What have the Irish abortion lobby to say about India in light of its abysmal failure to protect women?

Six men (one of them possibly a juvenile), now face trial for the savage attack on the young Indian woman which ultimately caused her death, therefore, they are murderers.
However, even these wicked, depraved men deserve a fair trial. There is no place for a lynch mob mentality.

The crime of rape is not at all unusual in India. Last year, there were 635 reported cases in the capital, New Delhi, but there was only one conviction (see Sky News online, 3.1.13). There is something terribly wrong with India’s prevailing attitude towards women. However, the answer to India’s problems will never be found in militant man-hating Feminism. As the old saying goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right” and evil cannot be overcome with more evil.

The answer to the sin problem in India is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ which elevates women and instructs men to view them as the “weaker vessel” and therefore in need of protection. The Bible also teaches men to love their wives, to the extent that they should be willing to die for them.
Truly, the Lord Jesus Christ and His power to save and change lives is the answer to the total depravity of the human heart, which, apart from Christ’s restraining power, is capable of the most appalling sins/crimes.
The recent death of Savita Halappanavar was cynically exploited by feminists who were happy to hold India up as an example of a country that cared for its women. Now that the truth about India is out and does not “fit” the feminist narrative of the death of Savita, their silence is deafening!

8 thoughts on “What have the Irish abortion lobby to say about India in light of its abysmal failure to protect women?

  1. आप एक घृणित कुतिया कर रहे हैं और आप एक सौ कुत्तों द्वारा खराब किया जा सकता है.

  2. “…which elevates women and instructs men to view them as the “weaker vessel” and therefore in need of protection.” There’s an oxymoron for you – how can you elevate something and at the same time see it as weak and in need of protection?

  3. Yuri K,
    Men should treat women as the “weaker vessel” because physiologically they are generally more weak in strength. They are also generally more emotional, which can be a weakness in many situations. Men should be protecting women from harm – you know, they way they used to do in the days of chivalry.

    However, at the same time they are elevated to the same status of men in that they are equal in humanity and equal in their position before God (not to be treated as property or servants as with Islam, e.g.). The husband should regard his wife as someone he would be willing to sacrifice his own life for.

    These two teachings are not contradictory.

  4. “Men should treat women as the “weaker vessel” because physiologically they are generally more weak in strength. They are also generally more emotional, which can be a weakness in many situations. Men should be protecting women from harm – you know, they way they used to do in the days of chivalry.”

    In the ‘days of chivalry’? when were those days exactly Glenn? give me a period in time, dates and years please. I think you have been reading too many books about King Arthur (who never existed). I think you have written that ridiculous comment to stir reaction because, as a man myself, I cannot understand where on earth you gained the experience to have such an opinion about the female species. I can only assume you live as a hermit, unacquainted with women at all, or maybe you have ancestral roots in the red-necked American south. You claim men should protect women ‘from harm’ while you denigrate them as ‘weaker’? you ‘protecting’ them there? what kind of women do you know for f*** sake? what kind of women have you grown up around? Susan, are you happy being labelled as ‘psychologically weaker’? are you incapable of meeting whatever life throws at you? do you need a man to answer for you? when your husband had his accident did you require psychotherapy to cope or did you just get on with it? You know what, I think that Susan’s lack of response to Glenn’s comment here – as stupid as it is – proves how invalid this blog is. I grew up around strong, capable women who needed no man to ‘protect’ them, with men who loved and cherished them. You Glenn, I bet you are scared to death of your own wife, if you have one that is. In modern parlance, you are a complete and utter p******!

    • James,
      Your ignorance is astounding. The “days of chivalry” were before the feminazis started promoting the fallacy there is no real difference between men and women. You know, when men were taught to hold chairs for the ladies, stand up when they entered the room, hold doors for them, don’t use coarse language around them, don’t place them in dangerous positions, don’t send them to combat, etc.

      I never read any books about King Arthur, disproving your assumption. In fact, I rarely read anything of the non-fiction genre; I’m too busy educating myself with the real world.

      Where have I gained experience with females? Well, let’s see – beginning with public schools up until graduation from high school in 1970, I related to them on virtually daily basis. I have three sisters and a step sister, dated several women before I married – and my wife (a very strong and capable woman who can probably out-shoot you at the range) and I have been married for over 36 years. I have a daughter in her early 30s. I was the Deputy Commander for Cadets in the Civil Air Patrol (USAF auxiliary, which has cadet squadrons of youth 12-21 years of age)(my squadron was a composite squadron, where the commander is over all adult and cadets, while the Deputy Commander for Cadets is the 2nd in command over the cadets) with many, many young ladies under my command over a 9-year period. I taught high school Sunday School for 10 years, with lots of young ladies. I have also taught adult Sunday School with lots of adult ladies. My wife and I have numerous friends who are married couples, as well as single moms, etc. Yes, I’ve had almost daily interactions with females of every age and many cultures over the past 61 years of my life. So there goes your assumption about my limited experience with women.

      My ancestry in the USA is strictly in the North – I’m a Buckeye through and through, with my great-great-great-grandfather arriving from New York after Revolution. So there goes another of your assumptions.

      So, if I speak factually about the physical and emotional make up of women being weaker than men, that is denigrating women?

      The kind of women I have “grown up” around run the gammit of those who wish to be real women (feminine and all that stuff) and others who want to pretend to be macho men. In fact, I’ve associated with just about every type of woman you can conjure up, including rank feminazis! So your assumptions about me are all wrong, demonstrating what a presumptuous fool you are.

      By the way, re-read my first comment: I never said women were “psychologically” weaker. Your reading and comprehension skills seem to be as your assumptions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s