Life, Baby Girls, Choice, and Family Restoration

Science shows that among general populations it is undisputed that biologically 105 boys (plus or minus one) are born for every 100 girls.  Any greater deviation is the result of unnatural causes.  The ratio in India is 112 boys to 100 girls, 120:100 in Armenia, and 121:100 in China.  According to The Wall Street Journal's report of Mara Hvinstendahl's book entitled Unnatural Selection, "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." Scientific developments in the 1970s brought amniocentesis, or the in utero gender test, which has been replaced in recent years by the ultrasound.  Costing an average of $12 in India or China, gender tests have become popular in preventing the birth of unwanted girls.  The Wall Street Journal reports that an Indian clinic advertises, "Better 500 rupees now than 5,000 later" in reference to the cost of a sex test versus a dowry.  An article in The Economist entitled "The Worldwide War on Baby Girls" states, "In one hospital in Punjab, northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin." Journalist Jonathan Last gives this compelling example: "Take South Korea.  In 1989, the sex ratio for first births there was 104 boys for every 100 girls – perfectly normal.  But couples who had a girl became increasingly desperate to acquire a boy.  For second births, the male number climbed to 113; for third, to 185.  Among fourth-born children, it was a mind-boggling 209."  Similar patterns can be found among Chinese, Indian, and Korean parents in America as well. Abortion providers have not distanced themselves from using abortion as a form of birth control, particularly with a desire to parent a male child, rather than a female child.  Discussing developing nations, Malcom Potts, a past medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, stated that abortion was preferable to birth control: "Early abortion is safe, effective, cheap and potentially the easiest method to administer."  A slight variation on gender-selective abortion, race-selective birth control is what motivated Margaret Sanger in part to found Planned Parenthood.  True to its eugenic roots, even in recent years, Planned Parenthood has accepted donations earmarked for the abortion of black babies.  Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood fought legislation that ultimately passed in Arizona which criminalized performing or coercing a woman into receiving an abortion on the basis of race or gender selection. These results are the consequences of choice.  Jonathan Last closes his article, 'For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it.  Choice is choice … this is where choice leads.  This is where choice has already led … there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.' If statistics and history hold, this is where our society is headed if it continues its full embrace of "choice."  Abortion advocates must take a close look at the facts before it's too late … another 163 million girls too late." Family restoration essentially requires protection of a child, boy or girl, by his or her parents from the outset.  This forms the basis for societal family restoration, and values life regardless of gender, race or utility.

Recently, Planned Parenthood attempted to block a provision of Indiana law that states that doctors must tell a woman seeking an abortion that human life begins at conception, but this effort was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Watson Pratt on Friday. Pratt, who has since become a minor celebrity within the pro-life community in just a few short days, "respectfully disagree[d]" with Planned Parenthood's claim that the language within the provision, which states that "human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm," is too confusing and provides an ambiguity when used in the context of abortion. Though the Federal court did hand down an order that temporarily suspends defunding of abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, the protection of the language within the provision that helps to define the beginning of life at conception is seen as a monumental victory. The court supported its decision by saying, "Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient. Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know." For more information, click here."

This post summary illuminates the connection between protection of unborn life and family restoration.  The first hint of a new family begins with protection of the child by the parents - and as Indiana now requires, from conception.  Legislation can accomplish that, and it can be judicially enforced.  Family restoration is not possible without protection of little boys... and little girls.