Posted on 06/18/2011 2:26:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons.
BY JONATHAN V. LAST
Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance...
(snip)
In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad.
(snip)
Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107.
(snip)
What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion...by Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.
(snip)
...such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent."
(snip)
The economist Gary Becker has noted that when women become scarce, their value increases...But..."this assessment is true only in the crudest sense." A 17-year-old girl in a developing country is in no position to capture her own value. Instead, a young woman may well become chattel, providing income either for their families or for pimps.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’m outa here.
Have fun.
Amazing the number of Freepers we have who KNOW NOSINK OF Deutschland eh!
OK, do you ANY reliable source that backs the polemic you cite?
LOL, nope, not so much. One obscure and polemical citation is far from proof. The Universal Church has NEVER (and frankly CAN never) endorsed polygamy, unlike the protestant factions, some of whom formally did.
LOL. Another poster demanded a source and claimed s/he couldn’t find one. I took it as a challenge. When I found one I decided to share it.
I have absolutely no desire to engage you in any sort of discussion. None.
But, he must have not been a Catholic.
Ever been to the Bishop's Palace? Neat place.
But, he must have not been a Catholic.
Ever been to the Bishop's Palace? Neat place.
But, he must have not been a Catholic.
Ever been to the Bishop's Palace? Neat place.
Alas, the Bishop of Wurzburg was certainly in on it eh!Eh, no. According to you and one odd, obscure text then maybe. But what weight does that carry? Your odd claims that the CATHOLIC CHURCH endorsed polygamy remain a calumny, a bizarro fantasy.
If you want me to believe the Bishop of Wurzburg did not speak for the Catholic church nor was he a Catholic, great.
Prove it.
If you want me to believe the Bishop of Wurzburg did not speak for the Catholic church nor was he a Catholic, great.
Prove it.
If you want me to believe the Bishop of Wurzburg did not speak for the Catholic church nor was he a Catholic, great.
Prove it.
While most times I admire you, on this thread I admire you GREATLY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.