Sex-selective abortion

[Revy]

what is your opinion on this phenomenon in countries like India and China where female fetuses are aborted because boys are viewed as more valuable? How should be addressed? By keeping people from seeing the gender of their fetus? Or does that violate someone's right to know?

discuss...

[Meridian]

I do not think keeping people from seeing the gender is the solution, at least not on a longer term. The point is not to keep people from actually having abortions based on gender but to achieve a situation where people don't want to do it.

I recently heard about a growing trend in the west of aborting male fetuses, though. Don't know much but it is probably a relatively small trend compared to the abortion of female fetuses in Asia, but still worth noting if it is true.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It depends on whether someone thinks there is a significant difference between raising a boy and raising a girl. A lot of parents will tell you there is. Some might not. I'd rather not have kids so I don't particularly care.

As someone who has a rare genetic condition (non-lethal), if I had a daughter it would inherit the condition or pass it on to any future offspring she had. A son would not. I would support sex selective abortion for these cases. Keep in mind that I have no moral issues with abortion so it's the equivalent of doing this in a laboratory (minus the fact that it really should have been done their to spare the women pain).

This is eugenics. The big bad "e" word. Before someone threatens to destroy my home, I would never advocate "forcing people do not have a child" in a situation like mine. I would just prefer to have a son if I had a child - for these reasons. I'd rather not have kids, first, then adopt. I don't know that I'd even have my own son for other reasons with respect to my evolutionarily terrible genes.

On a side note, my a desire to "not have children" is somehow an evolutionary trait to promote health in the species. That would be neat. No offense to anyone who doesn't want kids and is like "my genes are fine." This idea doesn't need to be true (1) and doesn't need to apply to all people (2).

So short answer. It's alright in some cases. It would be alright (to me) if it was verified that there is a significant difference between raising another sex that "gives people something they wouldn't experience otherwise). I'd be against sex selection for first born children in an attempt to stop abuse. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, having an abortion to get a man is preferable to having 6 more girls until you get one. Overpopulation/unfair to children who get less attention/insert random issues here.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

what is your opinion on this phenomenon in countries like India and China where female fetuses are aborted because boys are viewed as more valuable? How should be addressed? By keeping people from seeing the gender of their fetus? Or does that violate someone's right to know?

discuss...

I was under the impression this selective abortion procedure (mostly) occurs in urban farming regions where having boys is the economically efficient route so that families can avoid dowries and have field hands ready. I would think instead of forcing women to be ignorant bringing development to these regions would be the best solution.

As for the phenomena in the US where different forms of sex selection favor females, I'm just guessing here, but I believe more boys are born than girls, so perhaps couples are wanting variety. I don't know much of it is cultural, either.

[jake williams]

I basically don't think you can oppose the practice per se without restricting women's access to abortion, and even if you did in many areas it would just lead to sex-selective infanticide, which is also a widespread practice (though as far as I understand, less so as safer abortion has become more widely available). As was mentioned, the only solution is to have people change so they don't want to abort female fetuses.

I will say it's a disturbing demographic trend.

[9]

I recently heard about a growing trend in the west of aborting male fetuses, though. Don't know much but it is probably a relatively small trend compared to the abortion of female fetuses in Asia, but still worth noting if it is true.

Yes, well it is hard to "note" something without knowing whether or not there is any truth behind the claim. You'll have to back that up with some sources, as it's a pretty big claim to make and then leave unsubstantiated.

[Meridian]

Yes, well it is hard to "note" something without knowing whether or not there is any truth behind the claim. You'll have to back that up with some sources, as it's a pretty big claim to make and then leave unsubstantiated.
I don't think it is a surprising find at all, yet you seem almost agitated by the very idea.

Originally I'd only read an article about it, and I think it is a phenomena mainly occuring amongst higher class women in the US, where they occasionally prefer female fetuses over male, but I have no data to back that claim up. The fact is that it does appear on statistics, however. The article was better, but I can't find it now, so here's some other data I found on the subject:
http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/#SexSelection

[9]

I don't think it is a surprising find at all, yet you seem almost agitated by the very idea.

Originally I'd only read an article about it, and I think it is a phenomena mainly occuring amongst higher class women in the US, where they occasionally prefer female fetuses over male, but I have no data to back that claim up. The fact is that it does appear on statistics, however. The article was better, but I can't find it now, so here's some other data I found on the subject:
http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/#SexSelection

If I seem agitated, it is because of the screeching cries of "reverse sexism" which are commonplace on this board (unsurprising, seeing as the board's membership is overwhelmingly male), and the use of such pathetic 'evidence' such as "I once saw a teenage girl wearing a shirt which said 'boys r cute every girl should own one' on it" to back it up. Then, obviously with the same intention, making such a grand claim in a thread about sex-selective abortion, to posit that "in the West, boys are aborted because they are boys" without providing any evidence to substantiate it, and indeed it appears now to be utterly false. It is agitating.

And from the article you provided as a source:

"Only 5% of abortions in this country are even potentially gender related, because only 5% occur when it is likely the mother knows the baby's gender. I hasten to point out that "only 5%" of the 1.3 million abortions annually in the U.S. is still a staggering 65,000 babies, and the loss of each one of those little souls for any reason is a tragedy."

I hope you don't agree with that position on abortion... But I'll have to leave it at that because I don't want to derail the thread any further.

[Dr Mindbender]

While i support abortion, i am deeply troubled at those who would discriminate for the sole reason that the child was female. Even from a scientific view, if this phenomenon is widely practiced it could be regarded as a negative because it creates a male-female imbalance in the population.

I'm guessing though that sex-selective abortion is usually a patriarchal descision (''girls are weaker, blah blah blah'') rather than the mother's choice, which is just as bad as the pro-life stance imo. The woman alone should have the choice both to end or perservere with the pregnancy solely on her own volition.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And once again Apikoros interjects her senseless misandry into a perfectly fine thread.


Even from a scientific view, if this phenomenon is widely practiced it could be regarded as a negative because it creates a male-female imbalance in the population.Is there an imbalance in India? I'm aware of the problem that resulted from China's own population policies, but even in developing countries it seems the male-female sex ratio tends to favor females due to higher death rates for men in each demographic below 60, so I'd be curious to learn how other countries with more relaxed controls deal with it. I wrote a paper on Iran's demographic transition and despite having a similar view of which sex in the urban regions means more money, females still outnumber males. Granted Iran's legal treatment of abortion differs, but it's widely ignored outside of centers like Tehran.

Like I said, the only solution seems to be development. These families are growing up in regions where more (male) children means more money and security for the farm. In industrial societies, however, children are for the most part a financial burden regardless of their sex. They don't make the food; they just consume it.

[9]

And once again Apikoros interjects her senseless misandry into a perfectly fine thread.


Since when has correcting fictitious claims constituted "misandry"?


With regard to the OP, the practice of female deselection which you are referring to is obviously horribly discriminatory, but forcing people to give birth without knowing the sex of their child, or forcibly restricting sex-selective abortion is certainly no solution at all. And, in fact, I would argue that such measures would actually be detrimental to females in the regions where sex-selection occurs because a) it would impose further state-sanctioned limitations on women's reproductive freedoms and b) without addressing the underlying causes of the phenomenon (namely misogyny/patriarchy and capitalism), the misogynistic culture would remain perfectly intact; the only difference is that more females would have to endure such an environment, and most likely be subject to tremendous violence throughout their lives. As I said, that is no solution at all. So the solution here, I suspect, can only be the definitive solution to patriarchy as a whole, which is the destruction of capitalism in favor of socialism.

It's also worth noting that, according to the sourced Wikipedia article and contrary to some of the assertions made in this thread, "The existence of the practice appears to be determined by culture, rather than by economic conditions, because such deviations in sex ratios do not exist in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean."

[Meridian]

If I seem agitated, it is because of the screeching cries of "reverse sexism" which are commonplace on this board (unsurprising, seeing as the board's membership is overwhelmingly male), and the use of such pathetic 'evidence' such as "I once saw a teenage girl wearing a shirt which said 'boys r cute every girl should own one' on it" to back it up. Then, obviously with the same intention, making such a grand claim in a thread about sex-selective abortion, to posit that "in the West, boys are aborted because they are boys" without providing any evidence to substantiate it, and indeed it appears now to be utterly false. It is agitating.

And from the article you provided as a source:

"Only 5% of abortions in this country are even potentially gender related, because only 5% occur when it is likely the mother knows the baby's gender. I hasten to point out that "only 5%" of the 1.3 million abortions annually in the U.S. is still a staggering 65,000 babies, and the loss of each one of those little souls for any reason is a tragedy."

I hope you don't agree with that position on abortion... But I'll have to leave it at that because I don't want to derail the thread any further.
I don't think abortion is a good thing in and of-itself, but of course I do not in any way agree with what you quoted nor do I believe babies to have souls. I am entirely "pro-choice".

As for the "screeches of reverse sexism", I think the word sexism does suffice. Sexism meaning discrimination based on sex. I have yet to see the proof that it can only happen to women, I would find that miraculous. The "boys are cute every girl should own one" thing was not just a girl wearing; it was sold by fucking H&M. I am not claiming that it stands as proof, it is only an indication that the concept may exist. If you question that it may exist, you need to get your head checked. Sexism exists and it affects both genders, sometimes males directly other times females directly.

Sorry for somewhat derailing the topic. :blushing: It was not the intention.

Oh, to comment further:
You said it appears to be utterly false (that there is a trend of male fetus abortion in the west); But what I did show was that it is correct. Of course, you choose to entirely disregard that; boys don't really matter.

You also said that this (talks of anti-male discrimination) is a result of males being the overwhelming majority on this board. That is a point which does not benefit your case, seeing as how it would be more unlikely for women to bring this issue up; they would be less likely to be aware of it. With anything else in mind it is not of matter who makes up the majority of people on this board. Indeed, since I have joined I have met nothing but hate towards the entire idea (not the cases of actual discussion) of anti-male discrimination. It seems there is a metaphysical law against anti-male discrimination that I, unfortunately, am oblivious towards. Certainly neither does it have hold on me.

[Vargha Poralli]

By keeping people from seeing the gender of their fetus?

Yeah that was done in India but that had not stopped female foeticide as it is technically called here.

Fuck even laws against murder doesn't stop people from comiting female infanticide.


Awareness and empowerment of Women does help though as proven in India - though it had not stopped both but significantly reduced the practice.

[Vargha Poralli]

With regard to the OP, the practice of female deselection which you are referring to is obviously horribly discriminatory, but forcing people to give birth without knowing the sex of their child, or forcibly restricting sex-selective abortion is certainly no solution at all. And, in fact, I would argue that such measures would actually be detrimental to females in the regions where sex-selection occurs because a) it would impose further state-sanctioned limitations on women's reproductive freedoms and b) without addressing the underlying causes of the phenomenon (namely misogyny/patriarchy and capitalism), the misogynistic culture would remain perfectly intact; the only difference is that more females would have to endure such an environment, and most likely be subject to tremendous violence throughout their lives. As I said, that is no solution at all. So the solution here, I suspect, can only be the definitive solution to patriarchy as a whole, which is the destruction of capitalism in favor of socialism.

I would have thanked the entire post but certain stupidity have stopped me from doing so.

On your point

a) First of all atleast in India it is not the choice of women but choice of men. They want a male heir to their property if they don't have one everything would go to another man of not their clan as they have to give a girl to a different clan.

and

b) You viewpoint was totally wrong. The feminist and communist view of this practice is that the opression of the gender statrts from the embryo. It is just a continuation of all the other oppression women have to suffer here. And forcing the government stopping it means that more women woud fight against opression as a result.


As I said, that is no solution at all. So the solution here, I suspect, can only be the definitive solution to patriarchy as a whole, which is the destruction of capitalism in favor of socialism.

And that is only possible only by fighting against all reactionary practices of patriachal society by any means necessary.

[9]

I would have thanked the entire post but certain stupidity have stopped me from doing so.


On your point

a) First of all atleast in India it is not the choice of women but choice of men. They want a male heir to their property if they don't have one everything would go to another man of not their clan as they have to give a girl to a different clan.


Well, I will be the first to admit that this is an area (sex-selective abortion) where my knowledge is extremely limited; in retrospect, I should have made this clear in my previous post. But I am interested in hearing your opinion on what should be done about it as well, in addition to your refutation of my own argument.


and

b) You viewpoint was totally wrong. The feminist and communist view of this practice is that the opression of the gender statrts from the embryo. It is just a continuation of all the other oppression women have to suffer here. And forcing the government stopping it means that more women woud fight against opression as a result.My line of thinking was that - bearing in mind that I know little about this particular issue - if the government were to prohibit sex-selective abortion, that the female child would simply be murdered instead, upon being born.



And that is only possible only by fighting against all reactionary practices of patriachal society by any means necessary.I'm certainly in agreement with you on this point; I'm curious, though, whether and why you think the female child, after birth, would not simply be murdered if laws restricting sex-selective abortion were put into place.
Also, do you know whether this practice is the result of economic factors (for example, males being more 'able' to do hard labor, as some in this thread have suggested) or cultural factors (misogyny/patriarchy, which the Wikipedia article indicated was the case)?

I appreciate your response to my earlier argument.

[Vargha Poralli]

But I am interested in hearing your opinion on what should be done about it as well, in addition to your refutation of my own argument.

I have made my points here here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1616992&postcount=13).

To be clear I tried to present some evidence but it got messed up while I edit. Any way by practical exposure I can say that Female infanticide/foeticide is less in places have women have more freedom and control on their own lives. While it is more prelevant in states where illiteracy and economic and socia backwardness rules. For illustration just take a llok at 2 maps I have attached in this post.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3557/sexratiomapofindia2001.jpg
Above one shows Male to Female ration of Indian States. This one is directly propotional to feale infanticide and foeticide.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3815/literacyrate.jpg

This shows overal literacy rate which is indirectly propotional to female infanticide and foeticide.

Finally female literacy rate district wise.
(http://www.mapsofindia.com/census2001/femaleliteracydistrictwise.htm)

I would point to 2 states in India I am very familiar with. They form the the bottm portion on the map(Southern ends).

You may notice the state in the western tip Kerala strip outlasts every state in terms of sex ratio. It also correlates with general literacy and female literacy. The worker's movement was very strong in that State it is the first state to have a elected government of Communist party. But historicaly many castes of Kerala are matrilineal which contributed to this stage(coreleated not caused)

And take the state next to it Tamil Nadu (This is my home land). Here the male female sex ratio is about 987 females to 1000 males as per 2001 census. (http://www.census.tn.nic.in/pca2001.aspx). This is reasonab growth from previous data but if you note carefully you may notice the female literacy rate and the femal sex ration have major differences in the urban or rural populations.

From which we can arrive to a reasonable conclusion. Where the females have economic and social independece the occurence of this practice is low. and reverse.


My line of thinking was that - bearing in mind that I know little about this particular issue - if the government were to prohibit sex-selective abortion, that the female child would simply be murdered instead, upon being born.

Well it is also true. I made it clear in my previous post.

And not not all girl child born would be aborted or killed. Many families in rura Tamil Nadu may tolerate 1 -3 girls. They can't afford to raise any more girls after that it would be difficult for them to marry them off. The preference for boys is mainly a social security for them. India is not a place known for even humnitarian support to retired and old people. So they need a son to support them until they die. This trend is also fast changing. An anedotal evidence my Granmother and Grandfather from my Mum's side lives with our family, without being considered as a burden by both of my parents. And I know many Men just throwing their parents to an old age orphanage(this is considered as an insult for the old people by many). So another reason for the conuct of this practice have also gone.

We need to wait until next census(probably by 2011 - 2020) to verify my own opinions.



I'm curious, though, whether and why you think the female child, after birth, would not simply be murdered if laws restricting sex-selective abortion were put into place.

I think you overlooked my previous post in this very same thread.

I would have not posted that "laws against murder doesn't stop people from commiting feamle infanticide" in case if I have thought that. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1616992&postcount=13)

Well the government have given an thought about it and have brought up some measures to prevent it. As expected they do not mean they are helping the society to eradicate the problem at all but merely reinforcing it. (http://infochangeindia.org/200803316996/Children/News-Scan/Cradle-baby-scheme-intensifies-gender-discrimination-say-activists.html)



Also, do you know whether this practice is the result of economic factors (for example, males being more 'able' to do hard labor, as some in this thread have suggested) or cultural factors (misogyny/patriarchy, which the Wikipedia article indicated was the case)?

Well the Social relationships and cultural diversity in India are very complex in nature and it cannot be simply understood. My views expressed in this post are specifically restricted to 2 states which I am familiar with would not be correct if applied to whole of India.

The historical culture of this land is very old but verifiable historical data is very limited until Mughal rule and subsequent Britsh Raj. The data of Indian cuture before the Islamic Invasions have either been destroyed, mutated with superficial elements or left in dead languiages which can be interpreted in many ways. And History of India is either distorted by each and every political groups(Marxists are not exempt from this) for justifying their policies and practices (like British Raj,Hindutva groups) or because of sheer short sightedness(like Marxists).

To summarise I cannot confidently give historical developement of this process without doing a very carefull study about it. But in the end everything mentioned(patriachy,economic factors/necessity)has a part in it.


I appreciate your response to my earlier argument.

You are welcome :) . Please apologise if you can't understand what I have written or any spelling mistakes found. And thank you for the questions which provided me wonderful oppurtunity to do a research about the issue even though I am little bit disappointed for lsoing some data acquired with great difficulty and too lazy to get it back.