Why only killing a female embryo is wrong?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

344471

Suspended

Posted: 12 years ago

#31

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. "

Forgot to add.

It may not be a 'hate towards woman' that results into aborting a female fetus (or situation reversed, a male fetus). Think of a hypothetical scenario. A mother may love children but still abort because she's already gotten three babies, and financial and other problems "compels" her to abort. We don't call her a baby-hater or that she is perpetuating hate towards babies. Most people realize her "reasons" for aborting, and if not support the act, at least understands it. From a pro-choice perspective, we give her the right to abort in any (most?) case as it's her body. The reasons are rarely ever discussed (unless I am mistaken). Her choice is her right.

Similarly. Think of another hypothetical scenario.

A mother may love children but still abort her male fetus because she's already gotten two boys, and financial and other problems make it impossible for her to carry more than three children. So she can't give birth to more than one child. She wants a girl as she's already gotten two baby boys. So when she gets pregnant with a male fetus that she does not want, she aborts and tries for another to see if that turns out to be a girl. So do we call her a male hater? (the answer is no, because she's already mothered two male children). So it may not always be a hatred for a gender that leads to gender-selective abortion, much as it's not always a hatred of babies/fetuses that leads to ordinary abortions.

Point is, gender-selective abortion may not always be the result of social misogyny, force and coercion from others. It can be a personal choice of the mother and no one else, like an ordinary abortion. (though I realize that's a rarity).

All my thoughts are jumbled with my sleep-deprived mind. Make sense of it if you can.

[And here I said I wanted to stay away from this topic...]

Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 12 years ago

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 12 years ago

#32

Another point - if abortions for 'other reasons beside gender-basis' is legal, but one still gets to abort her fetus due to its gender, how do we, the law, determine and prove she is aborting it on the basis of its gender and not any other reason?

Not that I personally support either but even if I take a pro-choice stance, I think prohibiting checking genders of fetuses before birth + late term abortions are better options than completely banning gender-selective abortions.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Arti

@--arti--

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#33

@return to hades

Here's another scenario of a law that could work:

Anti-sex selection laws that target a woman's husband or in-laws. Attempting to coerce a woman into having a sex-selective abortion should be a punishable crime. To properly implement this, you would need some other measures too, like centres or help lines that women can access, emergency-basis financial support for women who are thrown out of their homes for reporting their families, and economic opportunities for them to have decent jobs to support themselves and their dependants.

I would be okay with that, provided the law is accompanied by measures that make it effective and actually accesible to women. Without those measures, the law would be useless.

Edited by --arti-- - 12 years ago

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#34

Indian MTP Act Clause 3 of grounds under which termination of pregnancy is allowed is unique as failure of contraception as a ground would be hard to contest and in effect lets the woman choose to abort at her will. Considering the population explosion problem in India that makes sense. However gender based discrimination while choosing to abort are not permitted on account of the skewed male-female ratio as already mentioned by several members. This is sought to be achieved by placing restrictions on the service providers.

The PC and PNDT Act 1996 (amendment 2012) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) was introduced with following objectives:

Prohibition of sex selection, before and after conception Regulation of prenatal diagnostic techniques (e.g. amniocentesis and ultrasonography) for detection of genetic abnormalities, by restricting their use to registered institutions.

The Act allows the use of these techniques only at a registered place for a specified purpose and by a qualified person, registered for this purpose.

Prevention of misuse of such techniques for sex selection before or after conception.

Prohibition of advertisement of any technique for sex selection as well as sex determination.

Prohibition on sale of ultrasound machines to persons not registered under this Act Punishment for violation of provisions of the Act and their confiscation

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

#35

@Arti - I agree with the points over the application of the law. India has had a problem with implementation of laws or setting the right framework. There have been many cases of dowry law abuse as well. There have been instances of women aborting female fetuses against the wishes of the rest of the family as well. I don't think the laws are unnecessary, wrong or bad in general – but I do agree that the laws need additional services, structures and better policies to make them fair and effective. It makes a society worse for women when protective laws get perceived and implemented as "anti-men".

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: LovesLowCulture
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.

Based on your statement above, would you agree or disagree with the statement below?

"When you live in a society where a child is killed by its own family just because its not what they desired, there is a grave problem."

Reason I ask is to understand where the outrage lies: the act of "killing" or the act of "discriminating + killing". If the former is not "killing" then the latter too only boils down to "discriminating" and not "discriminating + killing" as you and your ilk seem to word it.

If it is discriminating, then who are we discriminating? The unborn? If the unborn is a life unto himself/herself, then whatever happened to his/her choice of living in the first place?

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#37

Originally posted by: --arti--
@return to hades

Here's another scenario of a law that could work:

Anti-sex selection laws that target a woman's husband or in-laws. Attempting to coerce a woman into having a sex-selective abortion should be a punishable crime. To properly implement this, you would need some other measures too, like centres or help lines that women can access, emergency-basis financial support for women who are thrown out of their homes for reporting their families, and economic opportunities for them to have decent jobs to support themselves and their dependants.

I would be okay with that, provided the law is accompanied by measures that make it effective and actually accesible to women. Without those measures, the law would be useless.

An initiative to make the family members who coerce the woman to undergo gender based abortion has been taken. A jail sentence between 6 months to 7 years has been suggested . The jail term will depend on whether the family was just involved in sex selection or both selection and subsequent abortion of the fetus.

The proposal has been sent to the Law ministry for detailed drafting but campaigners have already voiced their fears that the proposals will leave women even more vulnerable and doubly victimized. Concern was expressed by a member of the Council for Social Research as pregnant women already suffer intense harassment, and sometimes violent attacks, from the husbands and in-laws they live with, to have ultra-sound sex determination tests and abortions. Under the new proposals for collective punishment they will also be blamed by their husbands' families if they are prosecuted. Criminalisation of family members needs to be looked ito with great care as it may end up in further victimization of the pregnant woman.

Quote

Arti

@--arti--

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: _Angie_

An initiative to make the family members who coerce the woman to undergo gender based abortion has been taken. A jail sentence between 6 months to 7 years has been suggested . The jail term will depend on whether the family was just involved in sex selection or both selection and subsequent abortion of the fetus.

The proposal has been sent to the Law ministry for detailed drafting but campaigners have already voiced their fears that the proposals will leave women even more vulnerable and doubly victimized. Concern was expressed by a member of the Council for Social Research as pregnant women already suffer intense harassment, and sometimes violent attacks, from the husbands and in-laws they live with, to have ultra-sound sex determination tests and abortions. Under the new proposals for collective punishment they will also be blamed by their husbands' families if they are prosecuted. Criminalisation of family members needs to be looked ito with great care as it may end up in further victimization of the pregnant woman.

I didn't know about that. But I agree that without additional measures such as the examples I've given it could make women more vulnerable.

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#39

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Based on your statement above, would you agree or disagree with the statement below?

"When you live in a society where a child is killed by its own family just because its not what they desired, there is a grave problem."

Reason I ask is to understand where the outrage lies: the act of "killing" or the act of "discriminating + killing". If the former is not "killing" then the latter too only boils down to "discriminating" and not "discriminating + killing" as you and your ilk seem to word it.

If it is discriminating, then who are we discriminating? The unborn? If the unborn is a life unto himself/herself, then whatever happened to his/her choice of living in the first place?

The way I see it the state made laws to correct the imbalance that was affecting it.

First came the liberal provisions of the Indian MTP Act 1971 with its ammendments targetted to control population explosion.

People misused the provisions resulting in a skewed gender ratio leading to accompanying social problems.

So next came the PNDT ACT 1996 later ammended to PC & PNDT 2012 with the objective of restoring balance.

Edited by _Angie_ - 12 years ago

Quote

LovesLowCulture

@LovesLowCulture

Navigator

Posted: 12 years ago

#40

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Based on your statement above, would you agree or disagree with the statement below?

"When you live in a society where a child is killed by its own family just because its not what they desired, there is a grave problem."

Reason I ask is to understand where the outrage lies: the act of "killing" or the act of "discriminating + killing". If the former is not "killing" then the latter too only boils down to "discriminating" and not "discriminating + killing" as you and your ilk seem to word it.

If it is discriminating, then who are we discriminating? The unborn? If the unborn is a life unto himself/herself, then whatever happened to his/her choice of living in the first place?

Obviously, agree. Why would someone anyone agree with the killing of children, regardless of gender.

For me, the "outrage" lies in the act of discrimination. I condemn any act preceded by gender discrimination and it just happens that sex-selective abortion falls into that criteria. I can't abandon the beliefs that make me support women's rights when sex-selective abortion is the issue at hand.

Since we're discriminating based on gender, in the Indian case it would be against females. I don't think the fetus has a "choice" to live (that's a whole other debate I'd rather not get into right now as it distracts from the topic at hand and I have limited time).

Edited by LovesLowCulture - 12 years ago

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

Wrong

Why only killing a female embryo is wrong? - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics