The UN estimates that there are 200 million missing girls in the world today.
Mostly in China and India.
Watch this video by rapper Omékongo Dibinga brought to you by It's a Girl:
"...We kill innocent victims who have no choice..."
Won't our political leaders: Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Rae, please protect girls by supporting Motion 408?
Won't all political parties please condemn sex selection abortion?
Won't Canada please condemn Gendercide?
Showing posts with label gendercide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gendercide. Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Thursday, December 6, 2012
It is what it is
I don't understand what NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is saying regarding Mark Warawa's Motion 408.
This motion calls on Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
This is what Mr. Mulcair said:
"Of course these are complicated issues, there’s no denying that, but we know what it’s really about. It’s Stephen Harper and his Reform party base trying to reopen the abortion debate. We’re not going to be fooled by it.”
Mr. Mulcair says that this is a complicated issue. It really isn't very complicated though. Is Mr. Mulcair against sex-selection abortion, or is he for it? If he's against it, he should vote in favour of the Motion. If he is for sex-selection abortion, he should just say so.
And if Mr. Mulcair truly believes that these are complicated issues, then maybe he should first inform himself on these complicated issues, instead of jumping to that really boring, old, hidden agenda fairy-tale, about Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Nobody believes that anymore. Mr. Mulcair is as knowledgeable on that hypotheses as the rest of us: Mr. Harper will not now, and never will, let us talk about abortion. Not today, not tomorrow, and not in fifteen years from now.
So why is Mr. Mulcair pretending like this?
Instead of making wild leaps of logic from "complicated issue" to Mr. Harper's reopening the abortion debate, why doesn't Mr. Mulcair actually read Mr. Warawa's motion and see if it is something that he can support, based on what it actually says? Because if he did read the motion, and it's really not that complicated, he could decide in about ten seconds what he thinks of it.
For anyone to be against this motion, then they must be in fact, in favour of female feticide. And if they are in in favour of female feticide, then they should just say so, and stand up for what they believe in.
Nope, it's not complicated at all.
This motion calls on Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
This is what Mr. Mulcair said:
"Of course these are complicated issues, there’s no denying that, but we know what it’s really about. It’s Stephen Harper and his Reform party base trying to reopen the abortion debate. We’re not going to be fooled by it.”
Mr. Mulcair says that this is a complicated issue. It really isn't very complicated though. Is Mr. Mulcair against sex-selection abortion, or is he for it? If he's against it, he should vote in favour of the Motion. If he is for sex-selection abortion, he should just say so.
And if Mr. Mulcair truly believes that these are complicated issues, then maybe he should first inform himself on these complicated issues, instead of jumping to that really boring, old, hidden agenda fairy-tale, about Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Nobody believes that anymore. Mr. Mulcair is as knowledgeable on that hypotheses as the rest of us: Mr. Harper will not now, and never will, let us talk about abortion. Not today, not tomorrow, and not in fifteen years from now.
So why is Mr. Mulcair pretending like this?
Instead of making wild leaps of logic from "complicated issue" to Mr. Harper's reopening the abortion debate, why doesn't Mr. Mulcair actually read Mr. Warawa's motion and see if it is something that he can support, based on what it actually says? Because if he did read the motion, and it's really not that complicated, he could decide in about ten seconds what he thinks of it.
For anyone to be against this motion, then they must be in fact, in favour of female feticide. And if they are in in favour of female feticide, then they should just say so, and stand up for what they believe in.
Nope, it's not complicated at all.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Feminists: author of their own demise
In response to this in the Toronto Sun:
Conceal baby's sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal
I wrote this letter which was published yesterday:
Risking ‘gendercide’
Re “Conceal baby’s sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal” (Jan. 17):
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur says banning sex selection abortion is a “dangerous road to go down” and reeks of “paternalism.”
One would think feminists would want to ensure the protected continuation of the female members of the human species.
The Economist reported in 2010 that about 100 million girls have already been aborted world wide because of gendercide. So, the “dangerous road” is the one we are already travelling, where female gendercide continues unabated.
The irony is that if feminists like Arthur continue to refuse to condemn sex-selection abortions, they could very well be the author of their own demise.
Patricia Maloney
The Sun's response:
("But she doesn’t see it that way — abortion rights at all costs is the feminist way")
Conceal baby's sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal
I wrote this letter which was published yesterday:
Risking ‘gendercide’
Re “Conceal baby’s sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal” (Jan. 17):
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur says banning sex selection abortion is a “dangerous road to go down” and reeks of “paternalism.”
One would think feminists would want to ensure the protected continuation of the female members of the human species.
The Economist reported in 2010 that about 100 million girls have already been aborted world wide because of gendercide. So, the “dangerous road” is the one we are already travelling, where female gendercide continues unabated.
The irony is that if feminists like Arthur continue to refuse to condemn sex-selection abortions, they could very well be the author of their own demise.
Patricia Maloney
The Sun's response:
("But she doesn’t see it that way — abortion rights at all costs is the feminist way")
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The abortion conundrum
In this article (it also appeared in the National Post today) by Ross Douthat, Douthat takes aim at the pro-choice movement’s conundrum of the 160 million baby girls aborted through sex-selection gendercide.
In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."
Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".
Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.
Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.
Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.
The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.
So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."
I really don't get it.
In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."
Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".
Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.
Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.
Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.
The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.
So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."
I really don't get it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Will it be this way, or will it be that way?
Two Canadian medical experts want new guidelines that would bar doctors from telling parents the sex of their fetus until late in a pregnancy to curb the practice of sex selection:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2790685
Of course, sex selection is a huge global problem as identified in a recent cover story in The Economist:
"In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15606229
Note that this story is prefaced with the fact that the Economist is pro-choice, yet they call this tragedy Gendercide.
Kelly McParland argues in the National Post that:
"if the right to choose is absolute, what's the big deal about sex selection...if a fetus isn't human, its sex becomes irrelevant. You can't have it both ways."
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/13/kelly-mcparland-putting-abortion-advocates-in-a-box.aspx
Touche. Now that we've gone down the slippery 24/7 abortion slope, for those who think unborn babies aren't human, why should we even care if 100 million babies are destroyed through sex selection?
Then we have Joyce Arthur who claims that it is 'paternalistic' to withhold information such as gender from the pregnant woman:
"To restrict people's freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything," Ms. Arthur said. "It's a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian."
That's rich -- this from someone who screams at informing women of the true risks of abortion, and the well-developed stage of the fetus.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2790685
Of course, sex selection is a huge global problem as identified in a recent cover story in The Economist:
"In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15606229
Note that this story is prefaced with the fact that the Economist is pro-choice, yet they call this tragedy Gendercide.
Kelly McParland argues in the National Post that:
"if the right to choose is absolute, what's the big deal about sex selection...if a fetus isn't human, its sex becomes irrelevant. You can't have it both ways."
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/13/kelly-mcparland-putting-abortion-advocates-in-a-box.aspx
Touche. Now that we've gone down the slippery 24/7 abortion slope, for those who think unborn babies aren't human, why should we even care if 100 million babies are destroyed through sex selection?
Then we have Joyce Arthur who claims that it is 'paternalistic' to withhold information such as gender from the pregnant woman:
"To restrict people's freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything," Ms. Arthur said. "It's a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian."
That's rich -- this from someone who screams at informing women of the true risks of abortion, and the well-developed stage of the fetus.
Arthur doesn't want the doctor to withhold the sex of the baby from the mother. But please, do refrain from telling the same mother about the excruciating pain for the baby in a second trimester abortion, or how the mother will increase her risk of breast cancer, or...etc. etc. etc.
Yup, you can't have it both ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)