Bill wrote:
In my response to Maggie Coleman's post of the NYT article about the
"slaughter of girl babies" in China I said the one-child policy was
reactionary, but that one-sided reports were no better. By one-sided
reports I meant those that ignored other plausible explanations for the
In my response to Maggie Coleman's post of the NYT article about the
"slaughter of girl babies" in China I said the one-child policy was
reactionary, but that one-sided reports were no better. By one-sided
reports I meant those that ignored other plausible explanations for the
recorded gap in
In a message dated 97-11-05 01:35:48 EST, you write:
4. The 'non-reporting' does not hold water, especially since the ratio of
boys as a majority over girls widens with age AND, there's just all those
pesky little corpses.
Excellent point Amen.
This whole business is psychopathic and
Jason Hecht wrote,
Without being sappy or sentimental, the plain
fact is that you've got to have a total absence of humanity to carry this
out. There is something profoundly wrong in China!!
The plain fact is that only a "total absence of humanity" can explain much
of history.
Regards,
Tom
In a message dated 97-11-04 00:21:15 EST,[ several people have self
righteously said more or less the following]:
I understand that most of the gap in the number of girls as opposed to
boys in China is due to *under-reporting* of girls rather than female
infanticide. If the first born is a girl,
I understand that most of the gap in the number of girls as opposed to
boys in China is due to *under-reporting* of girls rather than female
infanticide. If the first born is a girl, if she is not reported a second
child may be the desired boy. China's one child rule is a reactionary
measure, but
That's a great reply Bill. I'm so tired of all the anti-China hype. If
Suharto received half as much flack for human rights violations as China
did in the media I suppose i wouldn't be so tired of it...
Steve
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Bill Burgess wrote:
I understand that most of the gap in the
