Gender-selection abortions spreading in India

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abortion and Pro-choice is a popular discussion here and whilst that discussion is largely dominated by progressives and 'traditionalists' (with religious undertones), the situation in other cultures such as India offers a different slant.



JHAJJAR, INDIA—Muskan Goel is a beautiful 5-year-old girl with an expressive face and saucer eyes who would stand out in any crowd. But in the north Indian farming service centre Jhajjar, Muskan commands attention simply because she’s a young girl. She’s one of 16 girls who’ve been admitted to the school over the past year, compared to 43 boys, a symptom of this nation’s failing struggle against gender-selection.

India is a fast-changing country where luxury companies, car makers and cell-phone manufacturers all covet a piece of the growing market. But it’s also a nation with deep-rooted, centuries-old cultural traditions. Families here have typically pined for a son, to carry on a father’s lineage, contribute to his household’s income and care for his parents as they age. Parents also want a boy because someone with their own last name is required to light their funeral pyre when they are cremated. For the past four decades, since ultrasound machines were introduced in India, parents desperate for a son to carry on their lineage have had technology on their side, turning a cultural preference into a ruthlessly efficient girl-killing system. If their fetus is female, some mothers opt for an abortion rather than carry to full term. That’s because even though it’s been illegal for 50 years, many families still pay costly dowries to have their daughters marry. When they do get married, those women leave their home to join their new husband and contribute to his family.

There are estimates that over the past decade alone, more than 10 million unborn females have been aborted across India. The results of India’s latest once-a-decade census suggest that the gender-selection abortions are spreading beyond the traditional areas of devout Hindus in northern India. It shows there are 914 girls for every 1,000 boys under age 6, a steady decline from 927 girls in 2001 and 962 girls in 1981.

(Boys outnumber girls by a ratio of about 106 to 100 at birth in Canada, according to Statistics Canada).

Nowhere is the disparity greater than in Jhajjar, a district of wheat, mustard and grape seed fields in India’s Haryana state where there are only 774 girls for every 1,000 boys. The district is a centre of female feticide, local business leaders, politicians and police officials say. But in Jhajjar township, a community of 50,000 that shares the same name as its larger district, opinion remains sharply divided over whether the trend is a cause for concern.

While some local leaders say more education and better policing is needed to stop the practice, others contend there’s nothing to worry about. Abortions, they say, help limit the size of families, which is a positive step towards improving maternal health, while women from other parts of India offset the shortage of marriage-eligible women. On a recent weekday, Usha Gehlot ushered several visitors through Kidz Shaishav, a school she founded four years ago in Jhajjar for children aged two to seven.

Gehlot said she sees firsthand the effect of selective abortions in her classes. Of the 59 students she has admitted since January 2010, 43, or 75 per cent, are boys. While some families may simply choose not to send their daughters to school, Gehlot suspects something more sinister is responsible for the skewed figure — female feticide. “It is a big problem,” Gehlot said. “When you have so many more boys, they get more aggressive, and we see that in our class. I think you’ll see more problems in the future with violence and rapes because of frustrated men.”

In Haryana and other states, educators have struggled for years to coax women to stop going to “kudi-maar,” or “daughter-killers.” Some officials have pushed state governments to pay families a bonus for having a daughter, while others pressed for changes to Indian law.In 1994, India’s parliament passed a law calling for a prison term of up to three years and a fine of $320 for anyone who administers or takes a prenatal sex-determination test. However the first ever conviction was in 2006.

Not everyone in Jhajjar is worried about the widening gender ratio. Sitting in a crowded chai shop, amid a row of two-storey grey concrete buildings, city councillor Kishor Saini gestured to a nearby open sewer. “That is our biggest problem,” he said. “Sewers and drinking water. Many parts of our city don’t have water supplies and the government pipes are leaking.” Saini says he doesn’t consider feticide a crime, or even a pressing social problem. “The first thing that comes into peoples’ mind is to have a boy,” he shrugged. “It used to be that parents had three or four or five kids and they didn’t give a damn if they had a girl. But now they want smaller families and they do care.”

While several bachelors complain that already there aren’t enough eligible brides in Jhajjar, Saini says that’s not a worry. Haryana is a wealthy state that attracts migrant workers, and their daughters, from poor states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. “There are women to be married,” Saini said. After spending less than an hour in town, several visitors this week were told about two health clinics in Jhajjar that purportedly provide ultrasounds and abortions.

A female journalist working with the Star entered the first clinic on Wednesday afternoon and told a doctor in charge that she was pregnant and wanted to find out if she was carrying a girl. The doctor nodded and provided the name and address of Hemlata, a doctor at another clinic. A few minutes later, the reporter introduced herself to Hemlata. Operating out of an office barely bigger than an office cubicle, Hemlata spent 15 minutes grilling the journalist, at one point demanding her cell phone to see if their conversation was being recorded. “This is so dangerous,” Hemlata said. “Can I trust you?”

Ultimately, Hemlata said she wouldn’t help and ended their conversation. Later, Hemlata said in an interview that she doesn’t offer the illegal ultrasounds or abortions to anyone. “I don’t allow anyone an ultrasound before they are six months pregnant unless they are bleeding,” she said, sitting next to her examination room, which consisted of little more than a bench, a flashlight and a box of disposable plastic gloves.

Hemlata was asked how the gender ratio has become so lopsided in Jhajjar if no one is performing illegal ultrasounds and abortions. “Maybe it’s because of miscarriages and bad pregnancies,” she said. Police inspector Ajmer Singh says that while he considers the illegal abortions tantamount to murder, he’s helpless without a complainant. “Who’s going to complain?” asked Puchalapalli Sandhya, a social activist in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh who has worked on women’s rights issues for decades.

“The mother of the unborn won’t, and neither will the ultrasound operator.” Sandhya said the only solution to India’s female feticide debacle is improved education, which will give a woman the chance to generate a monthly income when she gets married, a development that should bolster her leverage in family decisions. “We have to keep pushing to ensure that young girls become better educated,” Sandhya said.

“Right now, too many women just feel guilty for being women,” she said. “Having a girl baby is a burden. It’s in the blood here and it’s something that has to change.”​

Source

In my experience in mentioning this, pro-life individuals seemed more [in contrast to pro-choice thinkers] understanding and sympathetic to the reasons - it's not always a cultural/social preference for boys but instead a financial decision. So a little twist there in the views between the two groups.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
Abortion and Pro-choice is a popular discussion here and whilst that discussion is largely dominated by progressives and 'traditionalists' (with religious undertones), the situation in other cultures such as India offers a different slant.

In my experience in mentioning this, pro-life individuals seemed more [in contrast to pro-choice thinkers] understanding and sympathetic to the reasons - it's not always a cultural/social preference for boys but instead a financial decision. So a little twist there in the views between the two groups.

It is cultural/social preference for boys since in their culture only boys are seen as being able to provide for their family, just like how you have parents taking drastic measures to have a boy in China. This isn't anything new.
 
Alucrid said:
It is cultural/social preference for boys since in their culture only boys are seen as being able to provide for their family, just like how you have parents taking drastic measures to have a boy in China. This isn't anything new.

Yes, culture has set a precedence where having a daughter in certain circumstances is financially a burden, compared to the ability a boy has in earning money. In some other cultures, the groom offers the girl a dowry but here in this case the brides family has to offer a dowry to the grooms family. For a poor family, you can completely understand why they would consider abortion. Ultimately though it is gender selection and thats another discussion
 
The focus needs to be on changing society rather than the act of killing the unborn who happens to be of the wrong sex. Until the society changes, this will continue to happen.
 
oh boy will they be in for a surprise in ~20 years
india is gonna be a total sausagefest
can't believe a society with stupid traditions like this survived this long
it's basically asking for poor people to kill their girls at birth, or even before as it is possible now
 
scar tissue said:
oh boy will they be in for a surprise in ~20 years
india is gonna be a total sausagefest
can't believe a society with stupid traditions like this survived this long
it's basically asking for poor people to kill their girls at birth, or even before as it is possible now

male-bonding-in-india-martins-favourite-passtime-karaikudi.jpg


common scene in campus. It is not problem in all of the society. Situation was bad in 80-90. Now it is not that bad from what I know for abortion.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
The focus needs to be on changing society rather than the act of killing the unborn who happens to be of the wrong sex. Until the society changes, this will continue to happen.

It's BECAUSE "society" changes that this is happening. More specifically, the world has changed. Human population has increased to the point that areas with higher concentration are being affected. In this case, similar to China, male humans are preferred for various cultural and labor-related reasons.

To "change" society in the manner you speak of, you'd need to change the population distribution of the world and also change the distribution of work and labor.

You'd need a massive technological overhaul of the entire planet where human male traits are no longer preferred (mainly muscle and body mass). That's not going to happen soon unless we mass produce, say, humanoid robots to do our labor.

Barring that, you'd literally need a world government to force about such a form of population control.
 
Safe Bet said:
this is "bad"?

edit:

/waits for atheist-gaf's response

Well, their population growth will be disrupted by the number of women around in 20 years. Demographic collapse or whatever. nbd

...I mean, why would it be healthy for a population to deliberately favor one gender over the other?
 
Plumbob said:
...I mean, why would it be healthy for a population to deliberately favor one gender over the other?
seems like a rational choice to favor them in a culture in which over-population is a problem and men are beneficial to the workforce
 
This seems like one of those problems that will sort itself out. A rare instance of the market actually working?

Maybe I'm being naive though.
 
I'm really confused by the idea of a daughter's parents providing the dowry. So far as I understand it, a dowry is put up by the groom's family to ensure that the bride is provided for in case the groom dies or is abusive (the bride keeps the groom's family's dowry, an incentive for good treatment of the bride). I don't see how the concept of having the bride's family provide the dowry works in a society where it's believed that a woman cannot support herself.

Is it a "Please take this worthless mouth-to-feed off our hands" type of situation?

Yeah... that seems to justify it. I guess it all comes down to whichever family has more power demands the dowry from the less significant family as a price-of-entry.

-viper- said:
these people are fucking ridiculous. 'WE MUST HAVE A SON'.

Almost every society in the world has a basis in patriarchal lineage, the desire for a son is not really that ridiculous. Terminating girls because they're not sons, that's a different story.
 
China got too many boys, India got too many boys. Biggest dick waving contest ever?

Edit: At least chinese families rather give a bride price than a dowry. So economically, it isn't that bad having girls.
 
Safe Bet said:
leaving out the world's most influential and longest surviving culture is a rather large omission

;)
I thought maternal lineage only determined whether or not you were Jewish, with paternal tradition determining the family name. Besides, it's pretty clear that the man is the dominant gender and still a very patriarchal society.
 
There's a distinct lack of hard, reliable numbers backing up the main contention of this article. I have no doubt that real demographic numbers regarding female enrollment rates are hard to come by in India, but using the suppositions of interviewees and presenting these as if they were evidence is just sloppy. The article should have simply presented the hard gender balance numbers from the census and gotten into the social effects this has.

Anyway, China, especially parts of rural China are experiencing now the effects of gender imbalance generated by gender selection by abortion / infanticide that happened twenty or thirty years ago. The effects of too many men can be quite severe - increased violent crime, political instability, economic effects etc. On the upside, women in India can expect to get marginally better treatment than they might've had were the genders properly balanced.

India should look to China and see what the effects of having a million unpaired bachelors would have on their own future.
 
Safe Bet said:
leaving out the world's most influential and longest surviving culture is a rather large omission

;)

Haha. Well not really (considering the size I mean) More than 6 billion people have a society based on patrilineality, about 15 million on matrilineality (The Jewish people and for instance the Minangkabau in Indonesia)

I thought maternal lineage only determined whether or not you were Jewish, with paternal tradition determining the family name. Besides, it's pretty clear that the man is the dominant gender and still a very patriarchal society

True. Matrilineality =/= Matriarchal (and patrilineality =/= patriarchal)

A society can be matrilinear but still patriarchal.
 
scar tissue said:
oh boy will they be in for a surprise in ~20 years
india is gonna be a total sausagefest
can't believe a society with stupid traditions like this survived this long
it's basically asking for poor people to kill their girls at birth, or even before as it is possible now

Isn't this the problem with China right now? The gender ratio for men to women is horribly skewed and suddenly a ton of young men are finding that they'll never have the opportunity to get married simply because there aren't enough women?
 
First china, now india? Damn, us western countries may be the last hope for the continued production of sexy indian and chinese ladies. Sure there may be a bit of "impurity" in the baby dna by the time I'm done with them but, well... better than nothing, right?
 
Neo C. said:
China got too many boys, India got too many boys. Biggest dick waving contest ever?
I don't think having 2 neighbouring countries with a big population and a young majority male population results in good things
 
Bento said:
Hasn't Hindu and Buddhism been around longer then Judaism?
that's a good question...

i must admit i was thinking in a "western" frame of mind

Dave Inc. said:
I thought maternal lineage only determined whether or not you were Jewish, with paternal tradition determining the family name.
well that's better than being considered to have no value at all
 
Surprising news regarding this. Some of the worst impacted regions by this in India are actually in affluent, literate areas.
Not that surprising, really.

You need a certain critical mass of affluent people in a community to support a medical clinic financially. Once you reach that threshold, then the cultural pressures and weak regulation make gender-selection abortions available. If a place isn't wealthy enough to support high-tech medical services in the first place, even though the pressures are there to have a son, there's fewer ways to select baby genders.

I suspect that if you looked carefully at the statistics for infant mortality and child abandonment, you'd find that these same pressures were acting in different ways in less affluent communities. I'm not an economist and I can't make a confident guess how, but given that the stats say that there are fewer living girls in affluent communities, I'd guess in poorer communities you might see girls working as wage earners (sidestepping the problem entirely), families abandoning the practice of dowry, or simply abandoning unwanted children instead of aborting them (which, at least to me, feels like a much more difficult step to take).

re: the relative age of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism:

Judaism is actually really old, and Buddhism is relatively recent; Wikipedia places the Buddha's birth at 563 BCE at the earliest, when Judaism had already been around for over 900 years.

Hinduism traces its history a long ways farther back than that, but it doesn't boast a prophet or a critical point at which it becomes identifiable as modern Hinduism; the earliest Hindu practices date from like 5500 BCE, but the Vedas start at 1700 BCE and the Ramayana and Mahabharata were compiled "over a protracted period during the late centuries BCE and the early centuries CE."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom