Why is abortion by gender the exception?

BrendaN_f · 24-02-2015 02:30AM #1

In the UK at the moment there is a bit of talk about introducing a law which would outlaw abortions performed based on the gender of the baby.

Now while I agree that is obviously wrong, I'm finding it difficult to understand why getting an abortion because you don't want a girl/boy is any worse than getting an abortion because you simply don't want a child?

Cookie_Monster · 24-02-2015 02:35AM

Who would be stupid enough to give that as the reason anyway?

CJ Haughey · 24-02-2015 02:41AM

We wont solve the problem tonight anyway Brendan, have a drop of cherry and get some sleep.

Alexis Sanchez · 24-02-2015 03:00AM

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

kneemos · 24-02-2015 03:30AM

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

AHA

DING DING.

We have a winner.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-02-2015 04:06AM

How long before this thread completely misses the poitn and turns into an straight-on abortion debate?

kowloon · 24-02-2015 04:13AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How long before this thread completely misses the poitn and turns into an straight-on abortion debate?

I don't know, but I expected it by post #3.

MarkAnthony · 24-02-2015 04:40AM

No one is purely pro-choice or pro-life with the exception of the nutter fringes. It's impossible to get that across to many in either camp.

BlaasForRafa · 24-02-2015 05:07AM

BrendaN_f wrote: »

In the UK at the moment there is a bit of talk about introducing a law which would outlaw abortions performed based on the gender of the baby.

Now while I agree that is obviously wrong, I'm finding it difficult to understand why getting an abortion because you don't want a girl/boy is any worse than getting an abortion because you simply don't want a child?

Given the fact that in cases where sex-selective abortion occurs it's usually female children that get aborted, it's misogynistic.

It isn't a huge problem in the developed world but in places like south asia the gender balance has gone seriously out of kilter in some places. From the pieces on the UK news yesterday it seems like this could be an issue in some immigrant communities and that's what the measure is aimed at.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 05:54AM

As BlaasForRafa said above, this is probably targeted at the South Asian (That's the Indian Sub-Continent in old money) community in Britain where there is a bit of a tendency for families to not value female children and so abortions of female children are strangely regular.
It's ridiculously common in South Asian countries, it's a massive topic in India right now, especially coming up to international women's day on March 8th.

spurious · 24-02-2015 06:35AM

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 06:51AM

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

In south asian culture the woman's family have to pay a dowry to the family man who marries her.
The more successful the male, the bigger the dowry, so if you want your daughter to marry a wealthy man you pay a high price for it so for some families rather than worry about being able to afford a "good" husband for their daughter or have to deal with the "shame" of her marrying someone who isn't a doctor or a dentist or an engineer, they just decide they will only have boys and then the "problem" is solved.

whatdoicare · 24-02-2015 06:57AM

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

What's really happening though is poorer areas are selling their daughters to the highest bidder. Human trafficking has become a huge problem. Then the poorer areas are left with a huge population of ageing single men and hardly no women. The ageing population is also becoming a huge problem.

volchitsa · 24-02-2015 08:27AM

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

You'd think, but apparently that isn't what's happening, instead those places where they've created a large imbalance are finding (surprise surprise) misogynistic solutions, such as richer or higher caste families "buying in" (or just taking) lower caste or outsider women who are despised by their family in law and are tolerated only as breeders, and even then, often barely that.

Obviously that then leaves the lower status families with no chance of finding wives for their young men, leading to an increase in rapes and various forms of social violence (not just against women).

It's a significant phenomenon in several northern Indian states where traditional female infanticide has been replaced by large scale female abortion and some parts of China too, iirc.

volchitsa · 24-02-2015 08:31AM

whatdoicare wrote: »

What's really happening though is poorer areas are selling their daughters to the highest bidder. Human trafficking has become a huge problem. Then the poorer areas are left with a huge population of ageing single men and hardly no women. The ageing population is also becoming a huge problem.

Sorry I hadn't seen your post when I replied. Yes that's exactly it. And the "marriages", in cultures where marriage is still about families more than about individuals, are often barely considered valid by the man's family - a case of needs must. A woman who wouldn't have been let in the door a few years ago is a daughter in law, ie skivvy. You can imagine the relationships within the family.

nokia69 · 24-02-2015 08:53AM

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

I think its feminists who are against gender selection

unless its the male fetus getting aborted

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

suicide_circus · 24-02-2015 08:58AM

nokia69 wrote: »

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

Restrictions based on gestation period are in place in most jurisdictions so the free choice thing is a bit of a myth too....if you start pulling at threads, the whole concept starts to unravel a bit.

Teyla Emmagan · 24-02-2015 09:28AM

Remember seeing a news article about rural Pakistan (I think). Anyway, whole villages full of single men in their fifties and down. By that stage they hadn't made enough money to buy a wife, and they wouldn't, so they were doomed to be single forever. The ones who did managed to get a wife didn't treat her like a precious commodity though, more like they resented her more because she'd cost them so much. These young girls married off to much older men consigned to a life of childbirth and drudgery. No increase at all in the standard of living for the woman, no increase in her value, or chance that she might now be educated due to her rarity. Instead her family sold her off at 14 for an absolute fortune and washed their hands of her. And she becomes a sex and domestic slave.

Awful situation and really made me angry. They just don't seem to be capable of valuing women in some of these societies.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 09:32AM

Dowry works the other way around.

The brides family pays the husbands family.
People don't "buy wives", and men don't marry down as marrying someone from a lower caste means both you and your children are regarded as being form the lower caste and not the one you are born into the second you marry down (works both ways).

nokia69 · 24-02-2015 09:40AM

Rummycollie wrote: »

If they are expensive to buy then by definition they are valued.

not really

not valued as people, valued the same way someone might value an expensive car

desertcircus · 24-02-2015 09:45AM

nokia69 wrote: »

I think its feminists who are against gender selection

unless its the male fetus getting aborted

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

Rabble rabble feminists rabble rabble I'm the arbiter of logic rabble rabble didn't read the thread.

The Corinthian · 24-02-2015 09:58AM

Rummycollie wrote: »

That's fantastic but why is gender the exception.

Because it's sold as a women's rights issue (you'll always hear it brought up in that context) and feminist / women's rights lobby groups are amongst the best organized and funded in the West.

Just a little Samba wrote: »

The brides family pays the husbands family.

Depends on the culture/country. Thailand, for example, it's the other way around.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 10:04AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends on the culture/country. Thailand, for example, it's the other way around.

The post I replied to mentioned Pakistan, which although an Islamic state still has a culture which still has a caste system because of it's historical and cultural ties to the rest of the Indian Sub-continent (South Asia in new money).
I was responding to a that post directly, hence mentioning the caste system in my reply.
Context is king and all that.

The Corinthian · 24-02-2015 10:19AM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Context is king and all that.

Apparently so's bias.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 10:37AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apparently so's bias.

Which bias would that be?
The living in South Asia for a good chunk of every year and experiencing South Asian culture directly bias?

It's not a bad bias to have when speaking about South Asia in fairness.

The Corinthian · 24-02-2015 10:59AM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

It's not a bad bias to have when speaking about South Asia in fairness.

Then specify that you're only discussing South Asia when discussing the subject. Otherwise the implication becomes that you're discussing dowries in general.

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 11:02AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then specify that you're only discussing South Asia when discussing the subject. Otherwise the implication becomes that you're discussing dowries in general.

The conversation I was involved in was in regards to Pakistan. Pakistan is in South Asia. It was mentioned in the conversation.

Maybe you should read whole conversations before jumping in with both feet?

FactCheck · 24-02-2015 11:03AM

As it happens, feminist opinion is far from uniform on the issue. Well, they are uniform in believing it to be a bad thing but divided as to whether or not it should be illegal.

In the UK, many feminists are opposed to outlawing it. Here here here and here are some articles outlining why.

Here is a specific explanation of why yesterday's attempt to outlaw it was opposed by feminists.

Two salient points: it is legal to abort for this reason in the UK, if the sex is discovered early enough. Women are entitled to an abortion if continuing the pregnancy would negatively impact their mental health - and for some people, the shame, stigma, and abuse they would receive for giving birth to a girl would do so.

The second point is that, while there is some very limited evidence this practice may be happening in the UK, there is even more to say that it isn't, and it is absolutely not widespread or common in any UK community. If it happens, it happens very rarely.

The Corinthian · 24-02-2015 11:20AM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Maybe you should read whole conversations before jumping in with both feet?

Maybe you should take the effort to put what you claim in the correct context rather than generalize falsely?

Just a little Samba · 24-02-2015 11:27AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you should take the effort to put what you claim in the correct context rather than generalize falsely?

I didn't generalise. I replied to a specific post which mentioned pakistan which made a claim that men "buy women" in pakistan and than marrying down was common. Both are incorrect.
If anything, Women buy hisbands in Pakistan as 95% of marriages in Pakistan involve the transfer of money from the brides family to the grooms family, which is a pretty similar rate to the rest of South Asia.
In a previous post I specifically said "in South Asian culture the woman's family pay the males family".
So maybe you need to stop paying so much time to your daytime TV and more to the context of the conversations you are so desperately trying to find fault with (or morning tv as the case would be, what's on Jeremy kyle today?).

I'm actually going to point out your major fault which completely negates your whole attempt to correct me.

You've managed to confuse Dowry with "Bride Price" or Dower. They are the contrast of each other.

Dowry specifically refers the transfer of wealth from the brides family to the grooms family upon marriage. It's what the wife is expected to "bring" with her when she joins her husbands family.

A Bride price or Dower is the reverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price#Thailand

The Corinthian · 24-02-2015 11:41AM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I didn't generalise.

Your post neglected to put your claim in context, thus it generalized.

So maybe you need to stop paying so much time to your daytime TV and more to the context of the conversations you are so desperately trying to find fault with (or morning tv as the case would be, what's on Jeremy kyle today?).

No daytime TV - I don't share your lifestyle, I'm afraid.

As for finding fault in your posts, there's no shortage. Would you like me to point out another example of how you try to mislead people?

Why is abortion by gender the exception?

Comments