The Prime Minister of India delivered a brave and important speech on Monday of this week. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared his nation's practice of sex-selection abortions to be a "national shame" and called for increased enforcement of laws that would prevent the practice.

Sex selection by abortion is widespread in both India and China, although it is practiced in many other nations as well. In both nations efforts to limit the size of families is part of the equation. In China, the nation's draconian "one child only" policy has led to a dramatic imbalance of males to females. In India, only 927 baby girls are born for every 1,000 baby boys.

Throughout India, ultrasound technologies and other diagnostic procedures are used to identify the sex of the unborn baby. Close nearby are abortionists ready to terminate a pregnancy of the unwanted gender -- almost always baby girls.

As The New York Times reported:

Over past three decades, the increasing availability of ultrasound equipment has assisted India's cultural preference for sons and distorted the sex ratio across the nation. As the equipment has become more affordable, special ultrasound clinics have opened even in the most impoverished parts of the country.

Before undergoing an ultrasound test in India, pregnant women must sign a form agreeing not to seek to know the sex of the fetus. Doctors who disclose the sex during an examination can be imprisoned for up to five years. But the law is widely flouted. Studies suggest that doctors often give coded hints, by remarking for example, "Your child will be a fighter," or by offering pink or blue sweets, as appropriate, on the way out. Successful prosecutions are rare.

The Prime Minister's speech was amazingly candid and clear. He referred to sex selection abortions as "inhuman, uncivilized and reprehensible." He also argued that the practice was not justified by poverty or other considerations. He put the blame directly on those who demand and those who provide the sex selection abortion services, speaking of "unethical conduct" on the part of medical personnel and of "unscrupulous parents" who seek out those willing to perform the procedure.

In the most important sentence of his speech, the Prime Minister put it all on the line:

"No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women."

Time alone will reveal if the Prime Minister's bold words are backed up by real action. Getting local authorities to prosecute these cases may be difficult. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister fired a significant shot in defense of human life and human dignity. The great tragedy is that he did not extend his moral argument to the "national shame" of elective abortion for any reason.

No doubt, many Americans will read of the Indian Prime Minister's speech with a degree of appreciation. Feminists find themselves in an excruciating moral bind on this question, because they have argued so assiduously for a woman's "right" to an abortion for any reason or for no stated reason at all. They are now on shaky ground to suggest that sex selection abortions (in particular, the elimination of female fetuses) are morally wrong and should be legally impermissible.

In a larger sense, however, Americans should recognize that sex selection abortion is practiced here as well. There is no law that would prevent a woman to abort her baby for this (or any) reason. While Americans recoil in horror at the widespread scope of the problem in India, the fact is that Americans are guilty of the same practice, only on a smaller scale.

Prime Minister Singh delivered an honest message to his nation on Monday. We can only hope that Americans will face this tragedy with equal honesty.

Consider this recasting and extension of the Prime Ministers comments:

No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice abortion on demand -- for any reason.

Those are the words we should all pray to hear.

______________________

The full text of the Prime Minister's speech is found here.

[Courtney Tarter is originally from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, a recovering feminist, and regular contributor to Gender Blog.  Her love of the gospel and desire to serve women speaks for itself in this two part series. - David Kotter]

Because God changed my heart about discipleship first with Brittany, it freed me to be more intentional in pursuing ministry to women. I knew that I was discipling not because of my great intellect or righteousness, but because Titus 2 is for all of us—including me. I began working with senior high girls at my church in Minnesota after college. It was there that I met the Waldemar family. Whitney, their now 16 year old daughter, was in my small group and her parents had been praying about asking an older girl to mentor Whitney. After praying and talking about it, they asked me. We hardly knew each other, but they felt God leading them towards me. And for six months, the Lord allowed me to not only mentor Whitney, but be a part of her family as well. She and I went on a mission trip to a Jamaican orphanage this summer as a part of a team of mothers and daughters. Mrs. Waldemar and I would talk often, not only about Whitney, but about what God was doing in me as well. She was one of the primary encouragers of me coming to seminary. She was even my ride when my car broke down, and it broke down often. By the time I moved here, both she and Whitney had become like family to me. Their love for the gospel and desire to know Christ caused me to love him more.

I can remember many occasions where I walked away from meeting with Brittany and Whitney with an intense joy in the gospel because of what they were saying about their love for the Savior. Their walks with Christ challenged me and spurred me on to greater holiness and pursuit of Christ.

Often we feel strange talking about our discipleship of other people. We don't want to sound self-promoting or arrogant. But this stems from an unbiblical understanding of discipleship. It is not because of my merit that I discipled women. And it is not my merit that will enable me to continue discipling women. If discipleship was about my ability and righteousness, I would be doomed. It is the gospel that moves me to discipleship. God has commanded that we disciple younger women, even now, not because we are great but because he wants people to know him and grow in him. Titus 2 ministry is not based on merit, but on grace. And if I was not growing in my love for the Savior while I discipled these women, then there was something lacking in my life. There was not a moment that went by in my relationships with these women that I did not walk away praising God for the work that he had done in both of our lives. Discipleship is not just a one-sided effort, and there is no manual besides the Bible. Rather, it is a life-on-life relationship rooted in the gospel.

I still talk with both Brittany and Whitney. And there is not a week that goes by that I do not miss them and long for their friendship. God was so good to me in giving me them. They were, and are still, a blessing to me, and tremendously used by God to point me to the Cross.

-- Thank you for your friendship, Brittany and Whitney. Not only do I consider you dear friends, but I consider you my sisters, too. Our God is good indeed.

[Courtney Tarter is originally from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, a recovering feminist, and regular contributor to Gender Blog.  Her love of the gospel and desire to serve women speaks for itself in this two part series. - David Kotter]

I used to think that discipleship was about me. As I felt God calling me to ministry I began feeling the burden to minister to other women, which was not a wrong desire. But, I thought it would work my way. And my way was a romantic idea of finding a girl to disciple. We would meet. I would see her desperate need for my help, and I would disciple her and change her life. Thankfully, God rescued me from this sinful and very wrong idea.

I first met Brittany in the beginning of my senior year. She was a freshman who I didn't have any real interest in getting to know. She immediately had a lot of friends, and I, in my sinfulness, questioned her love for the gospel because of her friends. The week before I left for Fall Break she approached me in the cafeteria. Freshman couldn't have cars and she needed a ride home for break. I just so happened to be the only girl on our campus who lived near her house and the last thing I wanted to do was to give her a ride home. I definitely knew God would rather me use my drive time for my personal edification—not driving some freshman home. I thought that I had already had a hard semester trying to disciple women, and I needed the break. But I had no legitimate reason to say no, so one week later we were headed to Michigan for break.

God used that ride to shatter a lot of pride in my heart. I told her that we would listen to sermons on the way home (thinking that she probably wouldn't want to do that, but I was going to put my foot down anyway), but she seemed very excited about the idea and I still remember the encouragement that I felt when I saw her pull her Bible out and take notes. She and I shared our testimonies, which were very similar, and she asked me a lot of questions about moving on from a sinful past because hers was fresher than mine. As the drive continued, the Lord began to soften my heart towards her. And the entire week that I was home I felt the Lord leading me to ask her if she wanted to meet on a regular basis.

It was after that drive that we began to meet almost every week for nearly two years. We went to church together every Sunday, we prayed together often, and I always looked forward to our rides home at breaks. God used her to break my preconceptions about discipleship. God knew exactly what I needed when he brought Brittany into my life.

Discipleship is not about me seeking out the girl who I thought needed the most help, rather discipleship is about me being obedient to the Titus 2 mandate that God has placed on my life. Discipleship was just as much, if not more, of a sanctifying process for me than it even was for Brittany. As I would seek to pour truth into her, I myself had to believe in and know the gospel that I was proclaiming. We always joke about how I always have the same experiences right before she does, and God has used all of those experiences in both of us to conform us more into the image of his Son. As I grew in my relationship with the Lord, I grew in my relationship with Brittany because she and I were both striving for the same goal.

A court case recently unfolded in Kentucky that left James Rhoades, a university librarian, fighting via a paternity suit for rights to see the son whom he fathered through an adulterous relationship with a married woman.

Late last month, a divided Supreme Court in the Bluegrass State ruled 4-3 that Rhoades cannot press his paternity claim, even though he has procured positive DNA evidence that validates his claim as the biological father of the child. Rhoades fathered the child with a woman who was—and remains—married to another man. Kentucky laws do not allow a third party to claim parenthood to a child birthed by a married woman. As TIME magazine termed it, "When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State...the marital ‘I do' means a lot more than DNA...Courts have forever held that allegations of fatherhood by third parties can only disrupt the family, confuse or embarrass the child, and unsettle the social order."

The decision left Rhoades shaken, "What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life," he told TIME. "He is my son and I love him."  TIME points out that the rise of forensic science has begun to weaken third-party challenges to paternity. By 2000, at least 33 states had adopted rules that allowed challenges by fathers with genetic proof of their paternity, mostly restricting the efforts to the first two years of a child's life.

In issuing its written opinion, the Kentucky court seemed hard-pressed to come to grips with a united reason as to why Rhoades should be denied paternal rights; the seven judges issued five separate opinions. The words of Justice Bill Cunningham brought the most clarity to the case by asserting the timeless truth of the sanctity of marriage:

As long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something. We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk. While the legal status of marriage in this early 21^st century appears to be on life support, it is not dead.

This case demonstrates several important truths, not the least of which is the devastating effects of sin. We have here a sad example of the way in which "the mischief of sin," as the Puritans often called it, is often visited upon the children of those committing it.

The ruling also spotlights the value of marriage—which the law has upheld for centuries—regardless of the changes of science; the young boy who is the product of this sinful relationship will be best served in the context of a home—one that includes a mother and a father—should God, in his mercy, preserve the couple's marriage intact in spite of its obvious brokenness. While I can sympathize with Rhoades desires to spend time with the boy, perhaps better yet it will please God to redeem his mother's home for His own glory. We pray that it will be so.  

Chip and Celia have been married for 5 years. They love and respect Chip's parents, but Chip's parents feel that the couple needs to spend more time with them, take their input more seriously about parenting, and allow Celia to work outside the home ("...since she does have her Master's Degree").

In a society where we breath the air of feminism, many young couples face the struggle of building a complementarian marriage while having parents who see through egalitarian lenses. Here are a few tips on how to honor egalitarian parents while also not compromising your biblical convictions.

1. Humility: We are always told to "honor our parents," so the best way to honor parents when you disagree with them is by humbly hearing them (without interrupting) and humbly responding. It is okay to disagree, but if there is a lack of humility in your heart during hard conversations, it is probably going to stir more strife than peace. James 4:8 says, "God is opposed to the proud, but give grace to the humble." God will give pour out his amazing grace as you seek to be humble and honor him.

2. Remember the Gospel: Alfred Poirier encourages us to see criticism with our eyes on the cross. He says, "In light of God's judgment and justification of the sinner in the cross of Christ, we can begin to discover how to deal with any and all criticism. By agreeing with God's criticism of me in Christ's cross, I can face any criticism man may lay against me. In other words, no one can criticize me more than this cross has. And the most devastating criticism turns out to be the finest mercy. If you thus know yourself as having been crucified with Christ, then you can respond to any criticism, even mistaken or hostile criticism, without bitterness, defensiveness, or blame shifting. Such responses typically exacerbate and intensify conflict, and lead to the rupture of relationships. You can learn to hear criticism as constructive and not condemnatory because God has justified you."

3. Did you always hold this position?: For many of us, we did not always hold the complementarian position that we now embrace. Give your extended family an opportunity and grace to learn. Allow them to see the way you function as a family and not seek to teach them "why you are right." I have heard C.J. Mahaney say, "Time and truth are on our side" and I think this quote can apply here.

4. Get the log out of your own eye: Are you more aware of your sin or the sin of your extended family? Jesus says that you need to get the phone pole out of your own eye before you get the tooth pick out of theirs.

5. This is not your worst problem: Your worst problem is your sin and the wrath of the Father that you deserve and the eternal hell that should come to you. Through the cross of Christ, your worst problem is fully and finally handled because Christ was a substitute for the punishment you deserved. An offense by your extended family is not nearly as significant as your offense against God. Your worst problem is solved.

6. Husbands, lead graciously: A heavy handed husband is not going to win over anyone. A husband who is loving his wife as Christ loves the church is going to be respected. Your extended family is watching you and your marriage can be a picture of the gospel or a distortion of the gospel. Husbands, it starts with us.

7. Wives, submit intelligently: A feminist society cannot comprehend a loving wife who is positioned toward her husband and home. When wives joyfully serve and show that complementarianism is not "doormat-ism" the watching world marvels. Wives, use the gifts God has given you for his glory and the good of your family. Your extended family may never understand, but your Savior will say, "well done."