Christian to see that their 2000 year old patriarchal culture might affect their members’ gender preference?

            “None of the reports I’ve looked at identify Christianity (or any religion)”
            But the link you posted points out Hindu practices, but conveniently ignores Islam and Christianity.

            “It is not politically correct to talk about sex selective abortion by Asians in the UK so official reports dodge it but if you read closely the inference is there.”
            What? As you point it out they mentioned that in the report in the beginning of Conclusion section.

          • LoveMeIamALiberal

            You are not staying on the topic I raised the topic of sex selective abortion which also happens to the be topic of this blog. You are addressing the topic you raised with others, not me.

            “it not politically correct to address Christian terrorism in the US”. again, off topic, baiting and switching.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You raised the issues of “Politically Correct” and religion by saying:
            “It is not politically correct to talk about sex selective abortion”
            I responded about PC:
            “Like you said maybe [Christian sex selective abortion] is “not politically correct to address it””
            and in parenthesis as a side point:
            “Just like it not politically correct to address Christian terrorism in the US”. As your material was from the US, not from the UK. And Christians have special privileges there.

            Now you don’t reply to my comment but complain about off topic which you raised. Are you under influence of drugs or alcohol?

          • LoveMeIamALiberal

            “Are you under influence of drugs or alcohol?”
            Ad hominem, another sign of someone losing an argument. I’m sticking to the topic, which is sex selective abortion; you’re the one trying to muddy the waters by introducing other issues.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You haven’t even mentioned the topic in last two comments, but only seem to be obsessed about winning and declaring it…

          • LoveMeIamALiberal

            I’m replying to your replies. All you have to do is stick to the topic of sex selective abortions.

          • Jon Sorensen

            LoveMeIamALiberal has won this discussion with his knowledge, wisdom and insightful argumentation. Jon is completely destroyed.

  • Anna

    I don’t see how a ban on sex selective abortion can work in practice.

    The foetus is not a human being at all (according to the pro-death camp), just a clump of cells, and a woman’s choice is paramount, till they discover that the cells carry XX chromosomes. Protecting one clump of cells but not another carrying XY chromosomes is supposedly not sex discrimination as it advances some politically correct cause.

    How do they plan to enforce the ban? Once the baby’s sex is revealed, the mother will want termination on the (legally valid) grounds of psychological stress. It is unlikely that she will disclose the real reason if she is aware of the law. So the doctor must probe to find out if the baby’s sex has anything to do with her distress. Let’s suppose the (presumably Asian) mother reveals that she might be subjected to social ostracism, mental and/or physical abuse if she gives birth to a girl, then what? Is the doctor to decide that termination is not justifiable here, as it might have been, had the source of her pain been financial or career related or something less violent? Or should the authorities intervene and arrest the potential abusers as a preventive measure.

    Makes more sense to ban the disclosure of the baby’s sex to parents.

    • chiefofsinners

      Your words are all too true. The tragedy is that most of society just doesn’t care enough to think it through.

  • bockerglory

    Your Gace, IT is all part of Baal and Mammon and Venice worship. In OT times folks used to scrafice first child (asherah poles and all that). Seems we’re doing this in-utero now. Looks like Satan is still around – flattering us or deceiving us with “Rights”.

    It is all to do with consequence free sex …. sex for the sake of physical pleasure only and nothing else. That is why there is so much support for homosexuality (all about “physical” pleasure), gender changing, bi-sexuality etc.

    All about pleasure, all about “me” and all about Satan.

    Jesus is weeping.

  • Sybaseguru

    When does a foetus become a person in Gods eyes? If we look at Exodus 21v22 and the preceding verses we could see that the punishment for causing an abortion is much lesser than causing a death of a person. And the quote paraphrased as “I knew you before you were born” cannot logically be reversed as “therefore God knows all foetuses” (as an analogy try “my wife car is silver therefore all silver cars are owned by my wife????”), all we can say is “God knows some foetuses”.
    Maybe at the point of birth God breathes his spirit into the foetus to create a person in the manner of Ezekiel 37?

    • chiefofsinners

      How would you reconcile the doctrine of God’s omniscience with Him knowing some foetuses but not all?

      • Sybaseguru

        God would know of them, but they would not have a “soul” – see above reply to Tony Phillips

        • chiefofsinners

          Presumably then the same could be said of newborn babies.

    • Tony Phillips

      The author of Exodus had no knowledge of human genetics. A foetus is a unique individual from the moment of conception. Not capable of living independently, but then, neither is a 5 day old infant, or a 5 year old child.

      • Sybaseguru

        But does it have a “soul” (to use an old fashioned term)? My argument would be that it doesn’t, and that’s what differentiates us from animals. Otherwise we are just another animal. The “soul” is what makes us in the “image of God” and allows us to have morality. Without that, freedom is a fantasy, progress is a myth, morality a nonsense, justice a mere matter of custom, blown about on the winds of change.