Oh the irony!

OT: anyone know if PP is planning something in Denver? I just got an email begging for 34 more members in the Denver area by April 30.(Why 34???)

The irony goes even deeper than that.

When the Economist article broke, I googled "gendercide" and "feministing," just to see what they were saying about this. There is one post, a community post--not on the main blog, about this phenomenon, essentially questioning whether or not calling it a gendercide is a fair term. The consensus of the discussion seemed, astonishingly, to be that so long as all abortion choices were made freely and uncoerced, it did not matter even if the term "gendercide" was a fair one!

<sarcasm> Remember, pro-choice is the pro-woman side! These are the true feminists! </sarcasm>

I've also read feminist accounts of how the burka is actually liberating. Yeah, seriously.

I wonder if the feministas would be just as comfortable with a strategy and term like 'genderbendercide'.

If the search and destroy missions were tasked with identifying and eliminating genderbent embryos/fetuses I wonder if they would remain so 'tolerant'.

yor bro ken

Sarcasm Alert!

You know the law of supply and demand might also come into play in this equation.

If there are fewer females, and the demand remains the same or increases, then the remaining females become more desirable.

Or as the country and western song goes, "The girls all get prettier at closing time."

The 'standard' of what is acceptable will be lower with the reduced availability of the commodity in demand.

Maybe having four daughter will turn into an economic asset in the near future.

All the wanna be suitors will be bidding against each other in the amount of the dowry they will pay me for giving my blessings their desire to marry my daughters.

This would all be nice except for the fact that there is a GOD and HE has plans for all my children and HIS plans will not be thwarted by the schemings of men, not even opportunistic fathers.

you go girls!

yor bro ken

Milehimama: I've seen a very similar e-mail looking for supporters in Chicago. They're probably just running zip codes through a filter and getting local supporters across the country to recruit friends.

"... lack of abortion support among abortion survivors."

Golly, gee. I really wonder why the likes Gianna Jessen doesn't support abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at April 20, 2010 12:45 PM

"I've also read feminist accounts of how the burka is actually liberating. Yeah, seriously."

--------------------------------------------------

Now there is way for liberated women to experience equality with men.

They can go out in public naked but be completely covered from head to toe and not be subjected to the objectivication of a bunch of testosterone poisoned dirty young and old men.

They can actually have their feminista cake and eat it too.

yor bro ken

Hmm, that makes sense, Eric.

But I don't live in Denver, LOL!

What's particularly interesting is that so much of the "pro-choice" youth outreach is focused on "educating" -- one might even say "haranguing" -- young people about why they need to "fight for choice."

In contrast, the pro-life youth outreach is a simple matter of putting all those eager, enthusiastic pro-life youth to work -- arming them with the tools they want and need and giving them some direction.

And to a large extent, pro-life youth outreach isn't even needed: brilliant young activists like Lila Rose are out there creatively fighting abortion all on their own -- without having to be recruited by the older generation.

What a contrast!

Pro-life: "Here's what you can DO to fight abortion TODAY."

Pro-choice: "Please, please realize that you should do SOMETHING to keep abortion legal."

Very encouraging.

-- Eric Scheidler
Pro-Life Action League

I just picture the gods and goddesses shaking their heads and asking each other and themselves when (wo)men will finally learn that we punish them by giving them by answering their prayers, giving them exactly what they desire more than anything.

Again let's warn the human race to be very careful what you wish for.... because we just might give it to you.

There's no evidence that these missing girls would be any more valued--or even be here at all--if abortion were illegal. Female infanticide has been rampant in societies that don't value girls since the beginning of time. It's still common in Muslim countries, where abortion is strictly forbidden. (In his book "United in Hate," conservative Jamie Glazov described how Muslim girls are often killed and disposed of at birth.") How do we know that these female "abortion victims" wouldn't just become victims of infanticide if they were born? Infanticide is incredibly common in China and India, where many of the "missing girl" population is. It's supposedly not uncommon to see dead baby girls in the streets in China.

The problem isn't abortion, it's the complete devaluing of girls and women. A society that hates girls so much will find a way to kill them in or out of the womb.

Ashley,

You address the real issue here, the complete devaluation of women. Why on earth would we just make disposing of females easier and more socially acceptable with abortion?
Female infanticide is illegal in some of these countries, abortion of pre-born females makes destruction of "undesirable" females legal and morally acceptable.

Laws against female infanticide, "honor killings", abuse of women, etc. will not stop these crimes, but laws are a foundation to build on.

It's really nobody's business why a woman has an abortion.

Artemis,

So you agree its ok to destroy females just for being female? Tell us how this enhances the status of women.

Posted by: Mary at April 20, 2010 2:16 PM

I believe that a woman has the right to determine what she wants to do with her fetus. Her reasons are irrelevent to me.

I just blogged about this. I'd be happy to know your guys' thoughts.

http://ashleyherzog.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-sex-selective-abortion-is-straw-man.html

Yeah, as a member of the generation born AFTER Roe & Doe, knowing I could have been dismembered in my mother's womb, had she decided she didn't want me, certainly did nothing to soften my view of the pro-abortion position. They really cannot understand why young women who were lucky enough to escape the womb alive are not flocking to their movement? Well, maybe it has something to do with surviving a near death experience & being thankful. Maybe this generation is better educated (internet, ultrasound, embryoscope, pix showing the reality of abortion, projects like GAP, etc...)& they don't believe the lies told to women by the pro-abortion crowd...you know, like "it isn't a baby" & "abortion only terminates a pregnancy, it doesn't kill a baby" & "it is just a clump of cells" & "it is quick, easy, practically painless"...BLAH-BLAH-BLAH! Maybe we are tired of seeing our friends & family suffer following an abortion decision? Maybe we don't want to mourn our children after we pay to have them destroyed & disgarded like garbage. Maybe, just maybe a generation that has grown up being told we need to respect animals, plants, air, & water has figured out...we should also respect innocent human life!

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 20, 2010 2:00 PM

Okay, wow. Ashley is making my point for me. Because this is exactly what happened on the Feministing article (which is here, by the way). Rather than admit even so much as abortion can cause problems or be misused, these so-called "feminists" twist all logic and common sense in a way to rationalize, deny, or otherwise pretend away any sort of negative side to abortion. Blame anything but that, but abortion is never the problem. You don't even hear the phrase "too much of a good thing."

And now Ashley is enacting the same performance for us. And her blog post is more of the same. Those girls would have been killed anyway. It's because of the cultures that don't value girls. Abortion doesn't facilitate or reinforce that devaluing. It's not abortion that makes it easier or more accessible. It's never abortion. It can't be. I can't imagine any way it could.

Ashley, you are not a feminist. You can't be a feminist and be pro-choice. No feminist--no real feminist--would be so blasé about sacrificing thousands of women on the altar of Choice.

Artemis,

Many of the women in China especially are having forced abortions, as in against their will. They don't have "choice" as you understand it. Some go forward with the abortion with the expectation that they must produce a male heir to support the family. I would say she is often pressured by her male relatives into the abortion. Again, there is no "free choice" in this equation.

"Ashley, you are not a feminist. You can't be a feminist and be pro-choice. No feminist--no real feminist--would be so blasé about sacrificing thousands of women on the altar of Choice."

Which doesn't happen in our society, since the percentage of female births has gone up since abortion was made legal. Meanwhile, the "missing girl" population is in China and India (abortion legal) and Muslim countries (abortion illegal). It looks like this has nothing to do with the status of legal abortion and everything to do with how much girls are valued.

And why is female infanticide rampant in "pro-life" (anti-abortion) Muslim countries?

I'm out for the rest of the day, so comment on my blog if you want.

Posted by: republicanmother at April 20, 2010 2:41 PM

The government should neither force women to bear children nor force them to abort.

Posted by: Keli Hu at April 20, 2010 2:39 PM

Feminism is about empowering women. To deny a woman the right to her own body is subjugation of women. No different from the Taliban or the Wahabbis. Our bodies, our choice.

Artemis, it isn't about your body. It's about another human being. Not your body, not your choice.

Artemis @ 2:54,

You are still living in the 70's. Those slogans aren't working anymore. "Female empowerment" has become the equivalent of running roughshod over everyone else; and real feminists don't agree with that mentality.

How can it be a woman's body if she is pregnant with a little boy? The woman has grown a penis? Please explain, Artemis.

"Which doesn't happen in our society, since the percentage of female births has gone up since abortion was made legal. Meanwhile, the "missing girl" population is in China and India (abortion legal) and Muslim countries (abortion illegal)."
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 20, 2010 2:49 PM

Oh, so as long as abortion is only empowering female deaths in countries other than the US, it's totally fine. Cool. Glad we cleared that up.

Yeah, you're still not a feminist.

"Feminism is about empowering women."
Posted by: Artemis at April 20, 2010 2:54 PM

And abortion does the opposite of this. Look at the language of the abortion lobby in the US. "Being a parent is too hard. You can't do it. It's irresponsible to think you can try." That's not empowering. That's slut-shaming if ever I heard it. Versus the pro-life message of, "It's probably better to avoid pregnancy under these situations, but if you don't, you can handle it and we're going to help you."

And that's outside of the fact that abortion facilitates the easy killing off of women around the globe on a scale unprecedented in all of history.

You're not a feminist, either. No real feminist could embrace such a damaging, degrading, destructive power and call it freedom.

Artemis, 2:28PM

So females being destroyed for being female is no issue to you. It sounds like the ultimate sexism to me.

And why is female infanticide rampant in "pro-life" (anti-abortion) Muslim countries?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 20, 2010 2:49 PM

Has anybody else seen that? Infanticide is expressly prohibited (no surprise) in the Koran. I googled muslim and female infanticide and got nothing other than the Koran quotes.

Ashley Herzog, 2:49PM

Two points.

You know sex selection abortion of females does not take place in this country.......how? Why would it matter if it did?

Concerning the Muslim countries, its likely abortion was prohibited because it might destroy a male child. Prenatal testing in these countries was not and still may not be available. Also, is it legal or practiced despite laws prohibiting infanticide?

Hippie makes a good point. The Muslim faith prohibits infanticide. Keep in mind these were and are tribal societies practicing their own customs unrelated to religious teaching.

So we're Christians I guess we can pray. Dear Lord those who are truly deceived by the lie of abortion please help them to know a baby is not their enemy. Bring true healing to their lives and when their leaders intentionally mislead and use them give them the courage and conviction to walk away with true dignity. Help us to know Lord that when we rescue babies we are winners. And to also know that the door to abortion was opened because of the compassion of the American people and that it can be closed by the compassion of the American people.

Asssssshly/Artheeeeeemisty,

Who or what grants you 'physical autonomy'?

On what basis do you assert your possession of it?

yor bro ken

What's amazing is that the tired old argument about 'forcing a woman to have a baby' is still bandied about. A pregnancy last 9 months; it's temporary. Being pregnant is not enslavement. Giving a child up after birth is the compassionate choice; at least the child has a fighting chance to live.

While travelling in the Middle East, I discovered something about women there. They would like more job opportunities, not more abortion opportunities.

Female infanticide is technically illegal in Muslim countries (as is abortion), but it quietly happens all the time. Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists have written extensively about it. Read Jamie Glazov's book "United in Hate," specifically the chapter "To Hate a Woman."

Anyone want to throw out a few reasons why Muslim countries that devalue human life are also anti-abortion? This is a culture that supports honor killings, suicide bombings, and executions for minor crimes. So why do they ban abortion? It's obviously not about being "pro-life." It's about treating women and their bodies as men's property, and making sure that women who get pregnant are properly punished. Muslims wouldn't want some woman getting away with illicit sex--the pregnancy is the evidence against her. For a lot of "pro-lifers" around the world, banning abortion has nothing to do with saving babies. It's about punishing and controlling women.

So, I'm getting that the anti-choice solution to gendercide is to ban abortion everywhere, even in societies that value girls very little, if they're not openly hostile to them. So the mothers are forced to give birth, have the unwanted girls, and then...what? Problem solved? I think not. Not only are these baby girls still at risk for infanticide, they're likely to be mistreated and neglected by their families. Why do you think orphanages in China are overflowing with girls? Oh sure, they're "abortion survivors," but their parents still wanted nothing to do with them outside the womb.

Banning abortion will NOT stop the problem of unwanted girls.

Ashley,
In your opinion, what will stop the problem of unwanted girls?

Do we throw up our hands and conclude that since female infanticide has happened "since the beginning of time" there is nothing to be done?

btw
"Unwanted" is not a trait of a child but an attitude of adults. -Randy Alcorn

Of course not. The cultures have to change. Unfortunately, America can't change Chinese culture in China or Indian culture in India, they have to do it on their own.

So what do we do until the cultures change?

In other words, I don't think the fact that many baby girls in China are aborted is any worse than the fact that so many are sitting in orphanages. In fact, isn't the latter worse?

I have a problem tolerating it within our own borders, though. I think it's outrageous to see feminists defending the idea of an Indian couple going in for an abortion only because they don't want a girl. We value women in this country, and I have no problem demanding that people within our borders do the same. But then, how do you determine their real reasons for the abortion?

Ashley... really, it's worse to live in an orphanage than to be denied life itself? WOW.

Your opinion is that aborted baby girls are better than baby girls sitting in Chinese orphanages. Opinion not fact. You would have to ask a Chinese woman who was forced to abort I guess instead of giving up her girl in the hope of a better life.

I totally disagree with your opinion and here is where it gets personal for me. My friends after waiting 4 years(4!!!)adopted their little girl from China. She has been here 10 weeks and I get to see her every week. She is a blessing. There are more than enough adoptive couples waiting patiently and impatiently for their girls.

A communist government adhering to a one child policy allows its citizens to devalue females by encouraging abortion or remaining silent when a woman is forcibly aborted when she is 9 months along. Are they trying to stop the sexual trafficking happening as a result of the gender imbalance? A country that does not see the inherent value of its people from conception will reap what it sows. The US included.

It is a heart change that is needed. A total turning from our misguided ways of seeing and valuing life. ALL LIFE.

I am praying to that end, Ashley.

Yes, China's one-child policy is a huge, huge, huge part of the problem. They also perform forced abortions. I applaud Americans who adopt these baby girls. Unfortunately, they can't change the culture in China.

And yes, sitting in a squalid orphanage as a living, feeling child is obviously much worse than being aborted as a non-sentient fetus. That was the dumbest comment I've read on here in quite awhile, Elisabeth.

One more comment on the original post: gender imbalances in the population don't lead to male-dominated societies. Thanks to the war with Russia, Afghanistan was 60% female when the Taliban came to power.

Please show proof of these squalid orphanages. Are they the norm in China, Ashley?

Of course not. The cultures have to change. Unfortunately, America can't change Chinese culture in China or Indian culture in India, they have to do it on their own.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 21, 2010 12:52 PM

I think International Planned Parenthood is working overseas to get the governments to change their abortion laws and of course it is funded by western nations.

Usually this is called hegemony.

Praised in some contexts. Derided in others.

"Yes, China's one-child policy is a huge, huge, huge part of the problem. They also perform forced abortions. I applaud Americans who adopt these baby girls. Unfortunately, they can't change the culture in China."

Ashley,

Sometimes cultural change is slow, but I have no doubt that the hearts of Chinese people are being impacted by the generosity of adoptive parents who are willing to take care of their orphaned children. All it takes to bring about change is to convert one heart at a time.

As Mother Teresa said (paraphrasing):
We don't all have to do great things but we can do small things with great love.

I agree with Ashley that out-lawing abortion will not put it an end to female infanticide - however, it will make it less convenient. It's much easier to have an abortion than to carry to term, deliver, and then abandon or smother your newborn baby. That's what makes sex-selection abortion so popular in places like China and India - it's the difference between quiet murder by poison and violent murder by hatchet. Nevertheless, murder is murder, regardless of what method you use.

The cold reality is that whether a female is killed in-utero or in infancy, it's the *exact same female* being killed in each case. The only difference is age. So, if the infanticide of newborn females is appalling, then the infanticide of fetal females for the same reason (gender inequality) should also be appalling.

Frankly, I find it completely hypocritical that prochoice feminists are all about women's equality and yet they deliberately turn a blind eye to sex-selection abortions because "it's not a problem in the U.S., so who cares?" Oh, so feminists only care about U.S. females? If they DO care about ALL females, then they should be fighting against sex-selection abortions alongside the prolifers - not because they're abortions but because they're gender inequality.

But no, they must protect their precious abortion at all costs - even at the expense of 100 million fetal females. I guess only reproductive females matter to the feminists. They demonstrate nothing but a cold hatred toward fetal females - and all fetuses.

To sex-selection abortions they say, "Those fetuses would've rotted in orphanages anyway, or been killed at birth, so I'm not going to lift a finger or a voice against abortion" all the while ignoring the most obvious point of all:

Abortion makes gendercide EASY and if you want to fight against gender inequality (a.k.a. FOR women's rights), the last thing you want to do is make the crimes against women EASIER.

It's not rocket science.

This is a bit off-topic, but Belgium recently banned the wearing of the burkha, saying that it demeans women. Isn't that rather paternalistic? What if a woman actually WANTS to wear it? I think people should be allowed to wear what they like.

As for Chinese girls living in "squalid orphanages," I say the same thing to people lamenting how many children are in American foster homes -- please ask these children if they would rather be dead.

Ashley says in her blog: "Despite anti-choice fear-mongering, gendercide and sex-selective abortions aren't problems at all in the United States and other Western countries where abortion is legal and women are valued."

Would you be surprised to learn, Ashley, that the death rate in America is now higher than the birth rate?

China and India are facing a male-to-female ratio crisis thanks to sex-selection abortion, but guess what America is facing due to abortion-on-demand:

We haven't replaced ourselves and within the next century America will be full of immigrants; Caucasians and African-Americans will be rare and then eventually extinct.

Just for example, the average American family has roughly 1.5 children while the average Muslim family has 8 children. Who do you think is going to populate the world within the next century? The math is simple and shocking. This is going to become more clear once the baby boomers retire and we find there aren't even half enough young people in the workforce to support them.

A country with a death rate higher than its birth rate can not survive indefinitely. This will eventually come to a head; like I said, it's already past the point of no return. Demographics reveal that it would take 80 years to reverse this trend but only if every couple immediately began having 4-6 children. It's simply not going to happen.

"Do not be deceived: God can not be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." ~ Galatians 6:7

We think abortion is liberty but all we've done is set ourselves on the irreversible pathway to extinction.

Bekah: I thought that the U.S. population was at roughly replacement level, 2.1 women per children?

Bekah: I thought that the U.S. population was at roughly replacement level, 2.1 women per children?

Hi Phillymiss :) Have you seen the documentary "Demographic Winter"? It's fascinating and distubring. Here's a link to the website: http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

Here's some info on the U.S. birth rates:

U.S. fertility first dropped to less than replacement level fertility in 1972,[11] and by 2002 had dropped to a record low.[19] (Replacement level fertility is 2.1 children per woman because of infant mortality - see terms). During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population.[11, 12] Because of population momentum, U.S. population would have increased to 255 million by 2020 and then gradually declined.[11]

In 2000, births increased 3% over births in 1999 - the third straight increase following nearly a decade of decline from 1990 through 1997.[12] Now, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime is at 2.03 - slightly below replacement level.[12]

Notes;

11) Demographer Leon Bouvier, Tulane University, www.NumbersUSA.com "U.S. Overpopulation Facts".

12) National Center for Health Statistics news release, February 12, 2002, Women Are Having More Children, New Report Shows Teen Births Continue to Decline, referencing the document Births: Final Data for 2000. NVSR Volume 50, No. 5. 104 pp. (PHS) 2002-1120.

19) National Center for Health Statistics report: U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low; Births: Preliminary Data for 2002. NVSR Vol. 51, No. 11. 20 pp. (PHS) 2003-1120.

Ashley, I would like the numbers for infanticide of girls in muslim countries vs. numbers for infanticide/gender specific abortion in asian countries.

While I have no question that muslim nations think poorly of women, they also put a very heavy emphasis of birth rate, and as such I have a hard time believing that they are killing infants of any sort at any rate approaching nations that limit reproduction.

@Phillymiss: I think we've just recently dipped below replacement level and are now at about 2.0, actually.

Which is actually kind of really bad.

Phillymiss, I'm from Canada and in my original post, I mistakenly listed the European birth rate (1.5) instead of the U.S. rate of 2.03. But 2.03 is still less than replacement level, which is 2.1. :/

Another bit of evidence that lends ever increasing credence to the notion that 'humans are stupid'.

This time the book of the muslim speaks to the issue of men justifying in their own minds the killing of their own unwanted female infants and pretending that they are giving back to god a gift they treasure so much.

QURAN_VERSE_016_056 to 016_056_059

And they (even) assign, to things they do not know, a portion out of that which We have bestowed for their sustenance!

By Allah, ye shall certainly be called to account for your false inventions.

And they assign daughters for Allah! Glory be to Him! and for themselves (sons,- the issue) they desire.

When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had!

Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust?

Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?

016.062 They attribute [I believe by attribute the translator means they 'make an offerring'.] to Allah what they hate (for themselves), and their tongues assert the falsehood that all good things are for themselves; without doubt for them is the Fire, and they will be the first to be hastened into it!

---------------------------------------------------

It is written in the 'book' of Jew and the Christian:

Jer 7:30-31 For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight, says the Lord; they have set their abominations (extremely disgusting and shamefully vile things) in the house which is called by My Name to defile it.

31 And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-hinnom [son of Hinnom], to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire [in honor of Molech, the fire god] — which I did not command, nor did it come into My mind or heart. [Lev 18:21; Josh 15:8; 2 Kings 16:2-3; 21:1,6; Isa 30:33.] AMP

yor bro ken

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 21, 2010 12:29 PM

"Banning abortion will NOT stop the problem of unwanted girls."

--------------------------------------------------

Promoting killing ones pre-natal children is certainly not going to reduce the problem.

I guess you feministas could continue to propagandize and indoctrinate and convince people that men are the reason the mother earth is dying.

If you can instill enough hatred for males then maybe mother earth can still be saved.

You really don't need too many males. One male can impregnate hundreds, perhaps even thousands of females if you harvest their sperm and go the artificial insemination route.

You choose the the type of males you want to reproduce and cull the unwanted embryo/fetuses while they are still in the petri dish.

You gals ought to get together and buy an island somewhere genetically engineer this paradise where all people will be valued not by their gender or ethnicity or intelligence but simply by their humanity.

Put that on your to do list right after you come up with an objective standard to determine who is 'gay enough' to qualify to compete in the gay world series of softball.

yor bro ken
humanity.

And yes, sitting in a squalid orphanage as a living, feeling child is obviously much worse than being aborted as a non-sentient fetus. That was the dumbest comment I've read on here in quite awhile, Elisabeth.
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 21, 2010 1:49 PM

That's a bit of a stretch considering much of what Artemis, Less and a few others post here. Or, for example, considering that you stated that it is better to be murdered than to have a chance at life... even if life is less than perfect.

Maybe you should do all of those Chinese children a favor and go murder them now... then they wouldn't be in those "squalid" conditions. Because, you see, if life isn't up to what Ashley thinks is "good enough" (an egocentric thought if there ever was one), then it's better to be dead.

Forget the fact that these children have a chance to grow up and become someone... someone unique with a perspective and a voice and a chance.

Dr. Wayne Dyer grew up in foster homes.
Oprah Winfrey was molested as a child.
Louis Armstrong was abandoned by an alcoholic father and intermittently cared for by his mother but also shuffled around to various relatives during his childhood.
Coco Chanel grew up in an orphanage.
Henry Morton Stanley grew up in a workhouse, he became a great journalist and traveled to Africa and uttered the famous words: "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"
Malcolm X was taken from his mother after his father's murder and put into a children's home prior to being fostered.
Ella Fitzgerald grew up in an orphanage.

The list could go on and on. Where there is life, there is hope.

Elizabeth,

Don't forget Frederick Douglass. He escaped slavery, educated himself, became an author and newspaper publisher, served in Abraham Lincoln's administration and Abe publicly identified Frederick as his 'good friend'.
Artheemiserable and Less say Fredrick Douglass would have been better off if he had never been born and having been born into slavery the kindest thing to do would have been to murder him quickly.

Humans are stupid!

But GOD can fix stupid.

yor bro ken

We worry about what a child will become tomorrow, yet we forget he is someone today.
-Stacia Tauscher

"And yes, sitting in a squalid orphanage as a living, feeling child is obviously much worse than being aborted as a non-sentient fetus."
Ashley, I will then ask of you, what have you persoanlly done to help these abandones girls sitting in "squalid orphanages"? How many have you adopted? Or is killing them in the womb before they can be born & reach the orphanage & thereafter be adopted into a family your only solution? I think this entire discussion is missing the point. If the unborn is not a living human, who cares why a woman aborts or how many abortions she has? Not justification is needed. Doesn't wan stretch marks? Abort? Doesn't want a girl? Abort. But if the unborn is a living human, then no justification will suffice. Ashley, you are saying the unborn human is less valuable than a born human based on perceived function...being sentient. And you use terminology to further dehumanize the unborn..."fetus". While technically a correct term to use after the 8th week of pregnancy, a "fetus" does not describe a "non-human", but rather a human at a specific stage of development. Similarly, a newborn human is a "neonate", but I'm certain you would feel comfortable calling a neonate a "baby" while you must call an unborn human a "fetus" in an attempt to dehumanize it. So, is the unborn ALIVE? yes. It is growing, developing, metabolizing, reproducing...it is not inanimate matter & it is not dead. Is the unborn HUMAN? Yes. The unborn offspring of 2 humans cannot be anything other than fully human. It has human DNA & human chromosomes. Even at the single cell stage following fertilization, it can be identified as "human". Those who support abortion are making justifications for killing living humans based on 4 basic arguments: the Size of the unborn, the Level of development, their Environment or location, and their Degree of dependency. The embryo or fetus is smaller than a born baby or than the mother, so it is ok to kill it. But larger humans are not "more human" than smaller humans...NBA players are not more human than little people. They don't have more value or more of a right to life. Level of development is used too...the fetus isn't sentient...the fetus can't breath, feel, think, etc...whatever subjective criteria you want to use (why not heartbeat or brainwaves which start by 22 days & 5 wks respectively???) But a teenager is more developed than a toddler...are they more human? More worthy to live? Environment...fetus happens to be temporarily inside the womb. Changing location doesn't make you any more or less human. Similarly, the 8 inch gap of the birth canal doesn't magically transform a non-human "fetus" into a human "baby" & the trip through the birth canal doesn't make it come "alive" either. Finally, Degree of Dependency...the fact that the unborn is temporarily dependent upon the mother to survive doesn't lessen it's status as HUMAN. Our dependency on each other, medications, pacemakers, machines, dialisis, etc...doesn't make anyone of us less human. A newborn is dependent. Many elderly are dependent. Some people who have had horrific accidents are dependent. But all are living humans. Yet you are willing to discriminate against the unborn human fatally because, it suits your purposes. Those in positions of power always find a way to define those they wish to subject as "non-persons" & not deserving of basic human rights...like the right to life. It has happened many times in history...in US history. Abortion is just another example.

Here's an article about the horror that is Chinese orphanages, where almost all the children are abandoned baby girls. The author said it felt like a concentration camp.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96apr/orphan/orphan.htm

Remember, these were girls who were ALREADY born, then dumped off in these horrible places where they're often allowed to starve to death or put into "dying rooms" when sick. No one cares if these out-of-the-womb girls live or die. So if you think you can just stop abortion and China will suddenly be a shiny, happy "culture of life," you're delusional.

Trying to dress up gendercide as a problem caused only by abortion is completely dishonest, and I'm sure Jill knows that. And once again, the percentage of female births in the US has gone up since abortion became legal. I posted the link in this thread.

@Ashley:

You're making this ginormous mistake.

A] No one is saying gendercide is caused only by abortion. What we are saying, which none of your rationalization can get around, is that it is exacerbated, accelerated, and normalized by abortion. And moronic slogans like, "Abortion on demand and without apology!" Seriously, people who say that and then whine about gendercide are the height of hypocrisy.

B] Even if the above paragraph were not true, abortion would still be wrong because it kills human people. Period. The fact that abortion does a bunch of other bad stuff, like accelerating gendercide, and normalizing violence against women and children, and making women into sex objects, just serve to make it even worse.

That occasionally we focus on points B-Z of "why abortion is bad" does not magically mean that point A goes away.

Ashley,
What in the world do you think adoptive parents of Chinese girls are trying to do? Or any adoptive parent for that matter. So many parents are waiting years to adopt.

Please answer Elisabeth. Shall we kill them all right now and put them out of their misery?

Ashley, here's another orphanage in China which presents quite a contrast to the one you linked to. There are good orphanages and horrid ones, tis true, but let's not overlook the good ones just to make a point. Not every orphan in China has a miserable fate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OTnmym8FY

Ashley, here's another video which shows more recent footage and information about Maria's Big House of Hope Luoyang, China:

http://vimeo.com/6070438

Prolifers are accused of only caring about the unborn and not lifting a finger for the born, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Who's building ethical, loving orphanages? Who's adopting orphans? Who's financially supporting and helping single mothers?

Prolifers.

Prolifers are accused of only caring about the unborn and not lifting a finger for the born, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Who's building ethical, loving orphanages? Who's adopting orphans? Who's financially supporting and helping single mothers?

I don't deny that. Religious Christians adopt far more children than anyone else. They also care for the poor and sick. As a Catholic, I know that. My only point in this thread has been that legal abortion and gendercide don't go hand-in-hand. Obviously many parents in these countries abort girls. Others commit infanticide or abandon the child. Either way, it's the same female being killed or dumped, so banning abortion won't change that.

Ashley, you said: "My only point in this thread has been that legal abortion and gendercide don't go hand-in-hand."

But don't you see, they *do* go hand-in-hand: abortion makes gendercide far far easier. And the easier it is, the more it will be done. Abortion is causing the death of far more females than abandonment did/does. That's the link.

You said: "Obviously many parents in these countries abort girls. Others commit infanticide or abandon the child. Either way, it's the same female being killed or dumped, so banning abortion won't change that."

I'm so glad we agree on this. Whether abortion or abandonment, it's the same female being killed. If you find infant abandonment appalling, why don't you find sex-selection equally appalling?

Ashley, 12:29PM

Ever hear of "honor killings" in Latin America? Its considered an insult to a man's "honor" if his wife just disagrees with him, and her killing "justified"
They are certainly not confined to Muslim countries.

While you feminists "empower" women with abortion, women remain uneducated, denied civil and human rights, abused, and mutilated and killed. Now they can be abused and disposed of before birth, what difference do infanticide laws make?

It seems the "feminists" have miserably failed the women of this world.

What's wrong with orphanages? My father lived in one until he was adopted at the age of 8.

Another famous person who had less than an idyllic childhood, and a uh-uhm, former classmate of mine!

Stevie Wonder, who was born prematurely, became blind, lived in a violent home, his mother was forced by his father to walk the streets.

Does anyone think the life of Courtney Love's daughter Frances has been idyllic?

Ever wonder why the Hollywood hobnobs try to portray their beginnings as so humble, which for the most part they are not?

Ashley, if it were permissible for a Chinese family to have more than one child, they might be more willing to tolerate a daughter. They abandon their daughters because of the intense cultural pressure to have a son and the intense government pressure to have only one child.

This is the danger of having a set number of slots for one's children. Adopting "wastes" a "slot" that could be given to a genetic child. If you have a second son, you might never have a daughter, because there are only two "child slots" in your family. In China, if you only have one child slot, of course you want a son. If a child is defective, you don't want to waste a slot on him or her.

But that's not how God intended the family to work.

Jessica at Feministing, aggravated by pro-abort

'warhorses'...

Couldn't you just shorten that word to

'whorses' and get an even better effect?

yor bro ken

DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE YOUNG BOYS,,,I just became a grandfather at the age of 45 and it did make me proud for some reason. Maybe it was because I made it this far in life or just the general idea of being a grand dad. It was in part because my son did not even consider abortion. It is beyond me to imagine that i could have ever told my 21 year old son to abort a human life for any reason. To me it is murder. But if he told me that he was thinking about it I would have worked my tail off trying to convince him not to do it. I thank God that they both knew better and even though they are young and unmarried they still decided to work against the temptation to go with the flow. That is what is wrong, it has become a go with the flow notion when it comes to having an abortion. This is what we were warned about during Roe vs Wade and here it is. Not to mention Roe is coming clean with her truths. I think the irony of man is that he thinks that he is so important when he is alive and doing well in the world but so vain that he thinks others don't deserve the same chance to experience what he has done or plans to do. The irony is that he thinks he is so smart and so capable of using his head to have so much in the future to the point that he would kill an unborn child to prevent disruption of his hopes and dreams. He should stop for one second to realize that if those who came before him had the same ideas, he might not even be here. Like you said, slow hari kari. Seems like a simple logic to me but maybe we have become more evil than I would like to admit. After all who would have thought that we would have to beg our children not to kill their own. We have to beg because it is legal and it is an epidemic.

Congrats on the grandbaby, Don! Enjoy cuddle times. My folks tell me grandparenthood is even better than parenthood.