An article in the Economist this week caught my attention because
it discussed the rape of a young woman in Delhi last December. You can read the article here. (Be warned it is a bit graphic and could be a trigger for survivors of assault.)
What I want to
talk about today is not the rape case, but rather the byproduct of this case. There
has been widespread news coverage of this particular case throughout the world.
While this particular article doesn’t use the word feminism it does call for a
sexual revolution. The sexual revolution came into being because feminists
pushed for “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is largely championed as
being the vocal minority pushing for human rights all over the world. While
this may be true, I have to ask myself… what about the people that those “rights”
encroach upon? Is that equality?
Now, before you shout “how could you NOT want equality
between the sexes?” Let me point out a part of the article that was in my
opinion a bit subversive. The article talks about the issues of rape, assault,
and… abortion. The author writes that India’s “…problems are as much economic
as cultural. Above all, girls are valued less than boys. The results are catastrophic:
millions of female fetuses aborted, and millions more girls than boys who dies
in childhood, as a consequence either of violence or neglect and malnutrition”.
Im sorry, what?
So, millions of aborted female children is catastrophic, but
is the murder of a child any less tragic if it is male instead of female? The
correct answer is no. The loss of a child’s life to abortion is tragic whether
the child is male or female. The loss of life is the same. When I think of abortion (regardless of the
gender of the child) I think of Philippians 2: 3-4 which says, “Let nothing be
done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem
others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own
interest, but also for the interest of others.” Is it any less selfish to abort
a male child than it is to abort a female child? No. The motive of the abortion
is still the same.
India doesn’t need a sexual revolution, in fact that may
just make matters worse. What India needs is to have their judicial system
kicked into high gear, recognizing the “person-hood” of both genders. What India
needs is the love of Christ and the understanding that at the foot of the cross
there is no male or female. We are all equal sinners given salvation by the
sacrifice of God’s perfect son. Only then will India see true change.
Excellent point and I love the scripture used in regards to abortion. I have never thought about that scripture in that context. Great post! Blessings to you! Linking after you at Fellowship Fridays. Love, Rachael @ Inking the Heart
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on abortion. However, I don't think that's what the author of the article was meaning (that abortion of females is somehow more tragic). They were stating the fact that many in India want abortions when they find out their child is a female. It's their reason for said abortion. The author, I think, was just saying that many abortions are performed specifically because the mother or father or both don't want a daughter. Which is horrible (just like other abortions), and does show proof that females are less valued- even by their own families :-( I don't think the author was saying that aborting females is "more" horrible than other abortions. They just mentioned that because that is a problem there. Maybe if females were valued more there wouldn't be people wanting to abort pregnancies purely to avoid having a daughter. Although I agree a "sexual revolution" is not what needs to happen. Just plain teaching the men there to respect women would work IMO. We're different than men, but we are worth the same. That sort of thing. Anyway, that's how I read it.
ReplyDelete