Hillary of the Sisterhood just forsook reproductive choice, national sovereignty and religious freedom for the sake of foreign investment:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that the
debate with China over human rights, Taiwan and Tibet should not be
allowed to interfere with attempts to reach consensus on other,
broader issues.
Shortly before arriving in Beijing on the last leg of her inaugural
trip abroad as America's top diplomat, Clinton said that she would
raise those contentious issues, but noted that neither side was likely
to give ground on them.
Instead, she said, it might be better to agree to disagree on
longstanding positions and focus instead on American-Chinese engagement
on climate change, the global financial crisis and security threats.
So carbon footprints are priorities over the trampling of Tibetans, and reducing greenhouse gases is achieved by reducing the unborn to lumps of cold flesh -- even against their mothers' "choice."
Interestingly, Mrs. Clinton said that no one need give voice to the human rights issues because our firm stance is already foundational to our presence at the negotiating table. I didn't notice that China changed one iota with the "world's lens" on them during the Olympics.
More and more stories from China trickle out, shocking even those who might not consider themselves "pro-life."
Zhang Linla, who has a
four-year-old daughter, told a website in Shenzhen, on the border with Hong
Kong, that she was subjected to a late forced abortion because she became
pregnant again before the period officially allowed between births. "Six days before the due date, 10 strong strangers came to my house, forced me
into a truck then took me to a family planning clinic, where the doctor gave
me an injection," she said. "The child began struggling in my womb and one of these scum even kicked me in
the abdomen. Then the baby came out and they threw it into a rubbish bin. I
could even see it was still moving."
An even more horrifying story, reported on hundreds of websites, concerned a
case of infanticide in Wuhan, central China, last September. A farmer named
Huang Qiusheng said his wife, who was nine months pregnant, gave birth to a
live child despite being forced to submit to an injection to induce an
abortion. The infant was thrown into a urinal. The next day an elderly woman named Liu Zhuyu heard the child's cries, rescued
it, washed it and delivered it to a neonatal clinic. But the reports claim
that five family planning officials confronted Liu, seized the child and
killed it by throwing it to the ground.
The complexity of family planning laws and their arbitrary enforcement often
contributes to cases of cruelty. This month a newspaper in Yunnan province reported a case of compulsory
sterilisation that has appalled commentators. It involved a woman named
Zhang Kecui, who was ambushed in the street by family planning officials and
dragged on to the operating table for a sterilisation. Zhang has two children and according to regulations should have been
sterilised after the second birth. Her husband has lodged a legal complaint
but has little hope of redress.
Sociologists and doctors are beginning to question the long-term effects of
the birth-control policy. "As a woman, I believe that coercing a woman who is eight months pregnant to
have an abortion is inhuman," a family planning official, who asked not to
be named, told The Sunday Times.
But although such stories exist and can be verified (imagine each of the above multiplied enough times to account for the 300 million births "prevented") they mean nothing in terms of the economic relationship between China and the West, which prioritises trade and investment over human life itself.
"That doesn't mean that questions of Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the
whole range of challenges that we often engage on with the Chinese, are
not part of the agenda," she said. "But we pretty much know what
they're going to say."
Right. Why nag your child to clean his room when he'll only say no. Just hand over the keys to the car regardless and find peace in knowing that you cannot see eye-to-eye on discipline.
Meanwhile, look at the smiles of the women who have survived both the one-child policy and sex-selection abortions. These gals have clearly beat the odds!
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.