Gendercide: When Modern Technology Partners with Ancient Barbarity


If you haven’t seen it yet, I encourage you to read this article from The Economist about abortion and gender discrimination.

As the article states, approximately 100 million girls have disappeared across the world due to abortion. In China and India the ratio of boys to girls is currently 6 to 5.

But why are societies killing off girls? The Economist answers as follows:

The destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus.

Here we have both tradition and “progress” contributing to discrimination and infanticide. Abortion has been around since we can remember, but what disturbs me most about these recent trends is the extent to which such acts are premeditated. Ultrasound technology has contributed to so much life among those who have used it for the right purposes, yet it has also been twisted and perverted to feed the goals of ancient bigotry and barbarity.

All tools can be used for evil, and ultrasound technology is no different. Therefore, just like other tools (e.g. money), modern medical technology cannot be blamed as the root cause.

When it comes to discovering the causes behind such trends, one thing that stands out is that this is a problem across cultures, not governments:

Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China’s one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.

The society that would allow institutionalized baby murder is one that is truly despicable. (And yes, America is one of them.) But if we are so laid back about allowing people to kill babies as they please, why are we so surprised that those same murderers are discriminating against gender and other human traits? Abortion is a selfish act. If your child’s existence in this world is secondary to your own wants and wishes, wouldn’t it follow that your wants and wishes (regarding gender or anything) would, and now could, determine whether their existence is allowed?

From a strictly objective/secular point of view, natural law would indicate that the prohibition of infanticide is highly reasonable. But from a cultural standpoint, we must seek to minimize such acts whether or not our corrupt worldly systems deem them as acceptable.

How do we go about doing that more effectively?

For a more detailed analysis on the same topic, see this related article from the same issue of The Economist.

, , , , , ,