Study shows girls increasingly aborted in India

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

NEW DELHI (AP) -- More and more Indian families with one girl are aborting subsequent pregnancies when prenatal tests show another female is on the way, according to a new study published Tuesday.

The decline in the number of girls is more pronounced in richer and better educated households, according to research in the medical journal Lancet.

Those numbers show that a 1996 law that bans testing for the gender of a fetus has been largely ineffective, the study said.

In India, there is a huge cultural preference for boys in large part because of the enormous expense in marrying off girls and paying elaborate dowries. Officials have acknowledged that current laws have proved inadequate at combatting the widening sex ratio gap.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDIA_SEX_SELECTIVE_ABORTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-24-06-48-11

---

The joke will be on them in 20 years when their sons will be unable to find wives.

[grahamhgreen]

1. They should not be having more than one child

Until they can feed all thir children

[ehrnst]

16. That should always be a choice on the part of the woman. It's her body. (nt)

[snagglepuss]

19. Selectively aborting female fetuses is misogyny. It has nothing to to do with

women's rights.

[Xithras]

21. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

What if a white woman slept with a black man, became pregnant, and wanted an abortion because she didn't want a black baby? Would you support her right to seek the abortion, even though her reason for seeking it is fundamentally racist? Do her reproductive rights and choices suddenly end because you disagree with her reason for exercising them?

No woman should ever have to carry a child she does not want. Her reasons for not wanting it are irrelevant, because supporting ANY other position means supporting the idea that women should be FORCED to carry babies against their will. You either support free choice, or you don't.

[LanternWaste]

27. I imagine one may quite easily support choice yet abhor a cultural tradition.

I imagine one may quite easily support choice yet abhor a cultural tradition. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

33. +1000% --

[Xithras]

34. Abhor all you want.

I abhor it too, but the upthread poster claimed that it had nothing to do with rights, because it was based in misogyny. I simply pointed out that the validity of a right has no connection to the motive behind its use.

Rights are rights, for fair or foul.

[LanternWaste]

36. And I'm merely claiming that one may approve of action A...

And I'm merely claiming that one may approve of action A, yet disapprove of one particular reason (amongst many, many reasons) that leads to that action.

I approve of marriage. I do not approve of dowries. The second does not imply disapproval of the first, nor does it condemn my belief in the right of marriage. However, I do see how one may easily confuse the two though... :shrug:



(I do think your most generous allowance of my abhorring a factor is irrelevant... but if you believe it strengthens your argument somehow, have at it.)

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Hear, hear.

I agree with you 100%.

[Quantess]

25. You can't start dithering over the reasons.

I mean, it's worthy of discussion, but you can't decide for someone else that the reason isn't acceptable. It isn't your choice to make.

[defendandprotect]

28. When women are brainwashed by patriarchal concepts ... as we've seen in their

cooperation in Female Genital Mutilation -- or with Chinese Foot Binding --

or with Anorexia here in the US -- then it is time for the government to

make cultural ADJUSTMENTS to reverse these insanities.

The "insanity" of course being prejudice against females -- !!

Respect and esteem for females has to be raised in India!!

Male-supremacist notions have to fought steadily and strongly by India!

[WatsonT]

55. Broken Record

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broken%20record

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Nope. Choice is choice.

This is the double-edged sword of abortion rights. If people have the right to choose to abort for any reason whatsoever, then people have the right to choose to abort for any reason whatsoever.

And people should have that right to choose. The last thing we want is some government list of approved reasons for abortion.

[ehrnst]

43. This is in response to your statement that they shouldn't have any more kids

until they can feed the ones they have.

It's about childbearing rights, not abortion rights.

[livefreest]

2. holy sh**.

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. It's really a form of genocide.

But it catches up with them when there are no women for the men to marry. Look at the black market for brides in China?

[TheWraith]

8. China is doing much the same thing.

Their "one child" policy encourages it even more so than the population pressure in India.

[defendandprotect]

29. Which is ultimately what patriarchy is about --

Patriarchy is a war on nature, as well --

and we can see how suicidal that has turned out to be !!

[Yupster]

52. Maybe China and India

can fight a great big war and wipe out that surplus young man problem.

[cosmicone]

4. This is really a disgrace and stronger measures are warranted.

It is primarily a North Indian phenomenon and in some communities, it is already hard for boys to find a girl.

This has created a reverse dowry -- where the boys have to give an exorbitant dowry to marry a girl. Those economic forces will eventually stop this madness. Until then, confiscatory penalties are called for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. It shouldn't be the woman's choice?

[KansDem]

14. Is it?

Consequences of Female Foeticide

Given the lower value placed on women in Indian society, prenatal sex determination with the intention of preventing female births must be viewed as a manifestation of violence against women, a violation of their human rights. The pregnant woman, though often equally anxious to have a boy, is frequently pressurized to undergo such procedures. Many women suffer from psychological trauma as a result of forcibly undergoing repeated abortions. More generally, demographers warn that in the next twenty years there will be a shortage of brides in the marriage market mainly because of the adverse juvenile sex ratio, combined with an overall decline in fertility. While fertility is declining more rapidly in urban and educated families, nevertheless the preference for male children remains strong. For these families, modern medical technologies are within easy reach. Thus selective abortion and sex selection are becoming more common.

--more--
International Humanist and Ethical Union

[closeupready]

22. No, women should not be free in 'Asia's largest democracy.'

:sarcasm: Of course it should be a woman's choice. Here is an opportunity for India to put paid to the lie that it is not a democracy.

[defendandprotect]

30. The problem isn't with "CHOICE" - the problem is with male-supremacist concepts ...

which have been taught to the nation -- including females.

Same poison that produced Chinese Foot Binding in China --

and Female Genital Mutilation in Africa, etal --

Anorexia in America --

You think women just wake up one morning and decide to destroy themselves?

All of thes eissues need government intervention to instill egalitarian values --

to overturn male-supremacist teachings --

and to increase the respect and esteem for women in their societies.

[cosmicone]

45. It is not a choice a woman makes based upon what is good for the baby.

It is a choice made by the whole family to avoid paying dowry in the future.

This issue is very much different from the standard Western pro-choice debate.

[JI7]

42. fuck them all, if they want to play with some stupid dowry system i don't feel bad for any of them

let them ruin their own futures.

[Odin2005]

5. Good God!

:grr:

[dipsydoodle]

7. Certain in the UK

don't allow ultrasounds for expectant mothers for this very reason.

[laundry_queen]

51. Where I used to live

they stopped letting women know the sex of their baby. If you wanted to find out the sex, you had to find a private ultrasound clinic and pay their going rate (up to $500). It started because it was becoming common for some immigrants to do just that - find out the sex and get an abortion. So the province required techs to not even look for the sex.

[iandhr]

9. it impossible...

... to finds words that can describe this horror.

[valerief]

10. Women are second class citizens everywhere. We don't have the

penchant for killing that young men have, and killing is highly valued everywhere. Otherwise, we'd have no soldiers.

[bitchkitty]

13. +1

You're a smart woman.

[AlbertCat]

20. We don't have the penchant for killing that young men have

I beg your pardon? Say what?

[Frank Cannon]

50. That one had me scratching my head, as well.

I consider myself as Y-chromosomed as the next guy. I don't recall ever having a "penchant for killing". I don't think any of my other male friends ever did, either.

[defendandprotect]

31. +1 -- Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another --

And for more than 40 years now our young men have been taught disrespect and violence

against women -- look at the internet porn -- look at our TV programming!!

And you're right about the need to produce soldiers for war!!


Sadly -- :)

[GliderGuider]

35. It goes back a little further than 40 years. Try 8,000...

Even back in hunter-gatherer times there was a selective preference for males, both to act as warriors to protect their band and as hunters to provide high-protein food when women were involved with children. Tribes tried to ensure an excess of males, so there were high rates of selective gender-specific infanticide - even in matrifocal societies. The circumstances demanded it, and the people obliged.

We can legitimately rail against the glorification of violence and how cultures devalue women, but those traditions are of very long standing. They originally sprang from specific environmental requirements. The best way to get men to fight to protect their tribe is to make fighting honourable; the best way to keep the population stable is to limit the number of women who of reproductive age. Once those values and traditions become entrenched it's very hard to change them.

The ostensible reasons for this behaviour in India today are different from the reasons H-G societies murdered their female children. On the other hand it's entirely conceivable that more research might uncover a population-control factor working alongside dowries to promote the behaviour.

IMO the culture in question gets to make their own moral decisions, that's none of my business. What I can do is try to understand why things are the way they are.

[defendandprotect]

37. Agree on overall war on women --

However -- more like 50,000 years of patriarchal violence vs women --

And ...

whatever progress was made has been purposefully and very effectively turned around

in last 40 years --


Violence is NOT natural to our species -- it has been taught by the few among us

who are violent --


And re these odd comments --

the best way to keep the population stable is to limit the number of women who of reproductive age. Once those values and traditions become entrenched it's very hard to change them.

Nature is pro-choice and has always supplied ways via plants -- which are our drugs -- to control

reproduction -- to terminate unwanted pregnancies, etal. Most of these plants and information

about them were destroyed by patriarchy.

In fact, RU 486 is based on one of those plants -- which acts to keep a fertilized egg from

adhering to and embedding in the wall of the womb.



We hear a lot about "hunter-gather" communities -- but in fact, animal-eating is itself violence

perpetuated on communities. Plants have always been with us -- they ensure our health -- and

act as our medicines. They nourish every part of the human body.

Vegetation was the first and primary food -- for everyone. It always existed --


On the other hand it's entirely conceivable that more research might uncover a population-control factor working alongside dowries to promote the behaviour.

The reasons for the culture are male-supremacist teachings by religions -- and giving license

to male violence and aggression vs females.

"Population-control" working in India -- are you kidding?


IMO the culture in question gets to make their own moral decisions, that's none of my business. What I can do is try to understand why things are the way they are.


So you'd have problems in speaking out against something like these abortions ?

Or speaking out against Female Genital Mutilation where it exists ?

Or against Chinese Foot Binding as it existed hundreds of years ago as culture ?

:eyes:

Fortunately many others are concerned with justice and fighting for egalitarian societies --

and against male-supremacist teachings!

And fighting male violence which goes so unacknowledged in our society --

[GliderGuider]

40. Have you read Riane Eisler's book "The Chalice and the Blade"?

The Chalice and the Blade

In it she takes a very interesting and objective look at matrifocal societies, and determines that they (or what she calls "partnership" societies were pretty much the norm until 5,000 years ago or so.

Here's some commentary from a review of the book:

http://www.inhumandecency.org/christine/eisler.html">Review by Christine Hoff Kraemer
Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and the Blade was one of several books by feminist scholars released in the late 1980’s that tried to sketch out the origins of patriarchy in order to suggest ways that it might be ended. Eisler asserts that patriarchy is built on particular symbol and value reversals – the Great Mother Goddess, primary symbol for the divine source of being and associated with peace and compassion, is marginalized and then discarded entirely, while a masculine war god is raised in her place.

Eisler uses the symbols of chalice and blade to stand for two competing sets of values and models of society. The chalice stands for a style of social structure that Eisler calls the partnership model, in which relations between the sexes are understood primarily in terms of partnership rather than hierarchy. The resulting society is egalitarian, peaceful, and matrifocal, centered on the nurturing values traditionally associated with mothers. Using a variety of archaeological studies, Eisler claims that such societies existed in Neolithic Europe from the beginning of the agricultural revolution until around 5000-3000 BCE, when warlike invaders from the fringes of these regions conquered them. These invaders’ social model, which Eisler calls the dominator model, is warlike, hierarchical, and organized around patterns of domination.

Eisler’s ultimate aim, however, is not historical but normative. The chapters on archaeology and cultural history serve as a background for her insistence that with the invention of the atomic bomb, humanity has reached an evolutionary crossroads. Human society must turn again to a gylanic model of association and embrace its values, because to continue along the path of androcracy is likely to lead to nuclear war. The remainder of the book is devoted to what Eisler calls Cultural Transformation theory, and sketches out mechanisms by which transformation from a dominator model of society to a partnership one can be accomplished. Among her observations is a criticism of the rigid sexual stereotypes that she sees as a necessary part of a dominator society, as well as the claim that the rise of women’s status in a given society is highly correlated with its overall quality of life.

I agree broadly with with Eisler's position. Egalitarian, partnership societies are not only possible, they are the only thing that will allow the next cycle of human civilization to rebuild in a sustainable manner after what I expect is going to be a severe ecological bottleneck coming up in the next century or so. The more we entrench those positive, cooperative values now, the higher our probability of long-term success.

I have no problem at all speaking out about FGM or infanticide (whether gender-selective or not). However, I would not expect my objections to make a scintilla of difference to the practices I was objecting about, unless they were happening in my own culture. When they happen in other cultures I would hesitate to set up absolutist moral pronouncements against the realities of life on the ground. Instead, I would work to understand deeply what was driving the behaviour, and work to alleviate that underlying cause.

Promoting the education and empowerment of womyn is a laudable goal for example, but it may or may not alleviate this particular problem.

[defendandprotect]

44. An old story -- male violence came from somewhere behind Turkey ...

and it's thought was caused by famine in other lands --

Let's also consider that animal-eating in itself could be doing harm to the brain -- !!

Atomic weapons are just more patriarchy -- disguised as protection -- i.e., war is peace.

Weapons are peace. :rofl:

Rather, atomic weapons are simply a sign of insanity. As nuclear reactors are!

Using nuclear reactors to boil water for steam? Come on!

Agree -- patriarchy is "the bird with one wing" --



I have no problem at all speaking out about FGM or infanticide (whether gender-selective or not). However, I would not expect my objections to make a scintilla of difference to the practices I was objecting about, unless they were happening in my own culture. When they happen in other cultures I would hesitate to set up absolutist moral pronouncements against the realities of life on the ground. Instead, I would work to understand deeply what was driving the behaviour, and work to alleviate that underlying cause.

Good -- because you seemed to be suggesting that you wouldn't speak out --

Of course, speaking out against injustice is always valid and called of!


Promoting the education and empowerment of womyn is a laudable goal for example, but it may or may not alleviate this particular problem.

At the stage India is at with 12 million females disappeared by gender abortions is beyond

mere education -- there have to be government policies put in place which ensure female equality

and immediate changes in status of females in the society. Otherwise, like all other patriarchal

concepts it is suicidal.

[alp227]

11. In America, religion considers abortion a sin. In India, religion...well...

could have an influence in this kind of patriarchal decision. Sigh. When will reason and science take over faith and blind authoritarianism?

[defendandprotect]

32. Only when governments begin to interrupt male-supremacist teachings ....

and to instill egalitarian values -- especially respect and esteem for females!!

But this is a patriarchal war, not only on females, but on nature, as well --

and I see little signs of our stopping either --

Yet, it is suicidal -- insanely so!

[backtomn]

12. This has been the case for a long time......

and the 1996 law didn't change a thing. There was a story on 60 Minutes (I believe) probably 20 years ago about ultrasound clinics in every neighborhood. With a right to choose, we might not always appreciate what some might choose. After years of government policies, China now has a VERY old population.....another choice. I will admit that I don't have a solution for this one.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. I cannot believe that some Indian women don't feel intense pressure to abort girls

which is just as bad as feeling intense pressure not to have one.

[ehrnst]

17. It won't change without a fundemental shift in their view of women.

Laws have never stopped women from trying to choose when and if they will give birth.

Conception rates go down naturally when women are educated and made an active part of society, and are given the right to plan their families.

[zalinda]

18. The reason for this situation is the dowry system in India

While it is illegal for a dowry to be offered or accepted, it still exists. A girl's family has to pay for the boy's family to take the girl as their son's bride. The richer the girl's family is, the higher the asking price. Some girls have been punished by the groom's family if her dowry is not large enough, or slow in coming. Women aren't second class citizens in some areas of India, they are considered less than live stock.

In both China and India, it is self preservation that has resulted in this despicable practice. In China, a boy will stay with his family and take care of them as they age. In India, a boy will bring in money from a dowry, thus insuring a better survival. In both countries, the brides are treated very poorly, and they pass on the tradition when their son's bride enters the picture, as they are treated like slaves, as their elders had been when they were young.

zalinda

[JaneFordA]

23. It takes a looong time...

... for girls/women, really to decide they might NOT want to marry and reproduce. There has to be a commitment to education in the society-at-large and then a commitment to equitable employment.

While "femicide" is epidemic in India (and I bet China, too), we're hardly in a position (here) to sit in judgment when every facet of mass media is focused on making women "beautiful" and therefore desirable in what I call the Great American Meat Market.

I'll believe American women truly "get it" once we're done with pageant crap.

[GliderGuider]

24. This is very easy to understand from an anthropological point of view.

We in the progressive community like to think that morality and ethics should underly our behaviour. Unfortunately for our world-view, it's easy to make the case (as does anthropologist Marvin Harris) that the process actually works in reverse: our circumstances result in behaviour that is then overlaid after the fact with a moral justification. We may be seeing such a process at work here.

Moral education and tongue-clucking are likely to be ineffective at stopping this practice. What might work is changing the cultural institution of dowry, either by eliminating it or making it more ceremonial than financial. However, traditions have a nasty habit of surviving, so it’s going to take a while. In the meantime this selective abortion practice isn’t going to change either.

Speaking as a population control advocate, I have to say I’m not terribly distressed by this news. This is likely to be a very effective way of bringing down Indian birth rates 20 years from now.

[defendandprotect]

26. Up to 12 million girls aborted in India over last 30 years:study

"The logic is families are saying if Nature gives us a first boy, then we don't do anything. But if Nature gives a first girl then perhaps we would consider ultrasound testing and selective abortion for the subsequent children," he told Reuters in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_india_abortions_girls


----------

Nature provides for more females than males -- in fact, males are the more fragile, with

more males lost to spontaneous abortion and other causes of death up to the age of 2.

The expectation is 54% females -- with 46% males -- but actually numbers for females could

be much higher -- which we wouldn't know until the killing stops!


Females contribute 57% of DNA to a birth -- with males contributing 43% --

when Mitochondria is considered.

Of course, they also have the child within their bodies for 10 months --

breast feed -- and usually care for the child.

[Kurska]

48. For social harmony a 50/50 split is best.

I'm not really getting the point of these statics. If you're arguing that just because an uneven split is the "Natural" state, I don't see how that makes it better. The "Natural" state is also for a larger portion of females to die during childbirth, which probably explains the evolutionary drive to have a few more of them around than males. Assuming homosexuality is equally prevalent in both genders (we're not sure about that), it would be best to have 1 male for every female. Having a surplus of lonely people literally unable to find their preferred mate is something that will bite us all in the ass down the line, whether that skew is toward male or for females.

[defendandprotect]

58. Nature puts its trust in females -- I'll stick with that --

If you want to change those numbers -- and many in patriarchy certainly did want

to limit the number of females born -- it takes killing females to do it!


Your thinking sems based on what patriarchy has told you the "natural" state is --

and the distorted reality patriarchy has created --

Did they tell you that males are more fragile than females up to the age of 2?

And why should there be a large loss of female life in childbirth?

Only because we have eliminated knowledge, information and drugs/plants -- and

practices which would aid with gestation and delivery.

And who eliminated that knowledge, etal -- patriarchy.


Re this ...

Assuming homosexuality is equally prevalent in both genders (we're not sure about that), it would be best to have 1 male for every female. Having a surplus of lonely people literally unable to find their preferred mate is something that will bite us all in the ass down the line, whether that skew is toward male or for females.

They say that there is more male homosexuality than female homosexuality -- however, I've also

read that because of male violence, many women will turn to comfort of females.

But neither is it unknown for predominatly hetereosexual males to come together to comfort one

another -- especially in time of war . . Remember this song?


Nights are long since you went away,

I think about you all thru the day,

My Buddy, my Buddy, no Buddy quite so true.

Miss your voice, the touch of your hand,

Just long to know that you understand,

My Buddy, my Buddy, Your Buddy misses you.



Additionally, homosexuals have long been honored in Hawaii for their assistance in taking in

orphans. Also note that hetereosexual males are 100X more likely to sexually abuse children

than homosexual males are! And, it is a male problem confirmed by even rightwing women's

groups.

So nature would see many benefits to homosexuality as all societies should, as well! :)


:)

[Kurska]

60. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy, the natural state of being is not the one most conductive to

human survival or human happiness. You don't have to be a tool of the patriarchy to point out obvious logical fallacies.

You say nature provides for more girls than boys, I point out nature also originally provided for 1/8th of all females to eventually die during childbirth. A person with a basic understanding of the human condition can grasp why neither of those "Natural" states are ideal.

Your ideas of why females are "Better" or more "trust worthy" is not a thought that spawns from the modern concept of gender equality. I'd prefer a world where people of all genders are judged only on their individual merits and their gender is nothing but an after thought that dwells only in the limited realm of human reproduction.

[defendandprotect]

62. Well, obviously patriarchal thinking doesn't much care for nature ...

as we see from their war on nature --

and animal life -- and humans --


Obviously, patriarchy thinks that it knows better than NATURE --

Exploding nuclear weapons, building nuclear reactors to boil water for steam --

Exploitation of all nature which has led to total pollution of the planet -- our

air, soil, oceans, drinking water -- destruction of forests -- and Global Warming.


Nature did not provide for "death of females in childbirth" --

Patriarchal contrivance to remove midwives from childbirth -- and to substitute males

as "midwives" to control childbirth had much to do with that --

Additionally, remedies and plants/drugs which WICCA -- female wisdom -- supported and

understood were destroyed -- and the knowledge of them and the material. This is widely known.


Your ideas of why females are "Better" or more "trust worthy" is not a thought that spawns from the modern concept of gender equality. I'd prefer a world where people of all genders are judged only on their individual merits and their gender is nothing but an after thought that dwells only in the limited realm of human reproduction.

I'd suggest that you explore information about female-centered societies -- which has nothing

to do with female-domination as patriarchy equates to male-domination.

Best definition I've ever heard of "Feminism" is "anti-domination of anyone by anyone else."

Otoh, certainly patriarchy and organized patriarchal religion are mainly directed towards

male-supremacy and male-domination.

As long as females can create new life and males cannot, there will always be consciousness

of gender.

And many other reasons why that is so!

However, let's trust that we all support egalitarian societies.


Patriarcy is "The bird with one wing" --

[JI7]

41. i wonder if this will result in control of population with the sons unable

to find women to have kids with.

[slackmaster]

46. They'll import brides from somewhere else, or leave the country

No doubt.

[Nihil]

53. Thus turning it from an Indian cultural problem ...

... into a "racism" or "xenophobia" problem in the country that
they migrate to ... but at least it's not India's problem any more ...

[Lance_Boyle]

59. They'll be in the US, working "IT jobs that Americans don't want." n/t

[Endangered Specie]

47. This problem will work itself out in the long run...

Eventually women will become so sparse the laws of supply and demand will make the dowry system a joke, and likely make it to go the other way (if you are the parents of a daughter when the range is, say, 40f/60m, not only does she get to pick the 'best-of-the-litter' male but they can tell any family that wants a dowry to eat shit).

Cultures change, economics don't.

And as far as 'importing' brides for all the lonely Indian men who get left w/o a chair at the end of the music, that won't work either, as most countries that export their women tend to focus on countries where men have a much higher standard of living and money (if the lonely Indian male in question isn't very well off, forget it... odds are he'd be best-of-the-litter anyway so mute point).

[smirkymonkey]

49. +100

Eventually, the culture dies off entirely.

[defendandprotect]

56. Would you be saying that if the situation/power were reversed ...

i.e., that 12 million male pregnancies were aborted for reasons of gender

selection?

[WatsonT]

54. Biology suggests that this trait will be bred out of a population in short order

sons don't produce children, that is an important thing to remember.

Fewer uteri = fewer kids.

Meaning women will be incredibly valuable in India in the next 20 years or so.

[iwishiwas]

57. Well, if US Repugs ruled India...

[Turborama]

61. A 4 Part Special Report On This From The BBC: "India's Unwanted Girls"

Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

63. I would be reluctant to throw the word "choice" around this issue

Since at least in China many of these abortions are coerced by the fathers family rather than any variation on an individual choice.