BreakPoint: Too Few Women

What Abortion Hath Wrought

The gender imbalance in China and Asia is wreaking social chaos. And the Washington Post’s worldview won’t let it admit the real cause of the problem.

Twenty-one-year-old Li Defu is hard at work, building a house in rural China. While American men his age spend their free time gaming with friends, Li knows he has no time to waste. Without this house, he may never find a wife.

As Li told the Washington Post in a story titled “Too Many Men,” “At the moment there aren’t any girls my age around. I am building this new house in preparation, in case I find someone.”

But even with a nice house to attract a bride, there’s no guarantee that Li will ever find one. The reason: There are 34 million fewer Chinese women than men. Indian men share this demographic nightmare:  There are 37 million fewer women than men in India.

What’s the cause of this huge gender imbalance?

Well, reading the Post, you could be forgiven not coming to the obvious conclusion: Seventy million unborn baby girls were aborted—killed in the womb simply because they were female. Instead, the Washington Post refers disingenuously to “cultural preferences, government decree and modern medical technology.” In a 5,300-word story, the word “abortion” is used exactly once. The social damage caused by sex-selection abortion is mind-boggling—and yet, the Post can barely bring itself to mention the word!

Now, it’s a safe bet that most of the editors and writers for the Post consider abortion not merely a woman’s right, but also a cultural good. So why are they so reluctant to use the word in this front-page story?

I suspect it’s because nobody likes to be faced with the fact that their worldview is flawed—in this case, tragically so.

For decades, western family planning groups, such as International Planned Parenthood Fund and the United Nations Population Fund, have promoted abortion on a massive scale as the solution to many of the world’s problems. They’ve worked with leaders in both China and India, urging them to bring down their population levels through abortion and sterilization.

The result? Seventy million men, who expected to marry and rear children, are desperately lonely. “Brides” are kidnapped from other countries.  Forced prostitution and assaults on women are on the rise.

Ironically, many of the parents who aborted their baby daughters in favor of sons will never have grandchildren: There are no women for their sons to marry.

Abortion proponents portray abortion as a social good that allows women control over their own bodies. But in India and China—and sometimes in the West, as well—abortion has given women LESS control. They are forced, by their government or their husband’s relatives, to kill their unborn daughters.

The story of those 70 million missing women reminds us that our worldview, how we see reality, how we define what is good or bad, will affect how we live—as individuals and as a society.  As Chuck Colson often urged us, we should test the validity of any worldview by following it to its logical conclusions.

The Christian worldview considers children of both sexes a great blessing. In Psalm 127, we read, “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” But secular abortion advocates think we should solve the problems of the world through the slaughter of the innocents.

The good news is that we can do something about this ongoing tragedy: We can support the Save a Girl campaign, a program that helps Chinese women keep their baby girls.

We can also talk about the Post piece with our neighbors, helping them see the tragic consequences of a deadly worldview: In this case—seventy million missing women—and the lonely men who will go through life without them.


Too Few Women: What Abortion Hath Wrought

Eric mentioned the Save a Girl campaign, which is part of the efforts of the organization Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. We encourage you to go to their website, linked in the commentary and below. And as Eric suggested, read the Washington Post article on this topic, as well as other articles, by going to our Resources section.


Too Many Men
  • Simon Denyer, Annie Gowen | Washington Post | April 18, 2018
Save a Girl Campaign
  • Women’s Rights Without Frontiers
China’s Two-Child Policy: New Number, Same Disaster
  • John Stonestreet | | November 9, 2015
Planned Parenthood vs. Little Girls: Sex-Selective Abortion in America
  • John Stonestreet | BreakPoint | October 26, 2017

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • GenXConservative

    In fairness, although the article does not use the word “abortion,” it does in fact say that sex selection is driving this phenomenon. “Officials attribute this to the advent of sex-selective technology in the last 30 years, which is now banned but still in widespread practice.” But you are right that the article is trying to use other euphemisms rather than admit that it’s abortion, not just technology.

  • Just One Voice

    Sure is ironic how so many people will go about screaming & crying “unfair!” about various women’s rights and inequalities.

    Yet, even a staggering number such as this doesn’t even seem to rattle them. So, they’re okay with male dominance then. Wait, what about all that unfairness they were just crying about?

    Makes no sense at all to me.

    • gladys1071

      Actually the reason for the imbalance is cultural, boys are preferred over girls in that culture, that is where the problem lies, not with abortion per say.

      The one-child policy exacerbates the problem, with couples only allowed to have one, they prefer a boy over a girl, they do it at their own detriment.

      It is sad i agree with this article, but the root of the issue is cultural preference of boys over girls and the one child policy.

      • Just One Voice

        Uuuhhh, I think you missed my point?

        I wasn’t talking about the reason for the problem at all. I was merely puzzled at how some groups cry “unfair!” over one thing, then are seemingly acceptable of something totally opposite.

        And, well, this time at least, I didn’t mention abortion. Not to worry either. For my part, I won’t bring that up with you or discuss it. You’ve made your point more than clear enough on this board. I guess I’d ask you do the same for me ’cause we will definitely never agree on that topic, except by some miracle.

        • gladys1071

          I do think it is unfair, it is a discrimination against girls, and it is to their detriment that they do.

          I hope that maybe by seeing this imbalance, they might learn to value girls.

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Why would anyone think that a pervasive worldview that devalues human beings would learn to value girls? How can a rational society applaud the devaluation of some girls (unborn), but decry the devaluation of others (born)? Isn’t that the definition of discrimination? If society does not value and defend all human life (as we do unborn eagles, turtles, etc.) it eventually devalues all human life.

            Abortion is the ultimate devaluation of human life.

          • gladys1071

            Abortion is the ultimate devaluation of human life.

            I don’t agree with that statement, the reason for discriminating against girls is cultural, they prefer boys over girls. At the same time the one child policy makes that even worse. If the Chinese were allowed to have say 2-3, then they would most likely keep the girls, and hope for a boy.

            I find their policy sad too, but it to blame abortion is easy, instead of looking at the root cause on why girls are aborted.

            To me abortion is about women’s rights. Women are not incubators that lose their rights during pregnancy.

            To me this is about a woman’s bodily rights.

            Women have had very little control of their biology for thousands of years, always at the mercy of being raped, or constantly impregnated by their husbands, dying in childbirth.

            Now thank God to contraception now women can take control of their biology, and yes even with abortion.

          • gladys1071

            defending all life sounds sounds really nice, but how do you accomplish that?

            Do you believe in forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will to defend the unborn life? (even in the case of rape)

            Do you believe in stripping a woman of the right to her body?

            Do you believe in the state forcing a woman to give birth, if the state can force you to give birth, what else do you want to use the power of the state for?

            If the woman does NOT value the life inside of her, nobody can make her value it. That is the way it is. Since it is her body doing the gestating, she has the final say.

            For the record i do not care for the life of unborn turtles or eagles.

  • r hirsch

    The Economist covered this subject in great detail already in 2010:
    The cover of that issue of The Economist had “Gendercide” in bold letters. The word ‘abortion’ is used three times in the first four paragraphs of the leader for the issue:

  • Ford Minnett

    Sooner or later these lonely men will decide to go get brides elsewhere. Eastern Asia is in big trouble.