Are males the weaker sex?

[Maria]

At conception, little boys are more at risk. Although nature provides for the birth of more boys, that number is apparently shrinking.

• The two XXs in the female version of our species offer some protection: In disorders where one X chromosome has a genetic defect, the female’s healthy backup chromosome can take over. But with his single X chromosome, the male lacks a healthy copy of the gene to fall back on. The X chromosome, which never shrank, is also a larger chromosome “with far more genetic information than the Y chromosome,” finds Irva Hertz-Piciotto, a University of California, Davis autism researcher, “so there may be some inherent loss of key proteins for brain development or repair mechanisms in boys.” This is a clue to the higher autism rate among boys, she asserts.

For the complete article, please go to http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... S_20140221

Women must clean up their homes and environment in which they live (without using harsh chemicals) in order to protect their young ones, especially their little boys.

[joasia]

Well, since the fetus is nurtured by the female gender, I would think that a girl fetus would be more fortified because of the same hormones as the mother And a boy wouldn't benefit from it since they are missing that little bit of X chromosome. This is simply my non-scientific thoughts.

But, since our bodies are not the same as Adam and Eve's, I wonder if there's a spiritual message by God in the make up of our bodies of the chromosomes. A spiritual lesson of our fall. Think about it. For example, we have five fingers. How convenient considering that we need three to represent the Holy Trinity and two to represent the two natures of Jesus Christ when we cross ourselves. It's perfect. Our physical hand expresses our theology.

[arcmode]

Exactly, Joasia. I like the way you think, you never leave theology out of anything.

I have read a father who said that God foresaw the fall of man and accounted for the fallen condition in the design of the body, but I can't remember who said it. I will have a look around, it was along the lines of what you said.

[Maria]

Exactly, Joasia. I like the way you think, you never leave theology out of anything.

I have read a father who said that God foresaw the fall of man and accounted for the fallen condition in the design of the body, but I can't remember who said it. I will have a look around, it was along the lines of what you said.

Man is created in the image of God, not the other way around. Before the Incarnation, Christ our God appeared to men because He is the Incarnate God. Although He was born in time as the Son of Mary, Christ has always existed as the Incarnate God.

Christ our God appeared in the Garden of Eden, walked with Adam and spoke with him. The high priest Melchizedek is a prefiguration of Christ the High Priest. Some theologians say Melchizedek is Christ (before His birth in time). Christ our God appeared at the Oaks as an angel and announced that Abraham would bear a son. Christ our God appeared as an angel in the burning cauldron and walked around with the three youths who escaped unharmed.

[arcmode]

Maria, I really strongly advise that you don't just absorb this information without asking a few questions about the source.

Is it scientific because it has the word 'science' in it?

So they say boys are more susceptible to autism eh? I guess they need some deterministic explanation like genetics for autism because they cannot publish the fact that autism is connected to vaccination. Do you think you will ever see an article about vaccine dangers in Scientific American? Of course not, Think! By supporting the military industrial system, the toxic murderous psychiatric system, the insane and demonic genetic modification system and all stupidest ideas from black holes to big bangs and evolution all we can gather is that they wan't to kill children, maim children and mind-control children. Why should we trust a publication that is clearly just a public relations front for mega-rich corporations run by eugenicist psychopaths?

What a stupid point of view anyway! Boys are weaker? Rubbish. Maybe in Big Mother's fantasy world they are at a disadvantage because they represent a threat to her will, but when the environment is trying to eat you, shoot you, or destroy you with the weather, you are gonna want some men round to build, kill and fight while you feed the baby and keep it safe. Women are the weaker sex in one way I can confirm by experience: They are gullible in ways that cause me to despair. There, I said it.

These people would put you in a psychiatric ward for the things you believe and then study your brain cells to determine why some people fall for religion instead of 'science.' Scientific American is one of the most disgusting violations of cosmic and divine law, and they have sold their souls a million times.

I refuse to accept this complete rubbish about men, and I challenge you to prove the various assumptions behind the 'science' of genetics that this rotten rag of a publication is pushing as 'reality.'

I'm calling [obscenity removed] on this entire concept and charging this magazine with crimes against humanity.

[jgress]

I think this post counts as personal slander for insinuating that Maria is "gullible".

[arcmode]

If you think it was not a general comment on the way women use their hearts over their heads then delete it.

If you think it is somehow deficient to trust people by nature who appear to be your friend, I guess it's slander. I would take it as a compliment because I have to think the most evil thoughts just to figure out how to explain this stuff, and sometimes I enjoy it.

War is not kind to the average ideal, it favors idealist monsters.

My job is to hard, I need a holiday.