PDA

View Full Version : Female Infanticide



pacharan
24th February 2012, 08:16
Surprised we haven't covered the Telegraph's recent expose yet.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9102232/Abortion-investigation-Doctor-admits-procedure-tantamount-to-female-infanticide.html)

This is scandalous.

Reading between the lines, because they don't explicitly say it, this seems to be a phenomenon that is more prevalent with certain ethnic groups.

Have to ask the question though, why is this more morally repugnant than the case of a woman who doesn't want the child just because, say, it's going to get in the way of her career?

One is legal and the other isn't. I can see a practical reason for the former being illegal as the male- female ratio in our population could become skewed, but the moral one?

For the record, I understand the case for legal abortion - to put an end to backstreet abortionists being the main one but I'm afraid it's an issue I really struggle with and certainly can't tow the pc line when discussing it.

yetanotherbob
24th February 2012, 08:25
This is scandalous.


It was just a matter of time before we heard about this here.
This problem has reached passed the tipping point into a crisis in 'certain areas' in 'certain countries', particularly among 'certain ethnic groups' due to "certain ethnic groups' " obsession with male children.

The governments there have banned sex determination but probably with limited success due to the likely prevalence of other unregulated/unscrupulous options.

The Hindu : News / National : Should ban on sex determination tests be relaxed? (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2518757.ece)

ChimpMaster
24th February 2012, 08:37
And yet there is technology out there to be able to select the gender of your baby - PGD. This is common in the US but banned here, when it could in fact be used to reduce the number of gender related abortions taking place.

Of course there would have to be rules, such as you can't use PGD unless you already have one of the other sex. But at least it would give some comfort to parents seeking a mixed family and would reduce the number of unwanted abortions.

DimPrawn
24th February 2012, 08:58
It's the Bobs 'innit?

mudskipper
24th February 2012, 09:01
Let's face it - the problem isn't parents wanting mixed families. Most parents who would like their third child to be a different gender to the other two aren't going to abort that child because it isn't.

It's parents wanting to ensure their child is male.

Ignoring the moral/legal issues of abortion vs selection, the issue here (and why it's a different issue to the mother choosing to abort a foetus because of lifestyle reasons) is the inherent belief in some cultures that a female child is less valuable than a male child.

bobspud
24th February 2012, 09:24
This is scandalous.


As nasty as this might sound. I beg to differ. Further more, I think that its a shame that we can't seed this thought in the minds of all the kid popping 3rd generation dole monkeys out there.

If we seriously cannot stop certain people popping more than 2 kids out because
a) its cultural to have massive families
b) they don't like condoms
c) have nothing better to do, and it earns them more free money

Then the best we can hope for is that it becomes harder for them to find breeding partners, so that their populations regain some form of normal level.

Unless anyone fancies mass neutering???

yetanotherbob
24th February 2012, 09:41
As nasty as this might sound. I beg to differ.
Differ with the opinion that it's scandalous to abort a foetus based on its sex?

The other issues you mentioned are all valid but different from the specific issue of 'female infanticide/abortion only due to the child's gender' .


It's the Bobs 'innit?
And the Chinese.

ChimpMaster
24th February 2012, 09:46
As nasty as this might sound. I beg to differ. Further more, I think that its a shame that we can't seed this thought in the minds of all the kid popping 3rd generation dole monkeys out there.

If we seriously cannot stop certain people popping more than 2 kids out because
a) its cultural to have massive families
b) they don't like condoms
c) have nothing better to do, and it earns them more free money

Then the best we can hope for is that it becomes harder for them to find breeding partners, so that their populations regain some form of normal level.

Unless anyone fancies mass neutering???

What, the Irish?

NotAllThere
24th February 2012, 10:04
Sex-selective abortion is an inevitable consequence of easy access to abortion

Seems pretty obvious to me. How can it be outlawed, when all the woman has to do is lie about the reason? It's so obviously unstoppable and inevitable, that it's practically a non-story.

Society has to decide whether the negative impact of sex-selective abortion outweighs the positive impact of abortion on demand - for almost any other reason.

petergriffin
24th February 2012, 10:19
What, the Irish?
That's racist! You should have said: non-protestant.

mudskipper
24th February 2012, 10:29
Sex-selective abortion is an inevitable consequence of easy access to abortion

Seems pretty obvious to me. How can it be outlawed, when all the woman has to do is lie about the reason? It's so obviously unstoppable and inevitable, that it's practically a non-story.

Society has to decide whether the negative impact of sex-selective abortion outweighs the positive impact of abortion on demand - for almost any other reason.

You could stop telling mothers the gender of their unborn child.

d000hg
24th February 2012, 10:44
You could stop telling mothers the gender of their unborn child.That would be a very bizarre law. A whole industry in back-street sonography would appear overnight.

mudskipper
24th February 2012, 11:30
That would be a very bizarre law. A whole industry in back-street sonography would appear overnight.

Certainly was common practice in my area when I had my kids. They wouldn't tell you the gender for that reason. Dunno if it's still the same.

Legislating isn't really the answer. Changing attitudes to female children is. But that ain't going to happen.

norrahe
24th February 2012, 12:07
What, the Irish?

Historically it was the done catholic thing to have large families.

These days people are getting married later and families are smaller.

As for gender specific abortions, certain hospitals in the UK will not tell parents the sex of their child especially if they are located in area where there is a certain cultural bias in the poulation.

d000hg
24th February 2012, 13:56
Gosh.

A Plan B emerges.:smokinI suppose I'd rather have back-street sonography than back-street abortions.


I'm not sure it's the "done thing" for Catholics to have large families, rather than simply that Roman Catholics don't approve of birth control and nature takes its course.

NotAllThere
24th February 2012, 13:56
You could stop telling mothers the gender of their unborn child.

Good point, well presented. <pc mode on>Except you can't tell the gender by ultrasound, because they might be transexual or anywhere on the gender spectrum, and that doesn't show up.<pc mode off> :ohwell

Strange attitude though. I'd've though most men would prefer a surplus of women. Maybe that particular sector of society are all gay? Is that it?

d000hg
24th February 2012, 13:58
Gender spectrum :laugh

Like only having 66% of a willy... is that what happened to <insert CUK username>?

bobspud
24th February 2012, 16:26
Differ with the opinion that it's scandalous to abort a foetus based on its sex?


Yes.

If the couple having the baby want a boy then it should be down to them. My white non catholic friends now have 4 boys because the wife wanted a girl... How nice for the kids to know that they were not good enough for mum. Cheerful subject.

d000hg
24th February 2012, 16:52
Yes.

If the couple having the baby want a boy then it should be down to them. My white non catholic friends now have 4 boys because the wife wanted a girl... How nice for the kids to know that they were not good enough for mum. Cheerful subject.With an attitude like that, she's not fit to be a parent in the first place. Having kids for your own gratification has to be one of the most selfish things you can do.

wim121
24th February 2012, 18:21
Surprised we haven't covered the Telegraph's recent expose yet.

This is scandalous.
I disagree. I see nothing wrong here. Although why abort a female? If anything, abort a male if they want to save suffering.


Have to ask the question though, why is this more morally repugnant than the case of a woman who doesn't want the child just because, say, it's going to get in the way of her career?
Goodness knows. I find it odd people have a problem with abortion.

Every woman that goes through with an abortion deserves a hug, cake and a thumbs up from everyone.


One is legal and the other isn't. I can see a practical reason for the former being illegal as the male- female ratio in our population could become skewed, but the moral one?
That would take a while since females outweigh males making up 52% of the worlds population.

wim121
24th February 2012, 18:26
With an attitude like that, she's not fit to be a parent in the first place. Having kids for your own gratification has to be one of the most selfish things you can do.

Completely agree with you here.

In my opinion, most parents are unfit. One doesnt have a child for your own gratification as a play thing.

I would like to see child licensing enforced, but that will never happen unfortunately. A shame really as it would save a lot of lives, prevent a lot of abuse physically, sexually and emotionally.

xoggoth
24th February 2012, 19:50
If a couple are not getting the sex of child they want then the wife needs to bonk somebody else, basic biology that.

PS Not sure I understand previous comments about own gratification. Is it better to have the little sods by mistake?

mudskipper
24th February 2012, 20:09
WHS. We either have kids because we want them, or because we got a bit careless with the contraception.

pacharan
24th February 2012, 22:54
I disagree. I see nothing wrong here. Although why abort a female? If anything, abort a male if they want to save suffering.


Goodness knows. I find it odd people have a problem with abortion.

Every woman that goes through with an abortion deserves a hug, cake and a thumbs up from everyone.


That would take a while since females outweigh males making up 52% of the worlds population.

Oh I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this one then Wim.

It's just one of those emotive subjects where there's no middle ground.

beaker
24th February 2012, 23:07
WHS. We either have kids because we want them, or because we got a bit careless with the contraception.

Thought so! I can't think of another reason why you'd have them - but once they come you realise they're the best thing that ever happened and give you a reason to live. Apparently. I don't have kids...

wim121
25th February 2012, 18:20
PS Not sure I understand previous comments about own gratification. Is it better to have the little sods by mistake?

WHS. We either have kids because we want them, or because we got a bit careless with the contraception.

Thought so! I can't think of another reason why you'd have them.

I understood d000hg perfectly and fail to see how others cant?

Definition - "Having kids for your own gratification":
Many people, decide to have a child for what some may debate as the wrong reasons. They want a child to play with like a doll. They often have a very strong desire to have a child and get pregnant by any means possible including using deception, because they want a child.

They fail to consider or care about having both parents around, caring for, or supporting the child. Many I see, continue to smoke and drink during the pregnancy, then just have the baby as a play doll and when the child starts to grow up, suddenly it isnt so cute anymore, so gets ignored and neglected, with some people even leaving young children at home while they use their welfare payments to go out and get drunk, drop their knickers and convince a man she's on the pill just so she can have another baby as play accessory. As a society, we pay them obscene amounts of money for this lifestyle and at the same time, the CSA hound the father for all they can squeeze out of him, even though he wont ever be able to see the child or had a choice or voice in any of this. They fail to recognise they are bringing another soul in to the world and their obligations.

This varies in degrees. Not everyone is akin to Britney Spears attitudes towards children. The above example is one end of the scale at the extreme end. At the other end, the least extreme, we have some friends who had a child, both mother and father are together, the mother is an excellent carer and one of the best mothers I know and they arent a scummy welfare family at all. They had a child for the right reasons, such as wanting a family, but failed to address practicalities. They had set objectives on a timescale that nothing could change; 'get engaged, married and pregnant on such and such a date'. Before they got pregnant, she had health issues and they had severe money issues for some time, which kept getting worse with only one of them working. I have no fears that the child will ever be neglected at all, however they cant afford to eat themselves at times and continue to spiral in to further debt. Personally, under such circumstances I would never have a child without addressing the health problems first instead of compounding them and then at least trying to address overspending and debt levels, so they could afford all the future expenses.

That is why at least two of us so far on CUK, think such people are unfit to be parents as they just want a play doll, a.k.a. babbby or need to consider the implications of having a child, such as affording one before getting knocked up.




The right reasons behind having a child are debatable, but I would say you would have a child as you would want the aspects of family life and want to be able to impart some of yourself and take a baby and nurture it to a well rounded adult. Reason is not justification enough. One could have the most noble desires for starting a family, but this needs to be backed up by justified practicalities.

SueEllen
25th February 2012, 18:34
wim121 some people have long term health issues that will never be resolved. Does that mean they should never have children?

A few of the people I knew who were in that category survived until they children were well into adulthood.

wim121
25th February 2012, 18:35
Oh I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this one then Wim.

It's just one of those emotive subjects where there's no middle ground.

Oh well, we cant agree on them all can we?

Maybe this will also put to bed the rumours that we are clones of each other :tongue



So are you a pro lifer then? Can I just ask, with no hostility/negativity, as some find this an emotive subject like you said, but out of interest;
- Is that purely a moral choice or influenced by religion?
- Is it all abortions you find objectionable or just pointless abortions for the reasons in the article? If it is the latter, I would be inclined to agree. While I would prefer someone who couldnt parent properly for whatever reason to be allowed to have an abortion, I dislike the extreme end of the scale like in this article, where people use abortion for the flimsiest of reasons or as contraception for instance. While I dislike it however, I would still prefer them to be allowed to abort then to have a child they dont really want and then for the child to be neglected.
- If you have the opinion of no abortions at all, then is it really better to have a neglected or abused child rather than terminating it before it suffers endlessly?

wim121
25th February 2012, 19:01
wim121 some people have long term health issues that will never be resolved. Does that mean they should never have children?

A few of the people I knew who were in that category survived until they children were well into adulthood.
Clarification request: Do you mean either:
1: Someone unwell that could have a limited lifespan?
2: Or someone that has health issues that would cause a danger to the mother or child during pregnancy?

In regards to #1, personally, if I or the OH had a untreatable condition where we knew we had a strong possibility of dropping dead, while the child was still a minor, before conception, I wouldnt want to have a child.

It was bad enough when my father just left when I was a kid, it would be emotional torture and unfair for a child that isnt as capable as an adult in dealing with death and still hasnt been developed properly. For example, having your dad to teach his son how to shave, or a mother sitting down with a daughter when they have their first period is all the things you miss when one parent leaves your world. I couldnt knowingly inflict that pain on someone and take a dim view of others that could be so heartless, wreck-less, thoughtless and cruel.

In this circumstance, one could do short term fostering instead.




In regards to #2, the OH's sister in law, has medical problems surrounding pregnancies. She has had several miscarriages already and was told after the birth of her first child by the doctors that she had problems they couldnt resolve and if she fell pregnant again; at the very least, she would have a strong likelihood of miscarrying, but the issues are so severe if she risked it, she had a good chance of dying herself.

Yet they ploughed ahead and were extremely lucky in having a couple more miscarriages and then had another baby. She had to be rushed in to hospital in the last pregnancy and was close to deaths door, very luckily, she survived.

They knowingly went ahead with these risks which especially disgusted the OH. How can a parent risk leaving a little boy who hadnt even started school yet, without his mummy? We find that extremely warped and sick, that someone could be so greedy and do something so wreckless especially as they were already a parent.

We also agree and feel sorry for the current boy. Once he wasnt a baby or toddler any more, he wasnt deemed cute like a new baby and all their focus switched to having another baby. The child is starting to have behavioural issues so we have heard, which when observed, is no surprise as his parents dont seem to care as much as we would hope parents would, so such behaviour is probably an outreach just for attention which is very sad.

In this circumstance, long term fostering/adoption is a far better option.




I dont know where the people you know fit in to this, unfortunately, we all know evil people.

d000hg
25th February 2012, 19:04
If a couple are not getting the sex of child they want then the wife needs to bonk somebody else, basic biology that.

PS Not sure I understand previous comments about own gratification. Is it better to have the little sods by mistake?I mean you should have children because you want to bring a child into the world and love them - of course there is still some self-interest in that - rather than to live through them or use them as some kind of status symbol or to provide for you when you get old.