good thing they live in canada, and came from india.

it ought to be illegal to select and abort babies because one or another of the parents disagrees with the gender.

if the jains (and millions of others in india and china) have their way, there would be about 10% more boys than girls being born . . .

and excess of young adult males, without prospects for marriage and a family and normal responsibilities is at the heart of antisocial behavior of all kinds, including terrorism

all of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were not only unmarried .. . they didn't even have girlfriends.

the "american taleban" (that misfit white boy) turned to radical islam after some girl wouldn't go out on a date with him because he was creepy.

the shoebomber was a geeky, unloved creep, too. and the unabomber, and the guy who shot martin luther king, and the guy who shot RFK. reagan was shot by a psychopath trying to prove his love to jody foster. the guy who shot john lennon was a male loner. and so on and so forth.

parents who are socially maladjusted enough to condition their love of a child based on its gender should be barred from having ANY kids, let alone boys, whom they will mis-parent and potentially turn into miniature psychopaths like themselves.

Well said. Excpt I wouldn't call Rohit and Gita "socially maladjusted." That's too nice--almost sounds like they have a problem that needs help. They are sexists, pure and simple , and should be stigmatized for it.

Here's how I would resolve the lawsuit if I were the judge: find the testing company liable for breach of contract, because they did promise a service that they did not provide.

Then award the appropriate level of damages for breach of contract: the $300 the couple spent on the test. Maybe if the couple painted a bedroom blue the court could award enough money to repaint it pink. But that's it--give them token damages, but don't acknowledge any loss in the mere fact that the couple had a girl rather than a boy.

You're confusing cause and effect here--don't you think that people who are sick enough to commit such horrific acts would be too maladjusted to be in a relationship?
Also, in Islam there is a HUGE focus on family--a married person would NEVER intentionally do something that would leave behind their spouse and kids.

How do I know? I have a lot of Muslim schoolmates and have asked them tons of questions. Also research religion as a personal interest.

Fun Fact of the Day: the word "Jihad" means "Holy/Sacred Life". Part of that is respecting others No Matter What. Aside from the very small radical groups (I think they make up maybe 5% of Islam en total but don't quote me) that do these horrible things, NO Muslim would consider 9/11 living in tune with God. To a Muslim, those acts of terrorism would be as bad as eating Pork.

So killing thousands of people is on the same level as eating pork? Either you need a better analogy, or there are a lot of people around with a really messed up values system.

discriminatemuch:

Fun Fact of the Day: the word "Jihad" means "Holy/Sacred Life".

In what dialect? Jihad is better defined as "to strive" or "to struggle."

aureole:

Why do you think you should get to prevent anyone from making any decisions about their own kids? From the sound of your little anti-male hate rant there, YOU are the one who should be prevented from having children. Because of a half-dozen people, all of a sudden every man without a girlfriend is a terrorist? Wow, you have serious issues. Try counseling. And try not being an anti-asian racist while your at it.

the issue of disproportionate genders in society is a valid one. but it definitely doesn't create sociopaths. and "creepy" guys evidently DO get dates- check out the fool women who marry inmates or look at how many people are killed by their mates each year....

discriminatemuch:

You're confusing cause and effect here--don't you think that people who are sick enough to commit such horrific acts would be too maladjusted to be in a relationship?

Yep, that's it. Such people aren't psycho's because they're loners, they're loners because they're psycho. Most loners out ther are the most law-abiding citizens of all: Nerds.

the guy in the next cube was a muslim, but he quit. he was a pakistani refugee, and married to a venezuelan immigrant (go figure - she was catholic).

i'm comfortable around muslims and all sorts of cultures, even though my parents are jewish (i'm lapsed/secular). i've travelled to canada, mexico, england, venezuela, korea, china, japan, the philippines . .. oh yeah, and israel.

i welcome all muslims to america, provided they don't try to:

• impose sharia in place of the rule of secular law
• execute their daughter for dating without permission
• execute their son for apostasy if he expresses doubts about islam
• buy and sell brides like livestock
• train to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers

that said, welcome to america.

which of the following are you comfortable with:

• whites making decisions to abort black babies
• buddhists making decisions to abort christian babies
• republicans making decisions to abort democrat babies
• men making decisions to abort female babies

get it?

Your logic doesn't necessarily hold up. The only person who should be deciding to abort any baby is the woman in who's tummy it resides. A baby in a white woman's tummy is half white and therefore not black, even if religious and political affiliation exist before birth I find it unlikely that a republican is carrying an democratic fetus or that a buddihst is carrying a christian fetus, and men can't carry babies in their tummies at all, eliminating any right they may have to decide which ones should and should not be aborted.

So under your logic, BK Girl, Barack is "white."

Good, now we can quit all this petty, negative campaigning and get down to the issues.

Oh, wait a minute, HE says his "black."

You seem to advocate the "thought" police at your leisure and when the agree with you.

I said "half white, and therefore not black". I suppose I should have said "half white, and therefore not 100% black". Apologies for mis-speaking.

My point was that in each instance given, the person who (apparently) should not be deciding whether or not to abort a fetus is, in fact, already a person who is not in the proper position to make that decision.

And for the record, I don't really care what color Barak is. I'd vote for him if he was purple with green stripes.