“But this has nothing to do with the right to choose, and the problem cannot be tackled by restricting access to abortion. And even when this practice of gender-screening is illegal, it still happens.”

I acknowledged that this problem couldn’t be solved by resricting abortion rights. My question was what is the moral difference between killing a foetus because of its gender and killing it because you don’t want a baby. The end result is the same.

“Indeed, challenging women’s right to choose on these grounds can only contribute to the prevailing misogyny which is causing all this in the first place.”

So criticising the abortion of foetus on gender grounds is anti-female?

“And, I might add, it’s feminists and the pro-choice activists you’re criticising who are making those arguments about ingrained sexism loudly and strongly.”

Some are. Others seem more concerned about getting into the Carlton Club, or a pay gap that may or may not exist.

The solution must be more profound – to tackle the patriarchal, sexist ideas that run so deep in societies. That is the cause of abortions to select sex, not access to abortion. You might say the same about women who cannot afford to bring up a child – tackle the poverty, the inequality and injustice, don’t stop her being able to access the abortion.

Indeed, challenging women’s right to choose on these grounds can only contribute to the prevailing misogyny which is causing all this in the first place.

And, I might add, it’s feminists and the pro-choice activists you’re criticising who are making those arguments about ingrained sexism loudly and strongly.

(Apologies if these points have been made already, I haven’t been able to read through all the comments)

Somebody really needs to do an article on the problem we have within the British Asian community where women have to (more or less) abase themselves completely and become completely servile if they want to attract a man ‘from here’. Otherwise, the men just head off to India to get themselves a slave-bride, and everything’s OK!

I don’t know how bad this issue is, but I’m pretty sure it’s worthy of attention.

Well the effect is different too because women are barred from infanticide here – which they practice openly in many parts of India, hence the very lopsided stats.

I’ve made my position clear on either issues – firstly we need a more equal society where men and women are valued equally. Secondly the state should not be telling women what to do with their bodies.

What else is there to argue about?

The intention is different, but the effect is the same.

Personally I find the oleaginous sycophancy the most nauseating aspect of that blog.

And men gravely undervalue themselves. Not just over there but here too.

For a just society men and women have to value themselves before all else.

This is a silly question. The difference is that in the first case they are aborting (actually in India its illegal for doctors to tell you the sex of the baby for this reason, hence most female babies are killed once born) because society undervalues women. Its because the culture has devalued women to the extent that having a woman can sometimes be a source of shame and financial hardship.

The women who abort in this country do not do so for the same reasons. Intention is important here.

I may have sounded as if I supported abortion. I do not. I was trying to relate how the wool is pulled over our eyes.

On the whole its dark practises in a modern setting.

There is no difference to me that it is done pre or post birth. The fact that its couched in a language of Choice is a disgrace.

As for my comment about it being a lifestyle issue, it relates to the general concept of rights, responsibilities and consequences.

I agree that you cannot have a law that bans abortions on the grounds of gender- it would be unworkable. My question was why is it okay to staunchly support the right of women to abort for whatever reason, apart from gender.

But what is the moral difference?

The bigger your sample size the more likely it would approach 50%.

“One point on which I’d take issue with in your post – and it’s when you refer to an abortion ‘debate’. I think it’s questionable whether there’s a debate at all. I’m wondering if ‘rights’ are the most appropriate language in which to tackle this issue because at present all we have is two sets of people taking absolutist positions between which there are no mutually-contested concepts.”

There are elements of a debate in there- some of us are actually trying to work out the optimum level that the abortion limit should be set at. I do agree though that increasingly, abortion is being debated in the same manner as in the US, which means that there is not much of a debate at all.

Dave Cole:

“Only from the point of view of the offspring. In these traditional societies that we are discussing, women attract a dowry and are expected to leave the parental home and live with the groom. This is a triple financial penalty; the dowry must be raised, the investment in the child is lost and there is less prospect for the child being able to support the parents in their old age.”

I understood what you meant- what I meant was that hopefully the position on dowry and suchlike would start to change as women become scarce commodities; supply and demand.

“No. Sexism is present before, continuously during, after and irrespective of a girl’s life. The sexism is not specifically against a particular girl and so cannot be said to begin at any point in time, including conception, attached to that girl’s life. It is a general phenomenon.”

I agree that sexism is present throughout a girl’s life, and I wasn’t trying to argue that if women didn’t have gender-related abortions then there would be no sexism. But girls are discriminated against, even before they are born.

Refresh:

Interesting example from Tibet- I did not realise that.

“Infanticide as a part of family planning is not new. And almost always this would be baby girls. Callous though it sounds – that’s how it used to be. But we, some of us developed, and see it for what it is. Bloody Despair.

The only difference now is that we are skilled enough to control the birth cycle. People get rid of their children at an earlier stage, and in clinical surroundings. And why do they do it? Eco-bloody-nomics.

The rest have lifestyle issues.”

I agree that before widespread abortion there were plenty of cases of female infanticide. Sadly, there are a number of women who can afford to bring up females (as shown by their ability to pay for ultrasounds), who still choose to abort girls.

Sunny:

“What? You’re creating a bizarre choice here.

Obviously I don’t support the right of families in India to indulge in infanticide.”

Now I am confused. You don’t support the right of women to abort because of gender reasons, but you don’t think that women in this country should be required to give any reasons why they choose to abort. I never mentioned infanticide, I was talking about aborting a foetus because of its gender. What is the difference between aborting a foetus because of its sex and aborting a fetus because you don’t want a baby?

“Argument has been won. Anyone still unconvinced by the status quo needs their head checked.”

“Sunny to the left of them, Nadine to the right, into the valley of death rode doubt and debate.”

Obviously I don’t support the right of families in India to indulge in infanticide… and that is also based on the view that women are worth less than men. As Dave says – the first problem is a society where women and their choices are worth less than that of men.

There’s no point trying to counter the pro-choice argument with some examples from India.

On the issue of abortion, David Aranovitch rightly takes them to task here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3964956.ece

On Liberal Conspiracy we’ve already shown the mixture of bad science, links to right-wing Christian evangelical groups and hoaxes that are part of the campaign being waged by the Tories.

Argument has been won. Anyone still unconvinced by the status quo needs their head checked.

In certain cultures their used to be a higher economic value for men than women and yet there are other cultures where this is switched. And both these cultures thrive within hundreds of miles of each other. Tibet and India for example.

In Tibet, I understand that a woman can have more than one husband for example. The reason: more men to work on the family farm.

And I am sure there are certain parts of India where a a widow is taken in by her husband’s brother whether already married or not. It is about survival.

Infanticide as a part of family planning is not new. And almost always this would be baby girls. Callous though it sounds – that’s how it used to be. But we, some of us developed, and see it for what it is. Bloody Despair.

The only difference now is that we are skilled enough to control the birth cycle. People get rid of their children at an earlier stage, and in clinical surroundings. And why do they do it? Eco-bloody-nomics.

The rest have lifestyle issues.

I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself very well.

“I agree that more rights for women means that girls are a more attractive option then before. Perversely, the gender bias up to now should also make women more valuable, as males will have to compete for them.”

Only from the point of view of the offspring. In these traditional societies that we are discussing, women attract a dowry and are expected to leave the parental home and live with the groom. This is a triple financial penalty; the dowry must be raised, the investment in the child is lost and there is less prospect for the child being able to support the parents in their old age.

“However, I would not include abortion in that analysis, as males and females are not in competition in that sphere.”

In that sphere, no, but in the necessarily consequent sphere, yes.

“Then it [sexism] does begin in the womb, because that is the start of life.”

No. Sexism is present before, continuously during, after and irrespective of a girl’s life. The sexism is not specifically against a particular girl and so cannot be said to begin at any point in time, including conception, attached to that girl’s life. It is a general phenomenon.

Shuggy,

“I find the attempts to pigeon-hole those favouring a reduction in the abortion time-limit as right-wing/misogynistic/motivated by religiosity/concealing a desire to ban all abortion off-putting in the extreme.”

I would certainly not try to pigeon-hole people in that way and I don’t think I have. In the past, I’ve been criticised for standing up and saying that, even though I don’t agree with them, there are legitimate reasons for opposing abortion. What I and some other bloggers and commentators take real issue with is when Ms Dorries – the only person who has come in for real opprobrium – deliberately and consistently prevent falsehood as evidence and conjecture as fact.

For what it’s worth, I think there is screeching on both sides of the debate; there is also rationality and argument. Don’t let the former obscure the latter!

xD.

xD.