Discussions

Recently I have been thinking about a topic and I am curious to know about what our local community thinks about this pressing issue.  
 
The issue is one of female foeticide, and there are some pretty startling statistics out there. For one, the National Post recently did up an article detailing how in India, not one girl was born in 132 villages in one district over a three month span. The situation is so startling that the National Academy of Sciences has calculated that at least 10 million women are missing in India today due to sex selective abortions.  
 
At first I thought that perhaps this was an India only problem, and that perhaps too it had more to do with the caste system or poverty then anything else. Then I read another ominous article from the National Post and this one suggested that the statistics are even more bleak for Indian born moms in Canada. This article states that the birth ratio for Canadian moms who were born in India who had more then one abortion was, 409 boys for every 100 girls born.  
 
I will repeat that again because it's so patently shocking. The statistics reveal that for Canadian women born in India who had more then one abortion, they gave birth to over 4 times more male babies then they did to female babies.  
 
I think this should worry all of us. What happens in our society when one racial group ends up with a preponderance of males and a lack of females?  
 
The problem is not just one that is prevalent amongst East Indian people however, for the facts clearly indicate that sex-selective abortions are also very common in other Asian countries, as well as some Eastern European countries.  
 
Further, I have to ask, where are the feminist advocates while all of this is going on? How can some feminists advocate for a woman's right to unrestricted abortions when they know that there will be less women born into the world as a result? Do those so called feminists actually care about women or do they only care about what a women can do to a fetus? Perhaps one could suggest that the two causes are not mutually exclusive, but the fact remains that whenever one argues for unrestricted abortions, they can't also argue against sex-selective abortions.  
 
This is one of the biggest issues in the world of our time. According to statistics taken from the United Nations Population Fund, over 100 million women the world over are missing as a result of sex-selective abortions.  
 
One has to wonder what will some of these nations do if the situation hits a critical period where there are not enough females for those males who are hoping to find wives? Could this be the potential cause of a future world war?  
 
I will i:nclude the articles below, and I hope to hear about what others think about this pressing issue of our time.  
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/not-one-girl-born-to-132-villages-in-indian-district-in-three-months-officials-investigate-female-foeticide  
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sex-selective-abortion-may-be-driving-boy-boom-among-indian-born-moms-in-canada-study  
 
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9303  
 
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/432000/female-infanticide-worldwide-the-case-for-action-by-the-un-human-rights-council/  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This problem is not just one

Assuming the information is correct, what this issue indicates is that not only are feminist movements not truly concerned, but this proves the mandate to which abortions exist. Feminists should be discouraged by this and raising concern and awareness of this atrocity. However, if a woman's right to choose is a part of this genocide then it simply has to be overlooked. The true nature of abortion isn't about a woman's right to choose (what to do with their own body) but the prevalence of ability to select the next generation. Truly, we couldn't have evolved. Evolution suggests survival of the fittest. When there is no chance of life being given, this only concludes evil at work. Creating a male dominant society could only be for a few reasons and ramping up for a war by creating soldiers seems be reasonable in this regard.  
Thanks for the post.

When I gave birth to my first child, we didn't bother to find out the gender, but we couldn't have anyway. Even as recent as 8 years ago, hospitals refused to tell parents the gender of their unborn baby, due to parents terminating the pregnancy if it was the "unwanted" gender. We would've had to go to a private ultrasound clinic to find out the gender, and pay for it.  
 
Happily, they now tell people their baby's gender. I guess that's because it's no longer such a big problem. But obviously it WAS a problem, even in recent times, even here in Canada.  
 
I am a feminist. There are many gender/sexuality issues that are at play here, but I think for now the best answer is EDUCATION.  
But we don't control the education system in other countries, so let's start with our own

I suspect poverty is the reason why people don’t want to pay a dowry. Although if someone did have a daughter they would have the pick of the best guy out there. They would likely accept a low dowry amount.  
 
Edited by Hey!, 2019-09-15 10:55:20

Was. Very similar for decades-they had the one child policy, with some parents abandoning g a girl child so they Could try again to have a boy. Rural families were later allowed to have a second child if the first was a girl. There are problems that have resulted from that sort if population control-an imbalance of numbers of me. And women-too many old people to look after, not enough young people to provide care. Have they declared war because of those issues? No. Estimates are that there are 400 million "missing" people in China-children that were never born-because of their single child law. India has laws regarding number of children in several regions; it is not yet all of India. I believe this is a population control measure, not some secret plan to raise an army. When population control is in place, parents want boys, not girls, because boys can better provide for the family. Nothing ulterior there.

Ok so bear with me for a sec (and dumb it down please) but if the ratio is 4:1 (men to women) how are these men going to find a woman and get married and have children??? Which I’m assuming is what is expected

This problem has nothing to do with abortions. Though if someone can tell the sex if their area has the knowledge to do this and has an abortion. At least that is more humane than the alternative which is still done today.  
 
The PROBLEM is having baby girls being born who are not wanted so they are taken somewhere, abandoned and left to die. This is the real tragedy out there.  
 
OR  
 
sold as soon as possible as slaves for many purposes.

Thank you for your post @Commited2Brandon  
 
It is such a sad state of affairs that our world has come to. To decide wether a child has the right to life simply because they are a girl or a boy is absolutely horrifying. Then on top of it the majority of us choose to turn a blind eye to it, simply by ignoring the issue or saying "a woman has the right to make that choice..." .  
 
Wether we admit it or not we all have an opinion on abortion and the majority of Canadians do want to have some sort of laws protecting the unborn babies. Many polls have been done over the years asking Canadians their thoughts on the issue. For instance on the topic of sex selective abortions in 2011 a study was conducted and 92% of canadians asked in the survey thought sex selective abortions should be illegal, only 5% thought that it should be legal while the remaining 3% were unsure.  
(To view this survey and the other questions that where asked like the support of legal abortion by stages of pregnancy you can download the survey from-  
https://lifecollective.io/lifecanada/get-involved/national-polling/national-polls-2002-to-2013 )  
 
But then after looking at the results from this survey if 92% of Canadians think that sex selective abortion should be illegal why isn't it. In fact our country has no laws on abortion restriction what so ever. (There are only 3 other countries in the world that have no restrictions and they are China, Vietnam and North Korea.) But why is that? I believe that the reason we have no laws what so ever restricting abortion is because no body talks about it and if you do you are considered to be anti-woman or chauvinist. But if the majority of Canadians think there should be some sort of law than we need to start talking about it because we will find that the majority of Canadians will have some sort of common ground on the issue. Sure we might not all agree on every aspect of the issue but thats not the point. In order to stop things like sex selective abortions we need to make sure we are not silent on the issue or the sad fact is the imbalance of Men to Women will only get worse and maybe a war won't manifest out of that but I would guarantee nothing good will either.

You want to restrict abortion due to gender selection? Do you honestly think these unwanted female children will live if they are not aborted? It will just upgrade to child abandonment, human trafficking (if they live that long) or outright murder of infants.  
People are often choosing boys because that is what they want. Giving birth to girls will not ensure these girls are kept, treated well or even live past day 1.  
Bright side, with gender selection will come a decrease in human population. Since people often complain the world is overpopulated and cannot sustain food and water for so many people anyways.  
Harsh, but may have long term benefits.

“Do you honestly think these unwanted female children will live if they are not aborted? It will just upgrade to child abandonment, human trafficking (if they live that long) or outright murder of infants.”  
 
I’m confused.  
So are you are saying :  
don’t make sex selective abortions (ones that are for no other reason besides being an “undesirable sex”) illegal so that way the parents aren’t penalized for (or deterred from) taking life for a frivolous reason because they will be penalized later if they end up killing their little girl a year down the road just because of her sex? If they do it early enough then they don’t deserve to be penalized?  
 
And somehow the former penalty makes less sense than the later, even though the outcome is the same and started by the same frivolous reason?  
 
Edited by Seana-T, 2019-09-16 21:55:52

I agree with the point made above that this topic will never be discussed civilly in our society. All of the oxygen in the room is used up by the 5% on either end of the spectrum whose minds will never be changed no matter what happens. That leaves, in my opinion, 90% of people who would be willing to discuss this and compromise but are drowned out by the vocal minority.  
 
The sad part is that the vocal 5% on either end of the spectrum should have absolutely no opinion on the issue of gender with respect to abortion. The 5% who say abortion is evil under any circumstance are anti abortion no matter what. The reason for an abortion is a moot point. The 5% who feel that there should be no restrictions on abortions and it is solely up to a woman to decide, can't really then comment on the reason a woman may use to make that choice.  
 
This in an increasing problem in society. The vocal extremes on either end of an issue get the lion's share of the coverage while the other 90% (me included) tend to get ignored. In addition, if you are not at one end of the spectrum, it is generally assumed you are at the extreme other end and you are treated that way.  
 
I will say, regarding this issue, that if a society allows abortion as a matter of choice, it is extremely difficult to legislate the reason for that choice.

I disagree that aborted fetuses are 'missing women'. In my opinion, it is in no way the same topic as the tragic reality of missing women and girls (particularly those who are Indigenous).  
That said, here is an article about the difficulties of trying to enforce 'no sex selection' abortions:  
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/3/286

Just a Soul has suggested that those of the 5 percent who are completely opposed to abortion and the 5 percent on the complete other spectrum should have "absolutely no opinion on the issue of gender with respect to abortion". To this I would note that what 'Just A Soul' is saying is that anyone who is not a fence sitter on the issue should not be entitled to a say.  
 
I think that what you are trying to get at is that fence sitters are tolerant, and people who take extreme views are not. The funny thing about those who very often profess and preach an absolute belief in tolerance tend to be the most intolerant of people to those who oppose their views.  
 
So what if I am not a fence sitter? Do I have to be part of the so called 90 percent to have any say? What's so wrong with I, or anyone else taking a strong stance against what we perceive to be as a serious injustice in our world. What if at one time in history only 5 percent of a particular society felt slavery should be abolished? Should they too not have been entitled to a say on the issue?  
 
The point I'm trying to make is that just because one takes an extreme view on something does not make it wrong. Nor does the fact that someone takes a middle ground position on an issue make it more right. It may often be easy to take the middle ground, perhaps you may suffer less backlash or public scrutiny for it, but that does not mean it's anything close to the right position to hold.

Andread posted the question, "do you honestly think these unwanted female children will live if they are not aborted?" This was similar to comments posted by "Exhausted" To this I would respond with the answer that in many cases, yes I do. One of my statistics came from Canada, whereby I said that Indian women in Canada who have had more then one abortion have over 4 times as many male sons as they do daughters.  
 
Surely in Canada most Indian Canadian women who are not overtly interested in having a son would not kill their male babies if they happened to have one. I think to assume otherwise would be unfair to them. Plus even if they themselves did not want to keep the child after birth, there are far more people who want to adopt in our society then there are children who are up for adoption.  
 
Even in India, organizations like the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa's organization) help abandoned infants find good homes - though there can be no doubt that the poverty situation is far more pronounced in India, and as a result there are many orphans, this does not justify in any way the innocent slaughter of so many baby girls. In India it is estimated that there are around 20 million orphans, but who among us could ever tell all of those children, or any one who was left orphaned and then grew up that they would be better off dead?  
 
However even if there are cases where mothers would otherwise kill their children, how does that make the abortion right at all? Further, how does that justify the imbalance that is created in the world, where we end up with far more young males then young females. Also, what does that mean for the future? Seriously 'Exhausted' and 'Andread', are you not concerned at all at what the future holds for our society if young female girls (even if they are still in the fetus stage) are so callously thrown away in favor or trying to have male children? Do you not care about the issues of women that much that this doesn't bother you?

NotJustASoul you make a point that the vocal people are the ones that are heard on either side of an issue. But when you believe in an issue you must be vocal or there will be no change. Your stated that only 5% of people take an extreme stand on life on either side of the debate. If we go back to the survey i quoted above you will find that 28% of Canadians wish for there to be protection of life from conception while 20% of Canadians think that life should not be protected until birth. With the remainder of those interviewed somewhere in the middle. I personally am with the 28% who thinks life should be protected from conception.  
 
The key in being vocal though is listening to the other side.If you are not listening to those who disagree with you how will you ever find common ground. So NotJustASoul i agree with you partially when you say some people who take a stand on an issue just try to drown out the other side by raising their voice or interrupting or in the case of a chat forum not reading the comments. That may be the 5% you are talking about, But there are people on both sides of this issue who don't resort to screaming and slandering people for their beliefs. Which is great because I believe that when people take the chance to listen conversations about life can be positive and educational.  
 
AndreaD I could see why you would be concerned that if a child is born into a Family that doesn't want them they will be abused or murdered. But my question for you would be that should the murder of a baby girl in the womb be legal just so that girl may not be murdered when they are born? There are always options out there to help support the family wether it be adoption or maternity homes that can help the mother with her financial or other needs. There is absolutely no excuse for any child in our country or in this world to have to go through abuse in the home. I agree it happens way to much, but should we be telling those children that they would have been better of aborted while still in the womb? No i do not think so, instead we can be looking for ways to change that. If a family is struggling financially like i said there are many groups that can help, if a family truly didn't want a baby girl there are thousands of couples waiting to start their own family through adoption.(both for girl and boy babies)

Seriously why aren't more Canadian feminists and women's rights activist's up in arms over this issue? What could possibly matter more to their cause then the loss of millions of young women in this world? Not to mention the fact that mothers are preferring to have boys over girls? Why don't they care at all about what becomes such a huge gender imbalance?  
 
We hear all the time about gender issues in our society, our government talks about it a lot, and there can be no doubt that there have certainly been issues regarding the rights of women which have existed in the past, but seriously where are those advocates who care about those issues when it comes to this one? Is there really so few out there who actually care about what is happening to women today?  
 
Further, where are the fathers and mothers out there who should care about what is happening in our own country, where certain ethnic groups are deciding because of sex selective abortion to have more male children then female children? How does that bode for your children's futures?  
 
What's going on with our society? Have people gone mad not to care about this issue? Have all the women's rights activists disappeared? If so, then why?

If you are so offended and are demanding where all these feminists are, why don't you lead the cause. I challenge you to post your address on here so that all those women who find themselves facing abortions can then have their children and then after birth drop them off at your place.  
 
You can then raise all these precious babies, feed them, educate them, finance them, and teach them to becoming contributing members of society.  
 
Are you willing to take on this cause? Give your address out?  
 
No?  
 
Then, I highly suggest you stop inciting and condemning everyone else to do it whilst you shout from your high moral entrepreneurial soapbox.  
 
Your posts and the thread you started about suicide and the IT movie are what I FIND morally reprehensible. You chastise others at great length, skew opinions for facts, confound fantasy with reality, and all around just bitch for sake of bitching.  
 
People like you are exhausting and literally tear away at the fabric of individual liberties and free speech.  
 
Oh ya, thanks for soiling the ending of the movie. Really?

Where i think in today's day and age we can all agree giving out any personal information online like your address can be incredibly dangerous I will take you up on the rest of the offer.  
 
ABSOLUTELY ANYONE READING THIS POST. If you find your self pregnant, afraid or unsure of what to do I am willing to help. I will personally adopt your child, or help find a safe home for them or if you just need financial help so you can raise your child i will help you find that as well. Or maybe your just overwhelmed and need someone to talk to, I will listen as well.  
 
I think everyone would be surprised how many people are willing to help mother and child.

I would also like to note that there is a place in Brandon that has people with experience to help with all of the above.  
 
For any ladies who have been surprised with pregnancy and need help sorting out life there is:  
 
http://www.cpcbrandon.ca  
Brandon Crisis Pregnancy Centre  
 
Sorry if not relevant . In relation to sex selection abortions, CPC is a place to get support if you don’t have support at home. Even have access to a home for pregnant women who are alone and facing homelessness and need support.  
 
Edited by Seana-T, 2019-09-19 17:14:03

In 'MyHandleisTrain's post you suggest that I have made a disturbing comment by saying that another persons opinion is "not even close to the right position to hold" - I want to point out that you actually misquote me, and take my words out of context. In my post I was responding to 'Just a Soul's' position on those that he/she perceives to take as the extreme on either end of the abortion debate. Here is the actual quote:  
 
"Nor does the fact that someone takes a middle ground position on an issue make it more right. It may often be easy to take the middle ground, perhaps you may suffer less backlash or public scrutiny for it, but that does not mean it's anything close to the right position to hold."  
 
By that I think it's clear I meant that just because someone takes the middle ground position, does not automatically make it right.  
 
But I do want to comment on your issue with the notion that someone would suggest that they hold the right position on something and that you don't. Pretty much most people who take a position on something believe that it's right and that the other persons position is wrong. To believe otherwise is to believe in a philosophy of moral relativism, which means that there is no right and wrong.  
 
A lot of people today profess to be jumping on the moral relativism bandwagon, and then when push comes to shove and a situation arises where they want justice they completely throw moral relativism out the window when it benefits them.  
 
I guess therein lies one of the big problem with people thinking that God is dead. In that sort of a world we can do whatever we want and there is no consequence to our actions. In that sort of a world mothers can abort their female daughters and only have sons. In that sort of a world people won't stand up to challenge them because well they don't have the moral authority to do so. That is the sort of world that seriously falls apart.

I also have to ask further to this topic, why isn't our society worried about the possibility of racism directed towards the ethnic groups which end up with more male children in our country, then female children as a result of sex-selective abortions?  
 
I mean, do we really expect that in the future if one ethnic group has many more male children in our country then female that there is not the risk of future racism? I ask because I'm worried about it. The sons of those mothers who decided to abort their sisters in favor of them should not have to suffer racism as a result of their mothers actions, should they? But also, what if in the future there is a disproportionate number of men relative to women particularly in certain ethnic groups?  
 
Seriously, how could organizations like our liberal government be so in favor of no limits on abortion, profess to be leaders in the fight for women, and yet turn a complete blind eye to the mas extermination of millions of young women from our world and even the mass murder of women in our own country to abortion by certain ethnic groups?  
 
Perhaps it is a hypocritical stance on feminism that they actually hold. Just like Justin Trudeau's hypocritical stance on race relations when we see him in the not too distant past parading around at parties in 'blackface' make-up.  
 
Are the feminists who so ardently fight for a women's unrestricted right to abortion and yet turn a complete blind eye to the millions of female babies aborted in favor of male babies really just hypocrites?

Feminist...me, not you (necessarily).  
 
Women's right to choose. Her body, her choice. Gender selection can go both ways.  
Commited2brandon, You profess to want to know where all the feminists are. We are everywhere.  
You want feminists to stand up and demand to essentially limit women's choices and control over their bodies? Not going to happen by most feminists. Her body, her choice. No exceptions. NO exceptions.  
 
You want to have more girls born in countries such as India and Asia? Do something to help women to get a better paying job, and more education opportunities. Or promote old age pensions or charities that take care of the elderly or infirm. Currently those roles fall to the male offspring of the elderly parents. Female offspring often do not work in favour of raising their own children. If they do work, often it is for much less money either due to gender inequality of pay or limited educational opportunities.  
 
But do not waste time and effort ranting about feminism while trying to limit abortion opportunities. And do not rant about inequality or gender selection of other people's choices. Their choice, not yours. Their business, not yours. And if it impacts the world's population, well, that is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run.  
 
But do not come here demanding feminists stand up for fetuses. You are more pro-life than feminist. And that is fine. You do you. But don't advocate one platform while guising it as another. This thread has nothing to do with feminists standing up for females or even human rights. This is pro-life platform trying to control other women's uteruses and choice.  
You are just trying to make it sound liberal and injustice by bandying the word "feminist" about.  
 
Adam, just shut this thread down already.  
 
Edited by AndreaD., 2019-09-21 15:14:55

ANDREAD, I’m glad to hear that you profess yourself to be a feminist, but then you say that it’s a “Women's right to choose. Her body, her choice. Gender selection can go both ways.”  
 
So essentially you’re saying that it’s more important to your branch of feminism that women have the right to kill their offspring, then it is for women to have an equal opportunity to be born. I guess that’s why you only take a hard stance on the issue of abortion, as you say ‘No Exceptions’ even if it means millions of women are prevented from ever being born resulting in a much greater number of young men then women.  
 
Oh but wait, according to you it’s not their offspring, it’s their bodies, as opposed to a separate human being with unique DNA. Your position is completely hypocritical, for on the one hand you profess to be for women, but ok with mothers choosing not to have women.  
 
You are right those mothers do have a choice, and they are choosing not to have daughters, how could you possibly ever see that as ok? No amount of arguing will ever make that right. No amount of attempting to convince yourself will ever justify your position as one in favour of women. You say that these posts have “nothing to do with feminists standing up for females or even human rights”, but I think that to those who can see this objectively they will see that this is exactly what it is about, the loss of millions of women in our world in favour of men. The fact that my position is also pro-life does not detract from the fact that I also deeply care about the right of women to be born.  
 
You say that if I want to help more girls be born in countries such as India I should help women to get a better paying job or more educational opportunities. Actually, the opposite is true. As I said in my first post, Canadian women born in India tend to commit far more sex selective abortions then those who actually live in India, and the Canadian Indian women are without a doubt much more educated and well off then the average one who still live in India. So your argument too about promoting old age pensions to help the problem also too won’t help, as Indian women in Canada have access to some of the best pension programs, old age care facilities and equal pay opportunities in the world.  
 
Andread, I think more then anything you are angry that I don’t really profess to believe in what you believe, and maybe you are a little upset too that the pro-life stance turns out to be much more in favour of women then your position is, and I think that unfortunately that’s why you asked Adam to take my posts down.  
 
I hope that you realize just how intolerant your staunchly ‘no exception’ pro-abortion stance really is, and how in the end it is actually hurting women.

A child is a 20 yr or more commitment. Prison sentences for capital offences are often shorter.  
If a woman doesn't want that child then it is her choice. Reason gender selective abortions are more popular here is because it is more economically possible here.  
Many people in India and Asia live in abject poverty. Abortion is beyond their options. (Except in area of Asia that offer free abortion.) So many people living in poverty just have more children due to lack of birth contol availability, abort affordability and watch their children starve while the parents due their damndest to prevent that.  
 
And your original post you say Canadian women born in India. But regardless, it is none of your business why she has an abortion. Besides, according to your logic it is because there are more men than women that this is wrong. In Canada there are more women than men. So that blows your gender imbalance agruement out of the water.  
I never said you couldn't be a feminist and pro-life. Just don't guise your pro-life platform behind feminism or demand to know where the feminist are or why they aren't rallying to support your stance.  
Most feminists will not demand women be forced to give birth to a child they do not want for ANY reason. And despite your crap about thinking feminists should be against men, you are wrong. This isn't about gender. This is about choice. A women's choice over her body and over her life.  
 
You should have just broached this as a general wrong or concern and not as a feminist issue. Hardcore feminists will not back you in your rant. You are being the hypocrite here. You are the one limiting or suggesting limiting a women's choice over her body and her life and her future. You are the one you have your issues with the facts. Canadian women in India does not reflect about CPP or anything here. CANADIAN WOMEN IN INDIA. Did you even read that and process? Not Indian women in Canada.  
Even if it is just a typo...what does gender selection in India and Asia have to do with keeping your children or giving them up for adoption in Canada? Different countries and different circumstances.  
And once again...NOT YOUR BUSINESS what another woman chooses to do.

Committed2brandon, you continue to argue your anti-abortion agenda, which is completely within your right. Even though I completely agree with ANDREAD, that you guise it behind feminism, which if that is your definition of feminism, then I guess you are entitled to that as well. I am certainly all for freedom of thought, speech and artistic expression, the big difference between you and me it seems (I am referring to your thread about suicide and IT).  
 
But you continue to condemn the actions of others and argue against those who offer possible solutions or at least talking points to pursue. What I haven't heard in your sanctimonious rhetoric are possible solutions that could end gender-specific abortions.  
What I also find interesting, is why are you making this a "feminist" issue? The root cause of female unborn children being aborted is that the mothers live within and are subject to a patriarchal society, where they are considered as second-class to men. Again, you misinterpret and define it as “racism” within some cultures. No, it’s not racism, it’s sexism. This is what irks me the most of your arguments – you target all the people. I don’t care that you are pro-life, I care that you spew inaccuracies.  
 
Maybe, one of the long-term solutions is to stop putting the responsibility on young women to repair and fix what the men create for them, maybe the young boys need to be taught to respect females and treat them as equals and not as disposable. Then maybe, women wouldn’t be placed in a situation that they feel their female children are disposable and that boys are the only means to economic security. And that is also a strain on young boys that should also not be promoted, this is an unfortunate burden to put on young men that is largely ignored in conversations as well. This process costs both women and men in different ways in the long-run.  
 
And your statement, “Are the feminists who so ardently fight for a women's unrestricted right to abortion and yet turn a complete blind eye to the millions of female babies aborted in favor of male babies really just hypocrites?” is so utterly insane I can’t believe you even pose it! Do you honestly think that their aren’t concerted efforts to support women who are facing these situations, but the problem is so enormous and complex and those activists have to work within a system that is designed to work against women and keep the male as superior.  
 
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP?!!!!!!  
 
So to shout out and condemn to all those “feminists” that you are so irate about supposedly about not doing anything, you are shaking your finger at the wrong group. But again, you aren’t really concerned about feminists, you are only wanting to push your pro-life agenda. You really need to be honest here, you are only insulting people’s intelligence by calling it something else.  
 
I consider myself a feminist but a feminist who sees so much potential and strength in gaining men as allies, not as the enemy, despite the fact that they have historically held back women in many ways – and yes, more so in some cultures than others. Women gain the most if the sexist man is educated, and this education must start in youth stages.  
 
And using the current Trudeau and his black-face fiasco is really a low-brow argument. I don’t care for the man-child myself but let’s call what this is, a campaign smear not to get him elected again. It is 100% campaign strategy by his opponents. Does anyone really care that he did this dumb shit and yes offensive, years before he became PM? Holy cow, we start judging and condemning people by this standard the existence of any public representative would cease to exist.  
 
But hey, if you’re the perfect angel and everyone is the devil in your eyes – have at it – run for office and fix all our problems.

Read the original post and was a little confused about a few points, and that confusion grew with more comments.  
Will say that I have to agree with AndreaD and bunnyschuster. I view this as a culture problem and dragging race, abortion and feminism into it really muddied the waters.  
Changing people’s culture is sort of like poking a bear with a stick, you might get results, but they may not be the results you want, think of the young man who landed on an island that he was told not to go to, he had his agenda, but his agenda was not something that the natives of the island wanted.

How would you ever police something like that? How could someone prove they are aborting a girl and not just aborting an unknown child? The only answer to that is to make abortions illegal, which won’t actually stop them from happening. Abortions were illegal previously and women still got the procedure done, often resulting in injury and death to themselves.  
I believe in the women’s right to choose and their choice can come from a degree of different situations, poverty, rape, culture, medical, or simply not wanting a child. Who am I ( or you) to say what exactly their reason is and then try to police it.

ANDREAD you have made a lot of accusations against me in your most recent post. I want to address as many of them as I can, as you will see you made a lot of inaccurate claims in doing so.  
 
First off I want to address this comment you made:  
 
“Besides, according to your logic it is because there are more men than women that this is wrong. In Canada there are more women than men. So that blows your gender imbalance agruement out of the water.”  
 
I disagree with you strongly on this statement. In Canada we have far more women then men largely because on average women tend to live longer in this country then men do. Some of that may have to do with natural reasons and other reasons may be due to differing lifestyle choices between men and women.  
 
But the gender imbalance in Canada between men and women does not become statistically noticeable until you hit an age around your 60’s. So yes, there are more women then men in Canada, but that is really because there are far more elderly women then elderly men.  
 
This doesn’t blow my argument out of the water at all. The fact that there are more elderly women then elderly men in Canada does not affect an argument to do something about the choices women are making to murder female babies (foetuses) in preference to male babies (foetuses). The gender imbalance that we will see as a result of sex-selective abortions at the youngest ages of Canadians is still something I and others should be concerned about.  
 
Next I think it is ironic when you say  
 
“I never said you couldn't be a feminist and pro-life. Just don't guise your pro-life platform behind feminism or demand to know where the feminist are or why they aren't rallying to support your stance.”  
 
I say that this statement is ironic because you are actually doing something very similar with your arguments, in that you are professing to be a feminist and then arguing for a pro-abortion stance. What you are doing is according to your own words guising your pro-abortion stance behind feminism. Do you see your own contradiction? You are trying to call me out for guising my pro-life platform behind feminism, and yet feminists like you all the time guise their pro-abortion platform behind feminism.  
 
I think in the end, in spite of your claim that you “never said you couldn’t be a feminist and pro-life” you don’t want to separate feminism from being pro-abortion, and you are offended when I am arguing for both a pro-feminist stance and a pro-life stance.  
 
I next want to show your contradiction in the following statement you made  
 
“And despite your crap about thinking feminists should be against men, you are wrong. This isn't about gender. This is about choice. A women's choice over her body and over her life.”  
 
The funny thing about that comment is I never said that “feminists should be against men.” In this case you read into my posts something that wasn’t there likely because you thought it would make it easier to attack. I never once said “feminists should be against men” or anything even similar to it. Rather, I asked why aren’t more feminists concerned about the gender imbalance and the loss of tens of millions of young women to our world?  
 
Next you say  
 
“You should have just broached this as a general wrong or concern and not as a feminist issue.”  
 
This sort of a comment I think is bothersome, because you are trying to assign my argument the label you want as opposed to the one I have made the argument it falls under because that’s the way you feel. My guess is that this is where all of your pro-abortion arguments come from, it comes from a feeling that you have, and you are so desperate to get others to agree with you, that you even try to argue that the way someone has labelled their post is wrong, pretty much because it doesn’t coincide with the way you feel.  
 
Finally I want to comment on perhaps your most blatant mistake in your attacks on my posts:  
 
“You are the one you have your issues with the facts. Canadian women in India does not reflect about CPP or anything here. CANADIAN WOMEN IN INDIA. Did you even read that and process? Not Indian women in Canada.”  
 
I never once said in my post “Canadian Women in India”. I had to do a double take to make sure I did not make that typo, and I found that the only mention of the words “Canadian women in India” came from your post. I think Andread that you are so caught up with wanting to discredit my view based on your own personal beliefs that it has clouded you to the point where you think you have found mistakes in my post when in reality those weren’t there to begin with.  
 
So in spite of you laughing your ass off as your last posting title suggests, perhaps there is a lot less for you to laugh at about this serious issue and tens of millions of young female women babies not being allowed to have an opportunity to be born then you thought.  
 
I might suggest that you take a second look at what you believe and ask yourself why you believe it, and perhaps ask where you might have been lied to. If you truly seek out the truth for the sake of the truth and not your own beliefs that you want to hold I believe you will find it. I will pray for you that you do.

BunnySchuster  
 
I am really very glad to hear that you say you are all for freedom of thought and expression. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me - as you refer to my thread on suicide and IT chapter two. I want to point out though that I am not the only one who believes that there should be some limits on speech. For example our own charter of rights and freedoms places limits on peoples ability to promote hate speech. I think the effect of morally upholding suicide as an honorable conclusion to a mass produced movie is a dishonorable thing, and I question what happened to our society that this type of thing is becoming more commonplace, but I digress.  
 
I want to comment on this statement of yours,  
 
“What I haven't heard in your sanctimonious rhetoric are possible solutions that could end gender-specific abortions.”  
 
I think that there certainly are solutions that could at the very least reduce this problem, and I will explain a bit about what I think the most important one is.  
 
First, I think we need to promote a culture of life, where every child is valued from conception to natural birth. If you don’t have that sort of culture then it is so easy to simply treat a foetus as something that is easy to kill and throw away. This is the argument that many in these posts have been throwing against me, that it is their body, their choice. If society keeps promoting that notion then why should mothers ever care for what another tells them about not throwing away their daughters? If we treat a fetus as simply a clump of cells then why would anyone ever listen to someone who treats it that way when they try and tell them that they shouldn’t be selective as far as abortion goes in killing a clump of cells that is one gender over another.  
 
I think a comment from history can make the point. The problem of female infanticide was a significant one in the Roman Empire, so much so that it got so bad that there was a huge lack of women being born relative to men. The Roman people would often leave their female babies under bridges to be exposed to carnivores and the elements. The solution to the problem ended up coming from Christianity, whereby Christians would take those female babies after their parents would leave them under the bridges and raise them as their own. This is part of the reason that Christianity spread so quickly, Christians were not only having large families with lots of female born children being born to them, thus resulting in increased growth over non-Christian families but they were also raising many more female children, and as a result many male Romans would marry these Christian women and along the way convert to Christianity. Through Christianity there was a religion and culture that valued women, and valued all life, even those of the useless infants which were expendable to ancient Romans, just as our babies in the womb are expendable to so much of our society today.  
 
The argument in favor of a pro-abortion choice environment is the ridiculous one here.  
 
BunnySchuster I agree with your statement that “maybe the young boys need to be taught to respect females and treat them as equals and not as disposable.”  
 
Similarly, I think society needs to treat our unborn children as human beings and not disposable.  
 
Next to quote your comment  
 
“And your statement, “Are the feminists who so ardently fight for a women's unrestricted right to abortion and yet turn a complete blind eye to the millions of female babies aborted in favor of male babies really just hypocrites?” is so utterly insane I can’t believe you even pose it! Do you honestly think that their aren’t concerted efforts to support women who are facing these situations,”  
 
My argument is not insane BunnySchuster. If you read most of the responses from others to my postings you would see why. Yes I believe there are some efforts made to support women who are facing these situations, but I sincerely believe that most of it does not come from those who are in the pro-abortion camp. I think that my arguments have demonstrated why. That those who are pro-abortion usually fight so ardently to demonstrate that there should be no restrictions to abortion, that the fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells, and I believe this logically leaves women in a place where they really don’t have much left to persuade them from the notion that a female pre-born child (fetus) need not be aborted in favor of males.  
 
My point is in part that the pro-abortion advocates are part of the problem as opposed to the solution, they testify against themselves, and this makes them hypocrites. For their absolutist pro-abortion position means that you are not opposed to abortion for any reason, as ANDREAD said “My body, my choice, period”, and therefore to argue against aborting babies because they are one gender over another is hypocritical on their part.  
 
You then ask,  
 
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP?!!!!!!”  
 
I think that raising awareness about this issue is helping, even if perhaps in a very small way, as I have done with these postings. I think the hypocrisy of the many pro-abortion so called feminists needs to be exposed to those who may be considering abortions and even to those who hold this stance. On top of that I don’t really feel like I need to say what else I am doing, as this posting was not ever really intended to be about me. Perhaps I am trying to do something about it, by donating to certain charities that help young mothers in need, talking about the issues, praying for God to help those who are suffering with an unwanted pregnancy and trying to help promote a culture of life. But again, I do not want these posts to be about me, I’m not saying that I have lived any more moral a life then anyone else, in spite of your claim that I believe that I am  
 
“the perfect angel and everyone is the devil in your eyes”  
 
I never said that, nor do I believe it. Just because I am arguing against a severe injustice in our world does not mean that I am arguing I am a “perfect angel and that everyone is the devil”.  
 
A few more comments for you, you also say  
 
“But again, you aren’t really concerned about feminists, you are only wanting to push your pro-life agenda. You really need to be honest here, you are only insulting people’s intelligence by calling it something else  
 
I consider myself a feminist but a feminist who sees so much potential and strength in gaining men as allies, not as the enemy,”  
 
I responded to these sort of comments in my last response to ANDREAD, but I will do it again for you BunnyShuster. First, I never once suggested that men were the enemy, far from it. Second, despite your claim to the contrary, I am actually deeply concerned about feminists. I am so concerned about feminists that I want to point out when they are being hypocritical so that they can do something about it.  
 
True, I am pro-life, as I have absolutely stated in a previous post, but one can be a pro-life feminist and argue against sex-selective abortions. Further, one can be pro-life, care about feminists, and point out the hypocrisy of people claiming to be feminists and how their beliefs have contributed to the slaughter and thereby lack of ability to be born of tens of millions of innocent women in our world.  
 
Who is insulting who’s intelligence BunnySchuster? I think you might be the one doing just that when you say,  
 
“Again, you misinterpret and define it as “racism” within some cultures. No, it’s not racism, it’s sexism. This is what irks me the most of your arguments – you target all the people. I don’t care that you are pro-life, I care that you spew inaccuracies.”  
 
I NEVER NEVER once misinterpreted sex-selective abortions as racism. Your argument is so far fetched that anyone looking at it might just chuckle a little, so long as they actually read my previous posts. If you read my comments about racism, you will see that I am concerned about how sex-selective abortions could result in the possibility of future racism if one ethnic group ended up with far more male children then female children as is unfortunately happening in Canada right now. This is no where near the same thing as misinterpreting and defining the issue as racism.  
 
What’s really funny is that in the same paragraph where you claim that I spew inaccuracies, you completely distort my argument by claiming an inaccuracy that did not exist.  
 
Bunnyschuster, live ANDREAD, I think you are also so caught up with trying to discredit my views based on your own personal beliefs that it has clouded you to the point where you were so desperate to try and find inaccuracies in my post, that you found ones which did not actually exist.

I continue to be amused, but unpersuaded by your statements/beliefs.  
 
My final comment; best of luck to praying to your God and raising awareness about how much you despise pro-life feminists.