Are there more females than males in the world?

  • Thread starter ikos9lives
  • Start date
  • #26
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,935
2,429
You can't stop a motivated baby killer by denying access to information.
A large portion of the population see a big distinction between terminating a fetus and terminating a baby. So yes, divulging knowledge of gender before birth will almost certainly result in more terminations.

How many more is what is up for debate. If the abuse of female babies remains institutionalized (poorer lifestyle, education or even banishment ) then Monique's solution has not solved the problem. In this sense Upisoft is correct, the key is to address the underlying gender bias.
 
  • #27
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Of course you need to fight the motivation of the crime as well, that does not mean that it is a basic human right to investigate the gender of an unborn baby. The only argument given so far is that the parents-to-be can decide whether to buy blue or pink clothes. Gender determination is not 100% accurate, so that might not even be a good idea anyway.

I'm sure you are aware that many things are illegal in many countries, such as owning guns or hard drugs. You could make a case that it should be freely available and that you should convince people not to own the gun or take the drug. The reality is that governments act on problems that exist in their community and make laws to regulate those problems.

Nobody is arguing that in utero gender determination should be illegal in every country, it is however an important tool to prevent premature termination of pregnancies in countries where girls are unwanted. I'm sure that some baby girls will still be killed at the moment they are born, and many will be abandoned/put up for adoption. It means a lot still needs to be done to change the social status of girls in those countries.
 
  • #28
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,935
2,429
Of course you need to fight the motivation of the crime as well, that does not mean that it is a basic human right to investigate the gender of an unborn baby. The only argument given so far is that the parents-to-be can decide whether to buy blue or pink clothes.
There doesn't need to be arguments for it. Basic technology advancement and capitalism in a free country are enough to allow anyone who wants to avail themelves of a service to do so.

The only argument required is why a government would be justified and stepping in the prevent it.

Gender determination is not 100% accurate, so that might not even be a good idea anyway.
Virtually no tests are 100% accurate. This is a non-argument.

it is however an important tool to prevent premature termination of pregnancies in countries where girls are unwanted.
This is key. What is in dispute here is whether the practice is effective in cutting down abortions while providing an acceptable quality of life to those baby girls who are born.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against your stance, I simply think that what you're presenting is an extremely weak argument.
 
  • #29
340
0
I think you will agree the problem is based on the lack of proper education of these people. Fighting the problem is giving them proper education, i.e. giving them knowledge.

Instead of giving them knowledge you deny it. That is simply the wrong signal you send to them (even if it is effective in some way). The usual reaction to this signal will be people refusing to listen, as they will expect more censure/propaganda instead real value.
 
  • #30
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Please show me some data that it is not effective, I've asked for it when you first postulated that it isn't.
 
  • #31
340
0
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.
 
  • #32
Siv
Gold Member
84
5
There is the data. If the measures that fight the real problem were effective there would be no reason for a ban.
I dont 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, noone seems to be bothered about that :smile:
 
  • #33
277
0
more males

mainly because of China
 
  • #34
Siv
Gold Member
84
5
more males

mainly because of China
Nope, most of Asia. Not just China.
 
  • #35
277
0
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 :)
 
  • #36
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
I dont 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, noone seems to be bothered about that :smile:
I think the following article covers the issue well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879612" [Broken]).

Arildno, you are right. I corrected the statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
340
0
I dont 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, noone seems to be bothered about that :smile:
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.
 
  • #38
Siv
Gold Member
84
5
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.
 
  • #39
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,935
2,429
  • #40
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #41
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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?
 
  • #42
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #43
340
0
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.
 
  • #44
340
0
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.
 
  • #45
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #46
Siv
Gold Member
84
5
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, lets 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, thats changing, but very slowly.
 
  • #47
Siv
Gold Member
84
5
And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower.
I dont 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 dont take care of their parents during old age now :frown:
 

Related Threads on Are there more females than males in the world?

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
12K
Top