""There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons," Dr. Sunita Puri was told by the Asian-Indian women she was interviewing.
"The physician, who practices in the Bay Area, wanted to find out why so many immigrant Indian women in the United States were so eager to find out the sex of their unborn children, and why so many of them choose abortion when they found out they were carrying a girl.
"What she discovered over the course of 65 interviews conducted over several years profoundly shocked her. Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls.
"Puri's report, published in Social Science and Medicine this last April, makes for grim reading. Women told Puri of their guilt over their sex-selection abortions, how they felt that they were unable to "save" their daughters. Even the women who turned out to be carrying boys this time around could not shake their remorse over having earlier aborted daughters in this deadly game of reproductive roulette.
"They also made clear that they were not free actors when it came to reproductive "choice." Many, when it was learned that they were carrying girls, became the victims of family violence. Some -- in an effort to make them miscarry -- had been slapped and shoved around by angry husbands and in-laws, or even kicked in the stomach. Others were denied food, water, and rest in order to coerce them into aborting their unwanted girl babies."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 2:33 PM
Our nation has insisted on the availability of abortion-on-demand. We should not be surprised that it is sometimes demanded for the wrong reasons...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 3:16 PM
"Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls."
Although I do not agree with abortion... there are some that make a good case for it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM
Although I do not agree with abortion... there are some that make a good case for it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM
Like Nancy Pelosi?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 4:17 PM
Rick**
There is a long-standing insistence on sons to 'carry on the family name'. In China's one-child-per-family policy, for example, it is desirable by many to have sons to carry on the family name and, since only one child is permitted, they strive to make sure that child is male. India has a population problem like that of China, though they do not have a 'one child' policy. What they do have is poverty, and many Indians seek to limit the number of mouths to feed, while seeking to have sons who can work and also carry on the family name.
In some cultures where abortion is not so rampant, daughters are sold into prostitution and slavery. It is believed that daughters are more costly to raise than sons, even well into adulthood. Then there is the old adage that, "with a son you only have one boy to worry about, with a daughter you have to worry about all of them".
I'm not sure why the sex-selection process has expanded from some of these cultures into America. Poverty is not so rampant, there is certainly not a one-child policy, nor is there a general social stigma attached to daughters (though there may be local ones in some ethnic communities). Whatever the reason, it is shameful.
As to the question of how such a society survives: I've seen no evidence that such a society can for long. The evidence seems to suggest that, in a society in which males outnumber females, prostitution and rape tend to increase.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 4:24 PM
Theorist wrote:
"These two are NOT connected. Read what you posted. The men would take care of this themselves."
If you read the link, you'll see that the abortion issue is clearly linked to this. Methinks your anger is misdirected, as usual.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 8:11 AM
We permit abortion-on-demand. Technology permits sex determination in the womb. The two technologies are combined to permit abortion-on-demand to be used for sex selection. How are the two not related?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM
Theorist wrote:
"We are talking about a culture which promotes the killing of a baby because of it's gender. Not the means or method."
Au Contraire! The practice would be punishable, assuming it would be carried out, if it were practiced through other methods than abortion. Therefore, the two are inseperable. Abortion gives them lawful cover to an abhorrent practice.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:55 AM
These I believe are immigrant women, coming to this country with some pretty screwed up views of what life is about in my opinion. So far as beatings and mistreatment of pregnant women, or any other person in this country.... don't we have laws against that? If it is a known practice, why is something not being done about it.
I know, we will draft some more laws that won't be enforced.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:49 AM
"Wheels will tell you it's not the gun, it is the person behind the gun."
Theorist,
I'm confused... are you quoting me as a source, or is this an effort to move the stump. In any event should I feel honored?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:53 AM
Theorist wrote:
"One question...did abortions happen before they were legalized?"
Yes, but what is your point?
When abortion was illegal, the State did not sanction gender-selction feticide. Now we do.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 12:23 PM
"Yes, but what is your point?"
That you are wrong even if you agree with Theorist and are both right? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 12:40 PM
"They will be done in nasty and horrid places for nasty and horrid reasons by nasty and horrid people to scared and (in this case)abused girls who have no other option. They will cause deaths to the potential mothers because of crude and unsanitary conditions and you apparently could care less."
All of those things take place now, even though they are legal. I take it you apparently could care less.
To me, gender selection is a horrid reason, and yet you seem to have no problem with that, as long as it is legal.
My point, which you apparently choose to ignore, is that by legalizing abortion-on-demand you are sanctioning the horrid practice of gender-based fetisicide.
I take you cannot comprehend the difference between abortion-on-demand and abortion itself.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:34 PM
Wheels, you have said the aforementioned statement (or something to that affect) before. Please correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I misinterpreted your words.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:57 AM
Theorist,
Yes I did use words to that effect and still believe them to be a true statement.
So... I am being used as a source. I am honoted.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:39 PM
My point for those who are intentionally obtuse...is that abortions will still take place whether legalized or not.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:29 PM
Theorist,
Would that kind of be like saying that Murders are going to happen if or not they are legal... so we may as well go ahead and legalize murder, so that it can be committed under a more sanitary environment?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:45 PM
Old John,
Are you being obtuse again?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:46 PM
Actually Theorist I have read all the posts, just thought you were replying to Old John's more immediate post.
We cannot have Old John being called obtuse... it might affect his delicate sensibilities.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:52 PM
Old John,
Are you being obtuse again?
Not for long, I'm going to follow the lead of the Obama children's school switching to a Japanese menu for Dec. 7. Don't want to be obtuse!
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:53 PM
Theorist wrote:
"And...abortion does not sanctify gender selection, that is going to happen whether the abortion is legal or not. Comprende?"
Obviously, you cannot read the written word. I never said anything about 'santify', I said 'sanction'. They are two different words.
We have laws against neonaticide and infanticide. They may happen, but we have recourse against them. Not so, it seems with feticide. The law sanctions feticide, even subsidizes it in some cases - even when it is based on gender selection. So, yes, it sanctions gender selection.
Crimes happen, that is true. But we have recourse against them. Legalize a crime and you have sanctioned it, and you no longer have recourse against it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:57 PM
Theorist,
The only anger you've expressed in your posts is at me for bringing it up. I take it you would prefer that the world, or at least our little corner of it, remain blissfully unaware that it goes on.
You've even suggested that it is an argument in favour of abortion, which means you've sanctioned it. Apparently you're okay with gender-based feticide. As I've said, your anger is misdirected.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:01 PM
Theorist,
You did not answer my question regarding making murder legal. Is it that you do not have an answer, you do not know the anser... or it endangers your argument, so you do not want to answer?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:15 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Making abortion illegal will not stop it from happening. Understand?"
No. Changing the laws regarding abortion-on-demand will change it. Making abortion illegal will give recourse against those who do it. Either way, we will no longer sanction it.
"...and I am angry that you pretend it is because abortion is legal."
I never alluded to any such thing. I merely said that abortion-on-demand sanctions (not 'sanctifies') it.
People murder people, whether it is a crime or not. Are you saying we should decriminalize murder? Should we permit 'murder on demand'? People steal things, even though theft is illegal. Are you suggesting our laws against theft are meaningless? They apparently don't prevent it. I say the fact that they give us recourse against the act justifies the law.
We reap what we sow. We have sown the seeds of female feticide, and now you are angry with the nature of the harvest.
"sanctify - to give religious sanction to..."
Note the adjective 'religious'. I nowhere alluded to religion as a factor in this.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:15 PM
Sorry, Wheels, I see that I repeated your question. I must have overlooked your post of earlier. I'll let Theorist tell us why she hasn't answered it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:17 PM
Not a problem SH, I believe in light of the argument for abortion it and a lot of other laws need to be questioned to the point... do we need them or not, or do we pick and choose which law against humanity to decriminalize because of political persuasions.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:20 PM
Since you didn't bring religion into may I by asking, are the Baptists or Methodists doing this gender selecting via abortion?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:26 PM
Old John wrote:
"Since you didn't bring religion into may I by asking, are the Baptists or Methodists doing this gender selecting via abortion?"
The study doesn't cite specific cases, and deals primarily with the incidence based on racial inequalities: Indians, Chinese, and Koreans were noted as being the ones studies.
Logic would dictate that some Baptists and Methodist, if they choose to engage in feticide, may be chosing to do so for purposes of gender selection. There is no evidence to support that, or to suggest whether they have a higher preference for male or female children if they do so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:41 PM
This is what I was writing about when I talked of the random nature of our 'moral indignation', over in the Joe Paterno thread. Theorist raked me over the coals, even to the point of questioning whether I was safe to be around childrn, because I was not sufficiently outraged over Mr. Paterno's failure to go beyond the law in challenging allegations against Mr. Sandusky.
Yet, when presented with evidence of female feticide occurring here in America, we get a "So sad...." from her, and that is supposed to be enough. As I said, random levels of indignation.
Then, of course, she becomes angry - not at the people committing the feticide, or at the mechanism which makes it legal, but at me for making the connection. So sad...
I gather that Theorist believes it is so important for women to have the right to choose to commit feticide for whatever reason, that she cannot look into the face of the 'right' and realize that it may be a 'wrong'.
Women are killing future women, exercising the choice of depriving them of a lifetime of choices. Not because they are not healthy, not because they are the product of rape or incest, but rather because they had the audacity to be conceived as females. Theorist blames the men who helped conceive them, and who she assumes persuades the women to abort them. The women are blameless, in her view, although it is their bodies, their children, their choice, or so we're told. So sad...
The abortion clinics have fought hard against the requirement to counsel the women before committing feticide. They have apparently adopted a 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy with regard to the wholesale slaughter of the next generation of women. So sad...
I would think that, if society has any moral imperatives, it would be to end this practice. But there is no moral indignation left, apparently, it all having been spent on faulting football coaches for turning a blind eye to transgressions. There's only so much indignation to go around, no? That was my suggestion, but Theorist thought I should not be immune from sharing her indignation. Whatever she deemed morally repugnant is supposed to be so for all of us. I was not free to reserve my indignation for things that I thought mattered, such as feticide. I had a moral obligation to share her indignation. She, however, feels no such obligation to share mine. So sad...
Methinks the blood of thousands of unborn children are on the hands of those who turn a blind eye to this. To think, women are exercising their free choice to turn on their own kind. So sad....
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 4:32 PM
My point for those who are intentionally obtuse...is that abortions will still take place whether legalized or not. They will be done in nasty and horrid places for nasty and horrid reasons by nasty and horrid people to scared and (in this case)abused girls who have no other option. They will cause deaths to the potential mothers because of crude and unsanitary conditions and you apparently could care less.
Thus mother and child will both die. What point is there in that?
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:29 PM
Theorist, In this post it at least appears to me that you are sanctioning laws permitting abortion... for the reason they are going to happen anyway and in horrible conditions.
I asked.
Theorist,
Would that kind of be like saying that Murders are going to happen if or not they are legal... so we may as well go ahead and legalize murder, so that it can be committed under a more sanitary environment?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:45 PM
You now say...
No...another poster who cannot comprehend written words. Obviously you have missed a few posts!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:47 PM
Sorry but I did not understand that to be an answer to my question.
Would you be kind enough to explain to me why there is a difference between Legalizing Murder by Abortion so that it will be perpetrated under sanitary conditions and Legalizing all forms of Murder so that they also can be committed in places other than back alleys. Would it not be more convenient for a guy to be executed legally on main street by his killer rather than to be weighted down and dumped into the river. Think of all of the money saved searching for the body.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:03 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Show me where that happened."
"Your protective instinct is channeled oddly...I should think you would care more about those "who cannot help themselves", but alas..."
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 2:09 PM
"I am angry! I am angry that this happened, and I am angry that more wasn't done. What is your excuse for your passiveness?"
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 3:47 PM
"We disagree, and to be honest, I am very disappointed with your lack of righteous indignation. For some reason I assumed you to be of a stronger moral core."
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 3:52 PM
"How is moral responsibility determined? We can discuss that if you like, but a moral issue is not the question here, and I think you could start a new thread if it is bothering you.
"This is/was an unlawful act, harmful, sick and witnessed!
"Why would Shap think it boils down to morality?
"And I don't know who you think is hiding behind sock puppets (except Dug and yours, laughing!)...Are you trying to make this political, because I am really wondering why you are defending these men?"
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 7:29 PM
"I think Fair 71 pointed out how your posts are painting your personality, and methinks you didn't like it. So clarify please...just what do you think of the Penn State tragedy?"
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 12:37 PM
"I am starting to agree with fair71"
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:14 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:28 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Legalizing abortion is necessary for the health of the mother. If a mother is unable to carry the fetus to term and will die, she must have the option to abort. With her death the fetus will die anyway."
I specifically addressed 'abortion-on-demand'. These women's lives were not threatened by the child, they just didn't want girl babies.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:30 PM
I do not expect you to understand this...I do not expect you to agree, and I definitely do not expect you to disagree with Shap...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:23 PM
Theorist,
I was of the opinion that Abortion was murder before I ever knew there was a Shapley. If you truly believe abortion is the right thing to do, I would question your faith in God's purpose.
Your position sets man up as God... to judge who should live and who should die.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:37 PM
Just very quickly browsed through some of the comments, so probably missed what might be an answer to my question:
Abortion is legal in many countries ... I assume for no other reason than a woman didn't want the child she shouldn't have conceived in the first place.
So ... why is it disturbing to anyone who seems to support 'abortion-on-demand' to discover that the sex of a fetus might be a reason to abort?
And yes, Rick ... a fetus is NOT a human being unless that fetus is killed in a crime. I know, doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Guess it boils down to whether the mother wants the baby or not.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:15 PM
If time travel is ever achieved, I do believe that abortion will become more widely accepted.
-- Posted by InReply on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:49 PM
If men carried the baby, problems would be solved.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:45 AM
Theorist wrote:
"Yes, Shap, I questioned your stance and still do."
And I question yours on this matter. As I've said, all that 'rigteous indignation' seems rather selective to me.
"whether I was safe to be around childrn" that was a falsity which you will never admit!"
You must have missed this one:
"Me thinks Shapley should be banned from any contact with minor. Takes a sick dude to justifies beatings and child molestation."
-- Posted by fair71 on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM
And you agreed with that, making references to it twice. But, I don't expect you to admit to that, either.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:42 AM
Theorist,
Did you really think changing the name of the sock puppet from 'fair71' to 'hello7777' would make it impossible to locate?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:45 AM
Typical Theorist/Leftist response. You are never responsible for your own actions. Blame it on someone else.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 8:11 AM
Oh...and you never answered a question of mine...I asked you to correct me if I had misrepresented your words. You didn't answer, I will take that as a no, or you were bouncing down the interstate wasting fossil fuel...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:50 AM
Wheels, you have said the aforementioned statement (or something to that affect) before. Please correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I misinterpreted your words.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:57 AM
Theorist,
Yes I did use words to that effect and still believe them to be a true statement.
So... I am being used as a source. I am honoted.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 1:39 PM
Theorist,
Reading comprehension problems again.... I did answer your question.
And regarding the fossil fuel I am wasting... Monday I took my car in for service and it had to be left overnight. When I took the loaner back to pick my car up at 3:15 yesterday, it had a sum total of 26 miles on it that I had driven. That is how many miles I have driven since going to church on Sunday and the 26 miles I put on my own automobile to take it to the dealer and bring it home. That makes 52 miles for me this week... now I did use some fossil fuel to stay warm during that period..... is that permissable?
Now as it regards my jabs towards your working multipl jobs.... no i5 was directed towards an ongoing discussion that I promptly responded to and then silence.
Oh, and there is still not a response to my answer to you.... just a subject changed and charges that I drive down the highway wasting fossil fuel.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 8:37 AM
"I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I am neither fair71 nor hello7777 and your accusation is again a falsity."
Last night, when I was gathering the posts, fair71 was fair71. This morning, suddenly, they are hello7777, and you're denying any knowledge of what they said, and with what you agreed.
Coincidence?
I did not say fair71/hello7777 was your sock puppet, I merely said they were a sock puppet. I suspect that, if they are not yours, you know whose they are. The change was mighty convenient. Given that they do not appear to have posted fresh, there was no reason for the change except to hide the original content to which my post referred.
Of course, I had already copied it. I've seen this game before. It would most likely have been deleted, if this forum gave the posters the ability to self-delete posts. As it was, fair71/hello7777 merely sought to hide it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 8:50 AM
But, enough of this deviation from the issue. The point is, abortion-on-demand is permitting this to happen right here in America. You seem to think it would happen sans abortion-on-demand. How so?
Are you saying the dumpsters in America would be full of babies who suffered the misfortune of being born female? Are you saying all of those women who chose 'safe, legal' abortions of healthy fetuses, would also choose back-alley ones if they were not legal?
I'm saying abortion-on-demand has permitted this situation to exist unchecked. Our culture has taught us that babies are disposable, as long as their disposed of before they pass through the birth canal, for whatever reason. We have created a culture with little regard for life, and which is willing to sacrifice its future for the sake of convenience. So sad...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 8:57 AM
"I don't know who they are, and could not find either? Coincidence?"
hello7777 is still there, in the 'Tragedy at Penn State' thread.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 9:00 AM
I don't know what you are referring to, Wheels. Which question did I not answer?
Oh, yes, I was working.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 8:57 AM
I did not say this morning that you had not answered a question. I said there was no response from you on my 9:37 PM post last night.
You did not say if or not it was permissable to use fossil fuel to stay warm. How do you heat your home Theorist... are you wasting fossil fuel?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 9:09 AM
Here you go, I copied and pasted it directly from your reply.
"It is the men in/and the culture that are causing this aberration to occur."
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 10:10 AM
And to think, my friends traveled to Korea and paid bookoos of money to adopt a baby girl.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 10:44 AM
Rick** wrote:
"Men are responsible for abortions while women are the gender that carries the baby in their body?"
I think Theorist was flippantly referring to the biological fact that is the sperm of the male, not the ovum of the female, that is responsible for the gender of the offspring. It is not a conscious decision, but a fact of biology.
"The male gametes or sperm cells in humans and other mammals are heterogametic and contain one of two types of sex chromosomes. They are either X or Y. The female gametes or eggs however, contain only the X sex chromosome and are homogametic. The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X chromosome fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:10 AM
Rick** wrote:
"Seems like there are American babies that can be adopted too."
There would be more if we stopped or reduced the practice of feticide.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:12 AM
"If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male."
I'm still thinking about this....
I'm through thinking now... there are days I wish some folks would have been XYs. Maybe their logic would shine through.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:27 AM
From the article:
"They also made clear that they were not free actors when it came to reproductive "choice." Many, when it was learned that they were carrying girls, became the victims of family violence. Some -- in an effort to make them miscarry -- had been slapped and shoved around by angry husbands and in-laws, or even kicked in the stomach. Others were denied food, water, and rest in order to coerce them into aborting their unwanted girl babies."
But, there's also this:
"Whether such brutality is common is an open question. That sex-selective abortion is widely practiced among certain Asian-American communities is not."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:33 AM
Why Theorist, you are almost like me... I heat with oil and electric, and I have never wasted it by your standard, as I also need it to survive.
Why do you make the asssumption that when I go "bouncing" down the Interstate that I am wasting fossil fuel?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:36 AM
"I am starting to agree with fair71"
What, exactly, were you agreeing with when you were 'starting to agree with fair71'?
Fair71 made only two posts before that comment.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:46 AM
Methinks you're dancing, now. What, exactly, did fair71 think 'hit a few nerves'?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:00 PM
I see you know 'his' gender. And I thought you didn't know who was behind those posts.
I've regretted nothing I've posted. Quod Scripsi, Scripsi.
I did not 'defend' Mr. Paterno in those posts. I questioned his firing. I still do.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM
cadillacman wrote:
"So it's not just the muslims who practice this."
The article does not reference Muslims as being behind the practice, although I think that was suggested by a poster. The article refers to persons of Chinese, Korean, and Indian heritage and make no reference to religion, as far as I recall.
These would be principally Buddhist nations, although there is no indication that the persons practicing it are Buddhists.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:13 PM
I gathered from your posts that you travel around in all your spare time...perhaps I am wrong. If so, I can easily admit that :)
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:39 AM
You are definitely wrong there, I make an annual trip to Gulf Shores in my motor home where it is parked for 3 months. When home in Missouri, I may make a few short trips, nothing usually of consequence and mostly it stays parked.
We do however live in our motor home, not because we have to but because we want to. Some think we are crazy... and they are welcome to that opinion. We have all of the conveniences and more time to devote to things we want to do other than paint, and clean. Came from a 4000 sq ft house with 5 bedrooms and 4 baths to 450 sq ft more or less and you couldn't drag me back to that house.
My heating fuel consumption is much lower in Gulf Shores than it is here and that offsets most of the costs of getting there.
But even if I had that thing on the road 365 days out of the year, in the entire time I have owned a motor home which is now almost 15 years, I would not use close to the amount of fossil fuel our president uses in Air Force 1 in one week. How many more years will I have to live to waste as much fossil fuel as he is going to expend with Air Force 1 and the rest of his entourage on his extended vacation over Christmas? And what number vacation is that already this year?
PS: I will overinflate my tires slightly on my trip to Gulf Shores. That should help overcome my wastefulness.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:16 PM
And there are a couple who refuse to simplify their lives by going around the stump.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:41 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Whatever 'it' is, 'it' sure has you spooked!"
Not really 'spooked'. I just don't like people who cast aspersions while hiding behind their anonymity. Cowardice, methinks.
I know they are around, since they went through the trouble of changing their screen-name last night, after I referenced their posts.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:42 PM
"How do these countries who abort female only know for sure the mother is carrying a female baby?"
-- Posted by Rick * * on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:29 PM
The country in question is the United States and, while they may not know for sure, they obtain a reasonable certainty through ultrasounds and other tests that aid in determining the gender of fetuses.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:44 PM
Wheels, Some think you're crazy, but not because of the motorhome! :)
Caddie, There is genocide and there is euginics, two different things. Feticide is neither.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:46 PM
"Wheels, Some think you're crazy, but not because of the motorhome! :)"
Old John,
I commend them... they are very astute and travel in excellent oompany. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:50 PM
Rick**
I guess, to some degree, we were. I think the sfgate link may address them more so than does the National Review link. I was a bit more familiar with the National Review link, since that was where I first heard of the issue. I posted the sfgate link for more insight, and to provide a 'fair and balanced' discussion alongside the right-leaning National Review.
The cited journal, though, addressed the issue in the United States.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:33 PM
"Of the persons posting on here, (and I did this quickly could have missed a few), 7 are male, 2 are female, and 2 are gender unknown to me. (Dexterite and Inreply)....so chances are Hello is male...if you trust statistics."
I fail to see how the gender of other posters has any bearing on the likely gender of fair71.
Methinks the 'law of large numbers' would indicate that, as the size of the group grows, the likelihood that it will reflect the overall ratio of the society from which it is chosen will apply. Ergo, the more the poster, the closer we will come to parity between male & female.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:51 PM
cadillacman:
Wheels has said repeatedly that he is homeless - the only home he owns is the one with a motor. In that regard he is little different than others who live in a trailercourt, excepting that his is self-mobile (albeit smaller) than most trailer-court homes.
I didn't think he was bragging. He was asked about it and he responded.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:12 PM
Methinks going to Gulf Shores is probably cheaper for him than trying to heat that thinly-insulated tin house against a Midwest Winter.
Hell, he probably has to catch his own dinner...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:13 PM
I don't buy into the "less fortunate" rationale, I subscribe to the following as I imagine several on here do:
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
-- Posted by Acronym on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:18 PM
-- Posted by Rick * * on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:28 PM
Agreed, my dad lived in an old house trailer with doors so bad you could see the outside. He worked hard all of his life well into his seventies and was a happy man; didn't owe anyone a dime and had simple pleasures.
-- Posted by Acronym on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:38 PM
A lot of folks work their whole life and never have a Cadillac to show off let alone a computer to post pictures of it while buying into the class envy argument.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:20 PM
cadillacman on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:51 PM ... A little class envy there? Not all 'wealthy' are rich due to inheritance, but due to hard work, persistence, etc. And even most of the 'inherited wealthy' work hard, at least mentally if not physically.
Good quote, Acronym!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:22 PM
Totally disgusting!
-- Posted by Hot Dog on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:37 PM
A person can have a Cadillac parked out front and a computer to advertise the fact and never own either. That person impresses some but is soon exposed for the fraud that he/she is.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 6:41 PM
Hell, he probably has to catch his own dinner...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:13 PM
I ain't hatin, but think about thoses less fortunate.
-- Posted by cadillacman on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:51 PM
Wheels paid the price to get that opportunity. He could be plum broke without a pot to P in. I want to retire but I worry about being able to do it and still keep my people working until this mess is over.
The self employed have to gamble every day. You can go from rich to broke in a small amount of time. He gave people jobs the same as I. I look at my payroll over 25 years and am amazed at how much money I put into the system in payroll. Now that is money that paid taxes, paid rent, clothed kids, and bought good times and most of it was spent here.
After all of those hours and starving I feel I should be able to take that small taxed amount I set aside and spend it as I wish. You have done better than many. Should they get a cut of your retirement?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:09 PM
I assume everyone posting thinks it is wrong to abort the birth of a girl solely because of gender and Shapley has made the point that because abortion is legal in the US, this makes it easier to do what most think is wrong.
Theorist's only argument is that Shapley is implying that without legal abortion this would not happen as much thus he is saying no abortion should be legal [which I don't think he said] therefore he is wrong.
Am I anywhere close or just as confused as ever?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:09 PM
In our system today, probably most women/girls who get pregnant because they don't use any preventative measures would opt for welfare rather than a 'back-alley abortion.' Or heck, they might even decide to accept the unborn child as their responsibility, while determining that in the future, they'll be a little more conscious that there really are ways to prevent (most) pregnancies?
Unlike in the past, there is obviously no shame in being pregnant outside of marriage ... which was presumably the main reason for most abortions a couple of generations ago.
But ... that 'back-alley' thing has and may always be a 'justification' by some for abortion; nothing anyone can do to change the minds of those who believe that--or at least want to convince others of it.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:55 PM
Wheels, In Theorist speak: Someone hit a nerve did they? :)
My father-n-law left when he was 15. I asked why, thinking maybe he didn't get along with his folks and he said, No, I just couldn't wait to go out and make my own. Took him way past retirement age before realized he did.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:56 PM
Old John,
I guess he did hit a nerve. I am not used to getting my marching orders from.... how does Voyager put it?????
Let it suffice to say I am sick to death of this class warfare BS. As long as I am not paying for it... I could care less how someone else lives his/her life.
I am beat, I have had a hard day, I will tell you about it later.... Then to come home and find out Caddy decides to chastise me for wintering where the weather better suits my clothes.
Theorist started it with suggesting I spend all of my time bumping down the Interstate wasting fossil fuel and I am dumb enough to bother explaining to her instead of ignoring.
Have a good one, I am off to bed.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 12:31 AM
For what it's worth, Wheels ... Pops & I admire you and Mrs. Wheels quite a lot. We're so proud to know you.
Maybe it's a generational thing with people like you and us ... growing up when most people thought that the only ones who could make them successful was ... themselves.
Those were also the days when most able-bodied people did whatever they could to avoid the 'disgrace' of accepting welfare--which as we know, was nothing like it is today.
Anyway, go ahead and burn all that fuel going south ... you deserve that, and much more.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 1:25 AM
Old John wrote:
"Am I anywhere close or just as confused as ever?"
I think you have the gist of it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 7:59 AM
Menu
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-31/opinion/29834903_1_gender-selection-aborti...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284988/sex-selective-abortions-come-home-st...
""There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons," Dr. Sunita Puri was told by the Asian-Indian women she was interviewing.
"The physician, who practices in the Bay Area, wanted to find out why so many immigrant Indian women in the United States were so eager to find out the sex of their unborn children, and why so many of them choose abortion when they found out they were carrying a girl.
"What she discovered over the course of 65 interviews conducted over several years profoundly shocked her. Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls.
"Puri's report, published in Social Science and Medicine this last April, makes for grim reading. Women told Puri of their guilt over their sex-selection abortions, how they felt that they were unable to "save" their daughters. Even the women who turned out to be carrying boys this time around could not shake their remorse over having earlier aborted daughters in this deadly game of reproductive roulette.
"They also made clear that they were not free actors when it came to reproductive "choice." Many, when it was learned that they were carrying girls, became the victims of family violence. Some -- in an effort to make them miscarry -- had been slapped and shoved around by angry husbands and in-laws, or even kicked in the stomach. Others were denied food, water, and rest in order to coerce them into aborting their unwanted girl babies."
Replies (76)