Sumnima Udas at CNN:
Challenges of being a woman in India. About half a million female fetuses are aborted every year because of the preference for boys
Jhajjar, India (CNN) -- One-month-old baby girl Khushi, which means "happiness" in Hindi, would not have been alive had her mother, Sumanjeet, given in to pressure from some relatives and neighbors.
"They would cry and yell, 'What are you doing giving birth to a girl? Push her off the roof of the building, kill her! Why are you keeping her?'" the 25-year-old mother says.
Sumanjeet says people kept telling her to get an ultrasound check and abort all four of her daughters. They told her she wouldn't have enough money for a suitable dowry. Although Sumanjeet wasn't quite sure how she was going to raise them, she knew it was a crime to get rid of them.
"Why are they killing girls, while they're still in the womb? It's a sin for which they'll have to be answerable to God. Small, cute girls like a doll. They kill her in the womb? It's a sin," Sumanjeet weeps.
The brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old student in New Delhi and the wave of outrage that followed brought to light the daily suffering of many Indian women. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest not just rape but the discrimination many women in India often have to live with throughout their lives.
A Thomson Reuters Foundation expert poll last year ranked India as the world's fourth most dangerous country for a woman, behind only Afghanistan, Congo and Pakistan.
Even though the practice is outlawed, 300,000 to 600,000 female fetuses are aborted every year in India because of the preference for boys, according to a 2011 study by The Lancet. And the discrimination that begins while in the womb continues throughout a girl's life.
Women's rights activist and Supreme Court lawyer Kirti Singh says there is a marked difference between how many parents treat their daughters and their sons. She says girls aren't given the same kind of food, they're not educated in the same manner, and they're only raised to become someone's wife.
"From the time they are born -- or not born -- and continuing till late in life when they become wives or mothers, it's a vicious cycle of discrimination, and violence keeps on continuing."...
[W]hen discrimination begins even before birth, change will not come easily.
Abortion and population control totalitarianism don't advance women's "rights". They are the ultimate degradation of women, and lead predictably to femicide, gender imbalance, male dominance, and a culture of rape and child-murder.
India has been the victim of a vicious population control program for the past half-century, much of it forced on India beginning in the 1970's as a condition for food aid.
Population control in India sowed what Indian women are now reaping. Population control stems from hate of humanity, and it degrades women selectively.
Everywhere it is practiced, population control murders girls. Now, in India, it is raping the survivors.
Population control in India sowed what Indian women are now reaping. Population control stems from hate of humanity, and it degrades women selectively.
Everywhere it is practiced, population control murders girls. Now, in India, it is raping the survivors.
The actual problem is that the world isn't Darwinian enough, with success in life equating to reproductive success.ReplyDelete
In a perfect Darwinian world, parents would be obsessed with their offspring being able to acquire marital partners so as to be able to present them with grandchildren.
If there's a shortage of female partners, then parents of sons should be offering dowries to accompany their sons into marriage - to make them more attractive - rather than the reverse.
This is happening in China. Well off parents of sons are saving money (partly explaining China's high rate of saving) to make their sons more attractive to less well off parents who happen to fortunate enough to have a daughter as their one child.
India's problem is cultural. And culture can change. The neighbours of a woman bearing a daughter aren't thinking Darwinian enough when they urge her to have a sex selective abortion. Or engage in female infanticide. They should be urging her to have a daughter. Because it leads to wives for their sons.
I don't understand this "thinking Darwinian enough." Aren't we all inclined to follow the Darwinian impulse to survive and propagate our genes whether we make a conscious decision to or not? Isn't "Darwinian thinking" just human nature?Delete
Bachfiend: So how will India control its population if it can't kill its girls? Should it kill more boys to compensate?Delete
I wrote my comment to see if you'd have an apoplectic fit. I seem to have succeeded.
Of course the world is Darwinian. It's just not Darwinian enough. Bad ideas, such as giving preference to sons over daughters, shouldn't survive. But they do, unfortunately.
Darwinism isn't intrinsically atheistic. Religious scientists, such as Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Robert Asher (author of 'Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist' - who incidentally did his PhD at your university Stony Brook) do real science, by stating, more or less, that evolution is the mechanism that God, as agency, uses to accomplish the ends - the world's biosphere.
You're not accomplishing anything with your faux outrage, calling people 'bastards' for example (by the way, my parents were married - I wasn't even a first born born less than 9 months after my parents' marriage. I was seventh and last in a large family).
India is going to do what India wants to do. They're not going to take any notice of a nonentity such as you. Changes in India's culture is going to have to come from the Indians.
What is "faux" about his outrage? Does he really like killing girls?Delete
What makes you think that I regard abortion to be a form of birth control? I've stated often enough that I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I think women should have a limited right to abortion, up to 20 weeks, as a last resort for failure of contraception, rape or incest.
Abortion should be rare and not encouraged (it is a surgical procedure with a slight risk of complications in the woman).
If birth control is desired, it should be voluntary, with contraception being readily available and affordable. Contraception, by its nature, doesn't favour male offspring over female.
I didn't say that you did. I asked how India will control its population if it can't kill its girls.Delete
How about using contraceptives, Little John? The thought didn't cross your mind?Delete
It's faux in that it's over the top. Won't accomplish anything. It's only to make himself feel better about himself. Won't do anything for the deplorable situation in India.
Little John doesn't have a mind worth talking about. I did state that if birth control is desired it should be by voluntary contraception, which should be readily available and affordable.
Reading comprehension seems to be a problem in the reality-challenged.
backfire, I see you are also part of the DODO crowd which is slated for extinction. (DODO: Darwin Only Darwin Only.)Delete
BTW, we all survived the 400 PPM of CO2! Sorry, you fail...
You're still an idiot. Who said that going from 397 ppmv to 400 ppmv would cause an abrupt lethal warming? Except in your tiny mind. It's going to 450 ppmv that's the concern. And the warming that's already locked-in.
[And the warming that's already locked-in.]
There is no warming. For 15 years, despite substantial increases in CO2.
Don't facts matter to you?
As I read this it is snowing in May. Again.Delete
Yes there has been warming. It just hasn't been statistically significant due to the current 'quiet' Sun and the great increase in aerosols from the burning of dirty coal in India and China as a result of their rapid industrialisation.
There actually should be significant global cooling instead of a 'pause'.
AGW states that with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperatures will be higher than they would otherwise (I repeat - otherwise) be.
Only an idiot thinks that increasing CO2 levels means that global temperatures must be increasing all the time. Or that weather is the same as climate.
The issue isn't whether you can make up excuses and stories as to why there is no warming.
Science works this way: you make predictions based on theory, and then test your predictions.
AGW loons predicted warming. They did not predict no warming, which in fact what has happened.
AGW is discredited. Perhaps you will come up with new theories. Failed scientists often do.
No. That wasn't what climatologists were predicting. You keep on noting that you're not a climate scientist. And you keep on proving it by making erroneous statements.
You're not a scientist either, with no clue as to how science works with your insistence that Thomistic evolution is a good 'explanation'.
backfire, the AGW pseudo-science has backfired. Get use to it!Delete
Off topic but I thought you'd find this interesting Dr Egnor.ReplyDelete
I have to say, it stinks of Orwellian abuse, if true.
I saw it earlier. Lawyers will do anything to spare their clients the death penalty. And I think it's justifiable, because I disagree with the death penalty. Murderers should be locked up for 'life'.
No, why should I? I'm not a control freak like you. If a woman desires an abortion, I think she has a limited right to it. It's her body, not mine. It's her decision, not mine. I'd prefer her to use RU486 though.
I am also against the death penalty, but grounds for legal defence is not my concern. Not even remotely.
Think a little harder. Put on your sceptic hat.
What do you think of the science involved?
I'm opposed to the death penalty for murderers and the unborn. Bachfiend thinks I must be some kind of "control freak."Delete
Egnor's 'which science?' is either typical of his anti-science viewpoint or a reflection of his flippant (and not particularly funny) sense of humour. Take your pick.
I personally don't think that the science is settled. PET scans showing that psychopaths have a different pattern of brain activation with less activity in the frontal lobes than 'normals' doesn't prove that it's the cause of the psychopathic personality.
It could be the other way around. Being a psychopath could be the cause of the reduced activity in the frontal lobes. Anyway; correlation doesn't mean causation. The scientist who originally did this work noted that his brain scan shows a 'psychopathic' pattern too, but he's not a psychopath.
A few years ago I heard an interesting puzzle. See if you can solve it:
A woman goes to her mother's funeral. There she meets a man she hasn't previously encountered. It's love at first sight, and they exchange notes with their telephone numbers. When she gets home, to her horror, she finds that they hadn't actually exchanged the notes; her note has her own telephone number. A few days later, she murders her sister. Why?
Sorry should have used inverted commas. Meant to.
I was referring to the 'neurocriminologist' work in the above link.
"It could be the other way around."Delete
Precisely my thoughts, Bach.
"A few days later, she murders her sister. Why?"
I am familiar with the test, Bach.
I won't spoil it for the other readers who might want to take a crack at it.
Puzzled me BIG time when I was first presented with it.
Actually, it didn't puzzle me at all. I got the answer immediately, and also picked the 'point' of the puzzle immediately too, mainly because I love reading crime mysteries.
I tried the puzzle at work, and only one co-worker got the answer, immediately and with exactly the same reasoning as I'd used.
It's actually another case of correlation doesn't equal causation. Getting a certain answer doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I think the science is dubious. Measuring activity in the brain is obviously real science, but the interpretation of such measurement is fiendishly subtle and the scientists who do the work show no evidence that they're up to the job.
The differences in brain activity between normals and psychopaths could be due to all sorts of things-- the differences could be the result of the psychopathology, not the cause of it. The differences could be caused by factors associated with psychopathology, but not identical to it (social isolation, stress associated with judicial intervention, etc).
Materialist scientists are a pretty stupid lot, and I don't trust them at all to present intelligent interpretations of this work.
My biggest concern is that concepts of guilt and innocence will be "biologized". Committing a horrendous crime may be attributed to brain chemistry, rather than evil will, and the social consequences could be devastating. Free will is already under relentless attack, and this won't help.
In the materialist view, we're all lab rats anyway, and control, not justice, could become the strategy.
Remember: if there is no guilt, there is no innocence.
Regardless of whether the psychopathic personality type is biological or not, whether a murderer's heinous crimes are biologically determined or due to free will, no one is suggesting that a murderer is 'innocent', and should be released to continue their harm on the public.Delete
A psychopathic murderer needs to be put away to safeguard the public as much as, if not even more than, a 'normal' murderer, who commits his murders for understandable, albeit not acceptable, reasons such as greed, envy, fear, etc. A murderer committing crimes for understandable reasons could potentially be reformed, whereas a psychopath is always a risk, and perhaps should never be released.
The jury were shown an impressive brain scan, which just distracted them. The murderer was a psychopath, regardless of the brain scan.
The only thing that can be said about the brain scan is that it's objective. Unlike the case of Todd Cameron Willingham, who was accused of killing his three children by setting a fire in his house, convicted and later executed. A psychiatrist, who didn't even examine Willingham, testified that he was psychopathic, as a result was incurable and was therefore executed.
The fire investigation evidence presented at the trial was deeply flawed, as many experts in submissions to the Texas governor noted. There was no evidence that arson was involved. I don't know whether he was actually guilty or not. I only know that he should not have been found guilty, because the expert evidence was just wrong.
But I wonder. A psychiatrist testifies that a person is psychopathic, and he gets executed. A brain scan shows, or purports to show, a person is psychopathic, and he's spared the death penalty. Very odd.
Thanks for the input.
Thanks (also) for the input. The issue I take with this is not guilty men going free, but innocent people being labelled 'potential psychos' because of this kind of thing.
My concern exactly. The guilty will never go free. Neither the authorities nor the citizens will permit it.
It's the innocent who are in danger. If we lack free will, we are neither guilty nor innocent. We are merely subjects to be monitored and controlled.
"Neuroscience" that is merely the denial of free will cloaked in scientific jargon is extraordinarily dangerous. The path to totalitarianism is straight and short.
I'd also noted in my comment that the scientist who published on the 'pychopathic' pattern of brain activation on PET scanning noted that he also showed the same pattern of activation - and he isn't a psychopath. So it's not definitive.
It's not going to change the legal system in the long term. Murderers are still going to be punished if they're found guilty in a court of law, whether they're psychopathic or not. It's just that anomalies do crop up. Todd Cameron Willingham was labeled as a psychopath in Texas by a psychiatrist who didn't even examine him - a dubious subjective assessment - and was executed. A murderer in California was labeled a psychopath on the basis of a brain scan, which is at least objective in that you have something to look at, but the significance being dubious, and was spared the death penalty.
It's difficult to work out the rationale for the difference in treatment of the two cases.
Biology isn't everything. Your genetic inheritance doesn't determine all your future actions. Both nature and nurture are equally important in determining what sort of person you'll be. I basically agree that free will is an illusion. But then again I agree with Libet that everyone has "free won't", the ability to override bad predetermined actions.
Understanding why psychopaths do their heinous crimes is difficult. It appears that their free won't is strongly impaired. And that they also show reduced capacity to feel fear. The newspaper article also noted that people with a low heart rate are even more likely to commit violence than those with an abnormal brain scan, which caused me to laugh. I have a resting heart rate of 40 bpm (which my doctor has noted), and won't hurt a fly, or at least a bee or a spider, preferring to put them outside if they ever stray inside my house.
'Free won't' is an argument for free will.
We choose our actions, despite our inclinations and instincts - which are often flawed and faulty.
There is no hair to be split on this one, I am afraid.
My concerns are noted above.
This kind of research is alarming because it seeks a biological answer to a moral question. It is reductionist pseudo-science being used as a means to control people... at least that's how I see it.
And 'Original Sin' is reductionist pseudo-religion being used as a means to control people...at least that's how I see it.
Christians such as Egnor assert without evidence that everyone is a sinner, and the only way of achieving redemption is to acknowledge Christ as God. And that no one gets credit for the good one does.
I think humans are social animals, and have evolved to cooperate and help one another. Helping someone in distress being the immediate automatic response. Not doing so requiring active thought or inattention.
During the terrible winter of 1941-42 in the siege of Leningrad, the population was reduced to less than starvation diets. People were soaking the paste off the back of wallpaper to get any sort of calories.
If you fell over in the snow, you were likely to die, because you were too weak to stand up again. What would bypassers do? Egnor, with his (incorrect) understanding of Darwinism would predict that no stranger would ever help, because everyone is a sinner, the population had been deprived of the moral teachings of the church for 20 years due to the malignant communists, one less fellow Leningrader means more food for others and helping others involves a cost - the energy in helping a stranger to stand.
What actually happened? There were many examples of strangers immediately doing what Egnor probably considers is impossible - if Darwinism is true.
I think you're taking too pessimistic a view of what biological factors tell us about what it means to be human. And the 'psychopathic brain scan' is just one example of it, which isn't predictive of someone becoming a serial killer. Or a violent offender.
I have no idea what anyone's opinion/interp of the doctrine of original sin has to do with this conversation. You see Mike's take on it as theological reductionism? Fine.
Considering your position on God, your opinion on this means literally nothing. No more would I query your thoughts on this than I might a Luddite on the workings of a microprocessor.
I truly do not know why you would even bother considering it.
I thank you for you input on the brain scans, but have NO IDEA what that rant on sin is about.
Do you want MY take on it? Is that why you bring it up?
If so, just ask me.
I am not sure you would understand me and I am sure if you did that you would not agree. But if you really want to know, JUST ASK.
As I noted above I see relating human behaviour to biological factors (brain, adaptation etc) is dangerous reductionism. A pathetic, infantile attempt to reconcile matter with mind. Further, such bunk is the basis for a means of control.
As I have stated many times before: Freedom is what I am about. I stand against any such tool for the control of the masses.
As for pessimism, you mistake my meaning entirely.
I am very optimistic. I look forward to the day when the blow-back burns all such madmen and their 'theories' to dust.
[Considering your [bach's] position on God, your opinion on this means literally nothing. No more would I query your thoughts on this than I might a Luddite on the workings of a microprocessor.]
My comment about Original Sin was a direct response to your comment. Original Sin asserts that everyone are sinners and the only way of gaining redemption is to acknowledge Jesus as saviour. Good works don't count.
A depressing viewpoint.
As I noted. Biology isn't everything. A psychopathic brain scan doesn't mean anything. It's interesting, but isn't indicative. Biology isn't reductionist.
OK. What's your take on Original Sin? You could have done it already, without your rant.
Egnor has the odd theological position, noting that no one gets what they deserve, in reference to Kermit Gosnell not getting the death penalty in return for not appealing the jury's verdicts.
Okay, here goes.
Original sin is THE original sin. It is the ability and inclination of mankind to choose the easy path rather than the moral one. The theology is rooted in the book of Genesis.
When Adam and Eve are fed the line about understanding good and evil and thus a promise of godhood and PHYSICAL immortality. A simplistic translation: This 'fruit' would enable them to be morally subjective and physically eternal (within time). This is the original LIE that resulted in the Original Sin. Whether or not you believe in Adam and Eve literally speaking, that is the underlying meaning of the text.
The irrational fear of death and the desire to bend morality to suite the situation is in our 'nature'. This is the very root of original sin, and we must resist and defy those urges or risk reaching our full potential as living beings.
We are all subject to such urges and the choices that spring from them. We all succumb on occasion and we all must refute (repent from) that sin and work to redeem ourselves.
Original sin is the seed of sin within us all. We are all imperfect and we all sin. Myself included, quite frequently.
Simply put: We are all sinners (potentially and actually), and constant redemption is required.
That redemption is self actuated by embracing a lifestyle that (best) meets your ability to 'stay on the path'. Christ's teachings certainly point the way and a full acceptance of the Word is a major help for those that seek guidance and God's grace. It is the BEST and most direct route. If the choice is taken to be good, we all must enter the 'father's Kingdom' in eventuality. There is no other way in but through the door that is Christ, and we will ALL stand before that door when we depart this 'life'.
Good deeds, altruism, charity etc are all part and parcel of that acceptance. They DO count. They are, in fact, quintessential and totally necessary if one truly attempts to follow the teachings and examples of our Lord.
Piety (or the mere parroting or appearance of it) is not a guarantee of salvation without the true will and deeds to back it up. For example, publicly howling the name of God and privately being a selfish, frightened, hedonist is NOT the path to salvation; rather it is rank hypocrisy. As the Christ taught 'Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.'
You may reasonably ask at this point: What is this elusive salvation that the pious mind seeks? In material and earthly terms it is meaning and value (quality?) of life. In spiritual and/or metaphysical terms it is the freedom from the stream of 'time' and the tyranny of sinful (evil) instincts. It is the true liberation of the will in concert with natural law. It is eternal truth and union with the Creator's love and His cosmos. Some call it paradise, I would call it 'home'.
I hope that makes some sense to you, Bach.
Even if you find a way to disagree, I am sure you will see that I am not espousing a simplistic view on these matters.
Sometimes when we chat on here I think you have been very unfortunate in the respect that your exposure to Christian doctrine and thought has been limited to very dogmatic and obedient souls who cleave to a very strict path. I am not suggesting that is wrong for them, or that they are somehow un-Christian.
What I am suggesting is that a mind like your own requires a richer sounding board than those who simply take the wager and win while not understanding the nature of the game.
As for Christ being the only path: The door to the Kingdom is Christ. You have no choice in that, nor do I. That does not mean you will not get through if you do not rush to Church this weekend, what it means is that you will face that ultimate choice as we all do. By accepting Christ you make that choice NOW, in this reality and enhance THIS reality by doing so.
Feel free to pick my brains on these subjects anytime. The only courtesy I would ask (as a somewhat forward military fellow) is to be direct.
Just ask, man. I will give you a direct answer.
Just as I ask when enquiring your opinion(s) (from all concerned) on subjects that you have considerable time pondering.
the line in the first segment should read "urges or risk NOT reaching our full potential as living beings."Delete
OK, that's my basic understanding of Original Sin. I'd replaced 'Original Sin' for 'reductionist pseudo-science' in your comment.
Original Sin is untestable and evidence free. It's just an assertion. And anyway the Garden of Eden didn't occur. At best, it's an allegory. What is merely asserted without evidence can't be rejected with evidence, because the evidence can't exist.
'Reductionist pseudo-science', however, does have evidence. One can look at the evidence and decide whether it's adequate. One can find for example that there's evidence that there are people with a psychopathic brain scan who aren't psychopaths, as I'd noted, and reject the hypothesis.
Evidence, evidence, evidence...
I had suspected that was what you were trying to do, but gave you the benefit of the doubt.
It is a weak analogy.
Here's the problem: You apply scientific standards to what you see as a mythological tale. That is a gross category error. To learn from a scientific model there is one standard, to learn from the 'myths' is another. You cannot lump them together and expect to find truth. They are separate tools for separate jobs. Further to assume a monistic position that only one method of learning is valid limits the mind.
Consider: What you see as dismal and pessimistic, I see as hopeful and optimistic. I believe mankind has the innate ability to choose GOOD. I believe that DESPITE sin, we are loved by our Father.
I believe we are not prisoners of our biology and our purpose is greater than simple survival and reproduction; that we are much more than animate matter. That what we call life could be roughly analogized as a pupae stage like a caterpillar or tadpole compared to their adult forms (moths, butterflies, frogs, or toads). Only in the case of this kind of 'pupae' the transition/transformation is much more profound and varies from creature to creature and even individual to individual.
I think this is true of all living beings, but especially of the one we call mankind.
The lesson of original sin is well summed up in the famous line in the Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our debt (or trespass) as we forgive those who are indebted to (or trespass against) us."
The lesson is humility and forgiveness.
I do not believe these things in a vacuum.
While I may not have the kind of proof that satiates your scientific curiosity, I do have reasonable basis (experiential) to believe what I do.
I do not expect you to argue against what I have written for, as you note, their is no means or basis to do so. You can only assert your own position (ie no garden of Eden). I cannot sufficiently share my own experiences with you anymore than you can with me. But, we can learn from each other if we care to simply 'listen' and exchange ideas.
In summary, I explained myself because you asked and because your description of original sin was sorely lacking.
Here's the deal: Your worldview, as you describe it, does not permit you to consider that which cannot be proven scientifically. To adhere to your view, all that is not proven by those extremely limited standards must be rejected or simply taken on faith.
My own DOES permit your models (ie scientific standards, evolution, multiverses or whatever) when they are useful and used for moral and just purposes.
I simply reject the notion that scientific study is infallible (morally or intellectually) or that the big picture is anything close to complete.
I doubt it ever will be.
As the Greeks noted "We reach and we fall".
All that said, I think we are arguing the same point as far as the 'nuerocriminology' is concerned. It is not 'science' in the true meaning of the word and has a great potential for political and legal abuse if accepted as such. Much more work in all the fields concerned needs to be done; and even then there are the ethical and moral questions to be answered.
This is another area in which we disagree. I don't regard science as being 'infallible'. As 'proving' anything. Science is a useful tool for understanding the world. It provides some, but definitely not all, indications as to how we should live. All science is provisional, capable of being disproved or amended if further data appears.
That's science's strength, and theology's weakness.
"This is another area in which we disagree. I don't regard science as being 'infallible'. As 'proving' anything. Science is a useful tool for understanding the world. "
Actually we do agree on the substance of this statement. It is just a matter of the degree.
"That's science's strength, and theology's weakness."
Well, this is where we part. I do not see theology and science as competing bodies or adversaries. In fact, if these 'tools' are properly used they often fit hand in glove. Science has often rounded out and confirmed theological posits, while theology has often inspired and justified the science.
Bachfiend, thanks for stooping to ad hominem attacks.ReplyDelete
Voluntary contraception would be preferable to infanticide, whether pre- or post-birth. Voluntary contraception is also already legal. Unfortunately, you can't choose the sex of your child prior to contraception.
That should be conception, not contraception.Delete
You can avoid ad hominem attacks if you'd care to read the comment and not make silly objections that sex selective abortion is a form of birth or population control. It isn't.
Here's how I see it.Delete
Bad tree, bad fruit.
Abortion is evil. When we make it readily available and 'on demand', it is brutally abused.
It is used as birth control, it is used in gender selection, it is eugenics.
The theoretical arguments about what it SHOULD be for are meaningless.
Nothing good comes from killing babies.
India? Ancient cultural values + technology + population control agenda (UN) = evil.
Oh, so I forced you to make an ad hominem attack. I see that you also called Pepe and idiot. Maybe you just make ad hominem attacks because you have nothing better to say. You're arrogant about your own intellect which makes you impatient with fools like the rest of us. To me you're just another commenter. Get over yourself.Delete
I read the comment and my response was not silly. Sex selective abortions are absolutely a from of birth or population control. They don't want that child, so they kill her. They do it in China because they are permitted only one child and they want a boy.
The point is that population control schemes always have unintended consequences. In this case, the unintended consequences mean a lot of dead girls, which is something feminists should oppose if they are really supporters of women's rights. As it turns out, Planned Parenthood played a fundamental role in drafting China's One Child Policy. Far from opposing it, they helped create it!
So, are women's rights really at the top of PP's list of priorities, or are they simply a murder for hire outfit? I would say that they support "Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out" philosophy, but someone on this blog might be offended by the reference to the Almighty.
A murder for hire outfit, of course.Delete
Like the old cowboy tv show "Have Gun, Will Travel", PP's moto is "Have vacuum pump, will abort"!Delete
You asked ME how India was to control its population, and I'd given my answer in my original comment. I've got no idea how the Indian government thinks or devises its policies. It's pretty dysfunctional at the best of times, not being able to provide basic infrastructure, such as electricity, to hundreds of millions of its population. Communities often have to provide their own private generators.
India isn't a country I'd want to copy.
backfire: "Of course the world is Darwinian. It's just not Darwinian enough."ReplyDelete
It's been a while since I've run across a real social Darwinist. Of course, social Darwinism was all the rage among the 20th century progressives (e.g., M. Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, Lord Keynes, and G.B. Shaw, to name just a few). But social Darwinism acquired a pretty nasty reputation from the Nazis and American Jim Crow Democrats. Are you a throwback or the cutting edge of a new eugenics regime with a smiley face pasted on the skull?
But I have a question for you... Assuming that the "selfish gene" is making the calls and these Indians are nothing more than meat machines, just copulating golems, why would anyone need to "think Darwinian"? In fact, if there's no free will, then what's going on must be Darwinian.
Can you clear that up for me?
If you'd care to stop playing with your plastic toy battleships and get out of the bathtub (the water must by now be getting cold), I'm certain you'll be able to find a YouTube video answering your questions.
And anyway, I'm not a social Darwinist. Social Darwinism was a ploy used by conservatives to justify killing off the poor by restricting charity and social care.
Blinkfast, you didn't clear that up for me.Delete
And that list of names (along with many more) were most certainly not "conservatives", despite your flaccid attempt at dancing back from your own words.
And stop peeking in my bathroom window, you pre-vert. Besides, it's a heated jacuzzi tub.
(pre-vert: the last step before one becomes a real vert)
And, yes, that tub contributes to gooble worming.Delete
But not nearly enough to suit me.
I lump progressives along with conservatives. They're all control freaks. I am a liberal with libertarian sympathies not a progressive. And anyway, social Darwinism was a conservative ploy against the poor. So too was eugenics.
You're not a "control freak'?
Pretty funny, coming from a guy who wants to regulate the air we exhale.
[And anyway, social Darwinism was a conservative ploy against the poor. So too was eugenics.]
How was it that social Darwinism and eugenics were "conservative"? They were in fact radically new ideas, originating in the mid and late 19th century, and were the capstones of progressivism.
The conservatives were the traditional orthodox Christians, who opposed social Darwinism and eugenics with ferocity.
Social Darwinism came in in the late 19th century with industrialisation and the migration of the rural poor to the cities and farms becoming more productive owing to the use of fertilisers. The rich conservatives were seeing their world change abruptly and felt threatened. They thought charity was going to allow the poor to out-reproduce them and achieve political power.
Restricting charity was their means of preventing that.
Some churches opposed eugenics. Some supported it. It was all over the place. Many conservative Protestant churches were in favour.
Also, I don't want to regulate the air you exhale. I do want to put a tax on the carbon in fossil fuels (and reduce other taxes, so it's tax neutral).
If you use less fossil fuel, then you pay less carbon tax (and get the benefit of lower taxes elsewhere).
Margaret Sanger was no conservative. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood.Delete
Also, regulating the fossil fuels we burn is control freak-ish enough for me. Environmentalism is a catch-all justification (and I use the term loosely) to regulate all manner of lifestyle choices. It's the most intrusive philosophy there's ever been. Watching your own resource consumption is fine but regulating everyone else's gets to be controlling. It begins by telling me what light bulbs I may use but soon goes further. If I accept the rationale that my fossil fuel consumption is everyone else's business, you can tell me what kind of car I may drive, how far I may live from my place of unemployment, where I can go on vacation, what I may eat, and how many children I may have.
Blinkfast I: "Of course the world is Darwinian. It's just not Darwinian enough."Delete
If true, why not restrict or eliminate charity (except for one's own kin or group, of course)? Wouldn't that make society more Darwinian, and therefore more to your liking?
Social Darwinism and eugenics were radical ideologies that emerged directly from Darwin's myth about the origin of man, via a brutal struggle for survival.
According to Darwin, it was evolutionary violence and competition that made us human. Eugenics and social Darwinism were specific social policies enacted by people who accepted Darwin's understanding of man.
The strongest opposition to social Darwinism and eugenics were from conservative Christians-- particularly the Catholic Church and orthodox protestant denominations.
Christine Rosen's' "Preaching Eugenics" is the best introduction to the social correlates of eugenics and social Darwinism.
Eugenics and social Darwinism were the desiderata of the Progressive movement. Learn some history.
No, evolutionary violence and competition wasn't a core tenet of Darwin's theory. That came later from his supporters, such as Huxley. Darwin's theory was many things, including cooperation within species, not just out and out competition.
The Russian anarchist prince Kropotkin in the early 20th century got Darwin right better than his so-called supporters in the late 19th century.
Conservatives don't want social conditions to change. They fear change. If they're wanting change, then actually it's change back to an earlier preferred time.
Christine Rosen's book doesn't give any information different to 'War Against the Weak'.
Social Darwinism and eugenics were programs started by conservatives. Some conservatives. Noting that other conservatives were opposed doesn't refute it.
Telling me to learn some history is a bit rich coming from someone who reckons that Kerensky's government was a liberal democracy. It wasn't. It came to power as a result of a revolution - the October Revolution. It wasn't elected. Kerensky wanted to continue the war against Germany against the desires of the Russian people (2 million Russian soldiers deserted). He was a socialist, who cracked down on the 'right', but not on Lenin's Bolsheviks.
You're a perfect example of someone afflicted with motivated reasoning.
[No, evolutionary violence and competition wasn't a core tenet of Darwin's theory.]
You're pitiful, bach. I regret that I have even tried to take you seriously.
And you're pitiful, with your cherry picking, quoting out of context, making up history and motivated reasoning.
Ye shall know them by what they delete....ReplyDelete
A tweet from the White House that got cached before it got shoved down the memory hole is priceless:
Thanks to the ACA, 1 in 3 women under 65 gained access to preventive care - like birth control - with no out-of-pocket costs.
NEWSFLASH: GOSNELL FOUND GUILTY! Convicted of 3 babies live born babies deaths.ReplyDelete
Here's the MSM video.Delete
You gotta love the Progressotard who's reading the news. She says "those counts were for 4 babies who were allegedly born alive..." No, sweetheart. The trial is over. Three of those babies were murdered in the first f&#!ing degree. No "allegedly" about it.
Another YouTube video? Anyway, the newsreader was presenting the news as the verdict was being issued. She was going from a time when Gosnell hadn't yet been convicted and was still 'allegedly' a murderer to a time when he no longer wasn't an 'alleged' murderer, but was an 'actual' murderer. While listening to a reporter at the court reading through the verdict through an earphone. Which included a large number of charges, for many of which he'd been found 'not guilty' (but I doubt that he was actually innocent of these charges too).
I'm not surprised at the verdict. He was guilty of breaking the law in performing late term abortions. The interest lies in the sentence. I personally think 28 years would be appropriate, based on a recent Australian case in which a hepatitis C positive, opiate addicted anaethesist in a Victorian abortion clinic managed to transmit his strain of hepatitis C to 55 of his patients by injecting himself with Fentanyl before using the remainder on his patients, using the same needle and syringe. Condemning his patients to a lifelong chronic illness.
He got 14 years. I think Gosnell's crime was twice as bad.
The interest also lies in what regulatory activity the state takes of medical clinics, in particular abortion clinics. His clinic should have been closed down years ago, so it's also a failure of regulation. As too was the Australian case, because the medical board was aware that the Australian doctor was a drug addict and hepatic C positive. He should not have been allowed to practice.
If your attention span had permitted you to watch the entire segment, blankfire, you would have known that the jury had delivered the verdict at the time she read the news. She was reading the text from a screen recessed in the desk.Delete
No. She was announcing the verdict as it was given, going from stating that he'd apparently been convicted to being convicted. Gosnell going from an alleged murderer to an actual murderer. Crossing to a reporter at the court still reading through the list of verdicts to the many charges laid.
If she used 'allegedly' the day after or even an hour after the verdict was given, then you'd have a point. You have to give people some slack when they're attempting to do multiple tasks at the same time; listen and read information coming from remote sites, think of what to say and the words to use ('allegedly' was probably in her vocabulary because for most of the case he was still an alleged murderer), look intelligent...
You probably have difficulty in multitasking too; playing with your plastic toy battleships in your bathtub, while also trying to think of some insult to fling at liberals.