Our brave new world of abortion
It’s not that some abortions are more wrong than others, but some lay bare the horror of it more clearly than others.
Take the case of an Australian couple who recently aborted their twin boys because they wanted a daughter. They already have three sons and lost a daughter shortly after her birth.
So far they’ve done nothing illegal. They had the right, in the eyes of the law, to take their twin boys’ lives. But they are now taking their case before a legal tribunal because they want to do something not allowed in Australia: They want to choose the gender of their next child. Using embryos conceived by in vitro fertilization, they would choose only females for implantation.
Sex selection is banned in Australia except in cases involving the transmission of a genetic abnormality or disease. The State of Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal will hear the couple’s case in March, when they will plead that an exception be made for them. They have publicly stated that they will come to the United States if they are turned down.
While I understand that, tragically, women all over the world abort children based on gender, there is something particularly disturbing about this case. The father is quoted in a report in Britain’s Daily Mail as saying, “After what we have been through we think we are due for a bit of luck.” I guess their twins’ luck ran out when they turned out to be boys. He continued, “We know we definitely won’t be replacing her in any way, but want the chance to have the baby girl we don’t have.” If they ever get their longed-for daughter (who, of course, won’t be a replacement for the daughter who died), I hope she never finds out about her two brothers who were killed for her.
These parents so desperately want a life that they’re willing to take lives for it. And, of course, there is the matter of the embryos that will be discarded if they go ahead with their plan.
A brave new world indeed.
See WORLD’s annual Roe v. Wade issue, just released today.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top39 Comments to “Our brave new world of abortion”
I’ve often heard of abortion as analagous to the ancient practice of sacrificing children to Molech to call down his favor, but this is certainly the most explicit example of the parallel.
Anyway, the pro-abortion crowd has no grounds to condemn this on their premises. I wonder if they’ll try.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, my cousin and her husband wanted a girl so she ate tomatoes. They got one.
It is especially hard for me to comprehend that when you already have children and know what it’s like that you would want to kill a subsequent child for any reason.
Report comment to moderator
They should have their 3 sons removed from their custody. They are unfit to be parents.
Report comment to moderator
I’m speechless.
Report comment to moderator
Everything that has already been said…but additionally, what would Australia’s rationale be for allowing sex selection after conception, via abortion…but not before conception? Mind you, I’m not supporting either of these positions, but seems a little hypocritical…you can kill the pre-born baby if you don’t like his gender, but you can’t pick an embryo based on that. Weird.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html?_r=4&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
A surprisingly poignant article…and from the NYT no less! What a surprise!
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Cheryl – it’s hard to know what to say.
What are their boys to think, knowing that their parents ended the life of two little brothers because they did not want any more boys? Maybe they won’t think anything now at their young ages, but when they are teenagers and beyond, I can imagine a deep sense of loss and betrayal. They will have to wonder whether their parents regretted their “boyness” and whether their parents really wanted them as their sons either. How will they know that their parents really loved them for who they are?
Report comment to moderator
We are friends with a couple who also have two boys and then, unexpectedly got pregnant with, amazingly, twin boys! They now have 4 boys, and they too want a girl. Guess what? They are adopting a baby girl from Ethiopia. There now, was that so hard?
Report comment to moderator
Agree with #5. If you’re going to allow abortion no questions asked (up to a certain threshold of fetal development) then it doesn’t make sense to prohibit the sex selection of embryos.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with #5.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy (#6),
Just so you know, I can’t get the article from your link without creating a NYT account – and, I don’t want to do that.
Report comment to moderator
#8 –and that’s why you are friends with the Cherievon.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I would say buddyglass #9 sort of agrees with my #5 post; except he thinks both options are fine, and I think both options are reprehensible. But, on the other hand, we are having civil discourse over it, so that part is good.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with 5 and 9 — its a bizarre contradiction.
Report comment to moderator
Uh. For the record I’m pro-life. And not just in the “I wish abortions happened less often” sense.
Report comment to moderator
Oops…my sincere apology. I’m still rather new to this blog and can’t always keep everyone straight — the downside of internet rather than face to face conversation.
Report comment to moderator
As abortion has become more accepted around the world the value of human life has lowered from embryo to the elderly. New data shows more than eighty percent of babies aborted and forty percent of babies born are from unwed mothers. Our watered down, social club churches of today are more to please man than God. They preach a cotton candy gospel that sounds so sweet but has little spiritual, nutritional value. When have you ever heard from the pulpit that premarital sex is the primary reason for our abortions? Is not the Church to be Light and Salt. Light allows us to see. Salt makes the flavor better. When the Church starts fulfilling it true responsibilities before God, then abortion figures will go down. Sound harsh? What is more harsh than abortion?
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday I spent much of the day reading Unplanned, which is being advertised on the right side of this page. (I was up till 2:40 a.m. finishing it.) Well worth reading. Very sad at times, very joyful at times, and I prayed for a good number of the people in the book as I read it.
Report comment to moderator
The following link takes you to a very sobering reality of abortion; both the actual process and what the baby experiences and the post-abortion traumas that affect mothers that have elected to kill their babies. Pretty selfish business to kill babies until you get what you desire rather than what God has given!
http://www.crossexamine.com/
Report comment to moderator
#8 Cherievon.
I’m with you. This couple could have easily got a daughter. Let’s be honest though. It seems many who pursue this en vitro stuff as this Aussie couple did are more or less saying “A non-caucasian child from country X? Nope, not gonna do it!”
Report comment to moderator
#11
Rondu,
I don’t know how to rectify that, as it is the NYT that does it, not me.
In the past (before I finally broke down and got a free account with them), I just created a temporary “pretend” account. They don’t check anything, and it is very easy to do.
Report comment to moderator
Just putting a couple curious feelers out there…it seems that most every comment believes that aborting a child based on gender is wrong. Does anyone also believe that the prevention of pregnancies is wrong – as in, unbiblical – as well? I of course realize that you are not sinning by ending a life through contraception, but are you not planting a firm stance against what God calls a blessing of children by attempting to prevent that life from the onset?
Report comment to moderator
The Early Church made it clear about premarital sex. We would not be having our abortion and homosexual problem now if the Church of today was doing its job. Please, speak the truth in Love.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:19-20 (KJV)
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28-29 (KJV)
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Acts 21:25 (KJV)
Report comment to moderator
One Voice, I don’t think we’ve ever had that discussion on here, and for some of it the question has never been one on which we’ve had to make a decision. (I’m single and past my child-bearing years, for example.) For sure the issue isn’t as black-and-white, though.
(My personal take: I believe children are a blessing and I always wanted several, but personally set my number at four–I come from a family of seven kids, and most of my married siblings actually had more than that. If I were still in childbearing years and getting married, I’d have to wrestle with this issue, but under the circumstances I don’t. I do think that marrying with no intention of having children is wrong; that deliberately limiting one’s family to just one or just two seems sad and even selfish; but I also think that “no limits on conception, ever, even if the mother’s life will be in serious danger” may be going too far, and certainly I can’t see ever making that decision for someone else, thinking that they are sinning if the doctor tells them “no more” and they listen.)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see anything wrong with non-abortive birth control, especially in cases where more children would endanger the life of the mother or to prevent having children you can’t properly take care of. Too many pro-abortion people think all pro-lifers are against all forms of birth control and that’s not true.
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t clear in 24 what “more than that” means. I don’t mean my siblings had more than seven each, but more than four each.
KBells, on the other hand many pro-”choice” people believe that birth control is the answer that all of us pro-lifers should avidly support, even if it means churches giving free birth control to any and all (presumably including unmarried couples)–I had this discussion elsewhere on this blog just this week. In reality, it’s true that deliberately limiting family size through conception control is a step in the direction of an anti-child society.
If I could vote for or against the invention of birth control, I think I’d vote no, that it has done more harm than good. It certainly hasn’t done what it was advertised to do–eliminate “unwanted” children who might end up abused–and I’m willing to guess that part of the reason was that we opened up the very discussion of whether a child was wanted or unwanted. It also made fornication without consequences easier (and, with it, made birth seem like a “bad” consequence of sex rather than a big part of its purpose).
Report comment to moderator
What if we do away with no fault divorce and birth control was only allowed for married couples?
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, that’s a start. It would, of course, be declared unconstitutional again.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl…my husband and I agree with you that a grey area exists when a future pregnancy might endanger the mother’s life. Something you said puzzled us though; why is limiting the number of children God blesses you with to two “sad and even selfish,” but four is an acceptable, unselfish number? I guess, biblically, where are you drawing that number from?
Kbells…you mentioned that you agree with using contraception to “prevent having children you can’t properly take care of.”. But when we look at God’s standards, who of us can say we’ve blamelessly, selflessly or properly taken care of any of the children God has given us?
Buddy…I’m not certain about birth control, but I know that in vitro was originally tauted as being only for married, heterosexual couples that had troubles conceiving, and I believe contraception originated and was broadcast in that same light.
When it comes down to it, it seems that most Christians who believe the bible fully believe in a sovereign God who created the world and sustains it by His word, and though He says that He Himself opens and closes the womb, we believe that We ought to wrest the control of the womb from Him. If God is truly Sovereign, is His arm too short to provide for the very children He has placed in our womb?
Report comment to moderator
I think this is a serious and complex question with which every Christian couple should engage. I’m still not fully comfortable that I know the “right” answer. However, the argument in your last paragraph always struck me as rather specious: could not the same argument be made for never accepting any medical intervention? Surely our days are numbered by God as well as our children, so how do I justify going to a doctor to cure a disease any more than using birth control? And I do go to the doctor (and used birth control also.)
Report comment to moderator
Cherievon, I see your point, but the difference, I think is this; when we go to the doctor, it is typically to heal an injury of some sort, small or major, or to take actions to prevent potential injuries. I believe the crutch of the argument comes down to how we view children. God clearly states that children are blessings, that He opens and closes the womb, and has given his followers the instructions to increase and multiply. So, when we go to the doctor for contraception, we are, necessarily, seeking to prevent an injury ( inconvenience, unwanted, consequence, etc.) and therefore lumping pregnancy in the same category as all other diseases that need to be healed.
God also clearly loves to heal; Jesus spent half His ministry healing people (His apostles followed His example), and did not condemn those who had sought physical healing elsewhere (the woman who bled for 12 years) before seeking Him out. So I dont see where, biblically, God is against our seeking out healing.
Report comment to moderator
I have a hole in my heart for a son that will never be. That is probably why I’m so assertive about the Church bringing forward the truth about premarital sex being the primary cause of our abortions. Adoption is not an option at our age. When I know others are throwing these precious little lives away it saddens me to the depth of my being. I have worked with Right to Life, Christian Coalition, Abstinence Clearing House and donate to a Crisis Pregnancy Center. All of these do good and may God bless and keep them. I know in my heart the full answer is with the Church. When the Church doesn’t lift up the wisdom and love of God when he called some things sin they are not teaching the full Gospel. Part of the Gospel is not positive because it tells where sin will take us but it still has to be shown. For the most part, abortion is two wrongs trying to make a right. God loves us and can forgive our sins through Jesus Christ but that doesn’t give us permission to sin more so we can be forgiven more. We still pay a price for our sins. Killing abortion doctors or blowing up abortion clinics is wrong and hurts rather than helps. The truth going forth is the best weapon against the deception that has so many blinded.
Report comment to moderator
One Voice, I’m not drawing the number four from anywhere, nor am I saying I’d necessarily have limited my family size to that, had I gotten married. I always have thought four children (two of each) seems like the “perfect” family; but that doesn’t mean that had I gotten married I would have made sure to have no more than four. This isn’t a question I ever had to “wrestle with” except theoretically–and I also pointed out that most of my married siblings had more than four (most wanted more than they actually had, but still they had more than I “wanted”), and in fact my two single siblings both speak of a dozen as the ideal number. (Two of my married siblings also used that number, but God gave them fewer.)
Frankly, I never even heard Protestants make a cogent argument against birth control until within the last ten years, when I was already well into my thirties and still single, so I simply cannot say what my husband and I would have chosen to do on this subject, had I married in childbearing years. Having children now would mean adopting, and I’ve always been open to that, but at my age now it really would depend on whether my husband wanted to adopt this “late” in life. (I’m not married, so again that’s a theoretical question. At thirty I wouldn’t have married a man who wasn’t interested in adoption if we found out we couldn’t bear children; in my forties, when my childbearing ability has come to an end, if I were to marry a fifty-year-old man who thought we were too old to adopt, I’d probably be OK with that, though I currently still remain willing to consider adoption, too.)
Report comment to moderator
P.S. People often talk as though only married people can grieve childlessness. I’ve often wondered why it is considered “acceptable” for a single woman to have some sorrow that she doesn’t have a husband, but she’s only allowed to grieve childlessness if she actually is married. A single woman actually can feel the loss of children quite poignantly without its meaning she desires to fornicate. (I’m a chaste woman who went through my childbearing years wanting children, and slowly came to terms with the idea that I’d never have any around my fortieth birthday when I was still unmarried with no prospects. But when someone speaks of “infertility,” it actually is a word I identify with, and feel personal sorrow with, even though my own barrenness was from not having a husband, not from physical inability to conceive.)
Report comment to moderator
One Voice — yes, children are a blessing from God, absolutely. But that isn’t necessarily talking about numbers. Perhaps God will bless a particular family with the choice of adopting rather than having more biological children. The medical analogy is, I will die at whatever point God has determined, no matter what I do to prevent it; yet no one says it is wrong to go to a doctor. It is all ultimately in God’s hands no matter what; that doesn’t alleviate us from taking responsibility, making plans and choices.
Report comment to moderator
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” (1Ti 5:14)
Have lots of children UNLESS…
..the weather could be bad.
..sunspots could act up.
..another Herod could be born someday.
..there could be too many chemicals in fruits and vegetables.
..we could be in the end times.
AND especially…
..if church folks, relatives, and tv talking heads, and/or multinational-outsourcers could roll their eyese at you.
Report comment to moderator
I think, so long as you are seeking the Lord’s will and submitting yourself to it, then the number of kids and even when to have them is up to Him. That means, IMO, that birth control is fine so long as you aren’t going against the grain.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been thinking about having children a lot lately. (Stupid hormones.) Miss D., I can’t sympathize completely, but I kind of know what you’re talking about.
Mrs. Voice, children are blessings, but raising a child is a great responsibility as well (perhaps the greatest). Could one not be spiritually mature enough to recognize one’s inability to take on another responsibility?
Report comment to moderator
I have good friends from college who married relatively young and never wanted children (dogs, yes, kids, no). They were in complete agreement and were very clear on the matter (not sure what the specific reasons were) but they remain married to this day and have had what appears to be a strong, close marriage (and they are Christians, but they don’t live close to me so I don’t often see or connect with them a lot anymore).
I agree that children are a blessing — and that procreation is the first and primary purpose of marriage — but I don’t think intentionally not having children is necessarily a sin stemming from selfishness in all cases. Some couples may simply not feel called or equipped for parenthood, for whatever reason.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!