Jivin J’s Life Links 6-29-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Star-Ledger has a conversation with Mara Hvistendahl on her new book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.
- The UK’s Department of Health is considering a measure that would forbid abortion providing non-profits from doing abortion counseling. Instead, women would have to be referred to an independent organization which doesn’t provide abortions:
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field propose that counseling would have to be provided either by a statutory body or a private organization that does not itself provide abortions.
The DoH statement appears to hold out the possibility that the MPs’ proposals could become a reality without the need for a vote in parliament.
A spokesman said: “The Department of Health wants women who are thinking about having an abortion to be able to have independent counseling. However, we do not believe it is necessary to set out this requirement in primary legislation as the necessary legal mechanisms already exist to enable this.”
Jun.29, 2011 1:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Q. What’s the impact of having so many more men than women, and what effect might this have in the future?
A. [Mara Hvistendahl says] It’s pretty stark. You’re seeing the buying of brides and sex trafficking on the rise. You had those problems before, but now that there’s much more demand for women, it’s gotten worse. Demand for women in these countries has actually decreased their status in many ways.
Historically, having too many men has not been a great thing for societies. Men commit more crimes and more violence.
Of course, according to missy feminista Mara Hvistendahl, it is only testosterone poisoned, knuckledraggin, neanderthal, mouth breathin males that are the problem.
Women, especially female homosexuals, never abuse, assault, exploit and murder other women. [sarcasm]
When women are violent it is because they are trapped in a male body. [ridicule]
I suppose one way of ‘stopping violence against women’ is to have fewer women to suffer violence.
But the ‘law of unintended consequences’ rears it’s hoary head once again.
The ‘fewer women’ are now viewed by some men and women as a ’rare commodity’ and the ‘law of supply and demand’ increases their desirability and accompanying montetary value which only increases the likelihood that more of the ‘fewer’ women will end up as unwilling participants in the sex slave market.
It is not wise to mess with ‘mother nature’, ‘evolution’ and ‘natural selection’. They tend to whack you upside the head when you least expect it.
The ‘natural order’ is an average of 105 male births for every 100 female births.
The ‘natural order’ had been working pretty good til the ‘zero population growth’ folks co-opted and manipulated the kinder gentler gender into choicing their pre-natal children.
The malthusian social planners have really screwed up the ecosystem with their obsessive complusive fetish to fix something that was never broken.
The ‘brave new world’ is turning out to be a really ugly place and it is not because there are too many men and too few women.
The obvious utilitarian solution is the MANDATORY AND FORCED ABORTION OF MALE CHILDREN. [I suggest the feminazis call it ‘Pharoah’s Law’].
Abort 106 male children for every 100 female children.
But the female ‘gendercide’ has been going on for 30 years so that ratio will have to be adjusted to reflect the present reality.
Or you can schedule a few wars to get rid of the excess male population.
Or maybe a bunch of the liberal, humanist males will do the right thing and dig a hole and jump in it and recycle themselves.
[With aplogies to the Creator, Intelligent Designer and Author of life.]
Ken, liberals deserve to live too. ;)
JB,
That is a magnanimous sentiment on your part, but why limit who ‘deserves to live’.
Everyone, including prenatal children deserves to live unless or until they have done something that forfeits their right to life.
‘No person shall be deprived of life [by the federal governement and the various states]… without due process of law.’
Liberal humanists are the primary proponents of abortion on demand, euthanasia, present dangers of over-population and the ‘joke’ that is man caused global warming.
If these ‘more than equals’ are true believers then they should practice with evangelistic zeal the gospel they preach and dig a hole, join hands with two of their fellow traveler soul mates and jump in it and recyle themselves.
If they really believe they are just organisms, no more or less essential than a tree or a a fish, who will die sooner or later, why not sooner rather than later?
Why not a shorter, rather than longer, path made by their combined carbon foot prints?
Why the delay?
Their doctrine teaches there is nothing after all evidences of life are absent. No pain, no discomfort, no hunger; just nothingness.
They owe us a demonstration of ’good faith’ in their belief in nothing.
It’s a no brainer.