I totally agree with the push to recognise that babies are born from conception and that the voice of the defenceless should be championed until this injustice is set right.

Here's a question for the forum.

I wonder out of Australia's 1.2million aborted babies, how many Nobel peace prize winners there could have been or scientists that cured cancer or AIDS etc

We will never know as they never got a chance to fulfil their potential.
Lets give them that chance.

A few false assumptions in this article. As far as my acquaintances are concerned, 100 percent are aware of gender selection practices in countries like China and India, and furthermore, many get some grim satisfaction knowing that as a result there are now over 60 million Chinese men who are without a female partner and whose parents cannot look forward to a subservient daughter-in-law to care for them in their old age. The phrase 'serves them right' comes to mind. I believe gender selection is actually illegal in China, although parents of a daughter in remote rural areas may be given permission to try for a son. The problem of gender selection in China is probably self-limiting - the generation of single children will have a different outlook from their parents on whom the one-child policy was first implemented.

Where on earth does the figure of one in three Australian women having an abortion come from? Some women have multiple abortions instead of using contraception, has the 1-in-3 'statistic' been arrived at by assuming one abortion per woman?

The reduction in gender ratio will actually increase females mate options.

I wonder what the situation would be if it were male numbers being reduced? We would end up with fewer males and many more females without partners, then finding themselves in situations where finding a mate, any mate would be considered desirable.

Would this situation be considered a 'war on women' or 'war on men'?

I think that any way it goes there will always be the cry that society is against women. Even the women, after all they're the evil vixens having the abortions aren't they?.

In the end though, is the whole argument is about removing reproductive choice from couples who want to choose the sex of their child? Or is it just about abortion period?

I suspect the latter.

First full disclosure:

I do NOT seek to make abortion illegal. At least in the first trimester I have no problem with abortion.

However we also have to face the fact that gender selection abortion is only the beginning. As good genomic analysis becomes readily available – say in about ten years – babies are going to be aborted for all sorts of reasons.

Some possible future reasons for abortion:

--Risk of being gay

--Risk of not being very bright

--Likely not to be good looking

And so on.

There are always trade-offs. The trade-off for allowing abortion is that women may make choices you do not like.

C'est la vie

Great article Sonia! I cannot comprehend the attitude towards unborn children that permeates the minds of those who wish to set them aside as if they were nothing - whether male or female! Damaging one human life is a stroke against every human. Human dignity, human rights and human equality are set aside by every act of abortion. Whatever happened to 'live & let live'? We desperately need to align with our Maker's laws of love: to love God and love our neighbour as we love ourselves - in that order!

This highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the feminist movement and a very clever angle taken by the courageous Senator John Madigan. How can gender selection be a "women's health" issue? Now that John Madigan has brought this out into the open, let's see how many other politicians have the courage to stand and be counted. Pro-life voters must stop supporting EMILY listers and Pro-abortion candidates at the polling booth. On judgement day the Good Lord probably won't accept that you voted for the Pro-abortion candidate because his party had a better tax policy.