Are there more females than males in the world?

[Upisoft]

Please show me some data that it is not effective, I've asked for it when you first postulated that it isn't.

Thats why in most maternity wards and scan centres you'll find the notice saying its illegal to ask for the sex of the child during a scan.

There is the data. If the measures that fight the real problem were effective there would be no reason for a ban.

 

[Siv]

There is the data. If the measures that fight the real problem were effective there would be no reason for a ban.

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

 

[G037H3]

more males

mainly because of China

 

[Siv]

more males

mainly because of China

Nope, most of Asia. Not just China.

 

[G037H3]

Nope, most of Asia. Not just China.

30 million more males than females

though I agree that other Oriental nations affect the total

But I don't really care about 'world' figures :)

 

[Monique]

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

I think the following article covers the issue well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879612" ).

Arildno, you are right. I corrected the statement.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

I completely agree with you, maybe I was not clear enough. The fundamental problem is what you say it is. And the ban is only prevention and, as you say, maybe not completely effective, but having effect.

The problem I see is that this ban does nothing to remove the fundamental problem. Further, if you want to address the fundamental problem, you have to teach these people to think different. The ban itself is censuring information. It does the 'trick' to force (most) people to keep the baby. But these people will expect more 'tricks' in the future, especially from government that say they want to share information (teach them), but in the same time are censuring the information.

 

[Siv]

I agree, Upisoft.

The trend has changed a while ago for the educated middle class. Where the practice of dowry has also drastically reduced.

However, many Indians are illiterate and below the poverty line.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, many Indians are illiterate and below the poverty line.

Some (Wiki) figures:
- India's literacy rate appears to be ~67%, as compared to the average world literacy rate of 84%.
- India's poverty rate seems to have about 42% below the extreme poverty line, compared to the world average of 21%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Absolute_poverty

 

[Gokul43201]

The problem I see is that this ban does nothing to remove the fundamental problem.

That is not its purpose. The ban prevents the equivalent of a genocide from taking place, while the slow and decades long process of changing deep-rooted social stigmas through greater access to education can take place.

 

[Gokul43201]

Back to the topic. You can't stop motivated killer by hiding the gun. The same is valid here. You can't stop a motivated baby killer by denying access to information.

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry Mon, you're out of line. The onus is not on Upisoft to "show any evidence that it's stupid". His argument can be as simple as "I see no justification for it". Rather, the onus is on you to provide data that shows why the ban is justified in the first place (even if it is "well known").

Wrong. If Upi asked what the justification for the ban was it would have been nice of someone to provide it. If Upi claims that there is no justification (which is what happened in this case), then the onus is squarely upon Upi to justify that claim. Upi, in post #12, made the first unsubstantiated claims along with personal speculation. Saying that there is no onus on Upi to fix this is just flat out silly. At this point Monique hadn't even claimed that the ban was justified, so demanding she substantiate an claim she never made is even sillier still.

 

[Upisoft]

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

We are talking about abortion in the third trimester. Anyway, how is "death" legally defined there? Is it something about "brain activity"? At this development stage of the fetus there is definitely brain activity, so don't be surprised I consider an abortion at this stage a murder.

 

[Upisoft]

That is not its purpose. The ban prevents the equivalent of a genocide from taking place, while the slow and decades long process of changing deep-rooted social stigmas through greater access to education can take place.

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower. And also it will promote new crime. There will be people who will accept payment to tell the gender, not officially of course.

 

[Gokul43201]

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower.

It's possible, but I don't think it will have a significant detrimental effect on the process of rewiring social thought. On the other hand, there is the more obvious benefit of preventing (assuming there is some success in enforcement) millions of dangerous and arguably unnecessary abortions.

And also it will promote new crime. There will be people who will accept payment to tell the gender, not officially of course.

This is true. And while part of it is a semantic issue (although the same practice was possibly orders of magnitude more prevalent before the ban, it wasn't considered a crime then), there are problematic aspects. That the negatives outweigh the positives within a third-world setting is, in my opinion, a hard argument to make.

Out of curiosity, have you spent any significant time living in or studying the socio-economic conditions in the countries where this practice is most prevalent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chine, etc.)? There is a huge difference between the thought processes of these societies and those in the west.

 

[Siv]

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

Actually, Gokul, it is a crime to abort a child because of its gender.

Also, let's not forget, cultures and regions where this practice is widespread, neither baby killers not foetus killers get punished. Making identification of the foetus' sex a crime really does nothing to deter the basic motivations behind not wanting a female child. Of course, that's changing, but very slowly.

 

[Siv]

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower.

I don't see how you can make that argument.
On the contrary, the very fact that it is a crime to know the sex of the child might make people think twice.

I have worked with some NGOs in rural areas where this practice was prevalent. People are a bit hesitant ever since the ban, of course it hasn't been much of a deterrant.

On the cynical side, one old lady once told me that female infanticide has now reduced, not because people think girls can also take care of their parents when they get old, but because they realize that even boys don't take care of their parents during old age now