Special Report
Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay
That’s what Hillary Clinton thinks.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is upset about abortion. Well, not abortion per se. But some abortions. Of girls. Apparently killing boys is okay.
Abortion is one issue never likely to disappear. It sets protection of life and liberty in apparent conflict and raises challenging issues such as responsibility and privacy. Abortion isn’t amenable to easy political compromise and any resolution is apt to leave a lot of people feeling uncomfortable.
But the issue can’t be avoided. The bottom line of abortion is a dead baby. No amount of obfuscation and euphemism can hide the obvious. And if abortion is a legal right, beyond regulation by government, then motivation is irrelevant. If you have a right to kill all babies, you have a right to kill girl babies.
However, Secretary Clinton, a supporter of unrestricted abortion, appears disturbed by the logical outcome of her policy preferences. In commenting on her international agenda for women, she observed that in some nations “girl babies are still being put out to die.” Moreover, she explained: “Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes.”
Secretary Clinton’s remarks received surprisingly little comment from those she should have most offended — other advocates of abortion “rights.” Pro-lifers suggested that Secretary Clinton was a traitor to the abortion cause, but Laurie Carlsson defended the secretary’s “nuanced view” on an issue that is “neither simple, nor clean-cut along lines of political beliefs or moral values.”
Yet Secretary Clinton challenged two fundamental precepts of the case for legalized abortion. First, she tied the “infanticide rate of girl babies” to sex selection abortions. If sex-based infanticide and abortion are morally equivalent, then non-discriminatory infanticide and abortion should be morally equivalent as well. Secretary Clinton has raised the core moral challenge of abortion: once we enter the continuum of life, our essential humanity has been established. The moment of birth has no obvious moral distinction. Else why would Secretary Clinton be as upset with those who abort baby girls as with those who put newborn girls out to die?
Second, Secretary Clinton undercuts the essential argument of abortion activists: there is a right to unrestricted abortion (or abortion “on demand”). That means for any reason. However, the secretary has identified, to her, at least, one illegitimate reason. If there is one, might there not be others?
There are obvious social consequences of sex selection via abortion: for instance, a lot of men who can’t find wives. But that doesn’t seem to be Secretary Clinton’s point. Rather, she is concerned, rightly, about the moral implications of this practice.
It is almost an axiom on the Left that there is no worse offense than to “discriminate,” which makes sex selection abortion so odious to some. National Post writer Barbara Kay says “sex selection is a form of bias — arguably even a form of hatred — against an identifiable group.” But surely sex selection is not the only form of inappropriate discrimination. How about abortion of the handicapped, whether physical or mental? Writer George Neumayr has warned: “Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.” This also is discrimination.
But discrimination, or even “hatred,” doesn’t necessarily stop there. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently discussed Roe v. Wade and noted the “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Presumably she was referring to racial minorities, though there could be other disfavored groups. Cannot abortion be considered a form of society-wide discrimination?
And if we can judge the motives of those who choose abortion, then should we not critically assess other purported justifications? Why is it worse to decide that the baby’s sex is “wrong” than to decide that the pregnancy’s timing is “wrong.” Secretary Clinton’s apparent position, that people are free to choose abortion for any reason, except the one reason she finds most offensive, is intellectually unsustainable.
Perhaps the secretary still believes the procedure should be legal, and that the “work to be done” is persuading people not to abort their baby girls. Yet she mentions infanticide in the same sentence as abortion, and presumably she believes that more than persuasion is necessary in the former case. Again, there is no clear line between infanticide and abortion. The females are killed: the only question is when?
In any case, the law is never going to be able to control motives. If other abortions are legal, then anyone desiring one for the purpose of sex selection merely need state anything else — or nothing — and the law would not stand in the way. Australia, Canada, China, and India all formally ban the practice. Oklahoma has legislated against sex-selection abortions. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill imposing a federal prohibition. However, these measures are wasted effort so long as abortion is largely unrestricted.
Secretary Clinton has grasped an essential truth: It is wrong to kill baby girls. But it also is wrong to kill baby boys. The problem is not sex selection abortion. The problem is abortion. Many politicians desperately hope that the issue will just go away. But it won’t. Abortion remains one of today’s most profound moral challenges.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (131) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/04/killing-girls-is-bad-killing-b
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- We Have Her Example
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 9.4.09 @ 7:11AM
Cognitive Dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Abortion is OK, but abortion of girls is not.
tony jackson | 9.22.11 @ 1:52PM
very nice
Louis Jenkins| 9.4.09 @ 8:43AM
There is a certain modern attitude against the males of the species. A recent article in a woman's magazine bemoaned the passing of the alpha male as they can no longer offer the security or the manliness that was once prevalent in our modern society. It further stated that some professional women desire a stay at home Mr. Mom who would perform the house and child keeping skills of the 50s and 60s.
With the advent of fertilization techniques that no longer require an active male presence, men have been demoted to "drone bee" status. With the entitlement environment comes support for a 'no-father breadwinner' family. Again, males have been rendered useless.
Men's unworthiness is evident if one observes the trashy evening cit coms that are offered on the 'telly. White and black males are the butt of the jokes. ie, Everybody Loves Ramon. Tell a person he's stupid and unworthy long enough and he will begin to believe it or become psychotic. Since TV is 90% of today's reality (for this society) selective abortion of males should only follow as popular thought. As for Hillary, she has had a grudge against males for a long time.
Liberal Reader| 9.4.09 @ 8:57AM
No... Clinton does not think killing boys is "ok."
She thinks it's positively GREAT. She likes it.
In fact, she likes doing it herself. With her bare hands.
Thank God for a watchdog as vigilant and fact-obsessed as the American Spectator!
Where would we be without it?
Randy| 9.4.09 @ 9:17AM
Abortion IS infanticide I believe at its worst level due to the casual attitude of multitudes of Americans that allow it to happen in our Christian based country. No human has a right to murder another living being just for the sake of , I believe in most cases, their indescretion of immoral mistakes. No one these days wants to fess up to their mistakes, great or small. We all want to easy way out...............in the case of this infanticide we now call abortion, we merely kill the evidence, pure and simple, wash our hands of our dirty little actions and continue to live our lives. In essence we are the equivilant of Nazi Germany during WWll allowing the continued legal killings throughout the fruited plains. Our country will be held accountable for these actions and at the current climate of the debauchery within the current administration it is my belief that the downfall of the nation is at hand . All these touchy feely liberals deem it downright horrendous to water board a thug, whose total lifes ambition is to destroy America, which in itself is not in any way going to lead this tortured one to an untimely death, but they relish the thought of their right to kill a life through an abortion,a little innocent girl or boy. Let us all pray to the Lord to set our country back on the path of a God fearing nation with respect to all life.
artfldgr| 9.4.09 @ 10:09AM
"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -- Margaret Sanger, letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10,1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College. (Dec. 10 is the correct date of the letter. There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but Dec. 10 is the correct date of Ms Sanger's letter to Mr. Gamble.)
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 10:58AM
Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana » COMMENTARY & COMICS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ned| 9.4.09 @ 11:01AM
Wasn't the death penalty abolished in the seventies on the grounds that the way it was being administered was cruel and unusual punishment? The argument was since blacks were executed at a higher percentage than whites it was discrimination, and therefore cruel and unusual.
Well if we are whacking more girls and handicapped babies than boys the same interpretation of the law should apply to abortion as well. And since Mrs. Clinton has broken the ice and called it a duck (infanticide) rather than expelling a hamburger from the belly, this line of attack against abortion might be worth looking into. Or it is just another example of phoniness on the part of liberals.
CopyKatnj| 9.4.09 @ 11:22AM
In Dante's "Inferno" when Lucifer was breaking through the bonds of hell, he was horrified to see a female and dog like creature consuming her.
Father, do you not recognize us she said.
I am Sin and he is death.
We sprung from your head.
I'm sure a knowledgeable reader will know the passage better than my memory, but the point is made.
ccc| 9.4.09 @ 11:28AM
Those countries which are deliberately creating significant gender inbalances are providing a fascinating cultural experiement, which even serve to explain homosexuality. I think the US should facilitate this by preferentially permiting immigration by unmarried young women and discouraging immigration of men.
Ned| 9.4.09 @ 11:41AM
Jake of the Blues Brothers said it perfectly.
Jake: I want to buy your women... the little girl... your daughters. Sell them to me. Sell me your children.
Super Dave| 9.4.09 @ 12:11PM
Great article! The problem is, the one thing a liberal will not abide is a logical debate. Logic that confronts a liberal's core beliefs is just mean spirited hard right wing aggression. It's really all about their 'feelings' now, isn't it?
macdaddy| 9.4.09 @ 12:24PM
This is just a calculation on Hillary's part for 2016. She has absolutely no intention of actually doing anything about sex-selective abortion, much less infanticide. The infanticide was obviously Bush's fault, so now that he's gone, give it a year and the problem will have been magically solved at no cost. It only required that Clinton turned her furrowed brow upon it.
Al Adab| 9.4.09 @ 12:41PM
Here is the issue in a nutshell. Once we decide that some humans are preferable to others, on whatever basis, there is no end of discussion concerning just what those criteria might be. The criteria might be subject to change as governments and philosophies change. We might follow the early eugenic theory or decide that certain groups are not wanted. When human life becomes a subjective call all sorts of evil could follow.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 9.4.09 @ 1:05PM
Ironically, mrs. clinton has strong political and personal ties to several well-known lady killers: her hubby, the recently passed toddy-boy konnedy and the former governor of the state she repped in the sinate, oh wait - the last mentioned paid for it, so possibly does not belong on this list.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Tim| 9.4.09 @ 2:32PM
Lib Reader you are a meathead.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.4.09 @ 3:43PM
If Hillary Clinton is moving her lips she's lying just like Obama so how can we trust anything she says?
Appleby| 9.4.09 @ 4:33PM
Optimist that I am, I believe that Mrs. Clinton is taking baby steps toward enlightenment here. Somewhere along the line she has begun to think of an unborn baby as a little girl. She does not use the word "fetus" or refer to a "clump of cells" ... she looks at that belly and sees a little girl.
If she were in the room with me, I would want to hear the moment of epiphany, when that connection was made, and what triggered it. If I could encourage her to discover that moment for herself, then I could lead her along to the conclusion that inside some of those (to use the current cutesy term) "baby bumps" are little boys. And I would ask her if she ever looked at an actress, a movie star or simply a woman on the street and saw before her a little boy.
Hillary never had a boy child of her own; perhaps she doesn't relate to them very well. Mine were boys and I also had a foster grandson who had worn out two previous grandmas before he got to me, and I related to him very well too. Some of us get along better with one gender than another.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton really has nothing against little boys; she just doesn't think about them as much as she thinks about little girls -- after all, she once carried a little girl -- Chelsea was not a Clump of Cells or a Fetus, she was Mrs. Clinton's daughter.
I will pray that her walk along the path of righteousness will continue, and that she will meet people who will encourage her to continue the way she seems to be going. It has happened in this world that the leopard has changed his spots and the Ethoip his skin.
Daisy| 9.4.09 @ 4:50PM
Jeremiah/LibReader; are you a TRUTHER like Van Jones? Ha hahaha!
tony jackson | 9.22.11 @ 1:50PM
it is so exciting,this is true thing,that has happed around us.
Nobama| 9.4.09 @ 4:56PM
Appleby, you're a dear. But you must know in your heart of hearts that your lovely, hopeful sentiments about Hillary aren't true. Right?
I will pray for her, too.
Marc Jeric| 9.4.09 @ 5:01PM
La Hillary, the world record holder in cattle furures , has seen the light! So this is not a bunch of cells - it is a girl! Bravo Applebee!
Roy| 9.4.09 @ 5:45PM
Yeah, I dunno. As far as I can tell, the Left abandoned consistency on this issue a long time ago, and it now about raw power. Which they have.
SoCon| 9.4.09 @ 6:16PM
Roy, can't get much more 'raw' than the raw power I've seen exhibited by our fellow Americans lately.
The Left's days are numbered.
DaveS| 9.4.09 @ 7:00PM
Darin, first commenter, had it right. Squeamish, Hillary? The so-called 'right to choose' means any statistical outcome is possible - even those seemingly not random - in fact, preferred. Women aborting exclusively women - N.O.W. that's empowerment choosers can believe in. How sad.
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 7:07PM
Steynian 380 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 9.4.09 @ 8:40PM
Liberalism exists in a haze of double standards, bolstered by lies and deceptions.
Craig| 9.4.09 @ 8:46PM
Appleby,
You expressed a very nice sentiment. From your post I have determined that you were/are a very good mother (at least your heads in the right place).
You've been gentle to Hillary and probably extended more grace than she deserves. In the end though (my behavior is not so forgiving sometimes), it's probably better to err in this direction than the other. My kind regards.
Craig
Eric Dondero | 9.4.09 @ 8:51PM
Bandow claims to be Pro-Life. But as a stridently anti-War pacifist, who vehemently opposed the Wars in Vietnam and Iraq, he aligns himself with anti-Life dictators like Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.
Bandow's more worred about zygotes in the womb, than living breathing Iraqis, Kurds, and Southeast Asians, slaughtered on the killing fields.
LaughAtU| 9.4.09 @ 10:31PM
My god you people are retarded. I'm so glad that you all get to read articles like this so that when you decide to speak up around friends and family they can laugh at you.
Nobama| 9.4.09 @ 10:37PM
Geez, Eric; what's your beef with Bandow?
I take exception to your 'zygotes' crack, too. You're not much of a pro-lifer, either, are you? Moron.
james | 9.4.09 @ 10:41PM
Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay." Nice topic lol ,at first can't get you but now i found ,this is good to read ty.
chi hair straightener
chi flat iron
Robinson | 9.4.09 @ 10:43PM
Logic that confronts a liberal's core beliefs is just mean spirited hard right wing aggression. It's really all about their 'feelings' now, isn't it?
Bailey Button Ugg Boots
cheap ugg boots
Alan Brooks| 9.4.09 @ 11:19PM
Abortion IS murder.
But if "we" didn't abort babies, more blacks and Jews (and perhaps gays) would be killed by war and murder.
People want to kill even more than they food and sex.
Yosemeti Sam| 9.5.09 @ 12:25AM
Lamentations, lamentations - from SOS.
" ...
appears disturbed by the logical outcome of her policy preferences.
In commenting on her international agenda for women, she observed
that in some nations "girl babies are still being put out to die."
Moreover, she explained: "Obviously, there's work to be done in
both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is
still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents
are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to
abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy.
And those are deeply set attitudes." ...."
What a show of crocodile tears. 40 - maybe 50 -
million down the tubes in this country and the SOSs' poignant 'concern' is over Indias' and Chinas' institutionalized blood baths upon female infants? Sexist pigs - those nations?
Got to get their minds right on this 'moral' issue.
Has the SOS per chance urged the POTUS to
bring his empirical prestige on these matters
to bear in this circumstance?
iamse7en| 9.5.09 @ 1:52AM
I love pro-life libertarians. Could you imagine if Ron Paul were our president right now? The recession might have been over right now because he would have allowed the market to correct itself and fix economic imbalances, and also laid off government workers, rather than laying off private sector workers.
It's easy to to agree that abortion is wrong. It's easy to also see the connection with rise in abortion rights with the rise in births out-of-wedlock (if that seems counterintuitive, you're sane, just go read the economic data, read John Lott) which has (along with the welfare state) destroyed the American family. But just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be punishable by federal officials. Adultery is morally wrong, but it's quite legal.
Can I be pro-life but question whether it should be illegal or not? I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. This is why I give Romney some slack. All this libertarian influence confuses me. Too much Cato, Reason, Stossel, and Bandow. ;)
Missy| 9.5.09 @ 2:51AM
Nobody has the right to kill another human being, including a pregnant woman.
iamse7en| 9.5.09 @ 3:46AM
Thanks Missy. That's an important statement. If we are defenders of life, than how can it be legal for pregnant mothers to kill their unborn child?
Ron Paul says such a legal decision should be left to the states. I welcome this transition, and I would hope helps protect unborn children throughout the nation.
Pingback| 9.5.09 @ 9:41AM
Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Hillary Clinton’s Problem with Sex Selection Abortions links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
D Williams| 9.5.09 @ 11:34AM
About 1989 a study was done in New Delhi on the results of abortions in connection with amniocentesis and other new technologies such as ultrasound that could establish the gender of a fetus. The study revealed that of all abortions performed subsequent to testing, 99+percent had been done to kill a female fetus.
I read about this in a Spanish-language newspaper from Madrid. In the US I have spent countless hours trying to find any reaction from US news journals, feminists, government agencies... all without success. This from Hillary Rodham is the first time I've seen any major figure even acknowledge the practice, much less make any sort of value judgment. Sadly but predictably, she's got it wrong again.
Simply, you cannot just invent a gender-based right for "bits of undifferentiated flesh having no more significance than a hangnail."
All previous defense and justification for abortion has promoted the idea that no unborn child has any intrinsic rights. Ms. Dowager Empress C is messing with strong juju to claim that it is okay to abort, but evil to abort female fetuses.
It is the thin end of the wedge. Once you allow that a female fetus has some right to be selectively defended from abortion, you're on a slippery slope. What about the rights of voters to elect gender reassignment? This has been acknowledged already to be a fundamental right of all persons, and is given priority in funding in the UK's financially strapped National Health Service, which will deny funding to women dying hideously painful deaths from advanced breast cancer to ensure the funding for sex-change operations and follow-up care.
So, Ms. Clinton, which is it for us peasants in the USofA? Federal funds to kill male babies in the wonb and provide for people who want to be made different from whatever they started out? But no money to kill females in the womb or old folks with old folk diseases?
What a bunch of moral monsters we have pretending to govern!
Kurt| 9.5.09 @ 6:14PM
Weel written Mr. Bandow. Although it is a bit off of the subject Justice Ginsburg's comment regarding population growth is typical of the so called 'Global Elite.' We must control the population, we must control growth (sustainable growth.) Why is it that those who desire to control things are usually the out of control. Being anti-abortion is not about control over a womans body but rather about life and liberty for the unborn, not to mention their pursuit of happiness.
Pingback| 9.5.09 @ 7:36PM
The American Spectator : Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay | girls links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
William| 9.5.09 @ 11:04PM
Perhaps . . . just maybe . . . Hillary Clinton might be just beginning to think this through with a bit more care?
As D. Williams point out: 'Simply, you cannot just invent a gender-based right for "bits of undifferentiated flesh having no more significance than a hangnail."'
Hopefully thinking this through to a logical conclusion will lead her to a more humane and enlightened position.
CopyKatnj| 9.6.09 @ 7:31AM
oops! I'm embarrassed. A correction to my earlier post's reference. The author is Milton from "Paradise Lost".
Pingback| 9.6.09 @ 12:18PM
reasonandjest.com » Good Reading links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jordan 6 rings | 9.6.09 @ 10:48PM
You’re website has very good infos. I learned very a lot from reading these.
Richard Baker| 9.7.09 @ 12:49AM
Was this ditzy broad dropped on her head one too many times as a child?
Pingback| 9.7.09 @ 9:53AM
Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay « Observations links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Misanthrope| 9.7.09 @ 10:00AM
The problem with this is that a lot of you COMPLETELY missed the point. The argument is against the abortion of female fetus's in countries where females have a lesser standard of life, i.e the developing world, where they still have the whole "men are law" attitude (By the way, I'm a dude before anyone starts on the feminism). While it is backward in the west to give female fetus's rights over male fetus's (though this is probably happening due to male demonization) we should address the issues of sexual discrimination else where.
Row1| 9.7.09 @ 12:22PM
As of 2000 census data, we have sex-selection abortion documeted in U.S.:
Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists U S A. 2008 Apr 15;105(15):5681-2. Epub 2008 Mar 31.
Almond D, Edlund L.
We document male-biased sex ratios among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean,
and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. Census. This male bias is particularly
evident for third children: If there was no previous son, sons outnumbered
daughters by 50%. By contrast, the sex ratios of eldest and younger children with
an older brother were both within the range of the biologically normal, as were
White offspring sex ratios (irrespective of the elder siblings' sex). We
interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection,
most likely at the prenatal stage.
Patriot| 9.7.09 @ 4:27PM
YOU miss the point, Misanthrope (not surprising, given your name!). We should start with "Life" discrimination first. Sex discrimination doesn't mean squat if you're dead. Liberal moron.
Timothy O'Donnell | 9.7.09 @ 8:18PM
Bravo, Mr. Bandow. Shining a bright light on yet another contradiction to be found in the abortioneer's position is indeed helpful. No other action destroys more human lives than abortion. We ought not be surprised when certain nefarious characters bend abortion to further evil ends. Once society accepts say slavery as an institution, it is not long before additional evils develop within the structure of the moral evil: cruelty, rape, deprivation.
The human person is created Imago Dei - directly and inetionally - and every human person desrves to have their fundamental right to life preserved and protected from being unjustly taken.
jordan 6 rings | 9.7.09 @ 10:11PM
Thank God for a watchdog as vigilant and fact-obsessed as the American Spectator!
PolishKnight| 9.7.09 @ 10:25PM
"With the advent of fertilization techniques that no longer require an active male presence, men have been demoted to "drone bee" status. With the entitlement environment comes support for a 'no-father breadwinner' family. Again, males have been rendered useless."
Au contrare! As time has gone by, the chivalrous patronage state has had to increasingly tighten the reins to keep the "liberated" lasses from falling off. As divorce laws become liberalized and continued to favor women (or even became worse), fewer men married. Then "single motherhood" became all the rage with, of course, a named, legal father for the taxpayers and courts to keep the welfare state going.
We're now at the endgame as millions of women are having a hard time getting even a decent wageearning man to "oops" and trick into paying child-support. There's a run on sperm banks even as quality sperm is drying up (and logically, this makes sense. What kind of man uses such a facility knowing the kind of women that increasingly use them?)
Feminism is a product of chivalrous patronage: The notion that women can be "equal" via special handholding. Kind of like letting a girl beat you at chess. Conservatives spoiled women and now they're being punished for it.
American Patriot Supernova X| 9.8.09 @ 1:56AM
All abortions are ok. Lets throw these commie bastards out of office. Kill em all I say. (I mean fetus meat, not elected officials).
asd | 9.8.09 @ 4:39AM
2 day diet,
2 day diet,3 day fit,3 day fit,Imelda perfect slimImelda perfect slim
2 day diet , 3 day fit, 3X Slimming Power, Imelda perfect slim, Japan Lingzhi Cleaned Slim Tea, Power Slim Tea, lida daidaihua, Fruit & plant weight loss capsules, Health Slimming Coffee, Super Slim Pomegranate, meizitang, magic slim, Miracle Slim Tea, Instant Slim Target Belly Fat, pai you guo, Japan Lingzhi Slim Express Tea
Mark| 9.8.09 @ 8:46AM
"Law Enforcement" enables this swill.
Alph A Male| 9.8.09 @ 6:02PM
Who gives a whit what Hill thinks about anything? She is just an affirmative action Sec. St. with no experience and less ability. What the world wants to know is: What does Billy Boy think about this dimnunition of available partners?
Dennis Dilley| 9.8.09 @ 9:22PM
Clinton, like most liberals, has identified a problem, only one of many, with abortion. But she has stated it. Where liberals distinguish themselves from normal, thinking, humane people, however, is in the solution they propose to solve the problem. But the moral undertones of the problem is not in their line of thinking. Their moral compass only points to Equality.
So, don't look for Clinton or the baby killing mafia to suggest reducing or eliminating the infanticide of girls. No, they will arrive at a program that involves the killing of mass numbers of baby boys, so that they will achieve equality.
ab normal| 9.8.09 @ 11:20PM
The logic is easy:
All lesbians want more girls born than boys.
Makes sense to me.
How does Janet Reno Feel about it?
And does unJustice Soto have a family?
I never heard about children or husband.
just wondering.
ab
lancaster, Prop8ifornia
push 1 for english in the USA gringos
joyce| 9.9.09 @ 12:24PM
A friend and I were discussing abortion recently and she said that she was not sure she believed that abortion was the right path to take EXCEPT when the baby was "defective" then abortion is certainly okay. I asked what she would do with a child who appeared to be "normal" but at age two the child was diagnosed with autism. Would she approve of killing it? Her answerr floored me. She said she would have to think about that.
Nobama| 9.9.09 @ 2:17PM
Nice 'friend', Joyce. Liberals are scary because they don't have moral boundaries. Anything goes--and that's what scares me about ObamaCare. It's a mass killing scheme.
bad girls | 9.11.09 @ 1:35PM
As time has gone by, the chivalrous patronage state has had to increasingly tighten the reins to keep the "liberated" lasses from falling off.
Pingback| 9.14.09 @ 4:11PM
Feminist Hilary Clinton Hoist on Her Own Moral Petard. | MND: Your Daily Dose of Cou links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
1231| 9.15.09 @ 6:40AM
wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops
LeahG| 12.9.09 @ 11:31PM
I am just new to your blog and just spent about 1 hour and 30 minutes lurking and reading. I think I will frequent your blog from now on after going through some of your posts. I will definitely learn a lot from them. Regards - Leah of audio conference
Trackback| 2.4.10 @ 4:35PM
Asian Women, on Asian Women, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
eterter| 4.1.10 @ 2:14AM
FLV to WMV Converter is the most professional software, which is able to convert flv to wmv and convert flv files to wmv. In addition, it is very versatile, for flv file converter wmv can also convert flv to AVI, MP3, MPEG, MP4, iPod, etc. Is it your best assitant
MOV to DVD Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only help you to convert MOV files to DVD, but also can help you to edit the MOV files before converting, set the output parameters, and edit the DVD menu.
Jill | 4.15.10 @ 4:57PM
Sauna Detoxification
Do Follow| 5.1.10 @ 5:56PM
Cheack out dofollow blogs for more links pages like this.
Narendra | 9.27.10 @ 11:52AM
how crazy ds site vr vt Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay vt okay its a stupid statement i think ds site vr handling one of the gilr (lady) dts y dt lady vr throwing those statements who vl agree for dt stupid statements . one thing il agree fr it killing boys k k vt abt girls , boys vl show openly but girls ha ha ha they vl do everything but they vl vnt show anything secretly they vl complete there wrk no one can identify dt mistake they wont use any arnamts evn knife but dy vl separate the head and body dy vl cut it so smoothly wowww .....vt a wonder vt a wonderful miracles thy r havg leaving !!!!!
Tim | 10.21.10 @ 4:35AM
Considerably, the post is in reality the freshest on that worthy topic.
uggs | 11.4.10 @ 8:30AM
Considerably, the post is in reality the freshest on that worthy topic.
emma | 4.12.11 @ 8:52AM
Nice topic lol ,thanks for sharing!
fruta planta
meizitang