The infanticide of Little Girls

Abortion is a evil plague unleashed not only here in the USA but the entire world. We have to continue to fight the good fight, and the Church has been a relentless champion for the unborn, despite having to work against some of its own members who are bound and determined to advance the pro choice cause by consistently voting pro choice candidates. But that’s another thread.

The Church, in Her wisdom, knows when life is cheapened at any level, it has ramifications.

In China, where 1 child per couple is the rule, a virtual infantcide of little girls, has been quietly rampaging across the land. Little girls are being aborted at astonishing ratios, because if you can’t have but one, they want it to be a boy.

The ratio now stands at 120 to 100 boys to girls. It is nothing short of sex selection with abortion the means of selecting. The lifes of females are not worth much. The same is true in India, where the ration is 1000 boys per 980 girls, and in some states it has dipped below 800.

The normal rate is 103 to 100 boys to girls. That is God’s way of keeping balance because He knows males are the rmore risk takers, and are more likely to do die prematurely, so He puts forth a few more males at birth. Left to God, things are a perfect 50-50 balance.

The report noted several causes for this, but the bottom line is when parents meddle in the natural order of life, this is what you get.

The pro choice side will jump up and say “can’t happen here.” It can’t? Once you start this path of unfettered abortion on demand the slope becames steep and quick, and that is why the Catholic Church has fought so hard over the years to defend life. The pro choice side has never been more emboldened, they control all polictial arenas, in this country. Legislature, Executive, and who knows what the judicial bench will look like in 4 years. None of that mattered to the folks who voted pro choice because they were more worried about extending unemployment checks.

But to answer the question, “cant’ happen here.” I’d like to know the sex of the aborted babies, my guess little girls are bear a much higher number than boys. But that is a number were are unlikely to ever know for sure, because the pro choice side will work to make sure that figure never sees the light of day.,2933,281722,00.html

If you want to argue for prolife causes you have to be in your top game, all a pro choice secularist has to do is prove or show one mistake and they can make you look like you are dumb or worse yet, that you are manipulating things to serve your goal… Which leads me to my point always do the math never repeat without thinking. DARN IT YOU ARE FROM AN OLDER GENERATION, THE ERA OF A SLIDE RULE, THIS SHOULD HAVE NOT GOTTEN PAST YOU! :stuck_out_tongue:

I took these two things just from what you printed above.

“The same is true in India, where the ration is 1000 boys per 980 girls,”

“The normal rate is 103 to 100 boys to girls.”

A ratio of 103 to 100 is equal to 1030 to 1000. (Something should scream problem right now.) Another simple way to look at it is to divide 103 by 100 which equals 1.03. The closer this number is to 1, the closer it is to a 50 50 balance. The number you gave for the average ratio in India is 1000:980. Again divide 1000 by 980 and it equals about 1.02. So if I have 100 girls with that ratio I have about 102 boys. So actually, India is having more girls than they should be having naturally even with those states that have a real sex selection, other states must be balancing it out in the other direction and more boys are being aborted.

Then I can say “well why are you trying to manipulate the data to appear that it is stating the opposite of what it actually says.”

Boom! You are a liar and cheat which leads to the people you are trying to convince that they should not listen to you. Even if your message is true.

Hope this helps and keep up the good fight.

Randy Alcorn cited a village in India where there were hundreds of men and boys and just a few women and girls, and a feminist columnist (I can’t remember who) said in the '90’s that some parts of India have a male-female ratio of seven to one. I wonder if there are hard data behind that. I know that Alcorn cited a sample of American mothers who learned the sexes of their babies while considering abortion, and a majority of those carrying boys remained pregnant while a majority of those carrying girls aborted them. That was in Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments.

That, and probably because some will become priests. But that’s just my conjecture.

You made a mathematical error, I think it is because you misread his numbers.

Normal ratio: Boys: 100, Girls: 103. Ratio of Boys to Girls: 0.97. Ratio of Girls to Boys: 1.03. If all reach adulthood and choose to marry, 3% girls will not have a husband. Worldwide infant mortality is higher for girls than boys evening this out a bit. Adult mortality is higher for men than women, leaving more women without husbands than the reverse.

India ratio: Boys, 1000, Girls: 980. Ratio of Boys to Girls: 1.02. Ratio of Girls to Boys: 0.98. If all reach adulthood and choose to marry, 2% of boys will not have a wife. Infant mortality is considerably higher for girls than boys in India worsening the discrepancy. Adult mortality is higher for men, but will not even out the disparity.

China Ratio: Boys: 120, Girls: 100. Ratio of Boys to Girls: 1.2. Ratio of Girls **to **Boys: 0.83. If all reach adulthood and choose to marry, a staggering 20% of boys will not find a wife. China has one of the highest infant mortality rates among girls in the world, making this problem far worse. Adult mortality is greater among men but this will not even come close to evening out this great discrepancy.

India and China are clearly having fewer girls than boys. This is also borne out in the abortion statistics in India where far more girls are aborted than boys, despite the practice of gender-selective abortions being illegal.

No you made a mistake. the normal ratio is Boy 103 Girls 100. Actually its higher 105 boys to 100 girls. but I digress.

From Bama:
The normal rate is 103 to 100 boys to girls. That is God’s way of keeping balance because He knows males are the rmore risk takers, and are more likely to do die prematurely, so He puts forth a few more males at birth. Left to God, things are a perfect 50-50 balance.

If you want to do it your way though 100girls/103 boys = .97

The same is true in India, where the ration is 1000 boys per 980 girls

980/1000 =.98 girls/boys

980girls/(.97 girls/boys) = 1010 boys

980girls/.98(girls/boys) = 1000 boys

China is fine, India is wrong given the information.

Trust me when it comes to math. hehehehehe

Sex disparity is an issue of social concern, but it is not catastrophic for society such that martial law would need to be instituted. Thus as with any other criminal law, I favor legalization unless it would be catastrophic to the point of eventual need for martial law (or worse inability to impose martial law due to breakdown of morale in the military for example). Why do I favor this omni-legalization philosophy? Legalization of activity means obviously that governmental restraint on that activity is removed, making that activity less physically impeded (it can still be impeded by other factors of course such as financial resources). Why is that something I would favor? Because lack of impedence there means that virtuous acts would be able to flourish as from a virtuous heart – i.e. if stealing were legalized for example, people who refrained from stealing would do so out of true virtue in their heart, not out of fear of punishment. Not that there is anything wrong per se out of doing something out of fear of punishment, but Catholic spirituality has long held and taught that the higher form of virtue is to do it for its own sake, that “love is its own reward” (St. Francis de Sales).

In the case of stealing however, while legalizing it to the noble end of making possible greater advances in virtue (not that that is guaranteed, but that is made more possible), is admirable, ultimately it would be counterproductive to that end since martial law ultimately would need to be imposed. In the case of abortion, including sex-selective abortion, that is not the case. We know it is not the case for abortion in general based on history. There’s no indication it would be the case for sex-selective abortion.

But the fertile ground of virtue requires more than just the element of the absence of restraint so that virtue may be for love’s own sake and not fear of punishment. It requires also temptation. Some of that would come immediately from legalization of the activity; but to increase temptation (choice between higher and lesser goods), the State would be wise to make the nation more materially prosperous as the “glitter” of the Kingdom of Satan (this is part of Catholic spirituality and teaching) would become more attractive in a materially prosperous and also militarily secure nation. But why should the State materially cooperate in adding “glitter” to the temptation of the Kingdom of Satan? Because doing so makes temptation more attractive (the lesser material good becomes more attractive when it is a BMW as opposed to a Ford when one is called to forgo that BMW for the higher spiritual good). But why should the State want to make temptation more attractive? To make possible for greater virtue in its citizens. Persons who pass through the most difficult temptations and by God’s grace endure them successfully are the ones who are in Catholic theology and spiritual teaching, in general, the most advanced in virtue. Note how even Jesus was tempted at various points. Temptation is not for us mortals just to “prove” to the world or God that we are righteous. God knows what we are and we are sinners. Temptation is so that we might in rejecting it, love virtue, love God, more firmly and purely, that our hearts may be more and more pure so that in heaven our beatific vision, in accordance with this merit inherent in our soul by grace, be all the more glorious.

St. Ignatius of Loyola told his brothers that were he to have a chance between dying now and being guaranteed eternal heaven versus being granted more time on earth at the risk of losing his salvation, that he would choose the latter so that he might have more glory in heaven. This glory in heaven is not the glory that celebrities have on earth or that tyrants of history seek. It is an interior glory of the heart, one that can only develop through temptation. In this life, for us mortals, the highest good of mortals – a purer heart – cannot be achieved without the presence of temptation. It CAN be achieved without the presence of evil, but not without temptation.

But why should the State care more about these kinds of things than protecting the lives of its citizens? Because the State should care about the welfare of its citizens and that welfare is spiritual, not physical in primary grounding. The State’s job is to maximize the absence of restraint on action and maximize the glitter of temptation (in balance) without doing so in an ultimately counterproductive way (legalization of stealing would ultimately reduce the glitter of temptation since it would instantly tank the stock market to zero! and would require eventually due to chaos, marital law, meaning that restraint on action would ultimately be increased, not decreased). It is the Church’s job to be a pastor in this joint arena.

I know this theory of mine sounds whacky, but believe it or not, I’m not the first to think of it.

When hearing life, left to its natural state, produces slightly more boys, Ahapka added this reason-

That, and probably because some will become priests. But that’s just my conjecture.

I’d say thats probably more then conjecture.

India and China are clearly having fewer girls than boys. This is also borne out in the abortion statistics in India where far more girls are aborted than boys, despite the practice of gender-selective abortions being illegal.

Gender selection is illegal. How does the state make that determination if the abortion is purely because of gender? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they don’t allow it, but how does that work?

Here in Korea (where boys are also valued more than girls, but not to the same extent as in China and India), it’s illegal for doctors to tell prospective parents the gender of the baby until the baby is past the age at which an abortion would be possible. Of course, doctors get around that by dropping hints - I would assume that many parents want to know the sex of the baby early, regardless of what gender baby they’d prefer to have.

Abortion is also illegal in Korea, but that doesn’t prevent doctors from performing them. A woman I know went in for her first prenatal appointment and the nurses asked her all sorts of questions to determine her attitude toward the pregnancy. She couldn’t figure out why they kept asking her what she wanted to do next - “I don’t know, this is my first baby. What am I supposed to do?” It took her a while to clue in to the subtext behind the questions. She was shocked when she figured out they were hinting that abortion would be possible if she wasn’t happy about the pregnancy.

Hey I am no big fan of China
and I do not support abortion
nor do I support Dictatorships

but what I cannot understand is why the Chinese cant just have 1 kid. They have condoms (not that I am supporting this) and they know what will happen if they get pregnant. Couldn’t they also use the NFP? Then the only thing you would have to worry about is Woman who conceive after being raped or Incest.

I mean what is keeping someone who knows the one child law from going… hmmmm maybe I should only have one child? and if I don’t use NFP and don’t use condoms I may have to live celebent.

Should China do forced abortions? Heck no
Should China oppress Catholics and Christians? No

Do the men and women of China who know the law have a responsibility to make sure they don’t get pregnant? In my opinion since it is the law, they do have a responsibility as citizens not to brake the law. If they don’t brake the law then they won’t be forced to get an abortion.

China has a lot of work to do, in order to become a sane country.
they need to at the very least stop the Abortions

but the citizens in the mean time need to either not have sex, or practice NFP.

End of Story

God Bless

PS. My prayers go out to the Chinese families who have been forced into abortions, and for the souls of the children who were robbed of their earthly lives.

May God have mercy on them

I wonder, is it possible for parents to save their children if they pray for them and desire them to be baptismed (baptism of desire)?

I think they could pray for them as in praying for God’s Mercy but not for intersession since they were never baptized.
I believe (although I may be wrong) that the desire of baptism has to be through the person (ie. A martyr who was not baptized yet but had a true will to be) because during infant baptism the child has not reached the age of reason so it falls on the parent to get them baptized.

Pray for the souls of the aborted that God will have mercy on their souls.

God Bless


PS. what is the parent’s responsibility in this? Wasn’t their pregnancy preventable via NFP or Abstinence?

I mean if I go in a Store with a sign that says I can only have on Soda can. Then I stick my dollar in and buy another and the guy takes the can from me isn’t some of the responsibility on me for sticking my dollar in?

The rural areas have a custom that the oldest son works the farm when the parents are too disabled. If there is no son, they have a daughter do the job, but she will want to be married and go away, and anyway she may not be able to produce as much. So they really hope for a boy. Everywhere that parents rely on just one child to help them and the women go to their husbands’ homes rather than v.v. this problem occurs. With a one-child policy they keep conceiving and get rid of the girls before or after birth and try again until they get a boy.

and in itself is not a cruel or unjust law. I mean it sucks for the girl but the law doesn’t brake any Church law.

With a one-child policy they keep conceiving and get rid of the girls before or after birth and try again until they get a boy.

If your saying the parents do this then it is their sin. God never says "well since if you don’t do this you will have a girl who wont want to help, so I guess its okay"
No if the law says one kid and you have a girl. To bad it wasn’t in the cards for you. So if they keep having pregnancies and then abort or murder the female child… It is their sin.

Now if they keep having them and the state aborts them then it is the States sin and the individual who carried it out.

But the parents who decide to have a second kid even though the State says otherwise has some responsibility in the mater.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit