No More Bin Laden

[kandrathe]

From what I recall from seeing this paper presented by Gupta, the phenomenon of gender biased abortion and infanticide is almost entirely a northwestern Indian phenomenon. Not that this disturbs the conclusion, but as always, India is an enormous place, and what is true for one part may be entirely different elsewhere. This does not appear to be a wealth phenomenon or a religious issue, but some kind of north/south divide.

-Jester

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

[Alram]

From what I recall from seeing this paper presented by Gupta, the phenomenon of gender biased abortion and infanticide is almost entirely a northwestern Indian phenomenon. Not that this disturbs the conclusion, but as always, India is an enormous place, and what is true for one part may be entirely different elsewhere. This does not appear to be a wealth phenomenon or a religious issue, but some kind of north/south divide.

-Jester

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

Moreover, girls are a drain on the family resources because of the necessity to provide a dowry.

There is a tragic irony to the situation. Abortion, the woman's right to choose, results in the aborting of female children.

[DeeBye]

There is a tragic irony to the situation. Abortion, the woman's right to choose, results in the aborting of female children.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet it isn't the woman choosing to abort.

[eppie]

There is a tragic irony to the situation. Abortion, the woman's right to choose, results in the aborting of female children.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet it isn't the woman choosing to abort.

Indeed. It is also an 'interesting' fact that India is seen as an ally and doesn't have the bad name countries like China, Pakistan etc. etc. have.
While at the same time they have this well known abortion thing going on and their society is still has this cast system. I mean, our western media rant on about many other nation for far less. I guess we are all just very happy that India is a 'democracy' and that we can have a lot of cheap labour done there.

[kandrathe]

I mean, our western media rant on about many other nation for far less.

Here is where we impose our values and morality on others, extending it to nations, and justifying even the abomination of war. I want true equality for all people world-wide, but I'm not willing to drive them there at the point of a bayonet.

Have you read "Half the Sky"?

http://www.halftheskymovement.org/

"Abortion politics have distracted all sides from what is really essential: a major aid campaign to improve midwifery, prenatal care and emergency obstetric services in poor countries." -- Nicholaus D. Kristoff (the author of the above).

I think you could just remove the word abortion from the above quote. Politics, which I've come to believe, is just a way for your ideological opponents on an issue to lie to you with a straight face. In this case, one side is pressing for the use of a fairly risky medical procedure in substandard third world hospitals on principle, and the other opposes any funding, but chooses the foil of abortion to rally their side.

Here is why I cannot stand with either the Republicans, or Democrats on most issues. I want to cut through the BS, and where possible (and within the law) allow people choose for themselves how they will live their lives. I am unwilling to tell men, or women from other countries how to live, although I still have an opinion on what is right and wrong. I guess it's noble and grand to opine about international issues, while we ignore the issues in our own localities, and nations, including slavery, human trafficking, forced prostitution, addiction, and abuse.

To me, abortion is more about the rights of that citizen while still within the womb. Children are entrusted to their parents for protection and guidance, but sometimes children (in their post womb, pre-voting phase) are abused or killed and we hold those responsible accountable. A reasonable question for any government is at what point a child is protected by law, because it seems very clear to me that it is earlier than when they get issued an SSN and birth certificate. Hence, why increasingly, many States have fetal harm laws, to protect children against the abuses of even the self-abusive mother. Isn't it nonsensical for it to be illegal to damage the baby in the womb with drugs and alcohol, but then legal to have it killed? My perception of the pro-abortion position is that they agree that women don't have the right to give birth to a damaged baby which would be a burden on the society, but are steadfast in their defense of choosing to have it killed to prevent the perceived personal or societal burden of an unwanted baby. The emphasis being that unwanted children are a burden on the mother and society at large, rather than any focus on the rights of what might be a human being. For me, it is for the courts to decide who is, and who is not considered a person worthy of rights. Although, the courts and "the majority" has had a fairly sad history of protecting human rights, such as for women, racial minorities, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups.

Bringing this back to OBL once again, the conflict, as I see it, is that a good portion of the population of the world has a vastly different world view and set of values regarding the rights of women (and all people). But, we believe our world views on of the rights and equality of all people are correct, and I hope we all agree to oppose attempts to coerce our systems into being less equal, or less free.

[Jester]

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

But why, then, does this appear to be well-supported in the statistics for Punjab (relatively rich, Northern) and Uttar Pradesh (dirt poor, Northern) but not for Kerala (rich, Southern) or Bihar (poor, Eastern)?

It's not just social security, since that's pretty wretched all over India. It could certainly be culture, but then, what part of culture? The culture of where? Why do we not observe it everywhere in India?

This is one of those topics with a lot of enitrely plausible explanations, but I'm not sure they all survive contact with the empirical enemy.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

But why, then, does this appear to be well-supported in the statistics for Punjab (relatively rich, Northern) and Uttar Pradesh (dirt poor, Northern) but not for Kerala (rich, Southern) or Bihar (poor, Eastern)?

It's not just social security, since that's pretty wretched all over India. It could certainly be culture, but then, what part of culture? The culture of where? Why do we not observe it everywhere in India?

This is one of those topics with a lot of enitrely plausible explanations, but I'm not sure they all survive contact with the empirical enemy.

-Jester

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/a...adis2.html

Perhaps availability? The largest concentrations seem to be Delhi, and up near Shimla. It seems that it is also more dangerous resulting in higher maternal deaths.

http://ic-technews.com/health/1244-rate-...he-capital

[Lissa]

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

But why, then, does this appear to be well-supported in the statistics for Punjab (relatively rich, Northern) and Uttar Pradesh (dirt poor, Northern) but not for Kerala (rich, Southern) or Bihar (poor, Eastern)?

It's not just social security, since that's pretty wretched all over India. It could certainly be culture, but then, what part of culture? The culture of where? Why do we not observe it everywhere in India?

This is one of those topics with a lot of enitrely plausible explanations, but I'm not sure they all survive contact with the empirical enemy.

-Jester

Part of that has to do with how much influence the British had. Northern India did not have as much British influence as the south as the south had the trade ports and the like and ease of bringing in forces where as the north did not. Also, the Punjab area has a lot of Sikh's (as a good friend that is a Sikh puts it, not all Punjabis are Sikhs, but alll Sikhs are Punjabi) which are reknown for their militancy which would have made things more difficult for the British to control. As such, Northern India is still see a lot of the caste system and a lot of hold over to the old ways where as the south was more Britishized (or maybe Angelicanized might fit better as most of the Indian Christians are in the south).

[DeeBye]

To me, abortion is more about the rights of that citizen while still within the womb.

This is the part wherein the viewpoints collide and cannot be settled upon. No amount of discussion can sway either side. The "pro-choice" side has the Law (and some science) on its side, but the "pro-life" side has God (and some science) on its side. I see no meaningful way to debate it.

[LavCat]

As such, Northern India is still see a lot of the caste system and a lot of hold over to the old ways where as the south was more Britishized (or maybe Angelicanized might fit better as most of the Indian Christians are in the south).

Having spoken with only one Indian Christian on the subject of religion, I believe most Indian Christians trace their Christianity to the ministry of Saint Thomas (otherwise known as Doubting Thomas). I have read that in 883 King Alfred sent a bishop to make offering at the shrine of Saint Thomas in Mylapore, which is southeast, so that would count as Britishized, but not, I would think, as Angelicanized.

Later in the 1600's the Portuguese had influence, but I don't think (from my very limited knowledge) that the more recent British occupation had much effect on Christianity in India. I would love to learn more.


Edit:

Thanks to google I learn that the Portuguese arrived in the 1500's, so I should have said 1500's-1600's.

[kandrathe]

To me, abortion is more about the rights of that citizen while still within the womb.

This is the part wherein the viewpoints collide and cannot be settled upon. No amount of discussion can sway either side. The "pro-choice" side has the Law (and some science) on its side, but the "pro-life" side has God (and some science) on its side. I see no meaningful way to debate it.

God refuses to weigh in on the debate in a decisive manner. My arguments stem from law alone. It's hard enough to attempt a rational discussion of one topic without clouding it up with various theologies as well. We could get bogged down arguing Aristotelian to modern ensoulment theory, Talmudic law (see also: Philo of Alexandria), or just exactly what Exodus 21:22 implies. There is a minority of so-called evangelical, very vitriolic and vocal, anti-abortion activists who are even willing to kill to make their point. Yeah, I know, not very Christian, and very crazy. And, there is a staunch group of "liberals", who see it only as a woman's rights issue, where any loss of ground would be akin to banishing women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

But, even in their chosen self-descriptions there is disconnectedness... Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life... The opposites to those terms are anti-choice, and anti-life. "They want to take away a woman's right to choose!" -- Well, yes, the right to choose to kill another person, perhaps. And, on the other side, it's not as if anyone is really against life, or a proponent of killing babies. The issue is one of vagueness in defining when a human begins to exist, and by what criteria we differentiate between a lump of dividing cells and a human being.

But, to boil down the two sides in a less politically correct manner, they are "keep the fetus to term", and "kill the fetus". Then we can simply argue about whether and when a human fetus is really a living human being. If you want to base it on the same basis (brain activity) as those of us outside the womb, the fetus develops a functioning brain between the 7th and 10th week. As I said earlier, by the time a woman knows and gets a procedure scheduled, it is well beyond the point where it probably should happen (if you want to prevent the potential killing of a human being).

I think science has probably moved the debate toward the "keep the fetus alive" side, with the ubiquity of ultrasound, and improvements in care for prenatal delivery.

Here is some research from Pew, showing how the opinion trends are shifting -- http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abortio...gender-gap

It appears from the recent polling that the movement of opinion is in the middle moderates, which are probably those willing to vote either way, and try to listen to both sides. But, it also shows the polarity of the intractable minorities on either side. "The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%)."

Legal (18%) <------> Mostly Legal (28%) <------> Mostly Illegal (28%) <-----> Illegal (16%)

[Jester]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/a...adis2.html

Perhaps availability? The largest concentrations seem to be Delhi, and up near Shimla. It seems that it is also more dangerous resulting in higher maternal deaths.

That appears to predict the opposite pattern - that we should see a bias in the Northeast and south, and no bias in the Northwest. But (if your first link is right) that's exactly backwards, except for Punjab (which, as Lissa pointed out, is probably an outlier for being mostly Sikh.)

Although I'm not sure these statistics report accurately - your second link seems to imply that Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of abortions, whereas your first codes it as being low-to-middle. That may just be a rates vs. absolute numbers issue, I don't know.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/a...adis2.html

Perhaps availability? The largest concentrations seem to be Delhi, and up near Shimla. It seems that it is also more dangerous resulting in higher maternal deaths.

That appears to predict the opposite pattern - that we should see a bias in the Northeast and south, and no bias in the Northwest. But (if your first link is right) that's exactly backwards, except for Punjab (which, as Lissa pointed out, is probably an outlier for being mostly Sikh.)

Although I'm not sure these statistics report accurately - your second link seems to imply that Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of abortions, whereas your first codes it as being low-to-middle. That may just be a rates vs. absolute numbers issue, I don't know.

-Jester

Liars figure and figures lie. :-) Something my dad used to tell me. Better to just trust his gut.

Here is another stats source. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_ab...-abortions

Although, these are the official UN stats. According to what I've read searching for relevant data, there are many times more unlicensed unsafe, and unsanitary procedures performed than the official numbers. This is due to the vast shortage of medical care outside of major cities, and a lack of any regulations regarding private medical facilities. see: http://www.ecoindia.com/views/abortion.html That article calculates the ratio, in 1991, was 8 illegal for every 1 legal, and based on the growth of rates (both legal abortion, and maternal death), I'd say the rate is now at least double that. http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature...hts-crisis

Here is a recent article which sheds much light on the topic; http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/16/boy-...-abortion/

I'd say that the majority of the truth is obscured. It's pretty clear the rising rates are probably not due to an increase in gender equality, but rather a rise in gender bias against girl babies, lax enforcement of the existing national laws, coupled with cheap and easy access to the procedure via an unregulated market (which is often lethal).

[DeeBye]

God refuses to weigh in on the debate in a decisive manner. My arguments stem from law alone. It's hard enough to attempt a rational discussion of one topic without clouding it up with various theologies as well.

Your arguments aside, the vast majority of anti-abortionists absolutely cite God. To deny that is foolish.

The issue is one of vagueness in defining when a human begins to exist, and by what criteria we differentiate between a lump of dividing cells and a human being.

I absolutely agree with this.

But, to boil down the two sides in a less politically correct manner, they are "keep the fetus to term", and "kill the fetus". Then we can simply argue about whether and when a human fetus is really a living human being. If you want to base it on the same basis (brain activity) as those of us outside the womb, the fetus develops a functioning brain between the 7th and 10th week.

I certainly won't pretend to be an expert on baby development, but I really have a hard time grasping that a fetus weighing a few grams is in any way a "living human being". Yes, it may have brain activity but it certainly isn't viable outside of the womb (much like my brother in law). I could make the analogy that a 7-10 week fetus is more of a parasite, but that just leads me back to my brother in law joke.

Here is some research from Pew, showing how the opinion trends are shifting

Popular opinion trends mean nothing in a discussion like this.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Popular opinion trends mean nothing in a discussion like this.

Spartans exposing babies to death because they don't come up to standards.

Canaanites sacrificing their first born child to ensure future fertility.

Samurai free to kill peasants to test the edge on their sword.

Popular opinion is the *only* thing that means anything in a discussion like this.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I certainly won't pretend to be an expert on baby development, but I really have a hard time grasping that a fetus weighing a few grams is in any way a "living human being". Yes, it may have brain activity but it certainly isn't viable outside of the womb (much like my brother in law). I could make the analogy that a 7-10 week fetus is more of a parasite, but that just leads me back to my brother in law joke.

I've thought about physical characteristics as well. 10 ounces or 96 ounces, caterpillar or butterfly, it's still alive. Bringing it back to the adult example... Often, a person cannot continue existence without some artificial means, like a heart/lung machine. I don't really think we can claim that people who cannot survive without external support are no longer people. The womb is just the perfect incubator for growing people.

Popular opinion trends mean nothing in a discussion like this.

I was contrasting your claim about the intractability of the situation. The trend in opinion is toward restricting abortions after around 14 or so weeks.

Interestingly enough, in Talmudic law this was the criteria used by the ancient Hebrews in determining the punishment for feticide. If the miscarried fetus looked and was shaped like a person, then it was considered murder. If not, the fine was left up to the victims to decide in depriving them of the potential family member. We can learn much about ourselves by considering how we'd respond to the killing of wanted pregnancies. I still think that being unwanted is no reason to kill someone.

[kandrathe]

Popular opinion trends mean nothing in a discussion like this.

Spartans exposing babies to death because they don't come up to standards.

Canaanites sacrificing their first born child to ensure future fertility.

Samurai free to kill peasants to test the edge on their sword.

Popular opinion is the *only* thing that means anything in a discussion like this.

--Pete

I was reading about the increasing availability of abortifacients by mail order. And, as you point out, culture and attitude drive peoples actions. In Asia, abortion is on the increase, however, infanticide rates are dropping. With ultrasound, they don't need to wait full term to determine the sex.

"A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.)"

[Alram]

To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

[Taem]

To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

I don't disagree with what your saying, however we, as a society of the human race, are reaching a saturation point in our evolution in regards to space and cost per child.

I'm reminded of one of my employees who had to take her sisters son away from her sister because her sister was abusing crystal meth and neglecting her son. The sad part is the same sister had done this previously to another of her children, and just left the child with the father, never communicating with it ~ the child was nothing more than a nuisance to her! I think she [her first child] now lives in an abusive home. As for her second child, the one my [ex] employee took away from her sister, well my [ex] employee became so stressed out over the entire situation, that in the process of talking to her sisters pusher, she started abusing the drug herself - what a lame excuse that is, but hey, its the one she gave me. So now this other child is also being equally neglected and partially raised by a father who is a drug dealer.

So in a society where one alternative is an abusive life-style leading to crime which could possibly affect you personally and/or your children in the future, as opposed to.. abortion, which would you prefer? I would prefer just to neuter those unfit to have children and not have to worry about any abortion issue at all, because like you, I feel life is precious, but unlike you, I think people deserve the right to live, not be forced into a lifestyle where they will grow up ignorant, resentful, and destined for a criminal life. Who knows, maybe they could be one of the lucky ones... maybe not. But I think abortion has its purpose in this world!

[LavCat]

To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

I don't disagree with what your saying, however we, as a society of the human race, are reaching a saturation point in our evolution in regards to space and cost per child.

I'm reminded of one of my employees who had to take her sisters son away from her sister because her sister was abusing crystal meth and neglecting her son. The sad part is the same sister had done this previously to another of her children, and just left the child with the father, never communicating with it ~ the child was nothing more than a nuisance to her! I think she [her first child] now lives in an abusive home. As for her second child, the one my [ex] employee took away from her sister, well my [ex] employee became so stressed out over the entire situation, that in the process of talking to her sisters pusher, she started abusing the drug herself - what a lame excuse that is, but hey, its the one she gave me. So now this other child is also being equally neglected and partially raised by a father who is a drug dealer.

So in a society where one alternative is an abusive life-style leading to crime which could possibly affect you personally and/or your children in the future, as opposed to.. abortion, which would you prefer? I would prefer just to neuter those unfit to have children and not have to worry about any abortion issue at all, because like you, I feel life is precious, but unlike you, I think people deserve the right to live, not be forced into a lifestyle where they will grow up ignorant, resentful, and destined for a criminal life. Who knows, maybe they could be one of the lucky ones... maybe not. But I think abortion has its purpose in this world!

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." Oliver Wendell Holmes

This fellow was a physician here, practically in walking distance from where I live. From the cited link, Katzen-Ellenbogen told his judges "...If you are in doubt about my guilt, you have to acquit me." He was convicted, but I don't think the philosophy ended with Nuremberg. A grand jury panel on which I served was curiously disbanded in mid term when we considered issuing a presentment to investigate the local facility where he worked (since closed by the State). Of course, nothing that anyone is allowed to talk about.

Here is some further reading from the publication Eugenical News.

Last year our library had a facinating exhibit and presentation on the local history and the good doctor's contributions. (And if I am not mistaken Godwin's Law does not apply to this discussion.)