Abortion II

[inked]

Female Genocide? You decide.

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

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by inked

Female Genocide? You decide.

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

yes. that's incredibly horrible - valuing children differently depending on their sex. this is a cultural and social problem, that can't be changed unless people's attitudes change. abortion, on the other hand, doesn't have much to do with it - desperate/sick people will find any way to reach their goals. without prenatal sex determination these children would just be killed/neglected when they're born, if they happen to be female.

just because people use medicines to kill people doesn't mean we should ban medicines. damnit, even though we primarily use guns to kill people they're not banned. so i'm not sure what you're trying to say by putting this in the abortion thread?

[inked]

I am saying that abortion has determinable measurable quantifiable adverse effects on females especially in utero in India. I am observing that abortion has consequences beyond the usual arguments about it. I am suggesting that one ought to consider the ramifications of abortion beyond the argument that the body is the property of the female only. There are clearly societal implications of abortion.

Is the abortion of 8+ million female embryo/fetuses a form of genocide? Or is it only "gynocide"?

And, yes, there are documented cultural exposure of female infants post delivery, notably in the Roman Empire, but elsewhere as well. Does the selective destruction of female embryos/fetuses/babies have the characteristrics of genocide?

gen·o·cide
   [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Search genocide on the Web
Origin:
1940–45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

Link To genocide
Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
Related Words for : genocide
race murder, racial extermination


World English Dictionary
genocide (ˈdʒɛnəʊˌsaɪd)

— n
the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group

[C20: from geno-, from Greek genos race + -cide ]

geno'cidal

— adj

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009


Word Origin & History
genocide
1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide .

Female is certainly a kind.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Defaulting to zero the one(s) who die in the abortion. Why? Convenience? Career? Movie profits? Bad hair day? Deviancy?

Perhaps "retroactive abortion" would shield those who deliberately and unprovoked-ly take another's life for their own entertainment, profit, advancement up the corporate ladder, or just happen to have a bit of road rage, or take up serial killing as a hobby?

Empathy has never been one of your strong points!

But I'll give you consistency!

[The Gaffer]

Interesting comment, Valandil. Agree re: Reagan bringing religious and fiscal conservatives together. As a matter of historical curiosity, what efforts did Reagan make to outlaw or restrict abortion?

[Valandil]

Reagan spoke about it regularly - and even wrote a book "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" while in office. Here in the US though, it's been in the hands of the Supreme Court since they made a ruling on the Roe v Wade case back in the early 1970's (Jan of '73, I think). Reagan's Supreme Court appointees were actually a mixed bag, as far as the abortion issue goes - same with Bush Sr (so he did not make the issue a 'litmus test' for an appointment - though the Democratic Presidents since have not come near a pro-life nominee). Bush Jr appointed more pro-life leaning justices - so he is the only one who went much beyond lip service on the issue.

That had become a big fear of mine regarding the Replublican Party... that they would lock in many of the Evangelical Christians in our country over the abortion issue, get them comfortable with the rest of their agenda, but never make progress on limiting abortion. As long as no headway was made, it was enough of an issue to rally the troops. If abortion as a form of birth control was actually ended, they might lose some of those troops.

Cynical of me, I suppose - but aren't we all these days? And like I said, Bush Jr made appointments in line with limiting abortion. But these were replacing justices who already leaned that way, so there was no effective change in the way the court would rule on such matters.

[Valandil]

Ronald Reagan on the issue:

http://old.nationalreview.com/docume...0406101030.asp

[GrayMouser]

Thought experiment- let's say the official Republican party platform is fulfilled, and the Supreme Court rules that life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder, as surely as killing an actually born child is.

(We'll skip for the moment the fact that almost everyone - certainly public officials- who holds this view, feel that the penalty for the woman who murders her child should not even be on the level of a parking ticket)

Say a woman leaves the US with her child, and returns without it- she would of course be subject to investigation- the police would certainly intervene to find out the missing child's fate.

Under the new law, presumably the same thing would happen to a woman who left the country pregnant and came back not pregnant. If she had an abortion while in Canada, say, it's a clear cut case of murder- but how would the authorities know?

It's pretty difficult to smuggle an already-born child out of the country, but extremely easy to take a pre-born one out- and not bring it back.

A young couple at the border, going on a quick trip to Canada, they seem flushed and nervous....

What's a border guard to do?- it strikes his/her trained and experienced eye as a possible case of kidnapping with intent to commit homocide.

"Step this way, ma'am, we'll just do a quick check to see if you're trying to take any undocumented persons out of the country...No, I'm sorry we no longer accept certificates of non-pregnancy- too may false ones circulating...."

[Valandil]

Well - we can always talk about loopholes, and special circumstances, and cases of rape and incest, etc, etc.

But the really difficult part for me to swallow - and many others of my own line of thinking, I believe - is that those we sincerely consider to be human are being destroyed at the rate of 1.4 to 1.5 million per year in the US alone. That's about 1000 more every day than were killed in the Sept 11 attacks of 2001. Every day.

So we can be intellectual and hypothetical about it from any different angle we want to be - but we're doing (and rationalizing) a lot of killing in this country - and in every country of the civilized world.

We basically want the right to have sex, without protection and without consequences. If it creates a life, we can very discretely, very quietly, very conveniently put it out of the way - and console our feelings by propogating a belief that it wasn't really a valid life anyway.

Your scenario - my guess is it would be doubtful that a woman leaving the country pregnant and returning without a child (in the womb or out) would be prosecuted. Nor do I advocate murder charges for mothers. I just think we need to get real about what we're doing - and start having our actions matter to us.

[brownjenkins]

It always amazes me how the right to life, or anything really, seems to completely disappear from the Republican mindset once a child is born. They fight so hard to preserve a fetus, while fighting so little to provide or educate that being once it becomes a child.

It's all about principles and so very little about practice. Not to say that that makes one a bad person, just that sometimes people focus so strongly upon what they don't like that they simply lose sight of of the big picture.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It always amazes me how the right to life, or anything really, seems to completely disappear from the Republican mindset once a child is born. They fight so hard to preserve a fetus, while fighting so little to provide or educate that being once it becomes a child.

It's all about principles and so very little about practice. Not to say that that makes one a bad person, just that sometimes people focus so strongly upon what they don't like that they simply lose sight of of the big picture.

I totally disagree brownjenkins. Conservatives who are pro-life may be on the opposite side of education issues as the teachers' unions are - but that hardly makes them opposed to what's best for children. Quite the contrary, I would say - from what I've seen of teachers' unions. I think more charter schools and greater choice as far as educational options goes is a great thing - and I don't think throwing more money at the educational system will solve its problems. In fact - the more our government throws money at social problems, the bigger those problems seem to get. Maybe that should tell us something. The extra money doesn't make our kids smarter... it just lines insider pockets a little thicker.

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I totally disagree brownjenkins. Conservatives who are pro-life may be on the opposite side of education issues as the teachers' unions are - but that hardly makes them opposed to what's best for children. Quite the contrary, I would say - from what I've seen of teachers' unions. I think more charter schools and greater choice as far as educational options goes is a great thing - and I don't think throwing more money at the educational system will solve its problems. In fact - the more our government throws money at social problems, the bigger those problems seem to get. Maybe that should tell us something. The extra money doesn't make our kids smarter... it just lines insider pockets a little thicker.

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

So are you saying cutting funding to social service systems will HELP poor children and abused children and children suffering from preventable diseases? How does that work?

[Valandil]

It would be hard to cut it all out, wouldn't it? No - I wouldn't say to do that. But I don't think we need to expand it. Nor do I agree that my opposition to expansion of social programs like this makes me 'against children'. In fact, as I have said - I think the lot of children in this country has gotten progressively worse as these programs have expanded. I think these programs put our government in the position of taking over the role of church and of family. And I think that's neither necessary nor good. It makes the US into the Great Enabler.

I like what Florida is considering though - applying drug tests to those who apply for welfare benefits. Why should those receiving taxpayer funds turn around and use those funds on drugs instead of for the support for which it is intended?

But I'm more moderate than strict conservative. I wouldn't do away with everything we've got. But I think there needs to be thoughtful re-configuring. And again - just throwing more money at it, I think, will just feed the problem and make it worse - and fail to address the real issues at hand.

= = = = =

But after that little diversion (shall we break it off into a separate thread?), back to abortion.

I'm curious... you who are on the liberal side of this issue (IR, GM, Gaffer, jenkins): Did any of you take the time to read the Reagan piece in the link? I admit it will take you some time, but just asking. I'm curious about what you think of it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

It would be hard to cut it all out, wouldn't it? No - I wouldn't say to do that. But I don't think we need to expand it. Nor do I agree that my opposition to expansion of social programs like this makes me 'against children'. In fact, as I have said - I think the lot of children in this country has gotten progressively worse as these programs have expanded. I think these programs put our government in the position of taking over the role of church and of family. And I think that's neither necessary nor good. It makes the US into the Great Enabler.

While I agree that there are aspects of some government programs that often produce directly counterproductive results or may help one problem and cause others, its also true that there are government programs that prove vital even life saving for kids in need (and yes I realize the irony of using he phrase “life saving” when the thread is about abortion…). It comes down to how do you keep the necessary and vital while carefully trimming away the excessive or counter productive. And I think this is a MUCH more difficult task than some people think.

I like what Florida is considering though - applying drug tests to those who apply for welfare benefits. Why should those receiving taxpayer funds turn around and use those funds on drugs instead of for the support for which it is intended?

I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that frankly but if we are going to do that can we do the equivalent for CEO’s of businesses that receive corporate welfare? And owners of farms who get rich on subsidies? After all its all tax payer money right? Otherwise it just comes off as those republicans picking on the poor again and favoring the rich while talking about how "everyone has to sacrifice".

But I'm more moderate than strict conservative. I wouldn't do away with everything we've got. But I think there needs to be thoughtful re-configuring. And again - just throwing more money at it, I think, will just feed the problem and make it worse - and fail to address the real issues at hand.

Again I don’t necessarily disagree with your thinking here its just how do we get there? “Just do it better!” is an easy think to say. What I have found is that often “Just do it better!” is code for cut it back as much as we can get away with (especially among your tea party or more strict then moderate brethren). And that’s why so many of us who know the importance of many of these programs worry about rhetoric like that and figure we are probably better off with the waste and the program then with a neutered and ineffective but much cheaper program that results in catastrophe for poor children. Who will be the savior that will get us to cheap AND more effective?

But after that little diversion (shall we break it off into a separate thread?)

Probably. Maybe the costs and benefits of social programs? But Ill let you do the surgery if you are so inclined.

I'm curious... you who are on the liberal side of this issue (IR, GM, Gaffer, jenkins): Did any of you take the time to read the Reagan piece in the link? I admit it will take you some time, but just asking. I'm curious about what you think of it.

Hadnt yet because I don’t think I was involved in the discussion at that point. But if you think it would be worth my while Ill certainly have a look.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

I think it's an important point.

Money DOES buy results. It's what capitalism is all about. Invest in something that you want to promote. Invest in anti-abortion and you get a lot of kids. Invest in kids and you get responsible adults.

I often hear the union vs. charter school argument, but that's just a smokescreen. Republicans generally don't want to INVEST in either. They would like to see public school money go towards charter schools instead, either because it is a place where profits can be made or because it is a place where they actually think a better education can be had. Either way, they do not actually want to put more money towards education, charter or otherwise. They actually want to put a lot less into all forms of education.

Capitalism is about rewarding the best, not about rewarding everyone. I think that there is a certain level of existence that every child should be afforded, whether their parents have a trust fund or are hooked on crack. The republican point of view is that people are better off if they earn that right. I don't agree.

There is a fundamental disconnect when the right to life is more important than the actual life that a child is destined to be born into.

[inked]

"Better 500 rupees now than 5000 later on ..."

The War Against Girls
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons

A Wall Street Journal book review of:

Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men
By Mara Hvistendahl
PublicAffairs, 314 pages, $26.99


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...165631366.html

"Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120."

"If you peer hard enough at the data, you can actually see parents demanding boys. Take South Korea. In 1989, the sex ratio for first births there was 104 boys for every 100 girls—perfectly normal. But couples who had a girl became increasingly desperate to acquire a boy. For second births, the male number climbed to 113; for third, to 185. Among fourth-born children, it was a mind-boggling 209. Even more alarming is that people maintain their cultural assumptions even in the diaspora; research shows a similar birth-preference pattern among couples of Chinese, Indian and Korean descent right here in America. "

[The Gaffer]

IIRC around one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage.

Good point re: living with the abhorrent. I recall a discussion I had shortly after 9/11 with a client who works in overseas development in the reproductive health area. He basically shrugged and pointed out that as many children die every day from preventable illness in Africa.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I wonder what the data would show about birth preference patterns in America as a whole?

[inked]

The WSJ Opinion pages on the "missing 160 million girls":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/op...me&ref=general

An interesting referral to the Right and Left American politicos and Planned Parenthood and International Population control.

[inked]

GW, here's an answer to your question:

"Americans younger than 30 are the most likely to say they'd prefer a boy, with 54 percent making that choice, and 27 percent preferring a baby girl. The gap then declines steadily with age. Education also plays a role: People with a postgraduate education break even in their preferences, while 44 percent of those with a high-school education or less prefer boys, compared with 25 percent who prefer girls."

There's more with comparisons back to 1941 - the first recorded survey to ask the question - and intervening years, as well as gender stratification and education stratification.

See here: http://www.livescience.com/14757-ame...efer-boys.html