Time magazine blogger recognizes link between sex-selective abortion and rape crisis in India
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Erika Christakis, a blogger for Time Magazine, as written an essay acknowledging what pro-lifers have been warning about for many years: that the growing male-female imbalance in India and other Asian countries is behind an increasing number of rapes and brutalities against women.
According to Christiakis, the sadistic rape and brutal murder of a young woman on a bus in India is part of a growing epidemic of rape and abuse of women in India and other countries related to what she calls "fundamental demographic forces," namely, the widespread practice of sex-selective abortion favoring boys over girls.
Christakis qotes Mara Hvistendahl, author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, who says, "The sex ratio imbalance directly leads to more sex trafficking and bride buying. (...) More studies need to be done….[But] it is clear from historical cases and from studies looking at testosterone levels that a large proportion of unmarried men in the population is not a good thing,” says Hvistendahl.
Christakis herself notes:
Growing evidence suggests that in countries like India and China, where the ratio of men to women is unnaturally high due to the selective abortion of female fetuses and neglect of girl children, the rates of violence towards women increase.
If even Time Magazine is beginning to recognize this problem, the pro-abortion movement is close to losing yet another rhetorical weapon in its aresenal: the claim that legalized abortion is somehow a feminist or pro-woman cause.
Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.
Hundreds gather for candlelight vigil for dead elk, to ‘grieve, celebrate and find closure’
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
The following article, which appeared in the Boulder, Colorado newspaper Daily Camera, is yet another reminder of the “upside down world” we inhabit, in the words of a recent editorial by the Archdiocese of Mexico City. While thousands of babies are murdered daily in the United States with total impunity, and in a way that would be criminal if applied to an animal, large groups gather to gush with sentimentality over a dead elk, speaking of it as if it were a murder victim.
According to reports that have appeared in the media, the elk was killed by an over-enthusiastic hunter, who reportedly played hookey from his job as a police officer, and shot the animal while he was technically within a residential area. If true, the act would doubtlessly constitute an imprudence, if not an infraction of the law, and the officer has been suspended by the police department. But for residents of the neighborhood, the event is seen as a full-blown tragedy calling for a candellight vigil attended by hundreds of people.
“He was a beautiful animal,” said Nancy Platt, of Boulder. “He was hurting nobody. He didn’t deserve what he got.”
Vigil organizer Jim Riemersma said he wanted to give the neighborhood an opportunity to grieve, celebrate and find “a little bit of closure.” The vigil was held on Mountain View Road at the site of a tree memorial and near the yard where the elk was shot.
“I know a lot of us have had a lot of anger, a lot of questions, a lot of uncertainty,” he said. “Tonight’s a celebration, a celebration of the elk. We loved him. But I think he loved us, too, because he returned to this neighborhood.”
Still, emotions ran hot, with multiple calls to “fire the cops” and “jail the poachers.” A meeting between Boulder Chief Mark Beckner and residents concerned about the shooting is planned for Monday.
“People live here because we love the wildlife,” said Esther Parson, who lives in the foothills west of Boulder. “To murder an animal who feels like he’s part of the neighborhood is despicable.”
This bizarre mindset was recently codified in law by the Mexico City government, which has imposed a prison sentence of up to four years on people who “mistreat an animal,” while allowing people to murder their unborn child freely during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and penalizing abortions after that time, up to birth, with a maximum sentence of 6 months.
Melinda Gates’s new video shows black and brown people celebrating their elimination
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Melinda Gates has issued a new cartoon video seeking to justify her campaign to “help” the poor in Africa and Asia by injecting women with Depo-Provera and other dangerous abortion-inducing contraceptive drugs. It shows brown and black women, whose bodies all have the shape of potatoes, smiling and frolicking with their progressively fewer children. Presumably, they’re overjoyed at the thought that a rich white lady has prevented them from propagating.
Fathers, and men in general, are completely absent from the video—Gates’ “families” consist by the end of the video of one woman with one child. The omission is in keeping with her liberationist theme pitting wives against their husbands, portrayed as oppressors. According to her statements to the TEDxChange conference in Berlin earlier this year, she particularly favors Depo-Provera shots because they enable women to receive them behind their husbands’ backs.
Her latest promo begins with the rhetorical question: “Where’s the controversy in saving lives?”, without the slightest hint of irony at the fact that the entire video is about ensuring that millions of people never live. Gates’s frantic insistence that contraceptives aren’t controversial, repeated in all of her propaganda materials, is particularly rich. Apparently it has never struck her that her “no controversy” slogan does nothing more than testify to the controversial nature of her schemes. Pro-lifers should thank her, in fact, for reminding everyone.
And what is the Gates Foundation’s response to uppity dark-skinned people who object to its “family planning” campaign? When a woman named “Leela” from Southern India commented negatively on Gates’s video on the Gates Foundation website, she got a patronizing (and dishonest) response about “choice.”
I am a Indian woman mother of five beautiful children living in the southern tip of India. I really don’t know what is rich and what is poor. Rich or poor must be relative to something. If you compare my family to average American household, you would declare me to be poor. But If I compare myself to my ancestors lived hundred years back, I would declare myself to be extremely rich. It all depends on what you compare with.
Only lifestyles are expensive, life is not expensive at all.
Don’t mistake me. I am all for people deciding what they want to do with their life including when to have children. What I feel sad about this piece of news is “Bill Melinda Gates Foundation” making this issue overblown.
School education and noon meal is provided by School here in Tamilnadu state where I live. Money spent on education brings lot more return on dollar than money invested in family planning. If I have to make a prediction return on family planning has big negative expectation in the
I am not christian. I really don’t have any idea about what is christian beliefs about family planning. My opinion is purely based on my own experience and my ancestor’s history.
Personally I would rather be poor with my five children than rich like Bill gates with three children.
Here’s the response posted by Amie Newman, a Gates Foundation “communications officer”:
I think this is the crux of the foundation’s position, Leela. You write, “Personally, I would rather be poor with my five children than rich like Bill Gates…” This is the point: it’s your personal decision to do this. No one would compel you otherwise. But for women and families who want to make their own personal decision, it’s their right to do so. Providing the option to access voluntary contraception is what the foundation’s family planning is all about. While you chose to have 5 children, some women may chose to have none, one, two, or 10 children. Thanks for the comment!
Newman’s response, apart from its offensive condescension, repeats the same misleading rhetoric that Melinda Gates has been dishing out in her interviews on the topic. She just wants to give women a “choice”—is that so wrong? However, women in impoverished situations are always in a vulnerable position in the face of the wealthy and powerful. Does anyone really believe that Gates is offering a “choice” to women who are faced with desperate economic situations, and are offered nothing more than contraceptive drugs as a solution? Does anyone believe that Gates is going to tell these women: “I’d like you to have as many children as you want. If you choose to have more, instead of taking my contraceptives, I’ll give you the resources to care for them”?
For all of Melinda Gates’s blustering, her “Family Planning” summit is nothing but warmed-over Margret Sangeresque population control with cheap slogans and a slick advertising campaign to justify it. The leading population control organizations, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund are participating and even helping to lead the event. It shouldn’t be surprising—Gates has donated tens of millions of dollars to them over the last decade.
According to one commenter at the Gates Foundation site, even Melinda Gates’s allies feel uncomfortable with her new video, noting that it is “condescending, inaccurate, and racist to imply that only dark-skinned people need our (white-skinned people’s) help,” and “loses all credibility the way it is.”
If you’d like to let Melinda Gates and her employees know what you think about her “family planning” campaign, you can do so here, on the video’s comments section at the Gates Foundation website.