Gender Abortion
May 19th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
In Sweden women are allowed to abort their baby when they are not happy with the baby’s sex. If they prefer to have a boy while the echo says it’s a girl (or the other way around) abortion is allowed. This is the conclusion drawn from a ruling of the National Health Council in Sweden.
As happens so often here too the ruling is innocently cloaked in legal language that reinterprets the law with the ‘best of intentions’. The non-specified term ‘situation of need’ is being enlarged so as to include the unfulfilled wish for a gender specific child.
Such language however betrays a tremendous shift in worldview and ethics on the part of those who speak. This shift goes unnoticed because it hides behind existing terms or formulae. There is a sensation of discomfort, but all seems to be alright. The same wording is still in place. Nobody is doing any wrong.
Pro-choicers always get mad when the comparison is made with nazi Germany where the imperfect and undesired were ‘euthenized’ and exterminated on a large scale in a similar way fetuses are aborted in our time. But where is the bottom-line? Where do we say: This is as far as it will go? Where is the disctinction that portrays nazis into monsters and labels us as benevolent and innocent?
It is only logical that we make the comparison with nazi practices. Let me point our three things:
1. When we abort fetuses we are giving up the right to life of the weak on behalf of the comfort of the strong. If we are able to rationalize the right of the strong when it comes to abortion there is no reason why another strongman’s right might not be rationalized. Any dictator will rationalize his might and right.
2. The reinterpretation of legal wordings and the resulting reshaping of ethics wil always continue. It will always be possible to stretch the meaning of a word without altering it. It will always be possible to enlarge the application of the same word to a new situation or new group. Whether it is the ‘situation of need’ of the Swedish woman or the ‘national interests’ during the nazi-initiated persecution of the Jews.
3. Lastly, we look at the euphemistic language that is employed to achieve this. There is alway a new way to obscure what is objectively wrong. To make it sound like the opposite of what it actually means. Propaganda is not far away. There is an ‘entlösung’, solution, for everything.
That is why the way we deal with right and wrong and with the weakest in our midst has the potential to sink further than nazism ever sank. The nazis were stopped at one point by those who opposed it from without and within. But who will stop us in our limitless euphemisms and harrowing reinterpretations as we trample the unborn? Those who oppose stand marginalized and powerless against the will of the majority.
First abortion was allowed when the life of the mother was in danger. Then there was abortion for raped women. Then abortion was allowed in ‘situations of need’, then in the case of heavily handicapped fetuses, then in the case of fetuses with a hare-lip and Down syndrome. Now they are killed in Sweden for having the wrong gender. What will follow? Who will follow?
Somewhere a line has been crossed: woman became ‘boss over her own belly’. But what about the fetus? It is not ‘boss’ over its own ‘belly’, nor its own brains, nor its own limbs. The fetus has come to be seen as a parasite that feeds itself on the life juices of the mother. Uninvited it demands the womb of its ‘host’ and devours the ‘victim’s’ future.
Moloch has woken up. He smells blood and craves human meat. More, more, more! And eat he will as long as we continue with our reinterpretations and euphemisms to justify our cruel immorality.
