SubscribeIndia Kills 7,000 Babies A Day - They Are Girls
From ABC News:
India Has Killed 10 Million Girls in 20 Years
Girls Are Considered a Burden in Sections of Indian Society
By PALASH KUMAR
Dec. 15, 2006 — - Ten million girls have been killed by their parents in India in the past 20 years, either before they were born or immediately after, a government minister said on Thursday, describing it as a "national crisis".
A UNICEF report released this week said 7,000 fewer girls are born in the country every day than the global average would suggest, largely because female foetuses are aborted after sex determination tests but also through murder of new borns.
"It’s shocking figures and we are in a national crisis if you ask me," Minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhury told Reuters.
Girls are seen as liabilities by many Indians, especially because of the banned but rampant practice of dowry, where the bride’s parents pay cash and goods to the groom’s family.
Men are also seen as bread-winners while social prejudices deny women opportunities for education and jobs.
"Today, we have the odd distinction of having lost 10 million girl children in the past 20 years," Chowdhury told a seminar in Delhi University.
"Who has killed these girl children? Their own parents." In some states, the minister said, newborn girls have been killed by pouring sand or tobacco juice into their nostrils.
"The minute the child is born and she opens her mouth to cry, they put sand into her mouth and her nostrils so she chokes and dies," Chowdhury said, referring to cases in the western desert state of Rajasthan.
"They bury infants into pots alive and bury the pots. They put tobacco into her mouth. They hang them upside down like a bunch of flowers to dry," she said.
"We have more passion for tigers of this country. We have people fighting for stray dogs on the road. But you have a whole society that ruthlessly hunts down girl children."
According to the 2001 census, the national sex ratio was 933 girls to 1,000 boys, while in the worst-affected northern state of Punjab, it was 798 girls to 1,000 boys.
The ratio has fallen since 1991, due to the availability of ultrasound sex-determination tests.
Although these are illegal they are still widely available and often lead to abortion of girl foetuses.
Chowdhury said the fall in the number of females had cost one percent of India’s GDP and created shortages of girls in some states like Haryana, where in one case four brothers had to marry one woman.
Economic empowerment of women was key to change, she said. "Even today when you go to a temple, you are blessed with ‘May you have many sons’," she said.
"The minute you empower them to earn more or equal (to men), social prejudices vanish."
The practice of killing the girl child is more prevalent among the educated, including in upmarket districts of New Delhi, making it more challenging for the government, the minister said.
"How do we tell educated people that you must not do it? And these are people who would visit all the female deities and pray for strength but don’t hesitate to kill a girl child," she said.
Lest we forget it was only because of British force that the Indians stopped their practice of suttee:
Colonialism was the best thing to ever happen to that part of the world. And the world will probably never know peace until some form of it is imposed again.
Of course thanks to our own practice of wholesale abortion on demand we have ceded much of our moral authority.
But at least it isn’t gender based. Not yet anyway.
33 Responses to “India Kills 7,000 Babies A Day - They Are Girls”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
December 16th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
India is considered to be one of the world’s top polluters.
“Girls are seen as liabilities by many Indians….” - article.
Or pollutants.
Between this horrific practice of infanticide and the demand for stem cells, I’m reminded of Hitler’s “final solution”.
Evil begets evil.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I agree. It was very strange to read this article condem Indians for killing upborn children.
It is better that we don’t do it because of gender, but that’s simply because a child’s gender doesn’t make life more difficult for American families. Once boys or girls become more expensive to raise, I’m sure we’ll see gender abortions.
As it is, we already see many babies with disabilities aborted. And the most common abortion is one from a woman who doesn’t believe she can afford to raise a baby at all.
The only difference here is that parents actually kill the children themselves. We’ve been able to separate the woman from the act itself, making it seem accepted.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Those in America who consider abortion a “civil right” (and the myriad organizations - Amnesty International, the UN who do, too) have succeeded in denying that an unborn child is human.
The same thing happens with embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is seen as something for experimentation, not preservation.
Because the foundations of life are denied, it rattles the entire definition of what is “human” and who is worthy of life.
So you get things like this, or selective abortion when an infant has a disability (no matter how minor - children are aborted for having a cleft lip/palate, something easily corrected by surgery), or things like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm, where newborns (healthy) are taken and killed for their stem cells.
When human dignity is denied, it opens wide the floodgate for a re-defining of who is “human”. The selective murder of girls is only the beginning.
I fail to see how this is any different from Hitler’s “final solution”. He - and the Nazis - dehumanized the Jewish people, and the millions of others who belonged to “undesirable” groups, to the point where killing them was perfectly acceptable in some eyes.
The only difference is some call this “personal choice”, “reproductive freedom” and “scientific progress.”
I, on the other hand, call it what it is - immoral murder.
And unless more people are willing to call it the same thing, the tide won’t turn. God have mercy on us.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Would anyone care to speculate about overpopulation issues? What happens when the population exceeds the resources necessary for survival? Has anyone read up on the potable water issues in India? Pretty scary stuff.
I really love my son, but neither he or I would like to imagine what additional difficulties I might have faced with additional children to care for after his father died. And I really love children and wanted more, just couldn’t afford them.
On the other hand, there seem to be many, many willing to keep popping out those babies trusting the good Lord, in the form of the federal government, will provide. Let’s give them a big Amen, then curse them under our breath for taking up so many taxpayers’ resources.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:32 am
We are very far from that right now, so much so that it’s a disgusting explaination for aborting a child.
Yes India and many other areas of the world have problems in caring for their offspring, but we still have vast open spaces and enough food and water to throw away in others parts of the world.
And no offense intended but many other are simply trusting the good Lord, not government, knowing that He will meet their needs. This is a promise not just some joke. If it is His will that I bring a child into the world (though I am currently working against that), then He will find a way, apart from the government’s joke aof a welfare program, for me and my husband to make it without health insurance and without much of an income.
If God gives you a miracle, which is what creating life used to be considered, then He gave it for a reason.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:37 am
You raise a good point, spelunker.
The difference falls between controlling the population via abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and controlling the population via birth control.
While some religions - predominantly Catholicism - reject artificial birth control, a majority of the world’s religions don’t (and many Catholics don’t for that matter…but that’s another issue). Personally, I don’t agree with birth control, but I realize that it is sometimes necessary and wouldn’t argue to outlaw it.
What’s needed is education and aide. But you must also remember that there are cultural divides that make such education difficult, coupled with the fact that aide doesn’t always end up going to the people who need it most. This article has less to do with overpopulation than it does with overarching views of girls and women in Indian culture.
On the other hand, there seem to be many, many willing to keep popping out those babies trusting the good Lord, in the form of the federal government, will provide. Let’s give them a big Amen, then curse them under our breath for taking up so many taxpayers’ resources.
I get what you’re trying to say here, but you’re pinning blame on the wrong people. Most of the religious families I know who have many children have the number of children they can afford and work to provide for them.
A prime example of this would be the family from Arkansas with 16 children (the family name escapes me at the moment). They have no debt, pay cash for everything (according to their religious principles), homeschool their children, built their own large house, etc. They do not rely on the government for assistance via the taxpayer wallet. Likewise, many couples like them - mostly non-denominational Evangelicals - adhere to similar principles.
The Catholics I know - and I could point you to many a Catholic blogger - live within their means, working hard and making sacrifices to make ends meet.
The people who often live off the taxpayers’ dime are the people who have a vague religious adherence at best and, mostly, are people who just don’t care how many children they have and don’t care what sort of education, upbringing, and moral teaching their children receive. They just want the check. My neighbors are a good example of this. It is they - not the religious people - who create a strain on the taxpayers. But other things - prison and costs, for example - create a strain, as does wasteful government spending. I would argue that these create more of a burden than helping out families.
And I recognize that some families fall on hard times and need assistance. They should not be condemned or criticized for circumstances beyond their control. Under that logic, we’d be burdens because my husband was screwed over by the people that gave him the boot two days before Thanksgiving, and we’re collecting unemployment so we can live until he gets a job.
But does that mean I want these people to have abortions (or resort to infanticide) in order to control the population? No.
Nor do I want government-mandated quotas on how many children I can have.
You did what you had to do to make ends meet with your son. I respect that decision.
But I want people to learn to respect their bodies and learn about their natural cycles, use safe methods of birth control where available, and learn to abstain when necessary. Not only would these ideas help with population control, they are more moral than the alternatives, and would also help reduce STDs.
Does it seem pie-in-the-sky? Yes. I realize that it would take decades for a change to be made.
Even if what I suggest doesn’t happen (and I doubt it will), the gender imbalance in countries like India and China (where girls are also less-valued) is setting up generations where there are too many men and not enough women to sustain current growth rates. I foresee an overall population decline in those nations.
Ultimately, however, controlling the population and easing the strain on natural resources in heavily-populated countries by immoral means is NOT the answer.
There are alternatives.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Arizona is facing serious fresh water shortage as is California. When I lived in the mountains of New Mexico, there were still serious disputes about water between the ranchers, the Indians, and the gringos building resorts and neighborhoods and that was nearly 20 years ago.
Even in Louisiana where the freshwater aquifers are plentiful and near the surface, ground subsidence from massive usage is occurring at an alarming rate as is contamination from sewerage run off from the increase in residences to the commercial pollution. I currently live on a place that has had a well in the same place for about 50 years and the well house, and the area around it, is nearly 24 inches lower than the surrounding ground. It was strictly single family usage with watering for livestock and small garden. Every large city has problems which are periodically discussed in national news, rarely does the trouble of rural areas warrant such attention. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
While I have great faith in sciences ability to solve many of the problems facing mankind, it does take time to solve the problems and be assured that the solutions do not cause unforseen, destructive consequences in the future. I rely on my faith to get me through many things, but this reminds me of the joke about the man in the flood who climbs to the top of his roof and crys out for God to save him. Along comes a neighbor in a boat, but the man declines his offer for a ride out, choosing to trust in God. Along comes a rescue boat, then a chopper, etc.. Finally, as the flood engulfs the roof, the man cries out, Lord, why have you forsaken me. God replies, hey, I sent help three times, what is your problem.
Offering contraception to those in terribly overpopulated areas is far, far better than relying on abortion and murder of infants. Allowing those children born to come into a world where they are anxiously awaited,wanted, loved, fed, educated, and have a decent world to grow to maturity in surely must be what God has/had in mind, no? I keep a picture of my son as an infant on my screensaver to see it daily and remind myself of how much he was/is loved and wanted by myself and his father who didn’t survive to see him grow.
Children need more than “wide open spaces” to survive. It is not that simple, but if it makes you feel better to believe that, than by all means do so. I have a wonderful imagination, but it takes more than that to successfully raise a child.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Here is a link to a site I recently found, it is a good start to understanding the bigger picture.
http://www.water.org/programs/india/crisis.htm
Also, while you may disagree with Malthus’ thoughts, the raw numbers and science cannot be dismissed. For further reading, http://desip.igc.org/malthus/principles.html
December 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
EQ,
I was raised a catholic, from a catholic family that has been catholic for over 400 yrs of traced genealogy and probably before that. I am no longer a catholic because I couldn’t reconcile the dogma and reality. I feel that catholicism fails to properly respect women and I got that from parochial school, some of the priests and former altar boys that I know, and from a wealthy beneficiary to a large southern, catholic diocese whose utter amorality would frighten the staunchest defenders of the faith. I recall being asked to leave a history class for inquiring about the Borgias… the nun gave me independent study for the rest of the semester in the library. I still thank her for that.
I recall that you were a convert to this faith, no? Faith is a wonderful thing and can move mountains. I believe in these words, “The Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you; not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood, and I am there.”
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.”
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
December 18th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
In a possibly related story:
December 18th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
“If the reports are true, then it is very sad and extremely disappointing,” her coach, P. Nagarajan, told the Indian Express.
LOL - the coach is always the last to know.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
In all honesty, I find the concept completely offensive to say that God sent us abortion as a means out of horrible position.
If you recall, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in a horrible situation and for a time and had to consider the possibity of raising a child without a father.
You seem to be generally kind and thoughtful. I’d like to consider the possibility that you’re simply pulling a Modest Proposal.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
In Texas we’ve had a few droughts ourselves, but that hasn’t prevented us from enjoying a healthy quality of life. It hasn’t even kept us from being able to properly shower and use hygenic toilets.
We’ve seen nothing to justify sacrificing children for ourselves. There’s still plenty to go around.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Esthier,
I am not referring to hygiene, but to the consequences of water shortages beyond personal sanitation and hydration such as agriculture and husbandry. When you say “we”, am I to assume that is the royal “we” or are you speaking for others?
I appreciate that you have seen nothing to justify sacrificing your children for, but I am not proposing anyone sacrifice their children, not even for idealistic dogma that would bring unwanted children into a world where they will face certain drought, starvation, malnutrition, abuse, illness, etc.. and that is only if they are lucky enough to survive childbirth. I have not been to India or to the Sudan, but I do believe what I have read from various sources and heard from first hand accounts.
There is no reason to allow our country to reach such a crisis where there are no tenable solutions. Check out a Goode’s World Atlas and review the natural resources of each area and the demographics, then extrapolate the expected population growth over the next decade, or two, or three.
I appreciate Swift’s wry humor and it is certainly relevant and timely to the current state of the world. But I am serious when I applaud the legalization and availability of the “morning after” pill in the interest of reducing, if not completely eradicating, the incidence of abortion.
I respect your right to your opinion, but I firmly resist anyone’s attempt to mandate how I will live my life or control my reproduction. This is America and I would prefer it not turn into a pale semblance of a Calcutta or Darfur.
“Reason is a light that God has kindled in the soul.”
Aristotle
Art of Rhetoric (384-322 B.C.)
December 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Would I were so eloquent…
I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
-Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
-Blaise Pascal (Pensees, 1670)
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
-George Washington (address to Congress, 8 January, 1790)
December 18th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
And you’re using these beautiful quotes to condone abortion.
Sincerely, you believe this is God’s “way out” for desperate people? This is His lifeboat for a man stranded on top of his own house? to kill what He “formed in the womb” (His words, not mine)?
And sarcasm duly noted, but when I spoke of “we”, I simply meant the citizens of Texas who were restricted to less watering and less free glasses of water at restaurants but little beyond that.
I can speak for them because we were all in the same metaphorical boat. Things were not as easy as they’d been in the past, but as a whole, we were not suffering. No one was denied water if they needed. And no one was kept from water if they just wanted it.
I’m not against the morning after pill, but it by no means eradicates the perceived need for abortion. Those who are careless enough to need a morning after pill might also be careless enough to forget to take it in time.
You are actually claiming here that the same God who said “be fruitful and multiply” is also now saying “kill your child before it breathes air if that child is inconvenient”?
And as to controlling your reproduction, at the point where a woman is pregnant, she clearly did nothing to control her reproduction and instead allowed nature to take its course, which is all I would wish it continue to do.
And it is my reason, logic and knowledge of science and the world that convince me this is true.
Though I do not agree that my conviction is purely a religious one, just as I do not think it a religious conviction that keeps me from accepting any murder within society. I can condem murder with my religion, but I can also condem it without religion.
And yes, I do consider the ending of an innocent life murder, even if that life has yet to take its first breath, and especially (as is the case here which you seem to be defending) after that life has taken its first breath.
It pains me that there are people in the world who believe otherwise, and find that sometimes, it is OK and even acceptable to murder a vulnerable child. And I will fight to right the wrong in any way possible as the one true travesty in this world, believing that if a child is to be safe anywhere, it should be safe within its own mother.
If mothers will not protect their children, why should any of us care to protect them?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
“Would anyone care to speculate about overpopulation issues? What happens when the population exceeds the resources necessary for survival? Has anyone read up on the potable water issues in India? Pretty scary stuff.”
Do females drink more water than males?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Good point, SG.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
spelunker:
Wow…..first legalization of mary jane now a very strong support for abortion. Me thinks you may have been a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I simply can’t imagine anyone supporting abortion or the killing of children because of possible shortages of resources. That’s a very slippery slope you are standing on. Disgusting actually.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Without taking sides, Nature takes the high ground every time, regardless of anybody’s beliefs. Nature will always level the playing field….sustaining as many as can be sustained at the time. No more, no less, and man’s interference only staves off the inevitable…be it fruitful or not.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I was a convert, yes. But I believe the only thing that can change the world from this morass of immorality is adhering to morals and values that are unchanging.
I found that in Catholicism.
I think I’ve said it before, but I am sorry you had such a bad experience. But no religion is perfect, and there are some downright rotten “Catholics” (like the jerk who fired my husband), just as there are rotten Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
I feel that catholicism fails to properly respect women…
I disagree with you on this, but I am very used to hearing the same thing from people I work with and other ex-Catholics.
But I have to ask, what is more disrespectful? The abortion culture, which not only allows for the death of girls, but does physical and emotional harm to the mother as well? The same culture that condemns stay-at-home mothers as being drains and burdens on society? The one that denies women are unique and should be like men in every conceivable way?
Sorry, but for me the dignity that comes with Catholicism is much more preferable than being a prostitute to political correctness and popular culture.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
WI,
No more disgusting than purporting to be a republican then dictating to others what their morals and politics should be. No more disgusting than being anti-abortion while ridiculing those that continue having children that are supported by the government. The very moniker you gave yourself shows you to be the wolfish one, not I. No, not a slippery slope, not even a mild incline, just plain old level ground. I’d rather be a wolf than a sheep. While I find some of your opinions distasteful, I stop short of labeling them disgusting as that borders on ad hominem attack that I find intellectually disgusting, save in a bar room.
Yes, I support legalization of marijuana in the hopes that it would drive the overcrowding of the prisons down and remove the glamor and massive financial gains that makes it so attractive and fills the pockets of criminals who live among you in your neighborhoods, not just in the ‘hoods of large urban areas. I personally know of an individual that lives in a upper middle class neighborhood where they have dealt drugs out of their home for over 25 years in the presence of their children, now grown. In this neighborhood are judges, lawyers, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc… their children frequented this individual’s house, went to school with their kids, played all the after school sports with them, some this person even coached, and it was common knowledge. When one of their kids was caught with GHB, they had assistance getting them off, this same kid impregnated a girl friend then refused to take a paternity test or to assist in any way after child was born. No one has shunned them. The power and money this person amassed in the course of their illegal pursuit while gainfully employed by the government has “earned” them a privilege the rest of us don’t have. That is disgusting, really.
Abortion is still legal. You seem to confuse your morals with legality. I support abortion, but not partial birth abortion, and support the morning after pill whole-heartedly in the sincere hope that it will decrease the incidence of abortion. I hope, and believe, that abortion will become obsolete.
And I try to keep the faith that we can solve the problems that our country and our world face, like overpopulation, natural resources shortages, plagues, viruses, etc…
Esthier, you seem to glean meanings from my post that I did not intend, nor can find in the body of them. Also, how do you extrapolate India’s water crisis from what you have experienced in Texas? Have you read up on the water shortage facing India? I like Goode’s World Atlas for understanding natural resources and demographics. I haven’t been to the Sudan or to India, and don’t think I’d like, too, but I certainly don’t want anything remotely like that in the US’s future.
I do not belive that I am morally superior to anyone, nor anyone to me. I answer to my God and leave everyone else free to do the same. I save insults for those that deserve them, not just because someone disagrees with me.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
EQ,
I no longer equate my spirituality with religion, I find the two usually at odds. The hypocrisy that I witnessed within catholicism was the norm, not the exception. I personally am aware of a large number of nuns and priests who left their vows and catholicism behind for the same reasons that I have already given.
I do not urge anyone else to do the same, and if you have found something there that born and bred catholics did not, more power to you. Leaving my church was not something I did lightly.
On another note, I first read the Bible as an exercise in history and because my father had done so, cover to cover, several times. I reread it and realized that catholics have little exposure to the Bible other than scripture read in mass. What religious instruction/indoctrination I got in parochial school was the basics and were to believe it because they told us to, all subject to their interpretation. When the Bible thumpers start spouting off scriptures to enhance their politcal views or moral superiority, it is always useful to have a contradictory scripture to quote back. You can’t do that with catholics.
Darn, I lost a post I had just finished to submit here and had to rewrite it, not so eloquent second time around. Anyway, I just remembered that I had included this link.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ Seems like India needs some help with number 3.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Just to be clear, I haven’t been insulting you. I don’t know if this was directed at me, but I wanted to make this clear anyway.
You were talking about water shortages in America. I addressed my personal experience with such a water shortage.
You then asked if I was using the royal “we” when I wrote, so I clarified by position there.
That’s why the whole Texas thing came up, because you mentioned water shortatges over here.
But I was serious when I said SG has a good point. These babies aren’t being murdered to save water. They’re being murdered because they’re girls. Why are you arguing their position?
Are your morals guided by what is legal? If partial birth abortion becomes legal will you support it as well?
And forgive me, but as an aside, making marijuana legal will not make it less profitable. Tabacoo is legal and yet still a profitable industry. The priveledged children of tabacoo profiteers are just as secure and potentially immoral as the children you describe in your story.
And those who sell marijuana alone are not sitting in jail. They get probation and severe fines, but not jail cells, not generally anyway. Crimes associated with marijuana are in most cases still under misdemenors.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I’m with you, SJ. Malthus is making a comeback — big time.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
If everyone literate read the statistics of overpopulation,
and ceased reproducing
The result would be not a less crowded world,
but a world filled with illiterates.
You can substitute any term withing common sense for “literate” and “illiterate” with that term’s opposite or privative, and the conclusion will remain true.
There’s more to be said but I’m in the “Piling On” 12 step program and this comment already has me off the wagon. (Not to mention the whole discussion is technically OT…)
December 19th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Some people feel that aborting a child is no different than removing a tumor.
Choices are made in the heat of the moment, Contraceptives are an inconvenience.
So is personal responsibility.
Sex is just entertainment like watching a movie.
OMG Pregnant, How will we afford cable TV or the new SUV.
Kill the baby. Its not all that bad, Just shove a vacuum in and suck it out.
Yes I bitch about people that only have the skills to spit out babies with no means to support them.
I also understand that sometimes people need help.
I also understand that acts come with responsibilities.
And thats not for men only.
I say save the kid and kill the parent that would kill a child.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:24 am
PS I am aware that reading is acquired skill and not genetic. (I have my own jinn/troll in my brain that was poking at that last comment…)
December 19th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Good point Nimb, it’s already happened in D.C. From your 11:43 post.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:17 am
I think I missed this reference. Anyone care to explain? It sounds vaguely familiar, but I’m mostly drawing a blank.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Spelunker has a link to the Malthus reference on her 11:51 post Esthier.
http://desip.igc.org/malthus/principles.html
Here is the Wikipedia entry on Thomas Malthus;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
December 24th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Lest we forget it was only because of British force that the Indians stopped their practice of suttee:
I hesitate to revisit this thread, but since Steve mentioned suttee, here’s another great excerpt from Steyn’s America Alone:
…the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
http://article.nationalreview......RhZGVkYzI=
You just gotta love the stuffy bastards…
December 24th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Merry Christmas all and much love to all of the men and women serving our country who are away from their families.
Ahhhh, abortion, such a powerful issue. May i throw in my 1 cent? (taxes in hawaii)
I was also brought up as a catholic and go to church now with my girls and wife. I personally abhor abortion and would have left my wife if she aborted one of my girls. In fact, my first girl was an ‘Oh crap Joe, I’m pregnant!!” At the time i was just a little E-6 in the navy trying to put my wife through school to get her doctrite. Bills were high and we couldn’t afford to have a baby. Also, I was scheduled for a westpac when she was due. We never considered abortion. Now i have a sweet beautiful future Navy fighter pilot.
That said, I think abortion should be LEGAL. I honestly believe that until the second trimester the baby is dependent on the mother and cannot live outside the body on it’s own. Therefore I don’t see it as life yet. I do think though that if most americans are against it, then they should contact their congressmen and have it voted out.