Walt is saddened -- truly -- to pass along some news from Mississauga, a bedroom community at the west end of the Greater [sic] Toronto Area. Today, a Mississauga mom was charged with murder in last fall's "previously unexplained" death of her three-year-old daughter.
Those who know the ethnic makeup of Mississauga have already jumped to a conclusion. Not too far to jump, nor without reason.
35-year-old Nandini Jha brought her daughter, Niyati, in to a Mississauga medical clinic on 20 September 2011. The child was immediately sent to Toronto's renowned Sick Children's Hospital, where she died the next day of head and brain injuries.
Niyati was the second daughter born to Nandini, who, with her husband and the two girls, arrived in Canada in 2010. At the time of Niyati's death, her mother was expecting a third child, which turned out to be another girl. The whereabouts of the two surviving daughters has not been disclosed.
Oh... yes... the Jhas immigrated from India.
Why am I telling you this? Since someone has already asked, let me explainly, quickly and bluntly. The point is that in Indian culture, girl children are not valued. And just because Indians migrate to a country and culture where killing little girls is regarded as barbaric does not mean that they will change their culture. That's it.
Showing posts with label girl babies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label girl babies. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Indo-Canadian doctor decries abortion of female babies
You'd think, wouldn't you, that the killing of babies before birth, simply because they're girls, would be confined to heathen and atheistic cultures like those of India and China. Not so. Although the practice of aborting a fetus discovered by ultrasound tests to be female is not as widespread in Canada as in Asia, thousands of little girls are killed in the Great White North every year.
So says Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Immigrants from India and China bring their cultural and religious preference for boys with them, it seems. So when a doctor tells them, following an ultrasound, that they're going to have a girl, their response is "Kill her!"
In today's editorial headed "It's a girl — could be a death sentence" Dr. Kale calls on Canadian doctors to try to halt sex-based abortion. He advocates withholding information about the sex of a child in the womb until 30 weeks' gestation to prevent "an unquestioned abortion" because parents prefer a boy.
Writes Dr. Kale, "Female feticide devalues women completely.... Many couples who have two daughters and no son selectively get rid of female fetuses until they can ensure that their third-born child is a boy."
He calls on the provincial colleges that regulate physicians to rule that health-care professionals should not reveal a baby's sex to any mother-to-be before the 30th week of pregnancy. "Doing so should be deemed contrary to good medical practice," he said. "Such clear direction from regulatory bodies would be the most important step toward curbing female feticide in Canada."
Dr. Kale went on to say, in an interview, said waiting to divulge the sex of the fetus until after the start of the third trimester would still give parents who want to know whether they are having a boy or a girl enough time to prepare their nursery or purchase appropriate clothing.
But the good doctor did not address the question of how to prevent parents bent on destroying female babies to go to American states, such as Maryland or Pennsylvania, where it's still possible to get late-term (or even last-minute) abortions with no questions asked from abortionists like Kermit Gosnell or other "good doctors" like Steven Brigham and Nicola Riley.
As long as abortion remains legal -- anywhere -- parents hell-bent on killing their children will find an abortionist to "help" them. Pray that God will welcome the little souls of the innocent millions who are killed every year, and give His justice to their murderers.
So says Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Immigrants from India and China bring their cultural and religious preference for boys with them, it seems. So when a doctor tells them, following an ultrasound, that they're going to have a girl, their response is "Kill her!"
In today's editorial headed "It's a girl — could be a death sentence" Dr. Kale calls on Canadian doctors to try to halt sex-based abortion. He advocates withholding information about the sex of a child in the womb until 30 weeks' gestation to prevent "an unquestioned abortion" because parents prefer a boy.
Writes Dr. Kale, "Female feticide devalues women completely.... Many couples who have two daughters and no son selectively get rid of female fetuses until they can ensure that their third-born child is a boy."
He calls on the provincial colleges that regulate physicians to rule that health-care professionals should not reveal a baby's sex to any mother-to-be before the 30th week of pregnancy. "Doing so should be deemed contrary to good medical practice," he said. "Such clear direction from regulatory bodies would be the most important step toward curbing female feticide in Canada."
Dr. Kale went on to say, in an interview, said waiting to divulge the sex of the fetus until after the start of the third trimester would still give parents who want to know whether they are having a boy or a girl enough time to prepare their nursery or purchase appropriate clothing.
But the good doctor did not address the question of how to prevent parents bent on destroying female babies to go to American states, such as Maryland or Pennsylvania, where it's still possible to get late-term (or even last-minute) abortions with no questions asked from abortionists like Kermit Gosnell or other "good doctors" like Steven Brigham and Nicola Riley.
As long as abortion remains legal -- anywhere -- parents hell-bent on killing their children will find an abortionist to "help" them. Pray that God will welcome the little souls of the innocent millions who are killed every year, and give His justice to their murderers.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Sex-selection abortion threatens Indian society, Prez says
CatholicCulture.org reports that Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil has expressed grave concern over reports of a steady decline in the number of young women in the country. Speaking on St. Patrick's Day, Ms Patil warned that if the trend continues, it will have “a negative impact on [Indian] society.”
Her warning comes in the wake of a study by international health experts projecting that the number of women in India will be 20% less than the population of men by the year 2030. And what's the reason for this? A heavy prejudice against female children. Paying the dowry to get daughters married off is so expensive these days! So what's the answer? Sex-selection abortions -- the killing of female babies.
It is significant that Ms Patil chose to make her plea at a convention in Chandigarh, the capital of both the Haryana and Punjab states, in which several regions have already reported that there are only 800 girl babies born each year for every 1,000 boys. Even the ZPG advocates should be able to see the democgraphic disaster in the offing.
Her warning comes in the wake of a study by international health experts projecting that the number of women in India will be 20% less than the population of men by the year 2030. And what's the reason for this? A heavy prejudice against female children. Paying the dowry to get daughters married off is so expensive these days! So what's the answer? Sex-selection abortions -- the killing of female babies.
It is significant that Ms Patil chose to make her plea at a convention in Chandigarh, the capital of both the Haryana and Punjab states, in which several regions have already reported that there are only 800 girl babies born each year for every 1,000 boys. Even the ZPG advocates should be able to see the democgraphic disaster in the offing.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Eugenics redux?
Canada's Conservative government has announced, ahead of June's G8 summit, that although the theme of the meeting is "improving maternal health", it will not fund abortion on demand in third world countries. For this it is being pilloried by the usual gang of liberals, progressives, wimmin's rights nutters and advocates of baby-killing -- the same people who applauded when Henry Morgentaler was made a member of the Order of Canada.
Steve Harper says that there are better ways to spend taxpayers' money on helping third world women -- ways which will not cause division amongst Canadians. He is right (for once) and those who accuse him of trying to reopen the abortion debate are wrong.
Walt wonders if the loony lefties who think the developed countries should be handing out condoms and paying for D&C's in Africa have heard of eugenics.
Popular in North America and the U.K. during the first half of the 20th century, eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. The idea is that you will gradually get rid of the inferior specimens by keeping them from breeding. Has no-one made the connection between this theory and the agitation for more birth control and more abortions in the third world?!
Eugenics had many proponents until it became associated with Nazism in the 1930s. Among them was Canada's own Nellie McClung, who has been honoured for her tireless campaigning for the vote and other rights for women. But now Forces for Good in Winnipeg are fighting to prevent the erection of a statue of Nellie because -- horrors! -- she thought it would be better if the inferior races didn't have so many babies.
This view was shared by historian H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and even abortion advocate Margaret Sanger. They all thought that the poor and uneducated, those with mental problems, low intelligence or loose morals should be discouraged or even forcibly prevented from breeding.
Like many others of his day, Wells argued, in his book Anticipations, that it was only natural that the white races should dominate the others. It followed from Darwin's theory of natural selection that northern Europeans were better able, physically and intellectually, to develop and rule a better world. Asians came next (in descending order of yellowness or brownness) followed by Amerindians, with black Africans at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak.
Australian doctor and sexologist Norman Haire, inventor of birth control devices, went farther. He advocated the killing of inferior babies and the sterilization of the unfit so society's resources could be focused on preserving higher-quality people.
Even now, inferior babies -- that is girl babies -- are routinely killed or abandoned to die in China, India and Africa. (In the Indian communities of North America they are simply aborted.)
See "Gendercide" in The Economist of 4 March 2010, for details of how at least 100 million girls have simply disappeared due to abortion, infanticide or neglect.
The net result of the birth control and abortion programmes that the libbers and lefties demand we fund in the third world will be a reduction in the number of non-white babies. So...would Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, the women in sensible shoes and all the others who accuse the Tories of sexism, racism, and so on please explain the difference between their "maternal health" agenda and eugenics?
Steve Harper says that there are better ways to spend taxpayers' money on helping third world women -- ways which will not cause division amongst Canadians. He is right (for once) and those who accuse him of trying to reopen the abortion debate are wrong.
Walt wonders if the loony lefties who think the developed countries should be handing out condoms and paying for D&C's in Africa have heard of eugenics.
Popular in North America and the U.K. during the first half of the 20th century, eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. The idea is that you will gradually get rid of the inferior specimens by keeping them from breeding. Has no-one made the connection between this theory and the agitation for more birth control and more abortions in the third world?!
Eugenics had many proponents until it became associated with Nazism in the 1930s. Among them was Canada's own Nellie McClung, who has been honoured for her tireless campaigning for the vote and other rights for women. But now Forces for Good in Winnipeg are fighting to prevent the erection of a statue of Nellie because -- horrors! -- she thought it would be better if the inferior races didn't have so many babies.
This view was shared by historian H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and even abortion advocate Margaret Sanger. They all thought that the poor and uneducated, those with mental problems, low intelligence or loose morals should be discouraged or even forcibly prevented from breeding.
Like many others of his day, Wells argued, in his book Anticipations, that it was only natural that the white races should dominate the others. It followed from Darwin's theory of natural selection that northern Europeans were better able, physically and intellectually, to develop and rule a better world. Asians came next (in descending order of yellowness or brownness) followed by Amerindians, with black Africans at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak.
Australian doctor and sexologist Norman Haire, inventor of birth control devices, went farther. He advocated the killing of inferior babies and the sterilization of the unfit so society's resources could be focused on preserving higher-quality people.
Even now, inferior babies -- that is girl babies -- are routinely killed or abandoned to die in China, India and Africa. (In the Indian communities of North America they are simply aborted.)
See "Gendercide" in The Economist of 4 March 2010, for details of how at least 100 million girls have simply disappeared due to abortion, infanticide or neglect.
The net result of the birth control and abortion programmes that the libbers and lefties demand we fund in the third world will be a reduction in the number of non-white babies. So...would Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, the women in sensible shoes and all the others who accuse the Tories of sexism, racism, and so on please explain the difference between their "maternal health" agenda and eugenics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)