My previous post on abortion and the right of women to choose turned up some interesting issues. Here is one:
Women’s rights activists have spent decades trying to give women the power to choose the fate of her own body. Abortion now is and should be entirely at the discretion of the woman. No one should be forced to bear a child to term against their will. The is the essence of the “pro choice” side of the argument. It stresses on the fact that a woman’s desire to have an abortion shouldn’t be questioned. Her reasons are her own. She may not be ready psychologically, not ready financially, or perhaps just bored. All reasons are valid since it’s her body and her choice.
So why is sex selective abortion illegal in India?
This is a very tricky issue especially when it comes to women’s rights. If a woman desires an abortion because the fetus growing inside her is female, shouldn’t she have the right via the above logic to abort? And yet most people I know in India – men and women – support the ban on sex selective abortion. This can be made into an emotive issue calling it the “murder of little girls”, but a fetus before a certain age is not a person and doesn’t have the rights of a person. Besides, that should be true for all abortions not just female fetuses. If we’re ok with abortion in general, we shouldn’t have a special problem with the abortion of female fetuses.
We all know that the sex ratio in many parts of India is skewed. The principled way to fix this is by educating people and correcting the mindsets of people in this generation, and the next, and the next. By creating a law banning abortions in case of a female fetus, we are carving out an exception to a woman’s right to control over her own body. If a woman simply does not want to give birth to a girl, the law is essentially forcing her to carry it to term. And this is precisely what women’s groups have been fighting for. The right of a woman to control her own destiny and her own body.
Consider that abortions can be performed for any reason. It’s even ok if a woman says “I’m just not ready”. Or “I made a mistake”. All of these are valid reasons and no one will question them. So how come if the woman says “I don’t want a girl” or “I don’t want a boy”, there’s suddenly an uproar? Do her rights suddenly cease to exist? Is she now merely a vessel for bringing another body into the world that she doesn’t want? In essence, the government has hijacked her body for promoting its own social agenda.
Does anyone other than me find this disturbing?
Two things before I wrap up:
1. I’m obviously not saying that sex selective abortion is a good thing. I think it’s a horrible choice to make. I just don’t feel it should override a woman’s decision to take control over her own body.
2. Many say that it’s not really the woman’s choice. I say bollocks. Unless she’s drugged or taken kicking and screaming to the hospital and forcibly put under anesthesia, it is her choice as an adult. If she’s above 18, we have to treat her as an adult. If she’s chosen to listen to her relatives that doesn’t mean her choice is being taken away.
I agree with you.
Interesting and complicated.
But Indian laws regarding women have this extra bit of protective (to the point of patriarchal) feel about them. Abortions at least have the issue of personhood tied to them, but consider dowry. If an adult woman decides that it is all right for her husband to demand money in exchange for marrying her, why should either party be punished?
In reply to Raziman T V
You’re absolutely right. While I think we can both agree that dowry is an absurd practice and should be repugnant to anyone, I don’t think the law should get involved.
It seems that even the government is not prepared to treat women as adults. And then we complain when they don’t take full responsibility for their lives! How canthey when even the government treats them as infants?
In reply to bhagwad
What I think is that some women just don’t know that there is a way. In India, the literacy rates for males and females are 82% and 65% respectively. Think about it : 35% of the women in India cannot even read or write. I can wager that a majority of them have lived all their lives being taught and forced that men have authority over them. When you have lived all your childhood being taught that you are different from a boy and punished for questioning the way, it is not easy at all to think that there is an alternative.
I think the idea is that that woman needs to be protected – that there are two kinds of women in this country, and one kind probably does not even know that they have rights. I am not saying that literacy is all there is to it – even educated girls are brought up in a way that they are forced to accept they are inferior to and need to be submissive to men. The ability to question the current situation can only bloom in a mind that has been let reasonably free in childhood. That is a luxury for most Indian girls even now.
So what do we do? We try to guess what kind of woman would like to have a sex-selective abortion. More often than not, it would be the woman who has no voice in the household. She would protest it if she could, but resisting such a demand from the in-laws would end up with her being kicked out in the best-case scenario and killed in the worst-case. That is all that a woman who has been physically abused by her husband can think. And once the in-laws desert her, even her own family would not take her back. Especially in her current state, she would have nowhere to go. So what can the state do? Make the opposition to abortion the state’s choice rather than the woman’s. The family cannot go beat the government up. I am not saying that women bearing girls are treated well because of this, it is just that the rule lets the woman do what she would have liked to but have been unable to.
In reply to Raziman T V
I think it’s an extremely dangerous idea to give the state the power to choose whether or not a woman has a right over her own body. We have enough government bureaucracy in India without giving another outlet to for corruption and inefficiency.
A person should have 100% control over their own body – no state should be able to refuse an abortion to a woman just because it thinks she’s not behaving like an adult.
And what criteria will the state use? Currently all women over 18 have the same rights as adults. They can vote. They can marry. They can drive a car. They can drink. They can enter into contracts, buy a house etc. In this one matter of abortion we can’t suddenly have two separate standards for “educated and empowered” women and “poor and downtrodden” women on the other. If the state gets to decide whether to allow a woman an abortion based on her maturity, the next step will be to decide whether she can have sex, smoke, drink, or vote. Unacceptable.
Perhaps…everyone (not just women) shouldn’t automatically become adults at a certain age. They should undergo a test (verbal or written) where the examiner asks them whether they understand their rights and responsibilities, and whether they agree to be in full control over their lives. They can refuse to do this and continue being treated as children with special rights or they can sign it and declare themselves as full adults.
What do you think?
In reply to bhagwad
I have seen your post on separate laws already. The problem with that is that it is not such an easy binary decision. Till women of India are truly empowered, some sort of balancing act has to go on. “Necessary evil” is how I would think of it right now.
In reply to Raziman T V
And how will we decide when women are “truly empowered”? Till then it’s an open admission that women are not ready to handle the mantle of adulthood.
In reply to bhagwad
The case is not so much black-and-white. “The mantle of adulthood” is not such an easy thing to define. Once a woman is in the privacy of the polling booth, she can vote for whomever she pleases and she is safe because her family does not get to know. But carrying a girl child is not something that can be hidden like that.
Consider the bravest, strongest rural woman you can think of – five months pregnant though. Her in-laws want her to determine the sex of the child. Of course she knows that the only reason they want to do it is to abort if it is a girl. Her in-laws would start physical abuse if she does not agree. If she tries to ask her own family for help, they would tell her how important it is that the girl who enters the in-laws’ family in her wedding dress should only leave it in a shroud. She leaves the in-laws’ house and tries to go back home and they shun her away saying the daughter who brought them only shame is dead for them. If she goes to the police station, they would tell her it is the right of the husband to beat the wife and she should be the one at fault. So now, she has nowhere to go. No personal finances to pay for a place to stay. No qualifications to get most of the kinds of jobs a pregnant woman can do. Of course, for most of the rest of the society, the only reason a husband would kick a pregnant woman out of home is if the child is not his.
So, what is she supposed to do now?
We are privileged, Bhagwad. Very very privileged. Male privilege is something we would understand only if we got to know a victim of it really closely. In an ideal scenario, the state would punish the husband for as much as threatening to physically abuse her. It would make sure that the police system deal with her better. It would make sure that she has something to fall back to. The state has some laws in that direction even now, but none of that seems to be working. This seems to be a much better alternative in that, suddenly, the woman is not the one refusing to have a sex determination test and the abortion – it is the state doing that for her.
I agree, the philosophy behind the law is bad. But practically, it would have helped more women have the babies they really wanted than prevented from having abortions. How many women get pregnant with the idea that they only want a male child?
In reply to Raziman T V
“If she goes to the police station, they would tell her it is the right of the husband to beat the wife and she should be the one at fault.”
For me, THIS is the point at which intervention needs to be taken by the government. I agree with you that the law may have allowed many women to keep their child. I’m just not sure the ends justifies the means.
In many cases, the law leads first. “Society” follows. People look to the law to see what is right and wrong. If people see the law itself treating women as children, can they be blamed for adopting the same attitude?
Society cannot be changed overnight. But the law can. Good laws lead to good results.
In reply to bhagwad
[…husbands, beating their wifes…]
You say:
> For me, THIS is the point at which intervention needs to be taken by the government.
> …
> In many cases, the law leads first. “Society” follows.
> People look to the law to see what is right and wrong.
And I soo agree with you!
Now, let’s see what you wrote in a discussion with me, in the blog-post which preceded this one here (note, that these are all your very own words):
> As a human I make my own morality based on reason and logic.
> I’m under no obligation to follow a “herd” mentality.
> My present lifestyle gives me the luxury of not caring a damn for “society” or “group morality”.
> …
> You’re welcome to say I’m being an ass.
Can you explain the obvious discrepancies for all of us here, please?
In reply to Mosquito
It’s simple. Those who think for themselves need neither the law nor society to determine their morality.
Those who do not think for themselves look to the herd or to the law to get their moral compass. Those falling into the latter category need to be told what is right and what is wrong. Maybe one day they will come to think for themselves.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
[law and morality]
You say:
> Those who think for themselves need neither the law nor society to determine their morality.
But, do you think, those husbands who decide, to threaten (or beat) their wifes, don’t feel like they can think for themselves too (no matter what the law is)?
And what if the woman in question is trying to file a charge – but the responsible person at the police-station will not take it … because “as a human he makes his own morality, based on reason and logic”?
Or … let’s say it *gets* filed – but finally at the court, the judge will dismiss it because “his present lifestyle gives him the luxury of not caring a damn for society”?
I mean (to get back more “On-Topic” again), here in this discussion you all try to find the “root-cause” for the “whole mess”…
But isn’t exactly this attitude (as you just have strongly commited yourself to, again) *THE* real root-cause for a whole lot of the problems in India?
I’m pretty sure, not each and every male in your country is thinking this way – but a lot of them seem to … I mean, recently I’ve even read an opinion of an indian male, who considers the life of a human being not more than that of a mosquito – where does this lead in the end, I might ask?
In reply to Mosquito
As long as the police offer is getting paid to do his job, it’s not his business to talk about morality. He just needs to follow the law. I would do the same if I was accepting money to do some work. Personal morality is a luxury that cannot be enjoyed at the tax payer’s expense.
Same for the judge. They’re getting paid to do a job. Personal morality doesn’t enter the equation.
If I kill a human being, I go to jail regardless of what my personal morality is. This is probably enough of an incentive for me to not kill another human being without good cause. The reason why husbands beat their wives is because they’re not afraid of being punished. They think there will be no consequences. And in most cases they are right.
We need to change that. Consequences must be swift, sure, and sufficient. And for that we need to improve the police force and justice system. Not take away even more rights of women.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
> As long as the police offer is getting paid to do his job, it’s not his business
> to talk about morality.
> Same for the judge. They’re getting paid to do a job.
So, now it’s money, which keeps the tendencies of many indian males “to make up their own personal moral-system”, in check…
Hmm, really that easy?
Well, if it’s really only a certain amount of money (a paycheck), which ensures a certain kind of moral behaviour – who says, that an additional amount cannot ensure, that the “receiver in question” is willing, to “re-think for himself” again with regards to his “applied moral” (especially then, when his real “personal values” coincide with those of the money-giver)?
Could your false claim, that morality and ethics can be “ensured” with a certain amount of money, be one of the root-causes for corruption in india (in case decision-makers think along the same lines, as you)?
Because, how *stable* do you expect a certain police-officer (or judge) to be, (in case he’s offered a bribe) – when he basically thinks along the same lines as you (not caring a damn for society, creating a value-system which personally suits him best)?
Or why does a person, whom “his present lifestyle gives the luxury” to spend a certain amount for potential bribes, is getting such ideas at all?
Is it perhaps (again) because of the same attitude, you’ve shown – and in addition:
That he knows, that other persons share the same “lazy ideas” about moral – and that therefore potential attempts have a high probability to succeed?
Sorry, but I see my claim still standing: That one of the root-causes is too many persons, who think themselves “above others”, “above common base-moral”, “above the law”.
> … we need to improve the police force and justice system …
Sure, but how exactly?
Such systems are made of human beings – “improvement” needs to start there (in their brains).
I’m sure there’s already existing laws, to fight corruption in india – but do they help?
I also cannot imagine, that current police-officers or judges aren’t already paid to do their jobs. Still corruption happens on a larger scale than in many other countries – why?
I’m not sure, what role your thousands of year old “caste-system” still plays in modern India, that so many (apparently also members of the “young and educated elites” as you) still keep (or develop) such hybris, such attitudes in their minds.
In reply to Mosquito
Don’t be dense. It’s not about money – it’s a contract. Whether for 1 paisa or more. So it’s not the question of money. It’s about doing your job.
The rest of your post is based on your false premise. Nothing more to be said.
P.S. Do write a bit more cogently – I’m not able to understand most of what you’re trying to say. Perhaps if you just focus on the post instead of talking to me personally you’ll do a better job of communicating your ideas.
Pretend I’m just an abstract voice – or a robot or an alien. Not someone whose motivations you pretend to know. I’m not your friend, your enemy, or even a human being. I’m not an Indian either. The post is what is important. Who has written it and why are irrelevant.
I hope to see your future comments follow this rule. I want good discussions on my blog. I’m not interested in venom or spite.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
> Don’t be dense.
Don’t be rude.
> It’s not about money – it’s a contract. Whether for 1 paisa or more.
> So it’s not the question of money. It’s about doing your job.
Ok, so now it’s not “money for a job” which keeps the employees ethics in check, but instead “valueing a piece of paper” is all it takes, to become bribe-resistant and ethically sound.
> The rest of your post is based on your false premise. Nothing more to be said.
How convenient for you.
> Do write a bit more cogently – I’m not able to understand most of what you’re trying to say.
That’s apparent by now, that you don’t (want to) understand, since you carefully avoid to address my points (skipping them).
But maybe it’s just a comprehension-problem on your part (which other readers may not have).
> Pretend I’m just an abstract voice – or a robot or an alien.
> Not someone whose motivations you pretend to know.
I don’t have to “pretend” anything, since you stated the points I’ve criticised quite clearly in your own posts (so, those are not my assumptions, but your own “alien” words – and their potential relevance on the discussion here, which I tried to point out).
> I hope to see your future comments follow this rule.
… or you “report my IP to the blogging-community” or censor my posts away like last time – yadda, yadda… what a wonderful atmosphere of “free speech” you ensure here.
> I want good discussions on my blog.
A good blog-discussion is one, where inconvenient opinions (I was definitely *not* impolite) are not censored away, where also the blog-owner behaves decently (not acting rude, not acting arrogant) – where he can take a joke made at his own expense … and maybe on top would be even willing, to admit when he wrote something utterly foolish,… doesn’t happen here though.
Seems you can’t handle a real blogging-discussion yet – so far I see only somebody, treating the whole thing here as his own stage, with the other participants as a kind of “audience” who have to follow “rules”.
Never mind, I’m outa here now…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Ok Bhagwad,
I agree with everything you say on your wonderful blog.
Better this way?
In reply to Mosquito
You don’t have to agree with me. There are many here who don’t agree with my post. Mayur, Anjali and others. Not just on this post, but on many more. But they disagree in a civilized manner without getting personal and I respect them for that.
I allowed you to have a free run here for a while in the interests of fairness. That run has ended.
Good bye.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
> You don’t have to agree with me. There are many here who don’t agree with my post.
> Mayur, Anjali and others. Not just on this post, but on many more.
> But they disagree in a civilized manner without getting personal
Just for the sake of the others, could you cite my comments, where I was “getting personal” in your opinion, please? (so that they know, on what laughable things the censoring starts here already)?
No?
In reply to Raziman T V
I agree with Raziman T V. Just like we cannot decide when women are truly empowered, similarly we cannot assume all women are truly empowered. There has to be a balancing act. And more than just equating adulthood with empowerment, I think it is more to do with the emotional quotient of the person involved. But since Bhagwad doesn’t accept emotions as a factor in a person’s personality, I guess my view stands invalid. :)
In reply to Mayur
I’m just curious as to how a specific case would work out. A woman goes to a doctor for an abortion because she doesn’t want a female child. In your ideal scenario, how would this scene play out?
In reply to bhagwad
I’m assuming this as a valid hypothetical scenario since sex-selective abortions being illegal, no woman can walk in asking to get a female fetus aborted.
IF sex-selective abortions were legal, then there would be no basis for a doctor to assume that a woman walking into his office asking for a sex-selective abortion was being forced.
But now I must also mention that throughout my professional life, I haven’t even seen a woman walking in all alone into a doctor’s office to get a sex determination test, let alone an abortion. And I am talking of major cities in India and not some remote village. A few that I can recall who came alone were all anxious women who wanted inquiry for an abortion for not wanting a baby at all instead of not wanting a baby of a particular gender.
In reply to Mayur
Maybe we should have “privacy of the patient” as one of the areas for reform. How about laws saying that only the individual has a right to know about his or her medical information and that for adults over 18, the doctor has to take explicit consent of the patient to allow an accompanying adult into the room, and in some cases, not allow anyone but the patient in where there might be a chance of more sensitive information that may be discussed?
In reply to Clueless
Privacy of the patient in case of a woman over 18 can be strictly secured at the end of the doctor but is applicable only if the woman concerned continues to maintain the privacy even after meeting the doctor. What if a woman is told beforehand to consent to having a companion with her while visiting a doctor?
This is not hypothetical as adult women who are alone in an operation theater, without anyone to influence them have been often seen to make decisions against their choices (such as refusing a sterilization procedure after having a third or fourth baby even though they agree to the doctor’s opinion otherwise).
It is not ideal to form biased opinions, but it is worse to be delusional about female empowerment looking at real cases day in and day out.
In reply to Mayur
What if the woman is told? Then the woman should say no. Adults make choices. Sometimes tough, unpopular choices. But ultimately they are the ones responsible for the choices they make.
In reply to Clueless
This is the fundamental point that people are opposed to. They do not believe that a woman can ever stand up to her husband/parents/in laws…whatever.
We need more women like you to stand up and say “Yes, women can!” It’s the only true long term solution.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Once again we are losing the point. Female feticide has been made illegal not just because it is ‘believed’ that adult females do not or cannot stand up for their choices. It has been made illegal because it was and is actually happening.
Do you mean to suggest that once sex-selective abortions are legalized, all those people (such as husbands and families) who ‘force’ women into abortion against their wishes will back off saying that NOW women have full control on their bodies. So let’s not influence them. “?”
Even presently, all the laws that protect a woman’s decision are perfectly in place. But they can help only if a woman feels empowered enough to use them. If they were not, empowered women such as Clueless wouldn’t have been able to make her own decisions. Law against sex-selective abortion is for those women who themselves do not feel empowered.
In reply to Mayur
Oh influencing people is perfectly fine. It’s everyone’s right to influence people – as long as it’s not physical intimidation, all other forms of influence are perfectly ok. Even emotional blackmail that so many parents use to make their children marry is a part and parcel of life.
Adults need to choose whether to be influenced or not. And the government cannot help with that. If there is physical intimidation, then we need to attack that at the police level.
We can’t have different laws for different people (though I’ve suggested that before). Since the age of adulthood is 18, we have to assume that all adults can look after themselves.
Let me play out a different scenario for you. Suppose we take physical intimidation out of the scene entirely. As in there is no danger of anyone physically beating up a woman. Then would you agree that all women are empowered enough as long as they’re above 18?
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Once again you are asking me something about which you already have a prejudiced view. There are more ways than just physical violence that influence an adult. But you have rejected this view more than once before.
But by saying that above the age of 18, all adult women are empowered, are you trying to suggest that all the cases of female feticide which happen in India are completely based on the personal decision of those pregnant women who happily wish to abort girl fetuses? And are you suggesting that being a right (or choice), female feticide is not even a problem?
And you didn’t answer my questions I asked you in a comment yesterday.
In reply to Mayur
I’m saying that even if a woman is influenced (not physically) then it’s still called a “personal choice”. Because an adult can listen to advice and be influenced by others and make a choice. I gave you the example of me buying a shirt. If I select a white shirt because my wife will be angry if I bought a black one, that is still my personal decision. It’s my personal decision to not face my wife’s anger. I can also buy a black shirt and choose to face my wife’s anger instead. Either way it’s my personal choice even though I was “influenced” by my wife.
Unless she held a gun to my head and told me to buy a white shirt. Then I have no choice at all. Then it is not a “personal choice”.
Similarly if an adult woman is “influenced” by her family members (without violence) I’m completely ok with that. It’s her choice. She’s weighed the pros and cons and decided to keep her husband/in laws or whatever happy and is sacrificing her own happiness for them
That is perfectly valid. Every adult has the freedom to screw up their lives if they want. Who are we to interfere?
Female feticide is a symptom of a problem. It’s not the problem in and of itself. The problem is the horrible attitudes that people have towards girls. That is where we need to attack. And of course, the pathetic police and judicial system in case of physical coercion.
Sorry I respond to so many things, I don’t remember what you had asked…what was it?
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
I guess you missed my comment among so many. Can I copy and paste it again? I hope it doesn’t get rejected as a duplicate comment.
Just a suggestion. The earlier format of comments where your comments appeared on a colored background was more convenient. It gets a bit difficult to find comments in this present format.
In reply to Mayur
Sure, you can just ask it again…
Previously only my comments were colored. Everyone else’s was white. But let me see if I can make my comments pink again.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
This was the comment I made yesterday. –
Anjali, the argument Bhagwad is putting here is that we should assume that a
woman who is aborting a child on the basis of its gender is doing so at
her own will, be it male or female. Though he is completely ignoring
that in India, rarely does a woman aborts on the basis of gender by her
will, let us for a minute agree with him. So Bhagwad,…
Now, suppose a woman doesn’t want a baby of a particular gender. Let
us assume a female. The basis of argument for sex-selective abortion is
that such a woman has no issues to bear a male child. (If she doesn’t
want a baby altogether then gender shouldn’t matter anyways) So, how
does such a woman prove that her body will be harmed more only when she
bears a female baby and wouldn’t be harmed if she has a male baby? As
Bhagwad argues that a woman shouldn’t be forced to put her body to harm
when she doesn’t want to.
If the whole argument is about the ‘liking’ of the woman for male
babies, then I wonder if laws are framed according to people’s likings.
The law requires a proof that a certain act will be harmful to an
individual. Will it not be just like an example where a person is
stabbed by a male or a female, but the person wants the law to punish
only the female who stabbed him because he doesn’t ‘like’ females. The
law punishes an act of stabbing because it hurts the victim irrespective
of being committed by a male or a female.
Secondly, if a fetus is not even a person, then how can it be
classified as male or female? Can we or do we classify non-living
objects as males or females according to human criteria? If fetuses are
non-living, then it is absurd to term a fetus as of a particular gender.
So the argument of sex-selective abortion doesn’t even arise.
And lastly, even if we classify the gender of a non-living fetus in
terms of living humans, what criteria do we choose to term a fetus as a
male or a female? Do we consider the genotype or the phenotype of the
fetus to enable a pregnant woman to exercise her choice to abort the
fetus selectively?
In reply to Mayur
“So, how does such a woman prove that her body will be harmed more only when she bears a female baby and wouldn’t be harmed if she has a male baby?”
The “harm” happens when she’s not given full control over her body. For example, if the government makes a law saying that people cannot visit a shopping mall on Tuesday, there’s no “harm” to anyone’s body. But there is a huge harm to our rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It is harm in this context that I’m talking about.
While the government doesn’t have to frame laws according to people’s likes and dislikes, it’s a basic human right that a person gets to have complete control over their own body.
For an abortion, all that a woman should say is “I want an abortion”. She doesn’t have to justify it. She doesn’t need to explain her motives or convince anyone else. It’s her body. She wants an abortion. End of story. Asking her questions “harms” the notion of control over her own body.
The classification into male/female is just convenient shorthand for “will grow into a male/female human”. As far as I know, the sex of the baby is determined right at conception depending on whether the man passes along the X or Y chromosome.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
If a woman is prevented to abort a fetus (on whatever basis she wants it for), then the only ‘harm’ happens to her full control of her own body. But I don’t know if anywhere in the world, any specific right to full control on one’s body exists (either for males or females) which would then also include the right to suicide. I know you think it should, but I don’t think such a law exists which allows a person to end his or her life. Otherwise, if a woman cites physical harm as the reason for abortion, she will have to prove (even if through medical specialists) that the fetus of a particular gender is more harmful than the other for her. And if both genders are equally harmful, she can opt for abortion for both, but not selectively.
Unless a woman is planning to conduct an abortion all by herself, she has to undergo a medical/surgical procedure. And every medical procedure requires justification. Like, we know that a normal adult human has a vermiform appendix in the body which is a vestigial organ. It has no use in the functioning of the body. So if a person goes to a doctor and asks him to remove the appendix, he has to give the reason for the same. No doctor will operate and remove an appendix just because a person wants it removed. Same goes for a tooth extraction. All medical practice aims to benefit a person’s health. If a person wants to commit a suicide, he can do so by himself (illegally of course) but cannot involve a doctor for that. Similarly, an abortion should be backed by medical justification (which is also stated in the law).
Lastly, about the sex of the fetus, you agree with the genotypic definition. XY for males and XX for females. But the phenotype (external appearance) which appears after the genotype has been decided by the chromosomes, is not always corresponding to the genotype. For example, a very common disorder called “Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome” is found in XY males where many such males grow up to be completely normal females both physically and psychologically. Diagnosis of gender of such individuals (and in many other disorders) is highly ambiguous during the fetal stage of life. So if a woman who wanted a male child, finds that her child has grown up to be a female, wouldn’t she complain that her doctor mislead her at the time of pregnancy which she could have aborted?
In reply to Mayur
Actually the right to one’s own life including the right to suicide is an oxymoron. Those rights cannot be “granted” because they’re not anyone’s to give. Making suicide illegal is a joke – it’s an example of the state overstepping its authority. The right to one’s own life and the right to die along with the right to one’s own body are so fundamental, so basic that instinctively anyone feels a revulsion when those rights are impinged upon. In most western democracies, suicide (not euthanasia) is legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#Laws_in_individual_jurisdictions
In these countries, suicide may well be frowned upon (for obvious reasons), but a crime? Hardly. Like I said, it boggles my mind to view the arrogance of a state that can make suicide “illegal”. What will the government do next? Try to outlaw bad weather? :D
What if the woman in question hates girls? Don’t you think it’s ridiculous for the government to be able to tell a person to have a child that they’re going to hate? I certainly think so. In any case, if we believe that abortion for any reason is ok (including the woman feeling bored), then I fail to see how giving the gender as a reason can be any worse.
There are in fact many medical procedures that are not done for the patient’s health. Plastic surgery is just one example.
As for the determination of sex, that’s a different issue altogether. My premise is philosophical – the details in my opinion are distractions…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Outlawing bad weather cannot be compared to suicide. Suicide is an act committed by a human while weather is not. I think the idea behind making suicide illegal is that people understand the consequences of ending their own life. Though it may sound weird, here’s a hypothetical example. Suppose a doctor is severely depressed and wants to end his life. Currently he is doing a surgery and has an unconscious patient on the table with his abdomen opened up. He suddenly decides he has had enough and sticks the scalpel in his own neck. He is somehow saved but at the expense of putting the life of the patient in grave danger. What if a depressed pilot decides to jump off a plane mid-flight? I don’t think much can be done if a person dies after an attempted suicide. You can’t jail or hang a dead person. :) But surely, an attempt to suicide should be illegal.
It’s not about hating girls or boys. And neither is the government forcing women to have a child against their wishes. But since the basis of sex-selection is flawed itself, it cannot be legalized.
As I said before, “abortion for any reason” is not ok too. It has to have medical justification. And plastic surgery is not done randomly without any relation to a patient’s health. It is done for the “correction or restoration of form and function”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery
Even though it may seem philosophical, the legal consequences of ambiguous diagnosis of gender of a fetus can be very complicated if sex-selective abortion is legalized.
In reply to Mayur
Making something illegal is absurd if it cannot be enforced or the person cannot be punished. In other words, when there are no consequences for breaking the law, there can be no law. I guarantee you that for a person who is distressed enough to commit suicide, breaking the law is the very last thing on their mind. Perhaps they recognize the absurdity of such a law and rightly refuse to give it any importance.
It’s like the government outlawing going to the loo. Or banning the act of raising your hand over your head and waving it thirty times. They can say whatever they want, but everyone knows it’s ridiculous. It’s like the emperor having no clothes on. Everyone knows it, but him :). If governments want to stop making an ass of themselves they should get rid of absurd law like this.
As I mentioned, many countries have legalized suicide. Even the law commission of India recommended the same in 2008.
The basis for sex selection can simply be that a woman doesn’t like girls. The law cannot tell people what to like and what not to like. If we speak from a strictly statistical point of view, all things being equal having a medical abortion with the proper procedure is a safer procedure than childbirth itself! So if you’re a doctor you should recommend that every pregnant woman should have an abortion (again all things being equal). In fact, she should give valid reasons for going ahead with childbirth :D
I’ve always viewed a fetus as a parasite – sucking nutrition and life from the mother and giving nothing in return. And it can easily kill the host when it comes out. Now there are emotional reasons for not viewing the fetus as a sucking draining life form. But well…it is kind of like a parasite. I can feel the hairs on my arms rising up :)
But this line of argument though persuasive is irrelevant. Even if abortion was more dangerous than childbirth (which it isn’t), it’s still the woman’s choice to put her body at risk.
I think a lot of plastic surgery is done without a medical reason. Here in the US for example, advertising companies have billboard ads saying you can improve your cheekbones, or nose or whatever. No medical reason is necessary or asked for.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Of course, any woman has to cleared medically out of risk even if she wants to continue with a pregnancy. No doctor will allow a woman to undergo child birth if there is a definite risk to her life. Maybe you didn’t know about this. But you are entitled to being ignorant about it since you do not belong to the medical field. :)
Strictly on medical aspects, if child birth is unsafe for the life of a woman, then more often than not, an abortion would be risky too IF allowed to progress beyond the age when the gender of the fetus can be assessed. Because a fetus is just not sitting inside the uterus. It is actually attached to the uterine wall.
Also, since a fetus is a parasite, why shouldn’t people be allowed to abandon new born babies if they hate them for any reason? Suppose a woman gives birth willingly, but after birth of the baby doesn’t like the face of the new born. Should then she be allowed to throw it away? Why should any law force her to take care of the baby? When is it exactly that the parasite stops being a parasite? Shouldn’t even infanticide be made legal then? Shouldn’t a new born be considered a parasite too as all it does is to suck breast milk? I don’t think it gives anything in return even then. So, if it is fine to kill a parasite in the uterus, it should be fine to kill a parasite outside too. Don’t we kill lice? Or should we see child birth as the cut-off point when pro-choice turns into pro-life?
In reply to Mayur
Both my parents are doctors. And my grandparents. And great grandparents. Incidentally, if you’re a doctor from India you probably studied form my grandfather’s book “Theory and Practice of Social and Preventive Medicine” by John Park. So I’m not completely ignorant of what happens in the field :)
I assumed were were talking about “normal” healthy scenarios. Not where there is a risk to the mother either continuing the pregnancy or aborting.
Even with normal child birth there are small risks. I’m just saying that statistically speaking all things being equal it’s safer to have a proper medical abortion than going through with child birth.
I think birth is when “it” becomes a person in the first place. It’s not a question of pro-choice/pro-life anymore. Once we recognize an entity as a person they get the same protections extended to any member of civilization. So killing a baby is just the same as killing any other human being.
And here is my main point – a woman can never say “I don’t want this baby” after childbirth. Because then we can just reply back “Why the hell didn’t you abort?” This is another reason why all abortions should be legal for whatever cause. Because then no woman has an excuse for wanting to get rid of the baby after birth since abortions were easily available. If the woman viewed the baby as a parasite, the should have gotten rid of it before. Now that parasite has the rights of a person and it’s too late!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
That’s what I wanted to point out. How can the state force moral responsibility to care for an unwanted child on a mother who doesn’t want to breast feed a new born. Or on the father who doesn’t want to spend on the baby’s needs. Just because a parasite becomes capable to live outside the woman’s body, though still without being able to sustain itself on its own, how does it change into a ‘person’ suddenly? Suppose a woman was just getting bored and wanted to experience pregnancy and childbirth. After all it’s her own body. She can be free to do whatever she wants with it. She chose to have a parasite in her body for 9 months. Just like the tapeworm example you mentioned elsewhere. So when the parasite is out, how can the state say it is now a person when it cannot even demand any rights for itself? On the basis of our discussion, a new born should still be considered a parasite.
P S: Since you mentioned that Mr. Park was your grandfather, I would like to convey that I have lots and lots of regard for him. :)
In reply to Mayur
Incidentally, in a lot of countries parents are free to give up the child after birth. I actually used to write about this kind of stuff for a law firm a while ago. So even after childbirth, the parents can simply choose to abandon the kid to the government official. In the US, I believe 72 hours is the deadline. If you choose to keep the baby after that, then you’re responsible all the way. You made a choice.
The state has a compelling interest to protect its weakest citizens. That’s why disabled citizens get special access points etc. Interestingly that’s also why we have the concept of “being a minor”. As a minor you get special privileges like the freedom to be dependent on your parents. Of course you also lose your rights.
As for being a parasite, I did say that a baby was like a parasite. After childbirth it’s a contest between the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. Before childbirth, there was no child so only the rights of the mother had to be looked at. Now there are competing rights and the parents are held responsible for the newly created citizen till they turn 18. The joys of being a minor!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
__Female feticide is a symptom of a problem. It’s not the problem in and of itself.
__The problem is the horrible attitudes that people have towards girls.
Right, and not only that – it’s the horrible attitudes people have towards humans in general.
__That is where we need to attack.
People who want to do so, will be suppressed “by the empowered” immediately, so what’s the point in making this “we need to attack”-call?
In reply to Mosquito
Why and how will they be suppressed by the empowered?
Why will empowered women want to suppress their lesser fortunate sisters?
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
– “Why will empowered women want to suppress their lesser fortunate sisters?”
You misread my question, let me restate in more general terms:
You wrote:
– “The problem is the horrible attitudes that people have towards girls.”
I wrote (in more general terms):
– “…not only that – it’s the horrible attitudes people have towards humans in general.”
You wrote:
– “That is where we need to attack.”
And I agree, but asked the (now re-formulated) question:
But people who want to do so, will (apparently) be suppressed immediately “by those who have power over them” (no matter if sisters/brothers, males/females).
So, in what areas would somebody who wants to take up your suggestion: “We need to attack such attitudes!” best invest his efforts (to avoid such suppression-attempts best, … to not “fight wind-mills”)?
In reply to Mosquito
Would start with education at a young age. Explain the importance of equality in school etc. Then awareness campaigns, posters etc explaining the autonomy of women and the fundamental rights of the Constitution. Next, campaigns regarding how to go file an FIR and who to contact if an FIR is refused.
Basically campaigns educating people and children on the individuality of every human being and their rights as adults.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “Would start with education at a young age. Explain the importance of equality in school etc. ”
Ah, now we’re talking… ;-)
That’s a very good starting-point for an “attack, fighting horrible ethics” (without too much “opposing wind”).
Teaching ethics already at a very young age is important, because at least this very small basic-set of “rules for social interaction” then has a higher chance, to really be “burned-in-and-staying-there” (so to say).
In germany we have a (non-facultative) class for that (teached for 3 years at least, starting with entering the school-system).
And I’m sure you agree, that when the teacher in question “leads by example”, that this would help “the mind-sticking-issue” pretty much along… not very helpful, if he says to his own children, when they come home:
“See, what I told you in the ‘social-class’ is all bullocks, later on when you’re grown up and can think for yourselves, you can make up your own rules…”
Some (few) rules have to be “untouchable” – that should be (made) clear to any child, and “be clear” for any “grown-up”.
— “Basically campaigns educating people and children on the individuality
— of every human being and their rights as adults.”
That’s also a very good “attack-vector” for teaching “basic-human-values”.
And I’m sure, you will agree, that those “campaigns for human-rights”, or “campaigns for educating people in human-values” have to be attempted on any modern communication-platform or medium (*including* the internet).
Or do you explicitly want to exclude “blogs” from those “platforms of attack”?
In reply to Mosquito
Blogs are just another medium the government can use to spread awareness.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “Blogs are just another medium the government can use to spread awareness.”
I’m glad, you agree that Blogs are good platforms for your “attack idea” (to spread awareness).
Now, if you don’t mind… since you not only identified a very important “root-issue” in this discussion here, but on top of that even came up with a very great idea *where* to start “fighting these issues” (your “it has to start in schools”-idea I mean here… if there’s currently no “social-class” in indian schools, perhaps it’s a good idea, to “fight for one”, to be included into the “obligatory-education-plan”)
And if I may remind you, you wrote:
“That is where we need to attack.”
Please note the “We” (…for me that means, that you see also yourself “in all the action”).
So, since we have identified “Blogs as good platforms, to attack from”, and you being an accomplished writer … what about an appropriate article on your own blog, which brings the problem to a broader attention (not waiting for the government)?
Good idea?
In reply to Mosquito
No person has any business demanding action from other people. Each is responsible only for themselves.
Nevertheless I’ve been fighting on my blog for seven years for women’s rights, animal rights, gay rights etc. Did you check, or did you just assume that I haven’t? But that’s not because the government has asked me to. I do it because it makes me happy.
But again – irrelevant. Even if I didn’t give a damn, it doesn’t matter. My personal actions don’t enter into this and are unimportant.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “No person has any business demanding action from other people.”
If you read what I wrote again, it wasn’t a demand I made, it was a kind and politely expressed suggestion (formulated as a question, which definitely allowed an easy “No!”).
In case you want to take a look at something, which does exactly that:
… “…demanding action from other people…”…
I recommend, to re-read again what you wrote here:
“That is where we need to attack.”
Now that you say, “no person has any business, to demand action from other people”, how do we have to interpret the above sentence of yours?
Care to elaborate?
In reply to Mosquito
I’m fine if it’s voluntary. But I have problems with the word “should” or anything that implies being pressurized :)
In any case, what were we talking about before this?
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “I’m fine if it’s voluntary. But I have problems with the word “should” or anything that implies being pressurized”
Bhagwad, when I look at only the text of your opening article, I see it cluttered with a whole lot of “shoulds” – here only two examples:
– “Abortion now is and should be entirely at the discretion of the woman.”
– “No one should be forced to bear a child to term against their will.”
And with regards to your: “I’m fine, if it’s voluntary”…
Do you mean, that the educated reader, who’s entered a discussion with you, is now expected to apply such a suffix to every demand you make in your statements implicitly?
Here’s an example of a sequence of sentences, you wrote in a reply to me:
— “We need to change that.”
— “Consequences must be swift, sure, and sufficient.”
— “And for that we need to improve the police force and justice system.”
Rewritten with your suggested suffix, these sentences become a bit “weird” in my opinion:
— “We need to change that (but I’m fine if it’s voluntary).”
— “Consequences must be swift, sure, and sufficient (but I’m fine if it’s voluntary).”
— “And for that we need to improve the police force and justice system (but I’m fine if it’s voluntary).”
I hope, you see my problem.
In reply to Mosquito
Yes, I do say “should” with regard to only one thing – that no one else must say “should” to anyone else. In other words, I am adamant about people leaving other people alone. It’s a kind of “meta” enforcement. Like saying I’m tolerant of everything except intolerance.
Anyway like I said, this discussion has nothing to do with me. Let’s stick to the logic of the post and sex selective abortions specifically. I’m just an incidental and irrelevant.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “Let’s stick to the logic of the post and sex selective abortions specifically. ”
Ok (although it is difficult, to point out logical flaws to you), I will state my opinion at least.
It’s all about “attractiveness”.
Well, as a male one might say, that “higher female attractiveness is not in question” ;-) … but Ok – bad joke in this context – let’s get serious.
In strongly religious countries/societies, where abortion is considered “a crime”, it is apparently not “attractive” for a woman to abort a child, given the consequences she has to face, when she does so.
In countries, where the “weight of judgment” rests on the shoulders of women alone, it’s about attractiveness too. (and just to be clear, I find it good when woman have the right, to decide about what’s probably best for their future).
In “western countries” which are threatened with under-population, the attractiveness is often increased by “birth-money” – or by less taxing for families with more than one child, or other means which make it more attractive a decision, “to contribute to the common efforts, to increase the population again”.
In countries which have the problem of over-population, basically the same approach is applied (either per “soft attractiveness”, as e.g. less taxing for families with only a single child, or by “hard attractiveness”, as e.g. outlawing “more than one child” with larger monetary penalties or other means).
If in india it’s currently about the ratio between males and females which is becoming a bit “too askew”, then the government has to enhance the attractiveness, to give birth to a girl-child!
This would make the point moot, if it’s potentially the husband, or the family-members, who force a young woman into the decision, to abort her girl-child. The attractiveness needs to be “obvious”, not only to the young woman, but to her family-members as well (and e.g. with monetary attractiveness, this is usually the case).
If “monetary attractiveness” is difficult to ensure, because the national budget is currently not capable enough for that, then the government has to weigh, if “outlawing a deep-rooted custom” (as e.g. dowry) is the lesser evil in the long-run, compared with an “unhealthy becoming ratio between males and females”. Or introduce a “male-child-tax” – which would help the national budget as well – though being “extremely unpopular” of course, especially with families who already “don’t care, if it’s a girl or a boy” – but such a tax (in case the government makes clear, that it is applied only until a certain “healthy ratio” is reached again) would definitely help to “shape and sharpen the public opinion” – because then the “neighbors who want to get rid of this damn tax as fast as possible”, will have something to say to anybody (they know) who apparently “undermines the efforts by careless abortion of an otherwise wanted child, in case it’s a girl”. Such a taxing could be applied selectively to e.g. the “rural regions”, if those are the regions where the ratio is askew the most – these are also the regions, where “neighbors, knowing circumstances of other neighbours” is a given, so that the just outlined “psychological effect” really takes place, and is not “drowned in anonymity” as e.g. in a larger city.
Or the already mentioned “campaigns in ethics”, or teaching deep-rooted human-values (“males and females are equal”) already in school, so that also on that emotional level: “having a girl” is considered attractive (or non-attractive) in the same measure as “having a boy”. That’s a more long-term-approach, which takes “a generation or two” – but the danger with unhealthy becoming birth-ratios is not exactly a short-term-problem either.
In reply to Mosquito
The problem with “taxing” solutions is that it punished people for the misdeeds of others. If disincentives are needed, it must be surgically targeted only to those who indulge in the act. Hence almost all “disincentives” go out the window. Not to mention that it’s a poor style of governance.
Incentives on the other hand have no such restrictions. But you need the budget for that. And it’ll never be enough as long as a girl’s dowry costs lakhs or rupees. The government cannot afford to give that much money to any girl child.
I think we can only look at long term solutions here. You know the saying, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” – H. L. Mencken.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
— “The problem with “taxing” solutions is that it punished people for the misdeeds of others.”
Sure, that’s obviously the case in countries, where taxing-solutions already *are* (in the meantime successfully) used, to regulate over- or under-population”.
When I live in China, where I have to pay higher taxes (or even penalties), in case I (want to) have more than a single child, then I obviously pay for “the misdeeds of others”.(who earlier contributed “more than their share” to the over-population).
Despite the upheaval this caused in China (especially in the early years of introduction), it seems that now “…76% of the Chinese population supports the policy”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
That this apparently coincides with the highly increased economic success of China over the last years, is no surprise I think. So that’s another “factor” which plays a role in all that.
Sure, regulating-incentives are better than -disincentives – but in large countries like China or India, with larger (yet) under-developed or non-urbanized “rural regions”, there seem to be no better solutions, which really come “without pain” for the society (or the “rural community”) as a whole.
Softer solutions take more time – if India decides, that it has this time, then (according to 3 idiots) “aall iis well” (that mayhap as a suggestion, that India should of course not miss its potential, to transport “the message” also over a few well-made bollywood-flicks ;-).
— “You know the saying, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.
I do, but solving these things over tax-regulations is apparently not uncommon – and India already has a pretty comparable “huge trial-balloon to look at” in China (in size, and in problem-domain – also with regards to sex-imbalances, dowry, rural regions etc.)
I’m not an indian, and will therefore stop now with my “shooting from the hip” – and leave it with my suggestion, what (more or less) works for other countries in terms of “population-regulation in general”.
In reply to Mosquito
That’s what distinguishes authoritarian countries from one like India. If that was tried in India, the courts would strike it down fast. And I’m glad that’s the case. The ends don’t justify the means.
In reply to Mayur
Fine, then why should empowered women like me not have sex selective abortions. After all I am making the decision, albeit morally sketchy one, not to have a female child ? (I have a daughter in real life and love her to bits. Just clarifying)
If the issue really is empowerment, women cannot be empowered unless they WANT to. You can do everything to empower women and you will see an automatic reduction in sex selective abortions. Sex selective abortions are not happening in a vacuum. They are happening because of the patriarchy and misogyny that surrounds us. Simply banning sex determination only forces the procedure underground. Like Satyameva Jayate showed, India is full of doctors who use code words to let the family know about the sex of the baby. Ultrasound clinics charge ridiculous rates under the table to give this information away. All this and really one way or another the woman still does not have 100% control over her own body making her less empowered.
The current solution is going the same way as reservations in India which can directly be attributed to reduced quality of university graduates and government employees while the tribals who really need help are still waiting to see a school for the first time.
In reply to Clueless
So once again we come to the fundamental problem – there are two India. The “empowered” India and the non empowered one. The problem is that laws targeted towards one section are oppressive to the other. Moreover, those laws have no interest in actually converting a “non empowered” woman to an empowered one…
I feel my solution is a good one – have a test to determine whether or not every person at 18 is ready to shoulder their responsibility for themselves and to find out whether or not they understand what it means to be responsible for their own choices. Make them sign a document saying they take full responsibility for their lives.
Once you qualify to be an adult, you get all the rights and privileges of one. Like voting, marriage etc.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Bhagwad,
In theory I completely agree with your solution. But in practice I fear the implementation will falter. In a country like India, adult qualification exams will be completely rigged and some middlemen will fleece people and make money off it while the poorer section of the society that is uneducated and illiterate will completely lose its privileges.
There will be a swarm of goondas who will never take the exam and commit crime without facing the punishment for it as they are not ‘adults’.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
I think a part of the problem lies in accepting that there are women of all types just like men of all shades. I think Indian society cannot accept a ‘bad’ woman. It cannot accept a bad DIL who goes against the wishes of her ILs, it cannot accept a ‘bad; wife who walks out of a marriage. And it certainly cannot accept a ‘bad’ would-be mother who willingly has an abortion for no other reason than the fact that she can.
Since the bad Indian woman cannot exist, they want laws to make it illegal for her to exist. Cue – ban on sex selective abortions.
If a woman can be bad and exist, then that means she is a person. She is no longer an object of purity, sacrifice, you-name-it. And that is the crux of this issue.
In reply to Mayur
Mayur: Yes, it is difficult to make Bhagwad understand anything about the emotional aspects of life, so most discussions come to an abrupt end, because one cannot take them beyond a certain point.
In reply to Mayur
Oh yes, a bunch of men deciding whether women are truly empowered. How ironic!
I proclaim that men in the Indian society, who are also victims of patriarchy are not empowered to make decisions for themselves and their families. So we will take away control of their body from them. We will sterilize any male who willing admits to exclusively wanting male children. After all we are doing it for their benefit.
In reply to Clueless
Clueless, I think the plot lies elsewhere. How can sterilization be a remedy to control any gender-specific discrimination? Either male or female?
Or are we asking for accepting and legalizing patriarchy?
In reply to Mayur
Mayur, my point was not to find the perfect solution for female infanticide. I am just pointing out how ridiculous the loss of control over one’s body seems when the recipient is male.
Yes, women are under pressure. But ultimately they are the ones responsible for their lives and the way it turns out. I have made many decisions that may have not sat well with some of the family, but right now, because of that, I am not complaining about how someone ruined my life.
BTW, the pressure is not just for women. There is pressure on those husbands too who choose to listen to their relatives and opt for gender testing. So if there is pressure on men, and you think taking away control for the greater good is an OK idea, then you should be OK with forced modifications to the male reproductive system.
In reply to Clueless
Sorry, but I’m not getting your point. How does modifying the male reproductive system check the problem of sex-selective abortions? Males cannot undergo an abortion as they do not ‘carry’ the fetus. They can be sterilized. And so can a woman. But how does sterilization in either be a solution for anything except for not having a baby at all?
In reply to Raziman T V
Raziman TV ” . More often than not, it would be the woman who has no voice in the household. She would protest it if she could, but resisting such a demand from the in-laws would end up with her being kicked out in the best-case scenario and killed in the worst-case. That is all that a woman who has been physically abused by her husband can think. And once the in-laws desert her, even her own family would not take her back. Especially in her current state, she would have nowhere to go.”
You have a deep understanding of how things actually are in most of India.
It will take another generation to change and change will come when the women of today, bring up their children to think differently
In reply to Raziman T V
I think Satyameva Jayate showed that sex selective abortions happen with a higher regularity in the middle and upper classes of the society rather than at the lower classes.
The uneducated 35% you are talking about do not even have the facility or the money to go to a hospital and afford an ultrasound or an abortion.
Yes, I do find it disturbing.
Infact, many women who do carry girls and give birth, against their will (or their family’s), are not really able to provide their daughters a good life, for various reasons – they are financially dependent, they don’t have much say in the way the family works, etc. This despite the government providing a lot of incentives for the girl children.
I agree mindsets have to change, but even after that, there are going to be women who don’t want girl children. And it should be entirely upto them.
In reply to Taaza Mist
I agree – the only real solution lies in the empowerment of women. And we need the laws to respect that and give the woman complete autonomy over her own life. Unlike now when the government babies them “for their own good”.
In reply to bhagwad
It’s not so much as the government babying them, its the husbands and in laws. Traditional patriarchal husbands like to think that their wives are stupid, even if they come from good cultured educated families, are smart, educated and have ideas of their own. Just because it is a woman’s nature to ” give in ” and put the needs of others before herself, to maintain harmony, happiness and peace in their homes ( which is what many women want when they have children ) husbands think that they can bully their wives and walk all over them.
In reply to tp
Life isn’t fair. There are bullies all over the world and they have to be fought. You can’t come running to the government to help you. Unless the bullying is physical. Then it’s a different matter.
I had been debating this issue with you where you wrote about abortion in general. It’s nice that you wrote about this separately. So I’ll have another go at you. :-)
According to logic, your argument seems fair. Of course a woman should have control over her body. And if a woman herself doesn’t want a baby of a particular gender, it should be taken as her choice. As you said, it will be a horrible thing to do, still she should have her choice. Though such a mindset is due to prejudiced attitudes and experiences in life, and that can be another debate, but as you will agree, we cannot make laws against mindsets.
But the ground reality in places like India where female feticide is prevalent, is that females are forced to make that choice. I know, you will disagree, and as you said, ideally and legally one cannot be forced unless forced physically. But having seen such cases personally throughout my professional career, there are a lot of factors other than physical force which control a woman’s decisions.
Of course it is easy to say that a woman should make her own choice against anything she does not want. But being the type of society that India is, it is the woman who surrenders her choices. In Indian society, there are a lot of things that affect an individual even other than physical force. I agree with you that such an attitude should not exist and a person should stand for his choices. But it is not what happens. Ideally it should not, but it does.
And a big reason for this is because people put society before self. You and I may give a damn to what society thinks. But people do. And that is a reality.
“The principled way to fix this is by educating people and correcting the mindsets of people in this generation, and the next, and the next.”
There can hardly be anything which is more apt that what you said. But the only trouble is that by the time we manage to fix the mindsets of people, there wont be many or any females left.
Personally, I don’t resonate much with the argument of sex-ratio just because men need women to marry. That is in fact, insulting women for being seen as objects. What I believe is that women have equal right to exist whether or not they get married to men.
However illogical it may sound, but many women in India listen to their families not because they choose to, but because they don’t see any other option for themselves. And yes, many times they are physically abused too, but they choose to remain silent.
In reply to Mayur
In an earlier post I had proposed setting up two different sets of laws for women in India. One for mature and liberated women and another for the downtrodden ones. That was only half in jest, but maybe it can be expanded upon.
Instead of automatically achieving adulthood at the age of 18, people undergo a test asking them whether they understand what being an adult means, and whether they accept full responsibility for their actions. They have the right to refuse in which case they will still be deemed as children. They can’t marry, vote, drink, or drive.
When they pass the test of adulthood they can be given all the rights and headaches.
In reply to bhagwad
I think that considering the effects and responsibilities of one’s decision is the real cause of making unwanted choices. If only everyone would be able to put self before everything else, all your arguments would not just be accepted, but put into practice as well.
Secondly, many people have a misconception that uneducated and poor women are the one who are the downtrodden as they don’t know their rights. But as per my own experience, well educated and financially independent women are more prone to be forced into making unwanted choices. As they are the ones who care more about the social implications of their decisions which include abortions and divorces. Though they independently marry, vote, drink or drive, still they make strange choices in issues like abortion and divorce.
In Indian context, women think about the effects of their decisions on their children, husband, parents and finally on themselves before they make a final decision. If only they start putting themselves ahead of everyone, all that you say will be true. Just if a woman thinks about the effects of her decision on the people related to her, I wonder if she should be deemed as a child.
In reply to Mayur
The challenge is to find a test that meets the criteria of adulthood. The test can be taken at the age of 18 or every year after that to determine if the person (man or woman) is ready to be an adult.
Having said that, I think every person should be allowed to put other’s lives before theirs if they choose. As a free person, I can choose to let someone else control me.
In reply to Mayur
Mayur ” Of course it is easy to say that a woman should make her own choice against anything she does not want. But being the type of society that India is, it is the woman who surrenders her choices. In Indian society, there are a lot of things that affect an individual even other than physical force. I agree with you that such an attitude should not exist and a person should stand for his choices. But it is not what happens. Ideally it should not, but it does.”
You have expressed deep understanding of how in India women are forced into making certain choices, because she puts the needs of others before her own. This is not always as it should be, but the ground reality is, that for millions, this is the way it is
Completely agree with you. The ultimate power to decide has to rest with the woman and not anybody else. If she chooses to abort the female fetus(though horrible to do it because of gender), it is still her choice. She is probably basing it on her own experience of being a female in India and does not think it is worth living this kind of life or probably does not want to deal with the issues that it might bring.. It does sound very wrong and horrible, but the choice has to be with the woman.
I also agree with you that anybody over 18(this includes WOMEN) should be treated as adults who can make their own decisions. I do understand very few Indian women get that privilege(!) , but nevertheless, the law has to assume that this is the case. To offset any of the social norms that can influence people, mindset change is the one that needs to happen at grassroots level. Sadly, I know many people living in urban India and reasonably educated and upper middle class who say things like I saved a lot of gold jewellery for my daughter and spent a lot on my son’s education. This is the mindset that has to be tackled to see any true change in the attitude of people.
In reply to BB
Tough decisions. Treating women over 18 as adults is the only way to get true long term change. That goes not just for abortion, but for live in relationships when a woman sues her partner for leaving her(!), and treating the woman as an extra vulnerable person who needs protection in cases of divorce…
In reply to bhagwad
I’m amazed that a women who I’m assuming is empowered/ independent thinking enough to go in for a live-in relationship, but then sues her partner for a break up. Makes absolutely no sense. This also points to a dangerous situation where this so called empowered woman is still not able to make the rational descions that is expected in such a scenario.
My view on alimony etc is very Contentious by Indian standard. I think if two people come together to get married (no kids involved), and if for whatever reason the woman is not financially independent and stays home out of choice , I think she needs to accept the future risks of this decision( i.e left with not much money of her own) if she gets divorced. I think the state should not get involved(of course kids means you pay child support).
This way, people will be upfront aware of the perils of not being financially independent. I know this is not popular opinion because people say woman do housework etc. But that does not mean you get 50% of whatever is made during the period of marriage after divorce. Everybody has to earn their living unless you already have tons of money and can live off it for the rest of your life.
In reply to BB
As far as alimony goes (without child support), there is often an arrangement between partners that one will earn and the other will take care of the house. In the absence of a pre-nup, maintenance is one way of ensuring that the non earning partner is not left worse off in case of a divorce. A few points though:
1. Property division does not have to be 50%, but only half of the marital assets that have been specifically used by both parties
2. Alimony or maintenance is only applicable until the other person gets their own job or a set period of time.
In reply to bhagwad
1. Property division does not have to be 50%, but only half of the marital assets that have been specifically used by both parties
I think (not 100% sure) at least in the US , all the assets made during the marriage period , irrespective of the amount brought in by either spouse has to be divided equally among both. In my opinion this is unfair to the person who make way more money than the other spouse. If the pact between the couple is that one person stays home and the other works outside home( hence bringing a paycheck), then the person deciding to stay at home is already aware of the pitfalls of not being independent financially. So, in my opinion, state should not get involved and like you said if I’m an independent adult making this decision(however financially stupid) it is, I have to figure out a way to get out of it and not expect the state t bail me out.
2. Alimony or maintenance is only applicable until the other person gets their own job or a set period of time.
I’m glad it is only for a specified period and not lifetime.
In reply to BB
Pre nups rule!
Yes. I agree with you entirely. If she can abort a child for personal reasons why should she not be able to abort it because it is a girl child ?
The ONLY hitch here is, that when she decides to abort for other reasons, it usually happens within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy when we presume the foetus is still just a bundle of cells and not ” conscious “. When she aborts due to a gender problem the foetus is much older. It has a well formed nervous system and one can never know for sure about the ” consciousness ” issue.
In reply to tp
True. I agree.
Incidentally, if I wake up one day and a fully grown man is attached to my body and requires it for sustenance, do you think I have the right to just cut him off and leave him to die?
A thought provoking question indeed
I am absolutely pro-choice but I have mixed feelings on sex-selective abortions. I do agree that if abortions are okay, they should be okay for any reason, and if a pregnant woman decides of her own will that she does not want a girl child then really she shouldn’t be denied an abortion.BUT I think in a lot of cases the pregnant woman does not have much say in this matter, and is forced or coerced into an abortion by her in-laws/spouse/family. And it is force when the woman is completely dependant (as so many women are) on her family financially, because she is obedient in order to survive.
I know we need to tackle our society’s preference for males, that we need to stop treating women as liabilities by making it more acceptable for women to work, to be more than cooks and baby-making machines, in short a complete overhaul of our society’s gender roles is needed. The ban on sex-selective abortions is the govt’s shortcut way of doing this. Yes, it does infringe on the woman’s personal rights but I feel it is for the good of society.
In reply to BBD-Lite
I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of a woman becoming a passive vessel to further an abstract social agenda. The baby is then not hers – it belongs to the government who brought it into the world.
And guess who has to take care of it after it’s born?
“Why sex selective abortion is illegal in India”…since the question is about Indian context, your arguments actually holds no viability..it maybe right for any other country but certainly not for India.If given an option to select between a male and female child,maximum Indians will go for the male child.It is purely a discrimination based on sex…when was the last time we heard any news that any clinic is involved in illegal abortion of male fetus?? or that a female aborted the male fetus because she didn’t want a boy or because she wished for a girl?? probably never.
No one in India will ever abort a fetus because they consider their own right…they will go for a sex selective abortion just because they discriminate between the two sexes.
Every sex selective abortion is just another culpable homicide.
In reply to Anjali
I strongly believe that laws should be the same for all human beings. How can any abortion be murder when a fetus is not even a person?
In reply to Anjali
Anjali, the argument Bhagwad is putting here is that we should assume that a woman who is aborting a child on the basis of its gender is doing so at her own will, be it male or female. Though he is completely ignoring that in India, rarely does a woman aborts on the basis of gender by her will, let us for a minute agree with him. So Bhagwad,…
Now, suppose a woman doesn’t want a baby of a particular gender. Let us assume a female. The basis of argument for sex-selective abortion is that such a woman has no issues to bear a male child. (If she doesn’t want a baby altogether then gender shouldn’t matter anyways) So, how does such a woman prove that her body will be harmed more only when she bears a female baby and wouldn’t be harmed if she has a male baby? As Bhagwad argues that a woman shouldn’t be forced to put her body to harm when she doesn’t want to.
If the whole argument is about the ‘liking’ of the woman for male babies, then I wonder if laws are framed according to people’s likings. The law requires a proof that a certain act will be harmful to an individual. Will it not be just like an example where a person is stabbed by a male or a female, but the person wants the law to punish only the female who stabbed him because he doesn’t ‘like’ females. The law punishes an act of stabbing because it hurts the victim irrespective of being committed by a male or a female.
Secondly, if a fetus is not even a person, then how can it be classified as male or female? Can we or do we classify non-living objects as males or females according to human criteria? If fetuses are non-living, then it is absurd to term a fetus as of a particular gender. So the argument of sex-selective abortion doesn’t even arise.
And lastly, even if we classify the gender of a non-living fetus in terms of living humans, what criteria do we choose to term a fetus as a male or a female? Do we consider the genotype or the phenotype of the fetus to enable a pregnant woman to exercise her choice to abort the fetus selectively?
In reply to Mayur
…he is also ignoring the fact that in other countries like US, a mother can be sent to jail if her alcohol intake during pregnancy was sufficient to harm the fetus…she can’t plea in her defense that “I am responsible to my own body..yada,yada.yada”…so why only her rights are violated when she is supposed to give birth to a child of a gender she didn’t want?
In reply to Anjali
Those laws are only there in 20 states in the US are of dubious legality. It’ll be upto the US Supreme Court to overturn them.
your arguments holds no viability in Indian context…maybe right for other country but certainly not for India.If given a choice between male or female child,maximum people will go for the male child…
sex selective abortion cannot be justified…its merely a discrimination based on gender.
we all happen to read about female feticide and female infanticide qite often…but when was the last time you heard anything about any male feticide because the mother wanted a female child??? probably never.
Every sex selective abortion is yet another example of culpable homicide.