Skip to comments.The War Against Girls (Unintended Consequences of Abortion)
Posted on 06/18/2011 2:26:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons.
BY JONATHAN V. LAST
Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance...
In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad.
Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107.
What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion...by Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.
...such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent."
The economist Gary Becker has noted that when women become scarce, their value increases...But..."this assessment is true only in the crudest sense." A 17-year-old girl in a developing country is in no position to capture her own value. Instead, a young woman may well become chattel, providing income either for their families or for pimps.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sometimes I think that the Western establishment hasn’t learned from the horrors of the 20th century (eugenics, Marxism, the Holocaust, and so forth).
Or maybe they just don’t care, as long as they maintain their grips on power.
In many parts of the world, being female is a disadvantage. The Middle East is the most egregious exemple, but it’s also the case in other parts of the world.
Liberalism is a “SICK and DEMENTED” Disease!
Note: Title by Ann Coulter with addded discriptors in parenthesis by Poster!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Actually in almost the entire World EXCEPT in AMERICA so far! But give the DEMORATS time and they will screw Women in America as well!
163 missing females. 30 million missing African-Americans. LIberals’ ideas have consequences.
The other women who were lucky enough to avoid being forced into prostitution (to service the broad masses of men) usually lived on farms in rural isolation and did a lot of manual labor.
This was a consequence of a male/female ratio imbalance caused by a high maternal death rate. It was common back in the good old days for women to die earlier than men ~ in greater numbers simply from the consequences of childbirth.
Having an adult man/woman ratio of 1/1 is a modern novelty that's had a run of just over a century, and only in the modern industrialized nations.
It's totally abnormal.
It’s not just abortion that happens to girls in the 3rd world many are born but left to die because they were born female.
Do you have a cite to back that up?
My understanding is that while many young women died in childbirth, many young men died in battle or in dangerous occupations so it evened out.
Ms. Hvistendahl also dredges up plenty of unpleasant documents from Western actors like the FORD FOUNDATION, the UNITED NATIONS and PLANNED PARENTHOOD, showing how they pushed sex-selective abortion as a means of controlling population growth. In 1976, for instance, the medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Malcom Potts, wrote that, when it came to developing nations, abortion was even better than birth control: "Early abortion is safe, effective, cheap and potentially the easiest method to administer."
The following year another Planned Parenthood official celebrated China's coercive methods of family planning, noting that "persuasion and motivation [are] very effective in a society in which social sanctions can be applied against those who fail to cooperate in the construction of the socialist state."
As early as 1969, the POPULATION COUNCIL's Sheldon Segal was publicly proclaiming the benefits of sex-selective abortion as a means of combating the "population bomb" in the East. Overall Ms. Hvistendahl paints a detailed picture of Western Malthusians pushing a set of terrible policy prescriptions in an effort to road-test solutions to a problem that never actually manifested itself.
The usual suspects.
As far as the men dying early, that's in comparison to the women who survived into their 30s and 40s, but warfare wasn't all that big a deal in peasant societies.
War was for gentlemen ~ the wealthy and powerful.
Can't see the correlation.
To somewhat counterbalance the high female death rate in childbirth, there was also a very high male death rate in accidents (no OSHA back then) and war. Most "indigenous" or "traditional" societies were pretty much constantly at war. While major battles with lots of dead guys killed all at the same time were usually rare, it was not at all uncommon for the constant killing in raids and ambushes to add up to a 20% to 50% death rate for men.
In addition, homicide, mostly of men by men, was MUCH higher in most traditional societies, as in 5x to 20x that of the US today.
From what I've been able to find out, most societies did not have a large preponderance of males over females.
You forgot to account for the fact that men are also more likely to die on a battlefield than women, which I think will offset the women dying in childbirth. And although more boys by pure biology are conceived than girls, more boys than girls suffer mishap before birth through a defect. [i.e. that longer extra X chromosome gives the girls a backup gene that boys don’t have.] So when babies are actually born, the ratio is closer to 1/1.
Plus, more women were held as slaves than were men. Some societies, e.g. those in Scandinavia and the Baltics, held all the women as slaves. Women didn't gain any sort of liberties until relatively recently ~ so it shows up in history ~ and in names. Might add that in Scandinavia they actually did something similar to the Iroquois winter walk. That's where the men go away and hunt and fish all winter while the women, children and old people stay at home and live on the surplus saved up in the short summer.
Starting in about the 8th Century the Vikings began just leaving town and making more distant raids. The folks who stayed behind continued to suffer from famine in winter, but in the springtime when the guys came back they had some good stuff to look at. The last famine in Scandinavia occured in the late 1800s, but the last famine in Northern Europe, far to the South, occurred in 1943.
Interestingly enough, women survive famines better than men ~ but in the next generation everybody gets to be a midget proving that nature provides eh!
America in the 1600s and 1700s clearly had a surplus of men over women.
They were, of course, generally the guys who started it.
But, as an example, during most of the Middle Ages the primary way to fight a war was to "ravage" your opponent's territory. This meant burning his farms and killing his peasants. This was really hard on the peasants. Meanwhile the lord hung out in his castle.
Even when this was not a specific war policy, undisciplined armies moving through your village was a disaster.
During the 100 Years War, Normandy lost 3/4 of its population.
In the early modern period, the 30 Years War reduced the population of Germany by somewhere around 50%.
We routinely consider modern wars much more destructive than those of the past, but this is quite untrue on a percentage, as opposed to absolute basis, which is the proper way to compare. Poland, the country with the highest loss of life during the war, lost about 16%. While horrific, this was rather minor in comparison to routine impacts of many earlier wars there and elsewhere.
In WWII Germany lost 8% to 10%. Japan 4% to 5%. USSR 13.5%. USA 0.32%.
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.
I’d be glad to debate the point, but seem to have trouble finding reliable statistics about historical sex ratios in different societies. Do you have references?
While I’m well aware American frontier societies were extremely lopsided to males, I’m not so sure this was true of the longer-settled areas.
Immigrants were always disproportionately male, and for obvious reasons not too many women were on the ever-moving frontier.
I disagree with your claim about women doing most of the work in the past. While true of most tribal societies, it is most definitely not true of most peasant societies, where everybody had to work all the time to stave off starvation and pay the landlord. The male serfs didn’t get to hang out on the corner. Male slaves through all history were always worked to the max. That’s the whole point of having slaves.
I also suggest your claim that all women were slaves is inaccurate. Sure, by our standards women had no rights and were little better than slaves. But the women of the time were well aware of the difference between honorable wife and mother and a female slave. Note the many, many examples of women killing their children and themselves rather than being taken captive to be enslaved. Jews, Gauls, Britons, Carthagnians, Germans, Rajputs, etc. Very long list.
muawiyah is misinformed and parroting pro-abortion nostrums about the danger of childbirth and also incorrect information about age of marriage and first birth.
If the death rate of women was higher than men, Nature (or Nature’s God) wouldn’t have resulted in the 105/100 ratio. The fact that the natural biological ratio is weighted towards men is indicative of who has the higher death rate through the ages.
Hunting is more dangerous than gathering. The most dangerous agricultural jobs were done by men, not women. Farming is still in the top five for occupational deaths.
Men also drink more, engage in more risk taking behaviors, gambling, fighting, racing, etc.
I’d be interested in seeing a reference.
My understanding is that women died during the 30 Years war (and most premodern wars) at nearly the same rate as men. The big killer was not battle, but epidemics, starvation and “foraging” by the armies. None of which discriminate between the sexes.
Read a recent article about the English Civil Wars, which were of course fought all over the British Isles. And which we don’t normally think of as particularly destructive.
Estimates population losses by country were: England - 10%, Scotland - 20%, Ireland - 30%.
Meanwhile, during our own civil war, the population grew from 31M in 1860 to 38M in 1870. To be fair, a good bit of that was immigration, but the population would still have grown with none.
One source has been Byzantine tax records ~ but notice that about the 6th century the whole world fell into a triple dip Great Recession like nobody's business. Every standard of civilization was abandoned. The recovery took a long time and even as late as 1790 a full census of the population (see Constitution) was considered quite revolutionary.
One population did manage to get its makeup put under the microscope ~ they were called Huns. When they left China, expelled by the Emperor himself for intense banditry and rapine, they were pretty much Chinese. By the time they got to Europe a couple of centuries later they were White folks.
This happened simply because females do best in settled life but these guys were migratory and continued raiding all across the continent until they reached Europe. This required them to obtain new females on a regular basis.
Found some statistics that in American colonial days 1% to 1.5% of all births resulted in maternal death. Since women had multiple births, as a rule, probably one in eight to one in ten women died in childbirth.
I’m not sure this rate was high enough to significantly outweigh the higher male death rate from war and accidents.
I think we get this impression because we have so many records of older widows marrying a succession of young wives. But the primary reason for this was that older, financially established men were prime catches in the marriage market and were quickly snapped up.
To discuss the issue, we first have to decide which type of society we’re going to discuss. American colonists had little in common with Russian peasants or medieval Egyptian peasants.
I’ve read a good bit about the Huns. The Romans and others of the time definitely viewed them as very different physically. Not “white folks” at all.
The Hungarians or Magyars and Bulgars and other steppe groups you are more or less correct.
As far as any of that being pro-abortion, it's not. Population statistics can certainly be misused to advocate for abortion, but you can use them to advocate for anything you want ~ like selling more bread, selling less meat, using fats, consuming sardines ~ you name it.
BTW, the conception ratios are exactly on the button.
Regarding early childbirth, that's always been a problem ~ everybody knows it. It's not an argument for abortion but rather a warning to the pedophiles to leave the young girls alone or you will be executed by the village elders faster than you can believe.
At the same time girls brought up under the rigors of heavy farm labor reach menses later ~ for what that's worth.
Your reference backward from lifestyle to birth ratios is BS. They are not linked and the higher level here is not universal. The world average is a 1:1 ratio ~ there are countries with more girls born than boys.
The adult ratio reflects conditions of life for each sex, on the average.
Now the relationship between Conservatives and Liberals is definitely skewed by actions taken at or before birth. Liberals kill their own kids at such a high rate that Conservatism in America is now demonstrably something that provides a family a biological advantage.
The United Kingdom and United States have a sex ratio of 105:100 while Canada has a sex ratio of 106:100.
The countries with the lowest proportion of males to females are...
Grenada and Liechtenstein 100:100
Malawi and Barbados 101:100
Some countries with very high proportions of males to females include...
United Arab Emirates 274:100
Saudi Arabia 130:100
These oil-rich countries import many men to work and thus the ratio of males to females is highly disproportionate.
Let's say we have a population of 1000 men and 1000 women. If the men's death rate were 1% per annum, you'd lose 253 of those men in 30 years.
If the women's death rate is 2% per annum, you'd lose 443 of those women in 30 years.
Obviously you'd run out of women before you did men. But the principle is the same ~ as long as there's a difference in the death rates, particularly in the younger cohorts, you will eventually have an overbalance of one sex or the other. Currently our society has an overbalance of women. It used to have an overbalance of men. The only big change is we eliminated the maternal death rate for all practical purposes, and that was through the use of antibiotics.
Nations without widespread availability of antibiotics continue to have a high maternal death rate ~ and that prevails whether or not they use abortion for birth control. That's because abortions undertaken without the use of antibiotics have a high death rate.
The abortion rights crowd occasionally argues that abortion has eliminated maternal deaths YET we can look at the availability of antibiotics and their use is the cause for fewer women dying in childbirth.
It’s the nose ~ and the hair color. But I’ll guarantee you they had mostly hazel and yellow eyes.
The death rate at Jamestown in the early 1600s was INCREDIBLE. Almost everybody who came there for the first 20 years died shortly after arrival.
As you can see, the sex ratio at birth is higher to account for the higher death rate of males at all ages. Your claim is that women have the higher death rate.
Sex ratio: at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2011 est.)
Definition: This entry includes the number of males for each female in five age groups - at birth, under 15 years, 15-64 years, 65 years and over, and for the total population. Sex ratio at birth has recently emerged as an indicator of certain kinds of sex discrimination in some countries. For instance, high sex ratios at birth in some Asian countries are now attributed to sex-selective abortion and infanticide due to a strong preference for sons. This will affect future marriage patterns and fertility patterns. Eventually, it could cause unrest among young adult males who are unable to find partners.
Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of March 11, 2010 http://www.indexmundi.com/world/sex_ratio.html
Actually, 105 boys to 100 girls works very well as long ss you fight a war every five years or so to balance the overage of men.
Still, my Great grandmother, who was smothered, finally passed on at about the age 95 giving us one of histories longest smotherings.
The mothers killing the kids (to show their fidelity to their own standards and to protect their chilluns) is an old one ~ I think it didn't happen often.
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.OK, I thought I had seen every major calumny possible against the Church. Again, I was wrong.
Hey muawiyah - any chance you have ANY serious research to back up your claim?
Interesting. Where do you think the redheads came from?
Also interesting. My wife would no doubt disapprove. Do you have evidence of this that I could present to her?
They'd do that Fur Shur.
However, a real quick reference at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html refers us to the Parliament at Nurmburg that allowed 10 women per man.
What you will want to look for is “PLURAL MARRIAGE” which seems to be the Politically Correct term for the more modern references.
I’m sure the redheads came from the Celtic fringe and Scandinavia.
Be thankful they did what they did else you'd not be here.
The Celtic people are Germanic/Gallic. They moved away from Germany to Britain, not vice versa.
Of course, the reference to the parliament at Nuremburg (1650) was a protestant parliament, not the Catholic Church.
Serious misremembering of facts.
I recall Luther favoring bigamy for Phillip, at least if my memory hasn’t died. The Church? Not so much.
The Germans, in any case, were tributary to the Celtic speakers along the lower Danube.
Gaelic was brought into the British Isles as recently as 700 BC by Celts who'd former lived in the Black Sea region (see Danube). They took over Spain. Over the next few hundred years they cleverly enslaved their neighbors (today's Basques) and took them to Hibernia. Today's Irish and the Basques are remarkably identical in mtDNA and other markers, although their languages are vastly different.
No, not a disremembering ~ I simply did a quick search and the first thing referenced Nuremburg. You can do a greater indepth search and find out what folks did then.
Mitochondrial DNA is a powerful tool, admittedly. Yet, we have the Celts moving west, not east. I don’t see the support of the statement that the Germans were influenced genetically by the Celts moving back east.
First you claim the Catholic Church authorized polygamy and when asked for a reference, you provide the example of a non catholic parliament.
You’re not the knowledgeable person you pretend to be on the internet. You sure sound authoritative though.
Nah, and nope. Just sought “plural marriage in Catholic Church” on google. No jackpot for you. It’s your assertion, you back it up, or retract it, FRiend. The closest found included, among other things, quotes belonging to Mr. Luther you’d not enjoy. Try again, please, but this time, with facts, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.