Gendercide

Since the 1970s, 163 million girl babies have been killed by abortion because their parents have wanted sons.   Jonathan Last reviews a book on the subject:

Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In “Unnatural Selection,” Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance: what it is, how it came to be and what it means for the future.

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China’s and India’s populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl’s counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.

In the mid-1970s, amniocentesis, which reveals the sex of a baby in utero, became available in developing countries. Originally meant to test for fetal abnormalities, by the 1980s it was known as the “sex test” in India and other places where parents put a premium on sons. When amnio was replaced by the cheaper and less invasive ultrasound, it meant that most couples who wanted a baby boy could know ahead of time if they were going to have one and, if they were not, do something about it. “Better 500 rupees now than 5,000 later,” reads one ad put out by an Indian clinic, a reference to the price of a sex test versus the cost of a dowry.

But oddly enough, Ms. Hvistendahl notes, it is usually a country’s rich, not its poor, who lead the way in choosing against girls. “Sex selection typically starts with the urban, well-educated stratum of society,” she writes. “Elites are the first to gain access to a new technology, whether MRI scanners, smart phones—or ultrasound machines.” The behavior of elites then filters down until it becomes part of the broader culture. Even more unexpectedly, the decision to abort baby girls is usually made by women—either by the mother or, sometimes, the mother-in-law.

via Book Review: Unnatural Selection – WSJ.com.

The reviewer goes on to talk about what the female shortage in China and India means.  Ironically, the author of the book is not willing to oppose abortion, despite her data.   Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • NavyMom

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”
    Simple. They’re self-loathing haters.

  • NavyMom

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”
    Simple. They’re self-loathing haters.

  • http://RoseFremer@yahoo.com Rose

    Men prefer sons, at least one.
    Most women are very weak, having given up their power to men in our society. They debase themselves to get the attention of a man.
    Genesis says “Your desire will be (to control) your husband.”
    Women have not upheld Biblical standards of marriage which create harmony between men and women and a safe home for children.

  • http://RoseFremer@yahoo.com Rose

    Men prefer sons, at least one.
    Most women are very weak, having given up their power to men in our society. They debase themselves to get the attention of a man.
    Genesis says “Your desire will be (to control) your husband.”
    Women have not upheld Biblical standards of marriage which create harmony between men and women and a safe home for children.

  • Tom Hering

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    Which feminists do we mean? Are feminists monolithic? What about FFL (Feminists For Life)? Haven’t they been rising up against abortion (all abortion) for some time now? What about the founding mothers of feminism? Weren’t they clear about their opposition to abortion?

  • Tom Hering

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    Which feminists do we mean? Are feminists monolithic? What about FFL (Feminists For Life)? Haven’t they been rising up against abortion (all abortion) for some time now? What about the founding mothers of feminism? Weren’t they clear about their opposition to abortion?

  • Jeremy

    I suppose most people don’t feel the solution to this problem should be the government forcing women to stay pregnant if they don’t want to be. I suspect most people, including feminists, think the solution is to value women more, and give them equals rights, and this is not done by reducing their reproductive freedom.

  • Jeremy

    I suppose most people don’t feel the solution to this problem should be the government forcing women to stay pregnant if they don’t want to be. I suspect most people, including feminists, think the solution is to value women more, and give them equals rights, and this is not done by reducing their reproductive freedom.

  • Bethany

    If one believes abortion rights are integral to gender equality and they are being used for gender inequality, that’s a dilemma, not an easy opponent to rise up against.

    Also note that two major feminist blogs Feministe and Jezebel (click the ALL button above the comments to see actual discussion rather than a banal discussion of photoshop) picked this up nearly a month ago. No doubt very few readers of Cranach will agree with where the comments end up, but it does show that feminists–even the pro-choice variety–are aware of and wrestling with the problem.

  • Bethany

    If one believes abortion rights are integral to gender equality and they are being used for gender inequality, that’s a dilemma, not an easy opponent to rise up against.

    Also note that two major feminist blogs Feministe and Jezebel (click the ALL button above the comments to see actual discussion rather than a banal discussion of photoshop) picked this up nearly a month ago. No doubt very few readers of Cranach will agree with where the comments end up, but it does show that feminists–even the pro-choice variety–are aware of and wrestling with the problem.

  • SAL

    #4 How very primitive. Reproductive freedom seems to be a variant of the idea that murder is fine as long as I own the victim. What’s next human sacrifices to your pagan gods?

  • SAL

    #4 How very primitive. Reproductive freedom seems to be a variant of the idea that murder is fine as long as I own the victim. What’s next human sacrifices to your pagan gods?

  • Tom Hering

    Jeremy @ 4, to value women is to value human life – nothing less, nothing more. This can’t be done at the same time preborn human life is devalued. Simply because there is no human life – can be no human life – without preborn human life.

    Preborn is what you and I once were. How is it possible that you and I, as human life, have value now, but didn’t have value then? Or had less value then? How do you justify your existence at this stage of life without justifying your existence at that stage of life? I’d say the value of women (and men) is inseparable from the value of the preborn.

    As for rights, they’re legal fictions. We ourselves decide who has them and who doesn’t. On what basis do you decide the preborn don’t have equal rights with the born? Or if you believe in natural rights, how are they granted? If you believe they’re granted by God, how do you argue God grants more rights to the born than the preborn?

  • Tom Hering

    Jeremy @ 4, to value women is to value human life – nothing less, nothing more. This can’t be done at the same time preborn human life is devalued. Simply because there is no human life – can be no human life – without preborn human life.

    Preborn is what you and I once were. How is it possible that you and I, as human life, have value now, but didn’t have value then? Or had less value then? How do you justify your existence at this stage of life without justifying your existence at that stage of life? I’d say the value of women (and men) is inseparable from the value of the preborn.

    As for rights, they’re legal fictions. We ourselves decide who has them and who doesn’t. On what basis do you decide the preborn don’t have equal rights with the born? Or if you believe in natural rights, how are they granted? If you believe they’re granted by God, how do you argue God grants more rights to the born than the preborn?

  • Jeremy

    “If one believes abortion rights are integral to gender equality”

    Both sides of the abortion debate believe this, and the role of women is what the abortion debate is all about. It’s almost never you will find an anti-abortion person who doesn’t believe that the normative role of women shouldn’t be as a wife and mother, and that her pursuits outside these roles should be secondary.

    A good question to ask abortion opponents, which woman bothers you more?

    Woman A) A 45-year old stay-at-home married housewife with 5 kids who has had 3 voluntary abortions for various reasons

    Woman B) A female 30-year old physician who has never had a abortion because she always uses condoms, but is unmarried and in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend, and doesn’t feel like having kids or getting married for at least a while.

  • Jeremy

    “If one believes abortion rights are integral to gender equality”

    Both sides of the abortion debate believe this, and the role of women is what the abortion debate is all about. It’s almost never you will find an anti-abortion person who doesn’t believe that the normative role of women shouldn’t be as a wife and mother, and that her pursuits outside these roles should be secondary.

    A good question to ask abortion opponents, which woman bothers you more?

    Woman A) A 45-year old stay-at-home married housewife with 5 kids who has had 3 voluntary abortions for various reasons

    Woman B) A female 30-year old physician who has never had a abortion because she always uses condoms, but is unmarried and in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend, and doesn’t feel like having kids or getting married for at least a while.

  • Carmen

    NavyMom: “Simple. They’re self-loathing haters.”

    What a cruel thing to say. Shame!

    “Most women are very weak, having given up their power to men in our society. They debase themselves to get the attention of a man.”

    Said of women raped on their “wedding” night when they were 11 years old and forced to abort their daughters for fear of being beaten yet again for having a girl. Even if she had the child, she would be forced to watch the girl slowly die in front of her because the boys must be fed first and one can’t waste money on medical care for a daughter.

  • Carmen

    NavyMom: “Simple. They’re self-loathing haters.”

    What a cruel thing to say. Shame!

    “Most women are very weak, having given up their power to men in our society. They debase themselves to get the attention of a man.”

    Said of women raped on their “wedding” night when they were 11 years old and forced to abort their daughters for fear of being beaten yet again for having a girl. Even if she had the child, she would be forced to watch the girl slowly die in front of her because the boys must be fed first and one can’t waste money on medical care for a daughter.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy: I’m an “anti-abortion person” (as you may have guessed)–at least when it comes to abortion on demand–and I don’t believe that the normative role for all women is to be a wife and mother, and I don’t believe my position on the “normative role of women” is relevant to the ethical question of abortion anyway. Obviously, for the species to survive, some women not only must but will fulfill that role, but that’s no worse than saying that the “normative” role for some, if not most men, is to be a father, with the attendant duties of getting up every morning and punching the clock for the man (apparently a liberating vision for old-school feminists). Would it bother you if I said that a (not “the”–no one has a singular vocation) “normative” role for most men is to be a father and husband, that other pursuits and roles should be secondary, and that the world would be a better place if most men recognized this?

    And why is that a “good” question to ask abortion opponents? You’re just asking for people to indulge in legalism, an obvious distraction from the real question at hand. I’m opposed to voluntary abortion, regardless of whether the person having an abortion is a sterling mother otherwise. I’m also opposed to extra-marital sex, by the way, but what does that have to do with my condemnation of abortion? And why does it matter that she’s a successful doctor? Good for her, I guess? That doesn’t render her sin any less sinful (let’s agree for the purposes of argument that her sexual choices are sinful). We’re condemning an action–indeed, a trend of actions–not people here. I’m supposed to embrace abortion because in your hypothetical world it’s the stay-at-home mother who seeks them? And of course, in your hypothetical world of straw men, my opposition to abortion of course means that I’m opposed to women doing anything manly like becoming a doctor or having sex. Where do you get your information on conservatives from, man? Your parodies are making you look ignorant, not conservatives!

    /also, is your point that the mass genocide of women via abortion is acceptable because otherwise more women would have to be stay-at-home moms?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy: I’m an “anti-abortion person” (as you may have guessed)–at least when it comes to abortion on demand–and I don’t believe that the normative role for all women is to be a wife and mother, and I don’t believe my position on the “normative role of women” is relevant to the ethical question of abortion anyway. Obviously, for the species to survive, some women not only must but will fulfill that role, but that’s no worse than saying that the “normative” role for some, if not most men, is to be a father, with the attendant duties of getting up every morning and punching the clock for the man (apparently a liberating vision for old-school feminists). Would it bother you if I said that a (not “the”–no one has a singular vocation) “normative” role for most men is to be a father and husband, that other pursuits and roles should be secondary, and that the world would be a better place if most men recognized this?

    And why is that a “good” question to ask abortion opponents? You’re just asking for people to indulge in legalism, an obvious distraction from the real question at hand. I’m opposed to voluntary abortion, regardless of whether the person having an abortion is a sterling mother otherwise. I’m also opposed to extra-marital sex, by the way, but what does that have to do with my condemnation of abortion? And why does it matter that she’s a successful doctor? Good for her, I guess? That doesn’t render her sin any less sinful (let’s agree for the purposes of argument that her sexual choices are sinful). We’re condemning an action–indeed, a trend of actions–not people here. I’m supposed to embrace abortion because in your hypothetical world it’s the stay-at-home mother who seeks them? And of course, in your hypothetical world of straw men, my opposition to abortion of course means that I’m opposed to women doing anything manly like becoming a doctor or having sex. Where do you get your information on conservatives from, man? Your parodies are making you look ignorant, not conservatives!

    /also, is your point that the mass genocide of women via abortion is acceptable because otherwise more women would have to be stay-at-home moms?

  • Holly

    It is ironic (and sad) that millions of women have been sacrificed this way on the altar of “women’s reproductive rights.” As to that, my reproductive rights end at an unborn human’s right to life.

  • Holly

    It is ironic (and sad) that millions of women have been sacrificed this way on the altar of “women’s reproductive rights.” As to that, my reproductive rights end at an unborn human’s right to life.

  • Booklover

    Jeremy @8:

    You need to back up your statements with fact, or simply read Tom Hering’s posts more carefully.

    I don’t know where you are finding the research that shows that all pro-life women remain barefoot and in the kitchen (although there is nothing wrong with that.) One doesn’t have to look very far to find dozens of professional women who are strongly pro-life. I can give many personally-known examples of career women who are strongly pro-life; even one who is outstanding in her field, who was raped, and kept and loved her child.

  • Booklover

    Jeremy @8:

    You need to back up your statements with fact, or simply read Tom Hering’s posts more carefully.

    I don’t know where you are finding the research that shows that all pro-life women remain barefoot and in the kitchen (although there is nothing wrong with that.) One doesn’t have to look very far to find dozens of professional women who are strongly pro-life. I can give many personally-known examples of career women who are strongly pro-life; even one who is outstanding in her field, who was raped, and kept and loved her child.

  • Jeremy

    Let’s not discuss personal examples, and let’s discuss what is typical. Imagine I have a group of ten thousand people, and I were to tell you that they have indicated on a survey that they agree with the statements that “Women deserve equal rights with men” and “A woman has a right to pursue a career if she desires”. Would you imagine that more people in this group would be pro-choice or pro-life?

  • Jeremy

    Let’s not discuss personal examples, and let’s discuss what is typical. Imagine I have a group of ten thousand people, and I were to tell you that they have indicated on a survey that they agree with the statements that “Women deserve equal rights with men” and “A woman has a right to pursue a career if she desires”. Would you imagine that more people in this group would be pro-choice or pro-life?

  • Carmen

    @Jeremy – are you saying that pro-life individuals as a whole do not believe that “women deserve equal rights with men”?

  • Carmen

    @Jeremy – are you saying that pro-life individuals as a whole do not believe that “women deserve equal rights with men”?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy@13: Show me the survey and then we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

    Smoke that’s really missing the point! Pro-abortion folks should be loudly condemning the fact that abortion targets women so disproportionately! The “purpose” of abortion is to save the lives of women, not to be a “convenience” or a tool of social engineering for repressive regimes. Even if one is adamantly pro-abortion, this is a total perversion of what the abortion movement and women’s rights are about.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy@13: Show me the survey and then we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

    Smoke that’s really missing the point! Pro-abortion folks should be loudly condemning the fact that abortion targets women so disproportionately! The “purpose” of abortion is to save the lives of women, not to be a “convenience” or a tool of social engineering for repressive regimes. Even if one is adamantly pro-abortion, this is a total perversion of what the abortion movement and women’s rights are about.

  • Louis

    Gender-selection is as old as humanity itself. It has just found a more convenient MO. That’s all.

  • Louis

    Gender-selection is as old as humanity itself. It has just found a more convenient MO. That’s all.

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis@16: True…but that doesn’t really validate what’s going on here, does it? Not that you were attempting to provide validation, but it’s not a terribly useful observation.

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis@16: True…but that doesn’t really validate what’s going on here, does it? Not that you were attempting to provide validation, but it’s not a terribly useful observation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@13), good question. But are you considering the full range of possibilities?

    For instance, let’s say I take another ten thousand people and divide them into groups based on their response to the question “Do you floss daily?” Now, of the two groups — those who answered “yes” and those who answered “no” — which do you suppose has more murderers in it?

    And what effect should this thought experiment have on our discussion here?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@13), good question. But are you considering the full range of possibilities?

    For instance, let’s say I take another ten thousand people and divide them into groups based on their response to the question “Do you floss daily?” Now, of the two groups — those who answered “yes” and those who answered “no” — which do you suppose has more murderers in it?

    And what effect should this thought experiment have on our discussion here?

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    I do wonder how people reconcile the existence of gender-selective abortions with the party line that it is not a person in the womb. What, exactly, is it whose gender has been determined, but not preferred? That I know of, only living things can be male or female, biologically speaking.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    I do wonder how people reconcile the existence of gender-selective abortions with the party line that it is not a person in the womb. What, exactly, is it whose gender has been determined, but not preferred? That I know of, only living things can be male or female, biologically speaking.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy, in my ideological, simplistic fantasy of the world, most progressives are 9/11 Truthers who believe George Bush planned and executed the attacks in New York. In order to prove this claim, I’m citing a study in which 10,000 self-identified progressives are surveyed about their thoughts regarding 9/11. Now, be honest, how many of those 10,000 do you think will be Truthers?

    Of course, this study was never actually conducted. I just made it up. But it’s pretty convincing, right? It’s indisputable based upon this imaginary survey that most progressives are Truthers.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy, in my ideological, simplistic fantasy of the world, most progressives are 9/11 Truthers who believe George Bush planned and executed the attacks in New York. In order to prove this claim, I’m citing a study in which 10,000 self-identified progressives are surveyed about their thoughts regarding 9/11. Now, be honest, how many of those 10,000 do you think will be Truthers?

    Of course, this study was never actually conducted. I just made it up. But it’s pretty convincing, right? It’s indisputable based upon this imaginary survey that most progressives are Truthers.

  • Cincinnatus

    /because science is about confirming truths we already know, right?

  • Cincinnatus

    /because science is about confirming truths we already know, right?

  • DonS

    Good comments discussion.

    It seems to be the reviewer’s take that the author’s concern is more about the fallout of this fact that 163 million or so girls have been murdered in the womb than with the fact itself. For two reasons, one being potential social disorder because of a testosterone-laden excess male population, and the other being the potential impact on future abortion rights.

    Perhaps that is the reviewer’s bias — I have not read the book. But, if the observation is true, it is sad that the emphasis is placed on anything other than the tragedy of 163 million lives snuffed out at their very inception.

  • DonS

    Good comments discussion.

    It seems to be the reviewer’s take that the author’s concern is more about the fallout of this fact that 163 million or so girls have been murdered in the womb than with the fact itself. For two reasons, one being potential social disorder because of a testosterone-laden excess male population, and the other being the potential impact on future abortion rights.

    Perhaps that is the reviewer’s bias — I have not read the book. But, if the observation is true, it is sad that the emphasis is placed on anything other than the tragedy of 163 million lives snuffed out at their very inception.

  • Cincinnatus

    DonS: I noticed that myself. Of course, it’s quite a quandary for the author: in cultures that particularly value male progeny (China, Korea, etc.), the only effective method to squelch gender-selective abortion would be to limit or eliminate abortion altogether–or at least to eliminate abortion on demand. But of course this tarnishes the hallowed temple of “reproductive choice.”

    …Leaving the author no choice but to whine fruitlessly about socioeconomic disturbances that are impossible to ameliorate when the only effective solution has been de facto foreclosed. Why did she even bother?

    Of course, I suppose there’s always the option of spending billions and decades in a vain effort to “educate” such populations into altering their notions of family, inheritance, and religion.

  • Cincinnatus

    DonS: I noticed that myself. Of course, it’s quite a quandary for the author: in cultures that particularly value male progeny (China, Korea, etc.), the only effective method to squelch gender-selective abortion would be to limit or eliminate abortion altogether–or at least to eliminate abortion on demand. But of course this tarnishes the hallowed temple of “reproductive choice.”

    …Leaving the author no choice but to whine fruitlessly about socioeconomic disturbances that are impossible to ameliorate when the only effective solution has been de facto foreclosed. Why did she even bother?

    Of course, I suppose there’s always the option of spending billions and decades in a vain effort to “educate” such populations into altering their notions of family, inheritance, and religion.

  • DonS

    Ah, yes, Cincinnatus. And, of course, it should be a government-funded education program, preferably under the auspices of a respected international agency sponsored by the UN, and the focus of the education effort should be to ensure that the cultures and values of these folks are not questioned or challenged in any way. You know, the prime directive. Multiculturalism.

    I’m sure that’ll work.

  • DonS

    Ah, yes, Cincinnatus. And, of course, it should be a government-funded education program, preferably under the auspices of a respected international agency sponsored by the UN, and the focus of the education effort should be to ensure that the cultures and values of these folks are not questioned or challenged in any way. You know, the prime directive. Multiculturalism.

    I’m sure that’ll work.

  • Jeremy

    “are you saying that pro-life individuals as a whole do not believe that “women deserve equal rights with men”?”

    Yes, I’m certainly claiming that, but I’m going further. I’m claiming that the aim of the anti-abortion movement has much more to do with the roles of women than abortion itself. The purpose of my question was to make the pro-lifer ask which he values more, the life of a fetus, or a preferred, traditional role for women. Here was the question as I originally heard it, that every pro-lifer should ask himself: If you’re a pro-lifer, which country would you rather live in, the Gold Country, or the Silver Country? (By the way, I’d love to get your answer if you consider yourself pro-life.)

    The Gold Country:
    In the Gold Country, there is a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion at any stage of fetal development. The abortion rate is very close to zero, and the federal government considers stopping abortion as important as stopping any homicide. BUT: in the Gold Country, women greatly value their careers, and its citizens strive for gender equality. Women put off marriage and children until they have their careers established. Genders are regarded fundamentally equal. Women earn just as much money as men, and for every male politician, CEO, military officer, there is also one female one. Men and women share housework and child care equally, and it’s just as common to see house-wives as house-husbands. Women are often promiscuous, but they are extremely careful to use condoms and other non-abortive birth control forms so pregnancy doesn’t result.

    The Silver Country:
    In the Silver Country, there is a constitutional amendment that guarantees abortion as a right, and a woman may have an abortion for any reason, at any stage of fetal development, and the government will fund it. The abortion rate is extremely high, and it is often used as a form of birth control. BUT: in the Silver Country, women in general value their roles as wives and mothers as the supreme purpose in their life, and most women go to college to get married. Most women in the Silver Country believe they ought to be submissive to their husbands, and believe in separate gender roles for men and women. While women may or may not have careers, most desire to be stay-at-home wives and mothers. In general women in the Silver Country save sex for marriage.

    So to the pro-lifer, which country would you rather live in?

  • Jeremy

    “are you saying that pro-life individuals as a whole do not believe that “women deserve equal rights with men”?”

    Yes, I’m certainly claiming that, but I’m going further. I’m claiming that the aim of the anti-abortion movement has much more to do with the roles of women than abortion itself. The purpose of my question was to make the pro-lifer ask which he values more, the life of a fetus, or a preferred, traditional role for women. Here was the question as I originally heard it, that every pro-lifer should ask himself: If you’re a pro-lifer, which country would you rather live in, the Gold Country, or the Silver Country? (By the way, I’d love to get your answer if you consider yourself pro-life.)

    The Gold Country:
    In the Gold Country, there is a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion at any stage of fetal development. The abortion rate is very close to zero, and the federal government considers stopping abortion as important as stopping any homicide. BUT: in the Gold Country, women greatly value their careers, and its citizens strive for gender equality. Women put off marriage and children until they have their careers established. Genders are regarded fundamentally equal. Women earn just as much money as men, and for every male politician, CEO, military officer, there is also one female one. Men and women share housework and child care equally, and it’s just as common to see house-wives as house-husbands. Women are often promiscuous, but they are extremely careful to use condoms and other non-abortive birth control forms so pregnancy doesn’t result.

    The Silver Country:
    In the Silver Country, there is a constitutional amendment that guarantees abortion as a right, and a woman may have an abortion for any reason, at any stage of fetal development, and the government will fund it. The abortion rate is extremely high, and it is often used as a form of birth control. BUT: in the Silver Country, women in general value their roles as wives and mothers as the supreme purpose in their life, and most women go to college to get married. Most women in the Silver Country believe they ought to be submissive to their husbands, and believe in separate gender roles for men and women. While women may or may not have careers, most desire to be stay-at-home wives and mothers. In general women in the Silver Country save sex for marriage.

    So to the pro-lifer, which country would you rather live in?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy: While I ponder your elegant thought experiment, let me ask you an equally serious and plausible question. Would you rather live in Middle Earth or Narnia? In order to simplify things, let’s exclude the film versions of each fictional world. Go.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy: While I ponder your elegant thought experiment, let me ask you an equally serious and plausible question. Would you rather live in Middle Earth or Narnia? In order to simplify things, let’s exclude the film versions of each fictional world. Go.

  • Cincinnatus

    But seriously, the vast majority of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe it’s immoral in itself, not because it serves as a proxy for getting women back in the home. How would prohibiting abortion get women back in the house anyway, Jeremy? (And if that’s your argument, wouldn’t Gold Country be even more fake it already is?) That ship sailed long ago. Contraception was a boon, but the real reason women have been “liberated” from domesticity is because…they got up and left the home. That happened before 1973, and I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who would say something like this: “Thank God for abortion so I can kill any fetuses that would keep me out of the office!” I mean, my God man. We have contraception, daycare, public schools, etc.–none of these things “liberated” women in themselves, but all of them are more plausible suggestions than abortion.

    You see, Jeremy, some of us have authentic moral convictions–e.g., that abortion is murder or that lying is wrong–that are not related to a conspiratorial patriarchal agenda to suppress women and minorities. I know this may come as a surprise, but just take my word for it and people will be more inclined to take you seriously.

  • Cincinnatus

    But seriously, the vast majority of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe it’s immoral in itself, not because it serves as a proxy for getting women back in the home. How would prohibiting abortion get women back in the house anyway, Jeremy? (And if that’s your argument, wouldn’t Gold Country be even more fake it already is?) That ship sailed long ago. Contraception was a boon, but the real reason women have been “liberated” from domesticity is because…they got up and left the home. That happened before 1973, and I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who would say something like this: “Thank God for abortion so I can kill any fetuses that would keep me out of the office!” I mean, my God man. We have contraception, daycare, public schools, etc.–none of these things “liberated” women in themselves, but all of them are more plausible suggestions than abortion.

    You see, Jeremy, some of us have authentic moral convictions–e.g., that abortion is murder or that lying is wrong–that are not related to a conspiratorial patriarchal agenda to suppress women and minorities. I know this may come as a surprise, but just take my word for it and people will be more inclined to take you seriously.

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    Jeremy,

    Do you believe in Evolution?

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    Jeremy,

    Do you believe in Evolution?

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus @ 27 – good analysis.

    Patrick @ 28 – explain your question?

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus @ 27 – good analysis.

    Patrick @ 28 – explain your question?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@25), your argument here appears to consist entirely of incredibly ham-fisted (and extremely hypothetical) either-or arguments that. The intent of which, I suppose, is to reveal the true thoughts underlying someone’s merely claimed moral convictions. I think Cincinnatus has aptly replied to you, at that level.

    My question is: why do you (apparently) think that believing abortion (i.e. murder) to be wrong cannot be a compelling force of itself? Why must there be an ulterior motive? The protection of life, after all, has been something of a fundamental goal and guiding force for legal systems for … oh, quite a while now.

    You come across like someone who doesn’t actually talk very much to pro-lifers, to be honest. I’ll have to ask my wife, who has two more master’s degrees than I do, works outside the home, and makes a similar amount of money to me, what she thinks about your arguments.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@25), your argument here appears to consist entirely of incredibly ham-fisted (and extremely hypothetical) either-or arguments that. The intent of which, I suppose, is to reveal the true thoughts underlying someone’s merely claimed moral convictions. I think Cincinnatus has aptly replied to you, at that level.

    My question is: why do you (apparently) think that believing abortion (i.e. murder) to be wrong cannot be a compelling force of itself? Why must there be an ulterior motive? The protection of life, after all, has been something of a fundamental goal and guiding force for legal systems for … oh, quite a while now.

    You come across like someone who doesn’t actually talk very much to pro-lifers, to be honest. I’ll have to ask my wife, who has two more master’s degrees than I do, works outside the home, and makes a similar amount of money to me, what she thinks about your arguments.

  • Jeremy

    @Todd

    “My question is: why do you (apparently) think that believing abortion (i.e. murder) to be wrong cannot be a compelling force of itself? ”

    For one, pro-lifers on this board can’t answer what ought to be 2 very simple questions. I presented a hypothetical woman who murdered 3 of her children and a hypothetical society that is committing an ongoing holocaust. Why isn’t the other choice easy?

    Secondly, I don’t know many pro-lifers who actually thinks abortion is really murder. Anytime I ask them about what should be the legal penalty for the woman who commits this “murder”, they start squirming. They can’t even admit she should get prison time. But if somebody commits animal cruelty or kills their neighbor’s cocker spaniel, well then nobody has problems talking about criminal penalties.

  • Jeremy

    @Todd

    “My question is: why do you (apparently) think that believing abortion (i.e. murder) to be wrong cannot be a compelling force of itself? ”

    For one, pro-lifers on this board can’t answer what ought to be 2 very simple questions. I presented a hypothetical woman who murdered 3 of her children and a hypothetical society that is committing an ongoing holocaust. Why isn’t the other choice easy?

    Secondly, I don’t know many pro-lifers who actually thinks abortion is really murder. Anytime I ask them about what should be the legal penalty for the woman who commits this “murder”, they start squirming. They can’t even admit she should get prison time. But if somebody commits animal cruelty or kills their neighbor’s cocker spaniel, well then nobody has problems talking about criminal penalties.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy:

    https://7chan.org/co/src/128721641817.jpg

    And how are your questions simple? Your dilemma of Gold and Silver is ridiculous at every level. I’m not going to indulge it.

    Second, in which example was an “ongoing holocaust” happening? Speaking of ongoing holocausts, Jeremy, here’s a question more pertinent to the thread: what are your thoughts on the systematic extermination of 163,000,000,000 female fetuses/babies? By my calculations, that’s a number of deaths roughly equal to over 27 actual Holocausts. You could fight World War II twice over again and barely cost that number of lives. That’s the real question here.

    /and seriously, I don’t believe abortion is murder because I might be skeptical of life sentences for those who commit abortion?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jeremy:

    https://7chan.org/co/src/128721641817.jpg

    And how are your questions simple? Your dilemma of Gold and Silver is ridiculous at every level. I’m not going to indulge it.

    Second, in which example was an “ongoing holocaust” happening? Speaking of ongoing holocausts, Jeremy, here’s a question more pertinent to the thread: what are your thoughts on the systematic extermination of 163,000,000,000 female fetuses/babies? By my calculations, that’s a number of deaths roughly equal to over 27 actual Holocausts. You could fight World War II twice over again and barely cost that number of lives. That’s the real question here.

    /and seriously, I don’t believe abortion is murder because I might be skeptical of life sentences for those who commit abortion?

  • Jonathan

    Jeremy, you’ve touched a nerve. Keep at it.

  • Jonathan

    Jeremy, you’ve touched a nerve. Keep at it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan: Not really. I just like to feed trolls.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan: Not really. I just like to feed trolls.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@31) said:

    For one, pro-lifers on this board can’t answer what ought to be 2 very simple questions.

    I think you’re confusing “can’t answer” with “don’t feel like responding to” … or possibly with “are likely rolling their eyes at”.

    Speaking of which, which would you rather live in: Super Unicorn Land, where everyone is given 10 free abortions per year, no questions asked, but the government is replaced by a theocracy run only by fundamentalist Evangelicals, or Magical Fairy Land, where fundamentalist Evangelicals are systematically hunted to extinction, but you’re not allowed to murder the unborn? It’s a simple, honest question.

    Secondly, I don’t know many pro-lifers who actually thinks abortion is really murder.

    Like I said (@30), it seems like you don’t many pro-lifers, in general. Just a guess.

    Anytime I ask them about what should be the legal penalty for the woman who commits this “murder”, they start squirming.

    I’m willing to bet what you actually ask them is what the legal penalty should be for a woman who contracts out the murder of her child. It’s the doctor who commits the murder.

    And hey, whaddya know, in many states right now, hiring a contract killer carries a significantly reduced penalty, compared with being the actual hitman! Does that mean that those states don’t think a murder committed by a hitman is really murder? (This is your logic, not mine.)

    Do you think all instances where one person’s actions lead to the death of another person should necessarily carry the same penalty? Because that suggests you’re simply not familiar with our justice system at all.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jeremy (@31) said:

    For one, pro-lifers on this board can’t answer what ought to be 2 very simple questions.

    I think you’re confusing “can’t answer” with “don’t feel like responding to” … or possibly with “are likely rolling their eyes at”.

    Speaking of which, which would you rather live in: Super Unicorn Land, where everyone is given 10 free abortions per year, no questions asked, but the government is replaced by a theocracy run only by fundamentalist Evangelicals, or Magical Fairy Land, where fundamentalist Evangelicals are systematically hunted to extinction, but you’re not allowed to murder the unborn? It’s a simple, honest question.

    Secondly, I don’t know many pro-lifers who actually thinks abortion is really murder.

    Like I said (@30), it seems like you don’t many pro-lifers, in general. Just a guess.

    Anytime I ask them about what should be the legal penalty for the woman who commits this “murder”, they start squirming.

    I’m willing to bet what you actually ask them is what the legal penalty should be for a woman who contracts out the murder of her child. It’s the doctor who commits the murder.

    And hey, whaddya know, in many states right now, hiring a contract killer carries a significantly reduced penalty, compared with being the actual hitman! Does that mean that those states don’t think a murder committed by a hitman is really murder? (This is your logic, not mine.)

    Do you think all instances where one person’s actions lead to the death of another person should necessarily carry the same penalty? Because that suggests you’re simply not familiar with our justice system at all.

  • Jonathan

    @35
    tODD, I’ve not done a national survey, but that ain’t the case in my state. The one who hires the actual killer is treated the same as the killer; both, in fact, are subject to the death penalty. We’ve got some on death row who financed the murder and weren’t even at the scene of the crime. (Typically, these cases involve women, who get someone to kill their husband or child for the insurance.)

    As for abortion laws, traditionally they have excused medically necessary abortions, a concession to reality that many pro lifers today won’t make. But in other circumstances, the doctor usually got a heavier penalty (say, 3-5 years), but the real deterent was the loss of his medical license on conviction of a felony. The woman (or whoever procured the abortion) might get half that. And this was the law in states that had the death penalty for rape and murder. Abortion may have been, technically, murder, back in the good old days, but the act was not, in the law’s eyes, equal to the murder of a human outside the womb.

    Jeremy’s question is well taken. The rhetoric on abortion now is far more heated, uncompromising, and strident than it ever was pre Roe v. Wade, when the act could be criminalized. Because it can’t be outlawed now, people can say whatever the heck they want and not be held accountable.

  • Jonathan

    @35
    tODD, I’ve not done a national survey, but that ain’t the case in my state. The one who hires the actual killer is treated the same as the killer; both, in fact, are subject to the death penalty. We’ve got some on death row who financed the murder and weren’t even at the scene of the crime. (Typically, these cases involve women, who get someone to kill their husband or child for the insurance.)

    As for abortion laws, traditionally they have excused medically necessary abortions, a concession to reality that many pro lifers today won’t make. But in other circumstances, the doctor usually got a heavier penalty (say, 3-5 years), but the real deterent was the loss of his medical license on conviction of a felony. The woman (or whoever procured the abortion) might get half that. And this was the law in states that had the death penalty for rape and murder. Abortion may have been, technically, murder, back in the good old days, but the act was not, in the law’s eyes, equal to the murder of a human outside the womb.

    Jeremy’s question is well taken. The rhetoric on abortion now is far more heated, uncompromising, and strident than it ever was pre Roe v. Wade, when the act could be criminalized. Because it can’t be outlawed now, people can say whatever the heck they want and not be held accountable.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan@36: I don’t know what thread you’ve been reading, but I’ve yet to see any “heated, uncompromising, and strident” rhetoric in this discussion–unless Jeremy’s absurd, leading fantasies qualify. And I haven’t the foggiest notion about what sort of “accountability” you’re expecting. If I say something of which you disapprove, do I have to go stand in a corner for 10 minutes or something?

    Let’s get something out of the way that has been unfortunately obscured by Jeremy’s adventures in Imaginationland: 163 million souls is a staggering number. That’s half the population of the entire United States. Those are babies/fetuses who have been aborted. If one believes that abortion is murder, that’s not a statistic to be tip-toeing around lest we say something “unaccountable.” To brush over this fact, regardless of your position on abortion, is morally unserious. Almost all the folks I know in favor of abortion–a number I guarantee is higher than the number of pro-lifers you know–want to see the number of abortions decrease. Abortion, except to a few loony toons, is not a desirable thing.

    That said, what you and Jeremy are doing is something I’ve heard a few pro-lifers do (and I condemn it when they do): It just so happens that, statistically speaking, female fetuses and black fetuses are extinguished disproportionately by abortion. In the latter case, the African American population in the United States is literally declining in sheer numbers because of abortion–literally because of abortion an entire ethnic group is in danger of disappearing. These are statistics that should at the very least perturb advocates of abortion.

    So here’s what some pro-lifers claim: those in favor of abortion must be sexist and racist because abortion is in process of liquidating blacks (in America) and women (in other parts of the world). Now, aside from a few moonbats, I am certain this is not true of most people who favor abortion. They favor abortion because they wish to prevent back-ally procedures, to save the lives of women with dangerous pregnancies, to limit the shame experienced by victims of rape and incest, or, on the extreme college-campus fringe of things, to give women unlimited autonomy over their bodies and the “tumorous” fetuses that afflict them. I would never claim that pro-abortion folks are, as a group, secretly racist and misogynist.

    And yet Jeremy blusters in and, instead of providing a thoughtful counterpoint to the pro-life position, constructs several ludicrous and leading thought-experiments designed to question the motives of pro-lifers, to prove that they are hypocritical, guilty of moral equivocation, and covertly harboring a patriarchal agenda designed to suppress and oppress women. For some reason, Jeremy–and apparently you, Jonathan–finds it inconceivable that pro-lifers, such as myself and my wife, for instance, could have authentic moral convictions that we maintain for legitimate and explicit reasons. And even if we do have such convictions, Jeremy hopes to torpedo them by demonstrating that we haven’t fully clarified our inchoate notions of the appropriate penalties for committing abortion were it legal (NOTE: no one here has yet proposed any specific penalties for abortion, so I don’t know who on earth you’re speaking to when you drone about how pr0-lifers are inconsistent on this question, etc.).

    So come off it, Jonathan. So far, nothing Jeremy has said has been “well-taken” because he hasn’t even made an argument. He’s just attempted to impugn my motives, and I can’t say that I appreciate that bit of moral sophistry.

    p.s. If you insist on playing that game, though, let’s do it: Pro-lifers secretly want women to re-commit themselves to family and domestic life. Pro-choicers secretly want to exterminate women and blacks. Now who comes out of that comparison looking more loathsome?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan@36: I don’t know what thread you’ve been reading, but I’ve yet to see any “heated, uncompromising, and strident” rhetoric in this discussion–unless Jeremy’s absurd, leading fantasies qualify. And I haven’t the foggiest notion about what sort of “accountability” you’re expecting. If I say something of which you disapprove, do I have to go stand in a corner for 10 minutes or something?

    Let’s get something out of the way that has been unfortunately obscured by Jeremy’s adventures in Imaginationland: 163 million souls is a staggering number. That’s half the population of the entire United States. Those are babies/fetuses who have been aborted. If one believes that abortion is murder, that’s not a statistic to be tip-toeing around lest we say something “unaccountable.” To brush over this fact, regardless of your position on abortion, is morally unserious. Almost all the folks I know in favor of abortion–a number I guarantee is higher than the number of pro-lifers you know–want to see the number of abortions decrease. Abortion, except to a few loony toons, is not a desirable thing.

    That said, what you and Jeremy are doing is something I’ve heard a few pro-lifers do (and I condemn it when they do): It just so happens that, statistically speaking, female fetuses and black fetuses are extinguished disproportionately by abortion. In the latter case, the African American population in the United States is literally declining in sheer numbers because of abortion–literally because of abortion an entire ethnic group is in danger of disappearing. These are statistics that should at the very least perturb advocates of abortion.

    So here’s what some pro-lifers claim: those in favor of abortion must be sexist and racist because abortion is in process of liquidating blacks (in America) and women (in other parts of the world). Now, aside from a few moonbats, I am certain this is not true of most people who favor abortion. They favor abortion because they wish to prevent back-ally procedures, to save the lives of women with dangerous pregnancies, to limit the shame experienced by victims of rape and incest, or, on the extreme college-campus fringe of things, to give women unlimited autonomy over their bodies and the “tumorous” fetuses that afflict them. I would never claim that pro-abortion folks are, as a group, secretly racist and misogynist.

    And yet Jeremy blusters in and, instead of providing a thoughtful counterpoint to the pro-life position, constructs several ludicrous and leading thought-experiments designed to question the motives of pro-lifers, to prove that they are hypocritical, guilty of moral equivocation, and covertly harboring a patriarchal agenda designed to suppress and oppress women. For some reason, Jeremy–and apparently you, Jonathan–finds it inconceivable that pro-lifers, such as myself and my wife, for instance, could have authentic moral convictions that we maintain for legitimate and explicit reasons. And even if we do have such convictions, Jeremy hopes to torpedo them by demonstrating that we haven’t fully clarified our inchoate notions of the appropriate penalties for committing abortion were it legal (NOTE: no one here has yet proposed any specific penalties for abortion, so I don’t know who on earth you’re speaking to when you drone about how pr0-lifers are inconsistent on this question, etc.).

    So come off it, Jonathan. So far, nothing Jeremy has said has been “well-taken” because he hasn’t even made an argument. He’s just attempted to impugn my motives, and I can’t say that I appreciate that bit of moral sophistry.

    p.s. If you insist on playing that game, though, let’s do it: Pro-lifers secretly want women to re-commit themselves to family and domestic life. Pro-choicers secretly want to exterminate women and blacks. Now who comes out of that comparison looking more loathsome?

  • Jonathan

    @37, it’s not about you, Cincinnatus. I wrote my piece without once thinking of anything you’ve (ever) posted here. Yet thanks for confirming my observation about overheated rhetoric.

  • Jonathan

    @37, it’s not about you, Cincinnatus. I wrote my piece without once thinking of anything you’ve (ever) posted here. Yet thanks for confirming my observation about overheated rhetoric.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan (@36), well, I’m not so sure now about my earlier statement that “hiring a contract killer carries a significantly reduced penalty, compared with being the actual hitman”. I’d found some articles suggesting that was so in California, but now I’ve found other articles that dispute that. In short: I don’t know.

    As for abortion laws, traditionally they have excused medically necessary abortions, a concession to reality that many pro lifers today won’t make.

    News to me. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “medically necessary”. Most pro-lifers I have talked to (as well as me) feel that if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancy), then there is no clear path to preserving both lives (which is, of course, the goal for pro-lifers). As such, acting to preserve only the life of the mother might be the best outcome. Can you point to any major pro-life groups that openly refuse to make such a concession?

    Abortion may have been, technically, murder, back in the good old days, but the act was not, in the law’s eyes, equal to the murder of a human outside the womb.

    Actually, what makes abortion murder — then and now — is the fact that another human life is intentionally being taken. That said, the law has always, as far as I know, acknowledged various factors in determining the severity of a punishment.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan (@36), well, I’m not so sure now about my earlier statement that “hiring a contract killer carries a significantly reduced penalty, compared with being the actual hitman”. I’d found some articles suggesting that was so in California, but now I’ve found other articles that dispute that. In short: I don’t know.

    As for abortion laws, traditionally they have excused medically necessary abortions, a concession to reality that many pro lifers today won’t make.

    News to me. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “medically necessary”. Most pro-lifers I have talked to (as well as me) feel that if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancy), then there is no clear path to preserving both lives (which is, of course, the goal for pro-lifers). As such, acting to preserve only the life of the mother might be the best outcome. Can you point to any major pro-life groups that openly refuse to make such a concession?

    Abortion may have been, technically, murder, back in the good old days, but the act was not, in the law’s eyes, equal to the murder of a human outside the womb.

    Actually, what makes abortion murder — then and now — is the fact that another human life is intentionally being taken. That said, the law has always, as far as I know, acknowledged various factors in determining the severity of a punishment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It’s almost never you will find an anti-abortion person who doesn’t believe that the normative role of women shouldn’t be as a wife and mother, and that her pursuits outside these roles should be secondary.”

    Nature casts women in that role, not anti-abortion folks. Feminists seek to masculinize women by preaching that women should be like men and do what men do. Even in high status highly compensated professions, women have high drop out rates once they gain the confidence to say, gee, I never wanted this. Pick up any parenting magazine and you will find that most working mothers would rather be home. Ever wonder why you see so few women out pouring concrete, or installing cable, or collecting garbage? Cuz’ they don’t really want to do that and the pay premium doesn’t motivate them like it does guys. Hey, I bet parents in India noticed that, too. Men are productive. Women are reproductive. Blame nature.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It’s almost never you will find an anti-abortion person who doesn’t believe that the normative role of women shouldn’t be as a wife and mother, and that her pursuits outside these roles should be secondary.”

    Nature casts women in that role, not anti-abortion folks. Feminists seek to masculinize women by preaching that women should be like men and do what men do. Even in high status highly compensated professions, women have high drop out rates once they gain the confidence to say, gee, I never wanted this. Pick up any parenting magazine and you will find that most working mothers would rather be home. Ever wonder why you see so few women out pouring concrete, or installing cable, or collecting garbage? Cuz’ they don’t really want to do that and the pay premium doesn’t motivate them like it does guys. Hey, I bet parents in India noticed that, too. Men are productive. Women are reproductive. Blame nature.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan said (@38), “I wrote my piece without once thinking”. Fair enough.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan said (@38), “I wrote my piece without once thinking”. Fair enough.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In the latter case, the African American population in the United States is literally declining in sheer numbers because of abortion–literally because of abortion an entire ethnic group is in danger of disappearing.”

    While true, it is also true that Africans are immigrating so, I think I read the numbers are actually about stable, but the percentage is declining as other immigrants outpace them. The tfr of African Americans whose grandparents were born here is below replacement. Not meaning to nitpick, just clarify.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In the latter case, the African American population in the United States is literally declining in sheer numbers because of abortion–literally because of abortion an entire ethnic group is in danger of disappearing.”

    While true, it is also true that Africans are immigrating so, I think I read the numbers are actually about stable, but the percentage is declining as other immigrants outpace them. The tfr of African Americans whose grandparents were born here is below replacement. Not meaning to nitpick, just clarify.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “covertly harboring a patriarchal agenda designed to suppress and oppress women.”

    Hey, I openly promote the patriarchal agenda that gave the world civilization, arts, sciences, cell phones, restrooms, airplanes, vaccinations, democratic gov’t. I could go on.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “covertly harboring a patriarchal agenda designed to suppress and oppress women.”

    Hey, I openly promote the patriarchal agenda that gave the world civilization, arts, sciences, cell phones, restrooms, airplanes, vaccinations, democratic gov’t. I could go on.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    oops, I must include epidural anesthesia. :-D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    oops, I must include epidural anesthesia. :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    sg@43: That’s fine. I just don’t approve of Jeremy using that “agenda” to impugn the motives of pro-life folks.

    Jonathan: So if you were “not once thinking” [of me] when you wrote your piece, then who were you thinking of? Neither I nor anyone else has advocated any of the things you’re bloviating about.

    I do freely admit that the question of criminal penalties for abortion in a hypothetical world where abortion is criminalized is a sticky issue, at best. But it’s rather beside the point, because, let me remind you, we’re talking about the voluntary killing of 163 million female babies. Is it just me or is it a bit odd that this figure keeps being overlooked? I mean, cool, some pro-lifers are patriarchs, but…163 million babies, guys. When such a number results in a noticeable gender imbalance in a nation the size of China, we have a problem.

  • Cincinnatus

    sg@43: That’s fine. I just don’t approve of Jeremy using that “agenda” to impugn the motives of pro-life folks.

    Jonathan: So if you were “not once thinking” [of me] when you wrote your piece, then who were you thinking of? Neither I nor anyone else has advocated any of the things you’re bloviating about.

    I do freely admit that the question of criminal penalties for abortion in a hypothetical world where abortion is criminalized is a sticky issue, at best. But it’s rather beside the point, because, let me remind you, we’re talking about the voluntary killing of 163 million female babies. Is it just me or is it a bit odd that this figure keeps being overlooked? I mean, cool, some pro-lifers are patriarchs, but…163 million babies, guys. When such a number results in a noticeable gender imbalance in a nation the size of China, we have a problem.

  • Jonathan

    @41 I usually admire your posts, tODD, even when I disagree. Sorry to see you needed to rewrite my comment in order to mock me.

  • Jonathan

    @41 I usually admire your posts, tODD, even when I disagree. Sorry to see you needed to rewrite my comment in order to mock me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan (@46), I didn’t “rewrite” your comment, I quoted it out of context. And I wasn’t “mocking” you, I was being silly, having a bit of fun. But it hurt your feelings, and I apologize for that.

    Regardless, I think Cincinnatus has made several good points in response (@45).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jonathan (@46), I didn’t “rewrite” your comment, I quoted it out of context. And I wasn’t “mocking” you, I was being silly, having a bit of fun. But it hurt your feelings, and I apologize for that.

    Regardless, I think Cincinnatus has made several good points in response (@45).

  • Booklover

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    Perhaps because they value “individual autonomy” more than gender equality.

    It seems to matter what the worldview and “God-view” of a woman is. If a woman believes that God is a God of grace, who offers hope for the future, she has stronger incentive to keep her child. If a woman’s view of God is one without grace or hope, or if her view of God is nil, she may have no reason to keep her child. Both ladies need much prayer, but especially the latter.

  • Booklover

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    Perhaps because they value “individual autonomy” more than gender equality.

    It seems to matter what the worldview and “God-view” of a woman is. If a woman believes that God is a God of grace, who offers hope for the future, she has stronger incentive to keep her child. If a woman’s view of God is one without grace or hope, or if her view of God is nil, she may have no reason to keep her child. Both ladies need much prayer, but especially the latter.

  • http://jdueck.net Joel D

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    I asked this question “on reddit”:http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/i5cae/prochoice_redditors_is_it_ok_to_selectively_abort/, and the responses are worth reading if you really want to understand the pro-choice perspective on this.

    Basically I found out that, by the way in which I had worded my question, I had smacked up against the same language barrier your question does, _viz_, the unborn is not yet a person in their view. They aren’t rising up because they don’t see it as murder. To them it is unfortunate and shallow for a woman to select for the baby’s sex, but to them it is ultimately a decision about her own body, not about a potential human life.

    This crucial difference in perspective is obviously the whole reason for the abortion debate. It should be obvious, but we all keep smacking into it and then thinking the other side is just a bunch of evil idiots.

  • http://jdueck.net Joel D

    “Why aren’t feminists rising up against this mass murder of women?”

    I asked this question “on reddit”:http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/i5cae/prochoice_redditors_is_it_ok_to_selectively_abort/, and the responses are worth reading if you really want to understand the pro-choice perspective on this.

    Basically I found out that, by the way in which I had worded my question, I had smacked up against the same language barrier your question does, _viz_, the unborn is not yet a person in their view. They aren’t rising up because they don’t see it as murder. To them it is unfortunate and shallow for a woman to select for the baby’s sex, but to them it is ultimately a decision about her own body, not about a potential human life.

    This crucial difference in perspective is obviously the whole reason for the abortion debate. It should be obvious, but we all keep smacking into it and then thinking the other side is just a bunch of evil idiots.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X