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 ...
As far as i'm concerned it has been claimed as fact and it's up to you to disprove it. Your pet beliefs about how neat the past must have been really aren't sufficient in this debate.
BTW, most of Martin Luther's nastiest statements have been so widely peddled that first graders can quote them. You really need to cut back on them.
BTW, I had ancestors on both sides in just about every major engagement in the French Religious Wars. All I can imagine is yours moved in from Italy after the tough fighting was over, am I right?
Try the German language sites.
That is NOT the way it works. You asserted it, YOU back it up.
Here try this one. All former postal workers are gay.
Now YOU have to prove to me that they aren't.
This statement proves that you always post drunk. Only a drunk, an idiot or both would post something so stupid so pick one.
“i have encountered the claim in more than one book.”
Name one book then. Just one that supports your odd claim.
No, I have never seen a single post of yours in which you were right.
My family has been in the United States since the 1700's. I take it your family, Cliff are French.
Dropped any guns lately while grabbing a white flag running away?
So, just 1700's ~ "newbies".
http://www.archive.org/stream/secrethistoryau02michgoog/secrethistoryau02michgoog_djvu.txt
search for “15th February, 1650”
This particular source list the authorization of two, not ten, wives, but there are other sources I’ve not made it all the way through yet.
Quote:
Even more, the Franconian Diet, with the ap-
proval of the Archbishops of Bamberg and Wurtzburg,
formed, on the 15th February, 1650, at Nuremberg, a le-
gislative decision which allowed priests to marry, and
authorised polygamy. I have the text of this singular
document before me, and will translate it, as a proof of
such importance as this must be communicated to the
reader in its entirety:
^* Art. 1. During an interval of ten years, reckoning
from this day, no man will be admitted into a monastery
who has not reached his sixtieth year.
^^ Art. 2. All priests and curates not belonging to a re-
ligious house or chapter, are bound to marry without
delay.
“Art. 3. Any man is allowed to marry two wives; but
Bye.
“what people claim” isn’t factual but you repeat it as if it were, that’s called gossip and passing around urban legends.
Rather than simply apologizing for the error, you double down with bullshit.
There are variations on this that I've encountered in a number of history books that have bothered to deal with post-Westphalia Germany.
And, talking to older Germans about it (who had first-class private school educations) it's something either taught in school or discussed in school ~ even in Saxony.
I'm certainly not an expert on the matter ~ but we do have folks here who imagine that their inability to do research means something far more than that they don't know how to do research.
Hmm. “Supposedly”. My personal favorite among the weasel words.
You are totally weird.
No, I’m not.
Like a roach you don’t you don’t like the light shined on you. Like a liberal you can’t simply admit that you make stuff up. That you are a liar.
Pathetic really.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/Rg/images/Ger_BMD_RefDoc_HandbookGermanResearch.pdf Tell it to the Mormons. They’re hot on this stuff eh!
Valpal1,
Give him a break. He isn’t smart enough to understand the common rules of debate.
Liars are like that.
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.