Thursday, March 6, 2008


I've joined in the conversation on another blog; you may want to check it out, or you may not. The important thing is that I get to do another quick and easy post by (mostly) just copy-and-pasting what I wrote over there.

The blog is Dvorak Uncensored, run by John Dvorak (a well-known technology opinion columnist), although he has a few other people posting to it as well. I don't agree with much of what gets said over there, but it's generally interesting enough to keep me coming back. The tone of that blog is geared for mature readers. It also tends to be pretty hostile toward pro-lifers, creationists, and Christians in general, from both the bloggers and the majority of the commenters. Be forewarned that if you stop by over there, you're probably not in friendly territory, given what I know about the readers of this blog.

The post where I stepped in was about India having trouble trying to discourage sex-selection abortions of baby girls. You can read it by clicking right here. My comment is # 18, but I'll be putting it here shortly as well. I took issue with the lone comment from the blogger, Eideard. The article they linked to was about how in India, people tend to want sons rather than daughters, and so they abort baby girls. This (sex-selection abortion) is technically illegal there, but the law is not enforced. Out of other ideas, the Indian government is planning to try paying families to have daughters (i.e., bribe them not to murder baby girls). Eideard added only, "Sad but true" at the end.

Here's what I posted:

Regarding Eideard’s “Sad but true” remark (with which I agree, as another apparently rare pro-life Dvorak reader) -

If we’re going to “respect a woman’s right to choose”, then why should we care what the motive for any particular abortion is? Why should it even be any of anyone’s business? Isn’t the baby’s gender, or eye colour, or suspected sexual orientation, as good a reason as the mother’s economic situation?

Similarly, if we’ve had a good slurp of the “population crisis” kool-aid and are ruthless enough to see abortion as an acceptable solution (or component thereof), then, again, why would anyone complain about the gender of the dead baby?

I strongly suspect that we’re seeing simple hypocrisy from those who have a problem with this. However, I can hold out hope that at least one Dvorak mod doesn’t worship at the altar of Planned Parenthood (see the March 4 story about Arizona’s mandating prenatal care for meth users being “a step toward banning legal abortions” - I’d link back to it if I’d bothered to figure out how…).

-Zirbert (
Oh, and since I do know how to make links here on my own blog, here's a direct link to the March 4 story I refer to in the last paragraph.

Enough rambling. Here's a picture of a Spongebob Squarepants placemat on my kitchen table. You may choose to infer that it's my son's.

1 comment:

Janis said...

My favourite comment was this: "I am pro-abortion, and don’t actually care if India kills off a generation of women==but it IS sad that a society can have values so skewed that they discriminate so blatantly on the basis of sex." It's sad that a society can have values so skewed that they discriminate so blatantly on the basis of sex, yet not sad to not actually care if a country kills off a generation of women. Hmmmm.