But about Asian men, who are in this mess, because their parents valued/needed a male heir and for economic or political policies were unable to also take the risk/expense of having girls.

And if the parents of these men went through so much trouble to just have a boy, think how much trouble they are willing to go through to get him a bride - so they can have a grandson. This is about the continuing of the line, passing on the family name. These Asian men might what casual sex, but the real driving force is going to be getting married and having their own sons. The horror stories coming out of Asia is about the kidnapping of women and forcing them to MARRY -

And the problem is not just the single guys, but their families, who have a vested interest in this issue. In China it is playing out interestingly that in the highly educated city populations, the male/female ratio is normal, but in the more old fashion countryside the ratio is way off - but when girls were being kidnapped from Chinese cities, the government came down like a ton of bricks - not going to happen (who wants to bet powerful Chinese government officials have daughters in the city) so the problem changed to kidnapping women from neighboring countries..... and on it goes.

The personal issues of complete losers who will never get a date in this country, because they actually hate women, but want sex and are suprised that women won't date them has nothing to do with this article, and really shouldn't be wasting space in a letter section that could be having really interesting conversations about how this crisis is going to play out in different countries.

I was just listening to an NPR story, about how the Bush admin labeled Enviromental extremist terrorist - they didn't kill anybody, but they are getting 30 years to life for arson, because it is a terriorist act. They never hurt a human being, nor intended to. Yet their sentence is longer than any of the abortion folks will ever be sentenced to...

**

The religious groups that support the arson of abortion clinics and shooting doctors, some how are not terrorist ---> I guess its all about politics and who you are trying to pander to. It is unsafe for women to have abortions, or doctors to provide them, because the government doesn't care about them, they are not a solid enough voting block.

It is true that if you don't have a kid before 30, your chances go way down, and quickly. On the other hand if you had a child pre-30, your fertility doesn't go down as quickly, and you can probably still have kids in your 40's. The issue with women unable to get pregnant in their 30's and 40's usually only applies to first time mothers.

Also if you don't have kids, your odds for all kinds of nasty cancers just keeps going up - so you might not live long enough for those kids you adopted in your late 30's or early 40's after all - because when their in high school or just starting to send you the college bill, you'll be in your 60's unable to retire or perhaps suffering from cancer.

So have kids early, and suffer financially (studies show a permant loss to your life time earnings) and impact your careers, or preferred level of education. Or have kids late, risk not being able to have kids, increase your cancer risk, and any kids you have (natural or adopted) you have to think about the impact of your death on them, or bearing the cost of finishing high school/college and delaying your retirement. Either way sucks - that's life , so go with what ever makes you comfortable.

After all welcome to USA - where the mother is always wrong, no matter what choice she makes, when to have kids, stay at home - working mom, displine methods, private schools vs public schools, how many kids to have .......

Outlawing abortions, passing laws so that pharmacies don't have to sell birth control to women - this would end in a heart-beat if - every man who went into a pharmacy was told that they could no longer get condoms, its against god's will,

and the laws forcing men to pay child support went federal, so there was no where to run.

But no we are forcing women to have children they don't want, but not improving the child support systems in any of the states, or the ability of these newly minted unwilling mothers to collect child support - it may take two to get pregnant but these laws only punish one. (because we don't really care about the kids, just puninshing those sexual women)

If men had to pay say a set amount of 600$ per child they knocked up, no exceptions, DNA test proof on every kid born in the country, no where to run, go to jail if you don't pay, doesn't matter if you are already married, but fooling a round, in a world were birthcontrol was as expensive and as hard to get as it is for a woman, if they got more than two women pregnant out of wedlock, manidatory snip snip - after all that procedure is low risk, an alot less dangerous, and less invasive than a nine month pregnancy. If it is ok to force women to have the baby, it must be ok to invade the male body to the same degree - after all the law needs to be gender blind, and everyone seems to think the government does have a say in medical decisions on your body.....this whole stupid thing would be over.

As long as its just a power trip for religious fanatics who need to get their own life, instead of power tripping, on controlling women's sex lifes, this converstation wouldn't even be happening.