Loren Pechtel

India has a big problem with it, also.

While I don't think it would be all that much of a problem on the level of our society, I would worry about it amongst cultures within our society. The very ones who would favor a bunch of boys are the ones least likely to marry outside their culture.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by brighid
If we focus on gender-specific abortion aren’t we focusing on the effect and not the cause of the gender disparity? In societies that value females, or at least don’t severely devalue them as evil, barely human beings only put her for reproduction you won’t have gender specific abortions.

Agreed, it's addressing a symptom instead of the root problem, but addressing the symptom is bettter than doing nothing.

Should the existing women breed more females to be born into a value system such as this one? Will the near extinction of the Indian female and quite possibly the extinction of that culture perhaps force these ass-backward people to perhaps change?

If it were to come about peacefully I would think that this was the best approach. What I'm worried about, however, is that the transition time won't be peaceful.

Let it get bad enough that these men cannot find “brides” to purchase.

It's already reaching that point.

Maybe then they will realize the inherent value of their necessary human, female counterparts.

Or blame the females for not thinking he is good enough. Furthermore, the male children are suffering for the sins of the parents. Just?

Unfortunately, it is easier to address the abortion issue then the social norms that perpetuate this cycle of violence against the female gender.

Agreed. However, the need to address the root problem doesn't mean we should ignore the symptoms.

brighid

Loren,

I agree that we should not ignore the symptoms, they are an obvious sign of a problem. I also agree that the possibility exists that these men, already indoctrinated in misogyny may very likely take out their frustrations on any unwitting bride or female they encounter. I don't think anyone wants that outcome, certainly not me.

I also feel that when addressing the symptoms of this systemic social disease that the root cause of this illness must also be properly addressed and focused upon. Sometimes the "cultural norms" of self-destructive socities (such as this one) get glossed over because no one wants to offend the culture or religious beliefs of a group of people. I disagree with this train of thought and action, and although addressing the cultural and religious ills in a VERY tough road to travel I feel it is a necessary "evil" to tackle.

I think one way to begin addressing this problem is by doing all that can be done to empower the females and those within the society that disagree with this dangerous prejudice (such as the family mentioned in the article tron posted.) These females have to be able to escape, have choices beyond the social and cultural norms (especially economic) and they must then educate the society from within - starting with their children. This premise is one of the reasons I support http://www.womenforwomen.org

The issue is complex, and their are no easy solutions - unfortunately In specific circumstances I can see some justification for limiting gender selective abortions, but I also much prefer abortion over infanticide which has very often been the case when selective abortion, or abortion was not an option.

How do you get a society, with deeply ingrained religious and cultural ideologies about the inferiority of females to begin to value them?

I am also not sure limiting or eliminating gender selective abortions in this case is a good argument against abaiting terrorism. The frustration these society is much deeper and more complex then a lack of females available for marriage and child bearing. Pervasive poverty, lack of education and disease prey more upon the minds and attitudes of this society then a lack of females does. In fact, it can be argued that those things (as well as other factors) directly contributes to the barbaric attitudes of these people that creates the environment where aborting female fetuses is preferable. I personally feel if the economical, educational and health issues are addressed that this problem will significantly diminish. I think may some of the reasons you do not see this sort of thing in societies that enjoy economical and educational equality and opportunities among the sexes.

IMHO, these are also very important reasons to protect the choice all women should have over their reproductive freedoms, and the future they wish to create for themselves and their children. Reproductive slavery, either in the form of forced pregnancies or forced abortions damages more then just the women of our world, it damages everyone and everything. Reproductive freedom is necessary for the growth and betterment of any society, in my honest but humble opinion.

I would be reluctant to support restricting, even in the cases mentioned, the reproductive freedom of women (and their partners) without ALSO addressing the issues that are the root cause of the problem. Bandaids on gapping wounds don't heal the wounds, it just makes one feel as if they are doing something. This is of course better then nothing, but deficient when attempting to heal a societal wound this deep and pervasive.

Brighid

Dr. Retard

A quick point: Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should illegal. It's immoral to treat your friends like crap; it shouldn't be illegal, though. It's immoral to punch your younger brother in the arm; it shouldn't be illegal, though.

So questions of whether bigotry-guided abortions are immoral should be separated from questions about the "right to choose", which is a question about what laws we should have.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by brighid
I agree that we should not ignore the symptoms, they are an obvious sign of a problem. I also agree that the possibility exists that these men, already indoctrinated in misogyny may very likely take out their frustrations on any unwitting bride or female they encounter. I don't think anyone wants that outcome, certainly not me.

I'm more worried about them taking it out on whomever they regard as the source of the problem. Note how many of the 9/11 guys were losers in the romance department.

Sometimes the "cultural norms" of self-destructive socities (such as this one) get glossed over because no one wants to offend the culture or religious beliefs of a group of people. I disagree with this train of thought and action, and although addressing the cultural and religious ills in a VERY tough road to travel I feel it is a necessary "evil" to tackle.

I never said the main problem shouldn't be tackled. It certainly should be. I'm just saying that the symptom shouldn't be ignored as it will cause harm.

The issue is complex, and their are no easy solutions - unfortunately In specific circumstances I can see some justification for limiting gender selective abortions, but I also much prefer abortion over infanticide which has very often been the case when selective abortion, or abortion was not an option.

In China or India, yes. I don't think it would happen here, though. It's not easy to cover up a birth here.

I am also not sure limiting or eliminating gender selective abortions in this case is a good argument against abaiting terrorism.

I'm saying that it would cut down on the number of recruits, not that it would defuse the pressures that cause it.

The frustration these society is much deeper and more complex then a lack of females available for marriage and child bearing. Pervasive poverty, lack of education and disease prey more upon the minds and attitudes of this society then a lack of females does.

These are commonly given as reasons for terrorism but I don't buy it. Look at the 9/11 guys. The weren't poor, uneducated and sick. Look at all the terrorist groups that used to plague Europe.

I personally feel if the economical, educational and health issues are addressed that this problem will significantly diminish. I think may some of the reasons you do not see this sort of thing in societies that enjoy economical and educational equality and opportunities among the sexes.

Yeah--one thing I would like to see. Food aid occurs *ONLY* in schools. All females in the family must attend before any males from that family are eligible.

Reproductive slavery, either in the form of forced pregnancies or forced abortions damages more then just the women of our world, it damages everyone and everything. Reproductive freedom is necessary for the growth and betterment of any society, in my honest but humble opinion.

Reproductive slavery to one's husband does great harm. I don't see China's one-child policy doing great harm, though.

I would be reluctant to support restricting, even in the cases mentioned, the reproductive freedom of women (and their partners) without ALSO addressing the issues that are the root cause of the problem.

How many times do I need to say that I never said the main problem should be ignored!

Loren Pechtel

You're describing assault and battery. Why shouldn't it be illegal?

Jamie_L

My position:

There is a developmental point prior to which a fetus does not have moral status as a "person". Once this developmental state is achieved, however, the fetus does become a person in the moral sense.

When the fetus is not a person, aborting it is an amoral choice. Like cutting your hair or a woman allowing her unfertilized egg to perish as the result of her monthly period.

Once the fetus is a person, then aborting it becomes a moral choice. Without sufficient justification, it is immoral to abort. That justification must be of similar force to taking the life of any other person - though there are additional circumstances to consider. So, gay gene, eye color, gender, and "not wanting to have a baby" are unacceptable justifications at this point. Serious health consequences more likely to be morally acceptable justifications.

The tricky question is when does this separation point occur? Somewhere between fertilized egg and viable baby to be sure. This is an entirely separate debate that is probably best left to another thread. So I won't state my opinion, unless someone really wants it.

Jamie

JerryM

I'll just add one other point. I do believe, as a matter of law, that abortion for any reason should not be criminalized up to the point where the fetus is natually viable. But, a gynecologist or abortion provider also has a right NOT to perform an abortion if she/he feels it is not medically indicated. In an elective, non-emergency situation, any physician has a perfect right to inquire why a patient is requesting an abortion, and is absolutely within his rights to refuse to perform the procedure if doing so violates his good faith medical judgement. A woman has a right to seek an abortion for reasons such as sex selection, gender preference, or other trivial reasons, but a doctor has a right not to do it.