"We will now focus on the emotional aspect with 'Love your child.'"
"Corporate houses will be asked to print the girl child message on electricity, telephone and other utility bills to bring about awareness on this sensitive issue."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
These people brought this nonsense on themselves and they have no one to blame when their birth rates plummet. Idiots.
Oh, well, so there are a few places left in the world where males are preferred to females.
Abortion, we must remember (as we are constantly told by feminists) is a sacred right. Who are you, you fucking chauvinist, to suggest that you have any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. It's her body, pig!
So, leave Indian women alone to do as they please with their bodies.
And, here's to the Indians for preferring males to females! Pretty refreshing after a couple of decades of funny TV shows of women kicking men in the balls.
History is repeating itself one time too many. We need our valuable women. But today's intelligentsia are morphing into mini Dr Strangeloves. When faced with a crisis, their answer is to take the pretty women and strong men into hideouts their control and abandon the rest of the world to destruction.
ST, you are so predictable. You hate women, I get it. No need to remind everybody on every thread.
good ol' multicultural stew. never underestimate the capacity of humans to pervert a process.
This is too often ignored in the abortion debate: if abortion is allowed, it WILL be used for preferential selection, of one kind or another. How can one simultaneously say, "Abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" and "Sex selection through abortion is an unacceptable practive"?
One of my worries about this is that that such a sex ratio is not good for peace.
Marriage is the great civilizer for males. These sorts of sex ratios are going to result in a lot of guys around who have little chance of ever finding a mate.
So, what do they do? Two things. One is run in juvenile gangs. That has its own problems with internal security. But as worrisome is that the second alternative is to burn them off in war.
"How can one simultaneously say, "Abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" and "Sex selection through abortion is an unacceptable practive"?"
It is easy as long as you do not think too much. Or as long as you are not troubled by reality and live in a world of ideas. Or as long as you hate brown people. Recall that Planned Parenthood started as a racist eugenics organization and puts most of its abortion offices in minority neighborhoods.
Trey
Trey
I never relized what subhuman garbage Indians and Chinese were until I had a baby girl.
"We need our valuable women."
Tautological. The question is what to do with the useless ones.
I know, we invent a discipline so banal even they can claim to understand it. Then we give them make work McJobs where their only responsibility is to regurgitate their training to the next crop of useless ones.
In fact, this sounds like such a good idea we should replicate it for everyone. The only question is what do we call this? It has to be catchy so the UO's don't figure it out. Can anyone help me figure out what to call this discipline?
Bruce Hayden’s point is explored at book length in
“Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population” by Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer
For no one truly knows what sort of society might result from a severely unbalanced sex ratio. But, it's unlikely to be one that enhanced freedom for females.
Roe v. Wade - abortions on demand!
What bad could possibly come of that?
(The law of unintended consequences hits feminism right in the face.)
If there were a genetic test to determine homosexuality and, as a result, homosexuals were routinely aborted, you can bet that the banning of abortion would be pretty high on the gay rights agenda... Here is another dog that doesn't bark. I'm pretty sure that gendercide has happened, on occasion, in this country. And no feminist makes an issue of it.....Also I have never heard a feminist demand that we stay in Afghanistan in order to oppose the rule of the Taliban. I sometimes get the idea that feminists are not against sexism so much as they are against white men.
Abortion's many unintended consequences were foreseen, and disregarded.
This will be blamed on something else; probably misogyny, but the abortion of females will bear a bitter and strange fruit.
Strange how the progressives always end up killing their own people.
Stranger still how they elude any responsibility.
K, the Red Chinese have been doing the same thing for years.
History tells us a population with an imbalance of males usually turns warlike.
In twenty years, Sino-Indian War for the Heavyweight Championship of Asia.
Be there or be square.
PS We sit back as we recover from the Demos and pick up the pieces.
PPS Both sides are nuclear. what could go wrong?
A burgeoning shortage of poon in Pune. Ironic, what?
Ah yes one of my favorite discussion points regarding abortion:
-For over a third of the world's population abortion is "anti-woman".
And I would agree that when the male/female population skews towards male bad things can happen.
Isn't our host, Ann Althouse, pro-abortion? I guess the term they use to describe themselves is "pro-choice", but only for the mother is it a "choice".
Shaka, the Emperor of the Zulu Nation, preferred his soldiers to be unmarried men. Made them more ferocious.
Funny, feminist prefer abortion and parents are more likely to abort a female baby.
I used to teach a probability lesson with a simulation: the simulation was that parents could have children until they had a boy. So if their first child was a boy, that was it. If the first 10 were girls, and the 11th was a boy, that was it. Turned out that average family size was around 2.
How can one simultaneously say, "Abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" and "Sex selection through abortion is an unacceptable practive"?
The phrase "abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" returns zero hits on Google.
What people normally say is that it should be *legal* in all cases. But nobody thinks that "legal" and "socially acceptable" are synonymous.
Bruce Hayden: This problem also exists in polygamous societies as well.
When the local sheik owns half of the women, it leaves a lot of pissed off men with too much time on their hands.
Perfect breeding ground for suicide bombers.
Revenant said...
The phrase "abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" returns zero hits on Google.
Thus demonstrating the severe limits of Google search as a research tool. It's not data, dude.
'Blogger Clyde said...
A burgeoning shortage of poon in Pune. Ironic, what?'
No play in Bombay.
No twat in Swat.
The phrase "abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" returns zero hits on Google.
I know it's branching off topic, but this line of arguing (the "safe, legal, and rare" approach) has always bothered me. Either it's OK or it's not. If it's not OK in any circumstances, why not? You can throw out a few medical notes or talk about money, but the only real reason that it makes us uncomfortable enough to call it less than idea is that the baby has value, as a human being, and that it's distruction is wrong.
So, it's either always OK, or it's horribly, horribly wrong. There's not really an in-between.
- Lyssa
You know what you call millions of men with no chance of access to women at home?
An army.
Some bunch of loveless guys traipsing across a border to get themselves some women is a tried and true casus belli. Remember Rome and the Rape of the Sabine Women?
Wait until we have prenatal genetic tests for homosexuality. See what happens then.
I know it's branching off topic, but this line of arguing (the "safe, legal, and rare" approach) has always bothered me. Either it's OK or it's not.
The reason you're confused is that pro-choicers are saying "I want people to be able to go through this medical procedure" and you're hearing "I want people to go through this medical procedure".
Substitute, say, "chemotherapy" or "appendix removal" for "abortion". See? No confusion. Who wouldn't rather avoid a medical condition entirely than go through treatment for one?
You know what you call millions of men with no chance of access to women at home?
Engineers?
@Revenant, 4:26
Dude, that's cold! Just stone cold.
Probably accurate, but still cold.
OT, but is there a female equivalent of a profession that membership in which dims one's chances of sexual congress?
Benedictine nun, maybe?
But even then probably only by choice, barring an invasion by Norsemen.
"Revenant said...
The reason you're confused is that pro-choicers are saying "I want people to be able to go through this medical procedure" and you're hearing "I want people to go through this medical procedure"."
No. She's confused because there's no reason for anyone to claim an appendectomy is or is not socially acceptable. You're trying to straddle the issue ignoring that the only justification of social approbrium also justifies illegality.
No, Marshall.
You (and Lyssa) are wrongly assuming that the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare" is an expression of social opprobrium. It isn't.
There are all manner of things we would like to be rare even though they are 100% socially acceptable. Cancer, for example.
Revenant,
Actually, we aren't. We're pulling it from your earlier comment where you distinguish legality and social acceptance.
But the same is true for rare. When deciding whether appendectomies are to be legal do we consider whether they are rare?
Marshal, I have no idea what point you think you're making. You are not making any sense.
Nobody, except possibly you, is suggesting we consider whether or not they are rare when considering if they should be legal. The statement is "safe, legal, AND rare", not "safe and legal IF rare".
Medical procedures should be safe, because only insane people want surgical procedures to be unsafe. They should be legal, because people have an inalienable right to control their bodies. And they should be rare, because any sane person would rather prevent a medical condition than treat it with surgery.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
"Nobody, except possibly you, is suggesting we consider whether or not they are rare when considering if they should be legal."
I agree, which is why your explanation of what "rare" meant in the Clintonian quote is wrong. In fact it was a clumsy attempt at triangulation. Clinton was trying to appease those on the right by staking out a middle ground, keeping abortion "rare".
I agree, which is why your explanation of what "rare" meant in the Clintonian quote is wrong.
No, I'm entirely correct in my interpretation of the quote. The accompanying explanation was that birth control and adoption should be encouraged, but abortion should be available to those who want it.
There was no suggestion that we look down on people who chose abortion, nor was there a suggestion that we try to make it rare by restricting it.
Why should adoption be encouraged over abortion? If it's just a clump of cells why does it matter?
Obviously, it doesn't.
If a person gets cancer, then I absolutely want them to be treated with chemo (if neccessary); if a person gets appendicitis (sp?), I want them to have an appendectomy.
If a person gets pregnant, we want them to consider options other than abortion. If abortion's OK, then why should they bother considering any other options?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा