Why only killing a female embryo is wrong? - Page 3

Originally posted by: -IHATEYOU-

I absolutely loathe the idea of killing an embryo because it is a female.
But sometimes the in laws and husbands demand for a male child.
And the women have no options left rather than killing her female child in the hope hat next time she will have a male child.
But when a woman gets pregnant before marriage and she aborts the child due to the fear of being disowned by society we say that it is her right.She can do whatever she wants with her body.
In the former situation the cause of abortion is also the fear of disowned by society as many husbands threaten to live their wife if they give birth to any more female child.But in the former case the society will be termed as sexist.
But what about the latter case?
It may not be sexist but it is also a discrimination.The embryo in this case is a victim of discrimination.It is killed just because it was not conceived after a marriage.

Originally posted by: .Baazigar.

A baby have life form after 12 weeks and can survive outside womb of a mother after 20 weeks. Forget about female foeticide in this killing embryo vs. female embryo. One is simply murdering a child when one do abortion after 20 weeks just by knowing child is a female one. It is just like murdering a child just by saying parents have right to murder a fully grown child , as she is their property so they can treat as per their wish and want.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

Originally posted by: Prometeus

''One man's terrorist is one man's freedom fighter''...Some situation Abortion gives me same kind of feelings...but Law in india says 'it is legal for a woman to get an abortion under such circumstances by a qualified doctor in a hospital licensed for the purpose'...bt it certainly a crime especially if the motives like sex determination...bt one can abort different situation like critical medical conditions or teens or older womens or rape victims or unavoidable situations people can do these things otherwise I believe murdering a life is morally wrong... be it a fetus, a real life human being...

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

If a woman doesn't want a male/female child and would rather have a child of the opposite gender than the one she is pregnant with, and this act doesn't become a nation-wide trend, can the woman go ahead and have the abortion? If the problem with gender-based abortion has to do with ruining the male-female ratio + the deep-rooted prejudice against one gender in some countries (ala India etc) then a very few gender selective abortion won't have any significant harm in the society.

To me -- unless the society is coercing you into aborting one-gender fetus while keeping the other or it is becoming a nation-wide problem -- abortion is abortion, and hence the right to abortion should be present (or not present) for all cases. If abortions are legal, then for personal matters like this (again unless it becomes a nation-wide trend), abortions should be legal for all cases the woman deem fit. Yes I took a pro-choice approach.

A skewed sex-ratio is symptomatic of and an outcome of an unequal society. But sex-selective abortion is a symptom, outcome and the cause of a misogynistic society. Once you look at the latter from this perspective, it's easier to understand why one is in favor of banning it.

Let's keep the sex ratio aside for a second and talk about the deep-rooted prejudice, which I prefer to call hate. When you live in a society where a female child is killed by its own family just because its sex organs don't look like what they desired, there is a grave problem. Society does coerce one into aborting female fetuses and it is a nationwide problem.

Even if just one person gets a sex-selective abortion in the country, simply by being legal (or indirectly condoned if the state has no laws against it) it further perpetuates this hate toward women. The hall mark of any progressive society is actions against discrimination and toward equality. Condemning and/or banning sex-selective abortion, then, emerges as the rational thing to do.

@arti - If I understand correctly you say that abortion is a woman's choice over her body. And if she chooses to abort a female fetus that is her choice. We should not make exceptions to choice over a gender bias. Is this the gist of your view?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

@arti - If I understand correctly you say that abortion is a woman's choice over her body. And if she chooses to abort a female fetus that is her choice. We should not make exceptions to choice over a gender bias. Is this the gist of your view?

Originally posted by: LovesLowCulture

A skewed sex-ratio is symptomatic of and an outcome of an unequal society. But sex-selective abortion is a symptom, outcome and the cause of a misogynistic society. Once you look at the latter from this perspective, it's easier to understand why one is in favor of banning it.

Let's keep the sex ratio aside for a second and talk about the deep-rooted prejudice, which I prefer to call hate. When you live in a society where a female child is killed by its own family just because its sex organs don't look like what they desired, there is a grave problem. Society does coerce one into aborting female fetuses and it is a nationwide problem.

Even if just one person gets a sex-selective abortion in the country, simply by being legal (or indirectly condoned if the state has no laws against it) it further perpetuates this hate toward women. The hall mark of any progressive society is actions against discrimination and toward equality. Condemning and/or banning sex-selective abortion, then, emerges as the rational thing to do.

Originally posted by: --arti--

I think the only way sex-selection abortions can be stopped is by tackling son preference through through social and political measures -- including policy, education programs, opportunities for women, etc. I don't think that sex-selective abortions can simply be banned as a solution, because it is impossible to police why someone chooses an abortion. I also think that banning abortions in some cases leads to slippery slope arguments that delegitimize a woman's ability to make choices.

Having said that, I have already stated that choice is a grey area issue, because a lot of women don't have many choices in general. Let's consider a scenario where a poor woman in a rural area makes a choice to abort (for whatever reason), because of the various (violent) repercussions in her life from having the child, there should be ways to support her, and then support other women like her in having access to gender justice and equality. So if there are meaningful ways she can access intervention to prevent violence to herself in her home, from her husband or in-laws, for example, then you could possibly justify banning sex-selective abortion. But in the absence of those kinds of options, and in the absence of a concerted effort to get rid of son preference, I don't think a woman should be denied that "choice," no matter how qualified that choice is.

Ultimately I believe that gender violence is at the centre of this issue, and not being able to choose what to do with your body/the fetus is a form of gender violence similar to that sex-selective abortion. I think trying to prevent one form by encouraging another is contradictory.

This maybe a bad analogy, but the way I view the current laws against sex selective abortion – they are like a Matthew Shepard law. Just like there is an existing framework to deal with violence, there is an existing framework to address abortion. A special law to address a special situation will only complicate matters and introduce new caveats. The ideal solution is education and societal shift. However, the problem is that it is very difficult to separate society and law as they are very interdependent. Sometimes a legal precedent is required to create a societal shift. Without Roe v. Wade the discussion about choice would be nonexistent in the United States. Without the Matthew Shepard law society wouldn't understand the issue with hate crime. Without the current laws against sex selective abortion society would acknowledge the gender bias and misogyny in society. While education and societal shifts are imperative, we do need laws that highlight and force the issue.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

This maybe a bad analogy, but the way I view the current laws against sex selective abortion ' they are like a Matthew Shepard law. Just like there is an existing framework to deal with violence, there is an existing framework to address abortion. A special law to address a special situation will only complicate matters and introduce new caveats. The ideal solution is education and societal shift. However, the problem is that it is very difficult to separate society and law as they are very interdependent. Sometimes a legal precedent is required to create a societal shift. Without Roe v. Wade the discussion about choice would be nonexistent in the United States. Without the Matthew Shepard law society wouldn't understand the issue with hate crime. Without the current laws against sex selective abortion society would acknowledge the gender bias and misogyny in society. While education and societal shifts are imperative, we do need laws that highlight and force the issue.