# ‘No girls born’ for past three months in area of India covering 132 villages



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ering-132-villages/ar-AAEGUlg?ocid=spartanntp

As a man and a heterosexual that supports women's rights all the way, I'm shocked such a barbaric practice even exists! If I would see that in reality, I'd cry like a baby!


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2019)

As I understand it, proponents of abortion rights find nothing wrong with this. It is the woman's choice. Even if that means eradication of women. Sex-specific abortions are not only found in India. Some may see this as a brilliant way to achieve a 90% reduction in global population.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

DrMike said:


> As I understand it, proponents of abortion rights find nothing wrong with this. It is the woman's choice. Even if that means eradication of women. Sex-specific abortions are not only found in India. Some may see this as a brilliant way to achieve a 90% reduction in global population.


Yeah, Eugenics would possibly have the same effect. And at least we'd all be tall blond athletic and beautiful then.

I assume you post in jest here? I seriously doubt that "proponents of abortion rights" find nothing wrong with this. A tiny and perverse fringe, maybe?

CWS. Hideous, I agree.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2019)

CnC Bartok said:


> Yeah, Eugenics would possibly have the same effect. And at least we'd all be tall blond athletic and beautiful then.
> 
> I assume you post in jest here? I seriously doubt that "proponents of abortion rights" find nothing wrong with this. A tiny and perverse fringe, maybe?
> 
> CWS. Hideous, I agree.


Is not the position of pro-choice individuals that it is a woman's body and her choice? So they would have no problem with this if it was truly just these women choosing. My tone was in jest, yes, but I think the underlying idea was earnest. There are some pretty unsavory implications of unrestricted abortion on demand. In reality, the vast majority have nothing to do with birth defects or health of the mother. They have to do with things as banal as "it's a girl and I wanted a boy," and other such things.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2019)

This particular situation, though, is born of the culture where having a daughter can be financially crippling. Sons can bring wealth to a family - a daughter represents a massive dowery down the road. Sad as this is, it is not new. I worked with an Indian in the past who told of this practice (his parents were both Ob/Gyns in India)- if abortion is not an option, then sometimes they will simply leave the newborn girl to die of exposure or drown it in a river.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Not here they don't..... according to the Law in England and Wales:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

DrMike said:


> This particular situation, though, is born of the culture where having a daughter can be financially crippling. Sons can bring wealth to a family - a daughter represents a massive dowery down the road. Sad as this is, it is not new. I worked with an Indian in the past who told of this practice (his parents were both Ob/Gyns in India)- if abortion is not an option, then sometimes they will simply leave the newborn girl to die of exposure or drown it in a river.


Cannot fault your explanation of the reasons, and we all remember the Chinese one child laws. Only way out of it is female access to education.

There's a whole world of difference between abortion rights and unrestricted abortion on demand, surely?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

They had a similar issue in China during the heyday of the one-child laws. Some parts of China had major imbalances between male and female births. So in many places, the use of ultrasound during pregnancy was outlawed.

The imbalance lingers. Here's a recent article from a Hong Kong newspaper: _Boys to vastly outnumber girls in China for years: population official_.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I've heard worst stories from Hong Kong. My dad would see lots of dead babies that were thrown from bridges, and some got stuck in trees. My mom would hear some babies crying being left in garbage cans. Many also get strangled. I'm not so keen on abortion for the hell of it, but it is a lot better than those babies being killed after being delivered. The earlier the stage the better. Lesser of 2 evils, way I see it.

Another disturbing story my Dad told me, was I had some would-be uncles that were abandoned, because my grandparents couldn't afford to support more than the 3 kids. A couple of them were abandoned in the streets with a towel or blanket covered over them. My dad lifted the blanket one time after some days and saw one still alive and crying with insect bites all over. He felt there wasn't much he could do. Not a story I can forget.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I've heard worst stories from Hong Kong. My dad would see lots of dead babies that were thrown from bridges, and some got stuck in trees. My mom would hear some babies crying being left in garbage cans. Many also get strangled. I'm not so keen on abortion for the hell of it, but it is a lot better than those babies being killed after being delivered. The earlier the stage the better. Lesser of 2 evils, way I see it.
> 
> Another disturbing story my Dad told me, was I had some would-be uncles that were abandoned, because my grandparents couldn't afford to support more than the 3 kids. A couple of them were abandoned in the streets with a towel or blanket covered over them. My dad lifted the blanket one time after some days and saw one still alive and crying with insect bites all over. He felt there wasn't much he could do. Not a story I can forget.


That must have been a long time ago! I never heard of such things in Hong Kong when I lived there for three years just prior to the British turnover of the colony to China in 1997. Hong Kong was a very urbanized and industrialized place, not at all the kind of rural economy that tends to devalue female children.

The article I linked to is about mainland China, not Hong Kong. Although China has a very long history of female infanticide and more recently sex-selective abortions, it was never a real demographic problem until after 1979, when a one-child law was enacted (subsequently made less rigorous, especially for rural families, and finally phased out altogether in 2015). Of course, the one-child laws didn't apply in Hong Kong before or after the British exit.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> As I understand it, proponents of abortion rights find nothing wrong with this. It is the woman's choice. Even if that means eradication of women. Sex-specific abortions are not only found in India. Some may see this as a brilliant way to achieve a 90% reduction in global population.


As usual, DrMike's "understanding" is extraordinarily faulty. Proponents of a woman's right to choose and to control her body and reproduction are appalled at using sonography to ensure gender selection. India's woman-hating, male dominated culture is riven by rape, "honor" killings, violence and brutality against women on a scale only equalled by Pakistan. The women caught up in this horrendous practice have zero ability to overrule their male rulers. "It is the woman's choice"! Really?? Is this a free and informed choice? How naïve! This is yet another example of the need for a worldwide top priority campaign for full female equality, crushing any social or religious opposition to it as retrograde, ignorant, and vile.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

KenOC said:


> That must have been a long time ago! I never heard of such things in Hong Kong when I lived there for three years just prior to the British turnover of the colony to China in 1997. Hong Kong was a very urbanized and industrialized place, not at all the kind of rural economy that tends to devalue female children.
> 
> The article I linked to is about mainland China, not Hong Kong. Although China has a very long history of female infanticide and more recently sex-selective abortions, it was never a real demographic problem until after 1979, when a one-child law was enacted (subsequently made less rigorous, especially for rural families, and finally phased out altogether in 2015). Of course, the one-child laws didn't apply in Hong Kong before or after the British exit.


Yeah, was quite a while ago, I think from the 50's or 60's. The part with my uncles being abandoned was when my Dad still lived in China (Guangdong province).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> As usual, DrMike's "understanding" is extraordinarily faulty. Proponents of a woman's right to choose and to control her body and reproduction are appalled at using sonography to ensure gender selection. India's woman-hating, male dominated culture is riven by rape, "honor" killings, violence and brutality against women on a scale only equalled by Pakistan. The women caught up in this horrendous practice have zero ability to overrule their male rulers. "It is the woman's choice"! Really?? Is this a free and informed choice? How naïve! This is yet another example of the need for a worldwide top priority campaign for full female equality, crushing any social or religious opposition to it as retrograde, ignorant, and vile.


So can a woman choose to have 20 kids under your plan?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"Community Forum:
This is the place for those fun, and not so serious threads, birthday greetings, & general chit-chat. Above all, be respectful to your fellow forum members as they have a right to their own opinions too!
Any/All discussions about Politics or Religion are restricted to the Social Groups
Members can create their own Social Group. If you need assistance, please contact a staff member via Private Message."

Just a reminder to all concerned, including the moderators, of the rules/goals of the Community Forum. As has been pointed out, mostly by me for years, and as everybody knows or ought to know, the Groups are the place for discussions of the character of this thread. Some members, in clear defiance of the rules but in order to satisfy their own desire to stir up anthills outside of the Group format, deliberately start threads here knowing full well that controversy unsuited to the Community Forum concept will erupt here. We all know what's going on. The question is: what will be done about it?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So can a woman choose to have 20 kids under your plan?


Yup, if it's the woman's choice.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I see no problem with this topic being here, "upstairs" in the regular forum. It's about serious issues, but so also have been recent discussions of environmental degradation, population growth, and so forth.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

CnC Bartok said:


> Cannot fault your explanation of the reasons, and we all remember the Chinese one child laws. Only way out of it is female access to education.
> 
> There's a whole world of difference between abortion rights and unrestricted abortion on demand, surely?


Abortion laws in the U.S. are much looser than over there across the pond.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> As usual, DrMike's "understanding" is extraordinarily faulty. Proponents of a woman's right to choose and to control her body and reproduction are appalled at using sonography to ensure gender selection. India's woman-hating, male dominated culture is riven by rape, "honor" killings, violence and brutality against women on a scale only equalled by Pakistan. The women caught up in this horrendous practice have zero ability to overrule their male rulers. "It is the woman's choice"! Really?? Is this a free and informed choice? How naïve! This is yet another example of the need for a worldwide top priority campaign for full female equality, crushing any social or religious opposition to it as retrograde, ignorant, and vile.


Really? If this were happening in New York City, and the women were willingly aborting females, what exactly would you do to stop it? They just made abortions even easier to procure, far past 24 weeks.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

DrMike said:


> Abortion laws in the U.S. are much looser than over there across the pond.


"across the pond" - piffle. Reminds me of my mother telling a Thai waitress that she once lived in Japan, as if the two places were sisters...

Kipling wrote about a girl whose father amputated her arms after a Brit soldier gave her some attention...


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Reminds me of the great quote from Charles James Napier, upon his ending the practice of sati in India, where the wife must climb the funeral pyre with her dead husband. The Hindu priests complained he was preventing them practicing a long-standing tradition, to which he replied, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

According to a paper published in the _New China Review_ in the late 1800s, in one area of China there were "baby towers," stone structures where women could deposit their unwanted female babies. Obviously the infants were at risk of perishing from exposure and lack of nutrition. But orders of Buddhist nuns would send members around, sometimes, to rescue whomever they could and raise them within their orders.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Really? If this were happening in New York City, and the women were willingly aborting females, what exactly would you do to stop it? They just made abortions even easier to procure, far past 24 weeks.


A wonderful hypothetical! What if the women were having abortions for fun? Again, as I have suggested many times, people (men) should find out out about the real lived lives of women; there are likely women around many men who have had abortions but who never reveal either that fact or discuss the circumstances that drove them to seek an abortion. Men are full of theories about abortion, but usually woefully short on direct knowledge. I have actually discussed these issues with women who felt able to talk to me about it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I see no problem with this topic being here, "upstairs" in the regular forum. It's about serious issues, but so also have been recent discussions of environmental degradation, population growth, and so forth.


It's clear you see no problem. You have failed to read the rules/goals of the Community Forum that I thoughtfully repeated, or chose to ignore them, with the complicity of the moderators. It's that simple, really. Schizophrenic, but simple, what goes on here.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Here's an interesting thought: If a woman were to have unprotected sex with 100 men in a year, she can still only bring to term one pregnancy during that same time. A guy could have unprotected sex with 100 women in a year and 100 pregnancies could result. So if you REALLY want less abortions it would seem that controlling men's ability to create pregnancy would be the main focus. 

*And they slowly drifted away, with the older ones who knew the 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution going first.*


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> A wonderful hypothetical! What if the women were having abortions for fun? Again, as I have suggested many times, people (men) should find out out about the real lived lives of women; there are likely women around many men who have had abortions but who never reveal either that fact or discuss the circumstances that drove them to seek an abortion. Men are full of theories about abortion, but usually woefully short on direct knowledge. I have actually discussed these issues with women who felt able to talk to me about it.


You won't directly answer the question. Do you actually believe there should be any kind of restriction on abortion? I doubt it, at the very least because it fits very well with your desire to reduce the population by 90%. But I suspect as well that if a woman told you she had an abortion simply because she found out she was going to have one gender, but wanted the other, you'd be okay. Because her body, her choice, right?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> Here's an interesting thought: If a woman were to have unprotected sex with 100 men in a year, she can still only bring to term one pregnancy during that same time. A guy could have unprotected sex with 100 women in a year and 100 pregnancies could result. So if you REALLY want less abortions it would seem that controlling men's ability to create pregnancy would be the main focus.
> 
> *And they slowly drifted away, with the older ones who knew the 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution going first.*


You know how I solve that problem? Monogamous marriage with complete fidelity to my spouse.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

DrMike said:


> You won't directly answer the question. Do you actually believe there should be any kind of restriction on abortion? I doubt it, at the very least because it fits very well with your desire to reduce the population by 90%. But I suspect as well that if a woman told you she had an abortion simply because she found out she was going to have one gender, but wanted the other, you'd be okay. Because her body, her choice, right?


This is just a hypothetical. The fact is that on a practical bases the anti-abortion crowd might be sincere but it only really applies to the poor. The wealthy will always get abortions no matter what the laws say so the net affect is that it will only apply to the poor. Of course that isn't the demographic of the conservatives so that doesn't matter.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> You know how I solve that problem? Monogamous marriage with complete fidelity to my spouse.


That seems to be an impossible dream, even in those societies that champion it!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> You won't directly answer the question. Do you actually believe there should be any kind of restriction on abortion? I doubt it, at the very least because it fits very well with your desire to reduce the population by 90%. But I suspect as well that if a woman told you she had an abortion simply because she found out she was going to have one gender, but wanted the other, you'd be okay. Because her body, her choice, right?


This is poor stuff! Of all people, you know best of my perhaps 250-year dream goal of reducing Earth's human population to a sustainable level of about 750 millions by allowing/supporting women to be fully equal to men, and in full control of their reproductive functions through confidential access to effective contraception. Yet you yammer on about abortion as if it were the only means available or desirable. Every pro-choice supporter wants abortion to be legal, safe, and rare; opponents want abortion to be dangerous and secret. As to restrictions to abortion, I would cheerfully outlaw the use of ultrasound as a tool for gender selection (I've stated this several times as you know), but in a world where girls were regarded with the same respect and affection as boys, such selection pressure would reduce to negligible levels.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

All this raises an interesting issue. Most pregnancies result from a willing cooperation of male and female, and the creation of a new life and potential human being.

Should the female alone determine whether this life continues or is cut short, or should the male participant have a voice as well?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> This is poor stuff! Of all people, you know best of my perhaps 250-year dream goal of reducing Earth's human population to a sustainable level of about 750 millions by allowing/supporting women to be fully equal to men, and in full control of their reproductive functions through confidential access to effective contraception. Yet you yammer on about abortion as if it were the only means available or desirable. Every pro-choice supporter wants abortion to be legal, safe, and rare; opponents want abortion to be dangerous and secret. As to restrictions to abortion, I would cheerfully outlaw the use of ultrasound as a tool for gender selection (I've stated this several times as you know), but in a world where girls were regarded with the same respect and affection as boys, such selection pressure would reduce to negligible levels.


You're behind the times. They've dropped the rare line with the whole "shout your abortion" movement. And I know you support the glacial pace of population reduction, but I doubt you would complain if the pace picked up and you reached your goal a century early.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> You're behind the times. They've dropped the rare line with the whole "shout your abortion" movement. And I know you support the glacial pace of population reduction, but I doubt you would complain if the pace picked up and you reached your goal a century early.


That is correct: I would not complain (who would?) if the pace picked up and the goal was reached in 150 years. Would you complain? If the goal was reached by full female equality and their confidential access to effective contraception, who would complain, other than misogynists, religious fanatics, and cornucopian economists?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> That is correct: I would not complain (who would?) if the pace picked up and the goal was reached in 150 years. Would you complain? If the goal was reached by full female equality and their confidential access to effective contraception, who would complain, other than misogynists, religious fanatics, and cornucopian economists?


Killing off 90% of the population in 150 years would be disastrous. I think most infrastructure would collapse with that massive a culling. I suspect most people would complain. Especially if it was done through selective abortion of females.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

KenOC said:


> All this raises an interesting issue. Most pregnancies result from a willing cooperation of male and female, and the creation of a new life and potential human being.
> 
> Should the female alone determine whether this life continues or is cut short, or should the male participant have a voice as well?


I think since the female is the bearer, she is the only one entitled to the choice, unless there was some sort of contract for the pregnancy. But even if there was, she would be entitled to decide whether to go on with it, or keep the baby for herself, if she was paid for it from a couple, in my view. As long as she returns the money. I would consider the act of giving birth or mother/baby relationship sacred in this way.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Killing off 90% of the population in 150 years would be disastrous. I think most infrastructure would collapse with that massive a culling. I suspect most people would complain. Especially if it was done through selective abortion of females.


Absurd! Nobody is talking (except you) about ''killing off" 90% of the population--we reserve that sort of talk for the Irish potato famine and perhaps the famines to come. My notion was simple: since it took 250 years to increase the global population by a factor of ten, it would be prudent to postulate 250 years to reduce it to a sane, sustainable tenth of its current numbers. But let's argue over 150 versus 250 years for many, many posts .


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> All this raises an interesting issue. Most pregnancies result from a willing cooperation of male and female, and the creation of a new life and potential human being.
> 
> Should the female alone determine whether this life continues or is cut short, or should the male participant have a voice as well?


You have partly answered your own question. Partly, because we have no way of knowing what percentage of pregnancies result from a willing cooperation of equals, equally- and well-informed. My wife's grandmother bore 15 children--was this the result of an informed cooperation between equals with unfettered access to effective contraception? In those cases where one has true equality shared by an informed couple, your question need not arise. Still, in this and all (other) cases, the woman should be in control of her own body.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

haydnguy said:


> This is just a hypothetical. The fact is that on a practical bases the anti-abortion crowd might be sincere but it only really applies to the poor. The wealthy will always get abortions no matter what the laws say so the net affect is that it will only apply to the poor. Of course that isn't the demographic of the conservatives so that doesn't matter.


That is a caricature that no longer holds. The richest Congressional districts have gone to Democrats. The large cities, where wealth is concentrated, go to Democrats. The most populated and wealthiest States vote for Democrats. Republicans win rural States and rural districts. Consider the wealthiest individuals in this country. How many of them support the GOP? You need to update your stereotypes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Absurd! Nobody is talking (except you) about ''killing off" 90% of the population--we reserve that sort of talk for the Irish potato famine and perhaps the famines to come. My notion was simple: since it took 250 years to increase the global population by a factor of ten, it would be prudent to postulate 250 years to reduce it to a sane, sustainable tenth of its current numbers. But let's argue over 150 versus 250 years for many, many posts .


And you are pie-in the-sky dreaming and completely unhinged from science. You will not reduce the population by 90% in 150 or 250 years without some massive violent occurrence - of which I would include female infanticide/abortion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> And you are pie-in the-sky dreaming and completely unhinged from science. You will not reduce the population by 90% in 150 or 250 years without some massive violent occurrence - of which I would include female infanticide/abortion.


Thank you! Well, now thats settled.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

From Pew Research:


DETAILED FAMILY INCOME: % voting R, D, I

R. D. I.
$150,000+. 33	32	32
$100,000 to $149,99934	30	33
$75,000 to $99,999	31	30	35	
$50,000 to $74,999	32	30	35
$40,000 to $49,999	31	31	35
$30,000 to $39,999	31	33	33
<$30,000 20	43	34

It's clear Republicans lead Democrats in every income level over $50,000. Always was the party of the rich and conservative. And when they need an abortion, they'll just wander over to a Blue state and get one, if their state has driven out the last providers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Odd that they stop at 150k. You're calling 50k wealthy? And 150k is only split by 1 point. Is that even statistically significant? You think this makes your point? If be curious what the breakdown is when you go higher. And besides, we are talking political power. The wealthy districts and states break for Democrats. This data you present is really kind of useless without any context.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

"male participant"... 

Ken, the correct term is "baby daddy"...


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Here is reporting on a study showing that the wealthiest areas of the country are donating more to Democrats than Republicans. The caricature of the GOP being the party of the rich has really slid, especially in the last presidential election. It was support from non-college educated whites that propelled Trump to victory, not the wealthy in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, LA, or D.C. They all supported Democrats.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think since the female is the bearer, she is the only one entitled to the choice, unless there was some sort of contract for the pregnancy. But even if there was, she would be entitled to decide whether to go on with it, or keep the baby for herself, if she was paid for it from a couple, in my view. As long as she returns the money. I would consider the act of giving birth or mother/baby relationship sacred in this way.


If the sex was consensual, and a pregnancy is the result, if the male has no say in the outcome of that pregnancy, then legally I think he should also bear none of the financial burden.

In reality, situations where a young pregnant woman strikes a deal with a couple hoping to adopt frequently screws over the hopeful adoptive parents. If the woman decides to not go through with it, their money is gone. The pregnant woman will never be forced into signing any kind of contract stating she will reimburse if she changes her mind because then she can just say that she will opt for a couple that doesn't require her to make such promises. I know this because I have friends to whom this has happened on several occasions in their efforts to adopt for over a decade. Luckily they did eventually get to adopt. But they spent tens of thousands of dollars helping out young women that ultimately changed their minds.

I think the act of giving birth should be a sacred act. The fact that we give them the option to terminate that pregnancy for even the most mundane of reasons taints that view a bit.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I guess DrMike missed the plus sign after $150,000. The Doctor was wrong--just plain wrong--about what wealth demographic votes R and which votes D. So now a mad scramble to say either A) it isn't really important, or B) let's scrounge up other statistics that are more congruent with his argument. A pattern.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> I guess DrMike missed the plus sign after $150,000. The Doctor was wrong--just plain wrong--about what wealth demographic votes R and which votes D. So now a mad scramble to say either A) it isn't really important, or B) let's scrounge up other statistics that are more congruent with his argument. A pattern.


Fine - if you want to count everybody at $150K and above as "the rich" you try to sell that. Tell me - at $150K in San Francisco, does that make you wealthy? In NYC? In D.C.? Do you think someone making $150K gives significantly more in campaign contributions that someone making $50K? I think the major money going to campaigns from the "wealthy" is probably starting up more in the $1 million range and above.

But like I said, your stats don't show anything without context. The wealthy sections of this country are electing Democrats, not Republicans. Wall Street - the epitome of American wealth - is represented by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, both Democrats. 21 of New York's 27 Congressional members are Democrats, and all of the representatives for Manhattan are Democrats. D.C.? Overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats. Chicago? Anybody remember the last time Republicans controlled that city? San Francisco/Silicone Valley? LA? The wealthiest Zip Codes are overwhelmingly contributing to Democrats and overwhelmingly electing Democrats. These wealthy congressional districts are nowhere near competitive for Republicans. Jerry Nadler (D-Manhattan) is sitting in a very comfortable D+26 district. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is in a D+37 district. California has 53 House members, of which 46 are Democrats. Both of their Senators and their Governor are Democrats. Tell me - what wealthy states and congressional districts are controlled by Republicans? The majority of the GOP strength comes from the South, the Midwest, and the intermountain West - not exactly where the wealthy in this country are concentrated.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

14.7% of US households earn over $150,000 per year. This means 85.3% of US households earn less than $150,000 per year. I think that works for me as a definition of being "rich" in the USA today. Sure more than my wife and I made together. Others clearly move in more affluent circles than do I, and define "rich" differently. The sky's the limit!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

Remind us again what any of this has to do with abortion--I've lost track.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Getting back to the original topic.
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this news. But I don't think this is anymore morally questionable than abortion anywhere else. In the U.S. we excuse abortion because a child would be inconvenient for any number of reasons - not married, don't have the financial means to support the child, would disrupt career, education, etc. Well, in some areas of India still, the birth of a female child, and the later crippling dowry they will have to pay for her to be married, could be financially ruinous to a poor family. How is that sex-selective abortion morally worse than someone aborting a child that might interrupt their career?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Getting back to the original topic.
> I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this news. But I don't think this is anymore morally questionable than abortion anywhere else. In the U.S. we excuse abortion because a child would be inconvenient for any number of reasons - not married, don't have the financial means to support the child, would disrupt career, education, etc. Well, in some areas of India still, the birth of a female child, and the later crippling dowry they will have to pay for her to be married, could be financially ruinous to a poor family. How is that sex-selective abortion morally worse than someone aborting a child that might interrupt their career?


I'll just repeat my suggestion that people (men) become aware of the internal struggles and pressures on women and their lived lives. No woman "wants" to be in a position where it becomes essential that she have an abortion. No woman, contrary to myth, dream, fantasy, "wants" to have an abortion. To think otherwise is yet another canard against women. To be logically consistent, as is the Catholic Church, abortion must be denied even under circumstances of rape and/or incest. Women thus should just "get a grip" and submit to the fate meted out to them by usually overwhelmingly male legislators and religious authorities and bear the rapist's or their father's or uncle's child. The key, always and forever, is full female equality and autonomy coupled with access to confidential and effective contraception, whether in the USA, India, or the far side of the moon.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll just repeat my suggestion that people (men) become aware of the internal struggles and pressures on women and their lived lives. No woman "wants" to be in a position where it becomes essential that she have an abortion. No woman, contrary to myth, dream, fantasy, "wants" to have an abortion. To think otherwise is yet another canard against women. To be logically consistent, as is the Catholic Church, abortion must be denied even under circumstances of rape and/or incest. Women thus should just "get a grip" and submit to the fate meted out to them by usually overwhelmingly male legislators and religious authorities and bear the rapist's or their father's or uncle's child. The key, always and forever, is full female equality and autonomy coupled with access to confidential and effective contraception, whether in the USA, India, or the far side of the moon.


They didn't want to have the abortion? That justifies it in your mind?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> They didn't want to have the abortion? That justifies it in your mind?


Is your understanding of the lives of women such that you believe women "want" to have abortions?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Some women brag about having them and how great it was to have multiple abortions.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Is your understanding of the lives of women such that you believe women "want" to have abortions?


I don't think that question is even relevant. Why do you think it is? Does it matter to the aborted child?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

It seems that, once again, it is males that seem to think they have equal or superior perspectives as to what responsibilities women have when it comes to pregnancy. What strikes me is that historically, it is men who have taken an equal part in creating a pregnancy and then a highly inequitable part in taking responsibility for the consequences. But then they take a highly inequitable part in judging how women deal with those consequences.

What is often missed is that, even in the case of an otherwise totally healthy woman, pregnancy carries with it potential consequences, worse than some serious diseases, including fatality. And, the typical woman will take on this risk more than once during their lifetime. These consequences can include, high blood pressure, development of diabetes, seizures, hemorrhage and pulmonary embolism. Separate from these more immediate health-related consequences is the fact that the bodies of many woman will never be the same with weight gain difficult to recover from, hernias, urinary incontinence etc.

There is no corresponding daily-life situation for males. Obviously, males have taken on inequitable military-related risks, but women do not control or attempt to control that the way males do when it comes to pregnancy.

As far as the OP subject goes, if it came to light that, in areas of the US, abortion was being used to the same extent (as the OP subject) for gender selection, there would be a major outcry and legislation directed to prevent it. And, depending on a number of things, the Supreme Court might end up supporting that legislation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> It seems that, once again, it is males that seem to think they have equal or superior perspectives as to what responsibilities women have when it comes to pregnancy. What strikes me is that historically, it is men who have taken an equal part in creating a pregnancy and then a highly inequitable part in taking responsibility for the consequences. But then they take a highly inequitable part in judging how women deal with those consequences.
> 
> What is often missed is that, even in the case of an otherwise totally healthy woman, pregnancy carries with it potential consequences, worse than some serious diseases, including fatality. And, the typical woman will take on this risk more than once during their lifetime. These consequences can include, high blood pressure, development of diabetes, seizures, hemorrhage and pulmonary embolism. Separate from these more immediate health-related consequences is the fact that the bodies of many woman will never be the same with weight gain difficult to recover from, hernias, urinary incontinence etc.
> 
> ...


A high percentage of pro-life people are women. And I suspect that the abortions in India are highly encourage by the men.

You forget the basic issue here. It isn't about controlling women. It is about protecting innocent life.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

I like the logic though. Non-farmers shouldn't be able to pass legislation regarding farming. They just don't know what is involved. In order to pass legislation affecting businesses, you must be required to have run a business at some point in your life. Only gun owners can pass gun legislation.
Oh, wait, that isn't how any of this works.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> A high percentage of pro-life people are women. And I suspect that the abortions in India are highly encourage by the men.
> 
> You forget the basic issue here. It isn't about controlling women. It is about protecting innocent life.


I forget? Oh sure. Both the general subject of abortion and the OP-related subject have been discussed here, including by you. When it comes to the general subject, the issue is about protecting innocent life which includes that of women and balancing the latter with that of the potential life. That balance, as legislated in some parts of the US, would change drastically if it were men getting pregnant.

I addressed the OP-related subject and would add that gender-based abortion to the extent that it appears to have occurred is unsettling and has to be addressed, as it would be if it were to happen here.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> I forget? Oh sure. Both the general subject of abortion and the OP-related subject have been discussed here, including by you. When it comes to the general subject, the issue is about protecting innocent life which includes that of women and balancing the latter with that of the potential life. That balance, as legislated in some parts of the US, would change drastically if it were men getting pregnant.
> 
> I addressed the OP-related subject and would add that gender-based abortion to the extent that it appears to have occurred is unsettling and has to be addressed, as it would be if it were to happen here.


So you actually do believe that there are some circumstances where abortion should be limited? But it isn't your body. Why should you have any say?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> So you actually do believe that there are some circumstances where abortion should be limited? But it isn't your body. Why should you have any say?


Don't put words in my mouth. You want to make the subject purely about abortion. The situation would have to be addressed which would probably involve changing the reasons for the gender-based behavior which is probably what has to be addressed in India.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> A high percentage of pro-life people are women. *And I suspect that the abortions in India are highly encourage by the men.*
> 
> You forget the basic issue here. It isn't about controlling women. It is about protecting innocent life.


You finally got something right! (See bolded text.). And, as usual, got the rest wrong--it is all about men controlling women.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

If it happened in this country, so? If they were going to about anyway, what does the gender matter? The policy in this country has been no restrictions. Now you would walk it back because people are using it in ways you don't like? How do you prove an individual's motives? Ban ultrasounds? Doesn't that impede their rights? Force them then to do amniocentesis which brings increased risk of miscarriage? Sorry - legalizing abortion opens a Pandora's box.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> If it happened in this country, so? If they were going to about anyway, what does the gender matter? The policy in this country has been no restrictions. Now you would walk it back because people are using it in ways you don't like? How do you prove an individual's motives? Ban ultrasounds? Doesn't that impede their rights? Force them then to do amniocentesis which brings increased risk of miscarriage? Sorry - legalizing abortion opens a Pandora's box.


The flood of rhetorical questions. Where to begin? I think I'll not wade into that swamp again, thank you.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> I like the logic though. Non-farmers shouldn't be able to pass legislation regarding farming. They just don't know what is involved. In order to pass legislation affecting businesses, you must be required to have run a business at some point in your life. Only gun owners can pass gun legislation.
> Oh, wait, that isn't how any of this works.


So far, for almost 50 years, the Supreme Court apparently agrees that decisions regarding one's body are different than those regarding farming and gun ownership. The fact that legislated decisions regarding the bodies of females have been made by far more males than females is a fact. The fact that that is relevant is IMO, a fact.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> So far, for almost 50 years, the Supreme Court apparently agrees that decisions regarding one's body are different than those regarding farming and gun ownership. The fact that legislated decisions regarding the bodies of females have been made by far more males than females is a fact. The fact that that is relevant is IMO, a fact.


How many Supreme Court justices who concurred with Roe were male? And the Supreme Court has never upheld evil things for decades, right? Not slavery, not separate but equal?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> How many Supreme Court justices who concurred with Roe were male? And the Supreme Court has never upheld evil things for decades, right? Not slavery, not separate but equal?


So you don't believe we have evolved both in our attitude about slavery and women's rights?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> So you don't believe we have evolved both in our attitude about slavery and women's rights?


Not my point at all. My point is that a Supreme Court decision only determines legality - it says nothing about whether it is moral or good. And the longevity of the decision is irrelevant to it's morality.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

I hope that in time, the Roe and Casey decisions will meet the same fate as the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Not my point at all. My point is that a Supreme Court decision only determines legality - it says nothing about whether it is moral or good. And the longevity of the decision is irrelevant to it's morality.


Actually, the Supreme Court determines whether laws are supported by The Constitution which insofar as there is morality and something good in granting people the rights of freedoms and equality does have to do with morality and good.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Actually, the Supreme Court determines whether laws are supported by The Constitution which insofar as there is morality and something good in granting people the rights of freedoms and equality does have to do with morality and good.


So the Dred Scott decision made slavery moral and good? And Plessy made separate but equal moral and good?

Abortion, like the eugenics movement that it was associated with in the early 20th century, is bad. It opens a Pandora's box of problems, like what we are seeing in India now. It has been declared a right in this country by a panel of unelected judges. That doesn't make it right. And eventually I hope we can move past this period where we practiced something so barbaric as the widespread slaughter of unborn children. Where we have an industry, funded by taxpayers, that kills the unborn and harvests them for parts.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> So the Dred Scott decision made slavery moral and good? And Plessy made separate but equal moral and good?


So you don't believe we have evolved?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> So you don't believe we have evolved?


On slavery? Yes. On racial equality? Yes. On abortion? Yes. In the wrong direction.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> On slavery? Yes. On racial equality? Yes. On abortion? Yes. In the wrong direction.


Then stop using examples that aren't relevant anymore.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Then stop using examples that aren't relevant anymore.


Fine. Just as long as you acknowledge that men can make legislation that affects women.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Fine. Just as long as you acknowledge that men can make legislation that affects women.


The question isn't whether men can make legislation that affects women, it's whether the under representation of women in our legislatures becomes even more of concern when the subject of the legislation has to do with a physical function men are incapable of.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> The question isn't whether men can make legislation that affects women, it's whether the under representation of women in our legislatures becomes even more of concern when the subject of the legislation has to do with a physical function men are incapable of.


Women have been able to vote for longer than abortion had been legal. Besides, you are talking about limiting their choice if you find they might use it in a way you disapprove of (sex selection).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Women have been able to vote for longer than abortion had been legal.


Not exactly true. Abortion was legal (and widely advertised) in the US without exception until the mid-1800s. By the 1880s, most (perhaps all) states had criminalized abortion. All this was of course before women were granted suffrage.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> The question isn't whether men can make legislation that affects women, it's whether the under representation of women in our legislatures becomes even more of concern when the subject of the legislation has to do with a physical function men are incapable of.


The recent anti-abortion legislation passed in Alabama was sponsored by a female state legislator and signed into law by a female governor. Should the law stand, or should the Roe decision, decided by all males, override it?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

DrMike said:


> The recent anti-abortion legislation passed in Alabama was sponsored by a female state legislator and signed into law by a female governor. Should the law stand, or should the Roe decision, decided by all males, override it?


Roe v. Wade doesn't override it; the current(-ish) Supreme Court, which also has women in it, overrides it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Women have been able to vote for longer than abortion had been legal. Besides, you are talking about limiting their choice if you find they might use it in a way you disapprove of (sex selection).


I didn't say that. Go back and look at my response when you inferred that before. Don't you read responses of others? I raise the question because you periodically repeat the claim that someone is taking a position that they have previously posted to the contrary.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> I didn't say that. Go back and look at my response when you inferred that before. Don't you read responses of others? I raise the question because you periodically repeat the claim that someone is taking a position that they have previously posted to the contrary.


From your post #57:


> I addressed the OP-related subject and would add that gender-based abortion to the extent that it appears to have occurred is unsettling and has to be addressed, as it would be if it were to happen here.


Forgive me for going beyond your vague statement and trying to determine what you meant. You say gender-based abortion is "unsettling." Why? In this country, that isn't illegal. To my knowledge, at least for early abortions, the woman doesn't need to provide any rationale. Then you say that it "has to be addressed." In what way? And why? I think most of us are assuming that in India, there is probably some pressure coming from the father in these circumstances, but I don't think that need necessarily be absolute. A mother, knowing that she is carrying a daughter, may look at the family's financial situation and determine they can't afford the extra added difficulty of the long-term costs of a daughter in India. To that extent, the country has already tried to do away with the ruinous dowries - clearly not yet very effectively.

But to the underlying issue - why is it unsettling, and why does it need to be addressed. If it turns out that the women are doing it completely of their own free will, will you leave it at that? Or do you think there should be some limits placed on it when the outcome starts to violate some other mores and norms?

As I understand it, in the United States, the pro-choice movement is pushing for ever more liberal abortion rights, with virtually no limitations. That a woman should be able to obtain an abortion at any point during her pregnancy (and even a small proportion believes in the immediate aftermath of birth itself) for whatever reason. So long as it is not done through coercion, what more needs to be addressed under that ideology? *note I have not specifically attributed these views to you*


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Now in Illinois they can have an abortion right up to the point of giving birth. Illinois needs to be put out of the United States with that abomination of a law I have no connection with as being part of my country.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Real reasons and issues versus theoretical reasons and issues: Real reason/issue/fact No.1--carrying a pregnancy to term is more hazardous than having an abortion; the Guttmacher study puts pregnancy as being 14 times more lethal. Real reason/fact/issue No.2--third trimester abortions account for only a small percentage of abortions and are often the result of a pregnancy being ignored/repudiated/denied/suppressed (incest/domestic violence/shame) and an earlier opportunity for abortion either unavailable or ignored/denied (rural poverty/ignorance/ lack of facilities due to Red state politics and demographics). Real reason/fact/issue No.3--abortions will be performed. They will be legal and safe, or illegal and dangerous. Real reason/fact/issue No.4--abortion is not compulsory anywhere where women have achieved some recognition of their existence as humans and not domestic animals or breedstock. Those countries such as India and China that practice(d) _de facto_ or _de jure_ forced abortion (sex selection/population limitation) are or were ruled by toxic misogyny or ideology. Real reason/fact/issue No.5--to be wholly consistent, anti-choice proponents must outlaw all abortion, including those dealing with victims of rape and/or incest, and must prosecute women as active agents in premeditated murder. If women are not guilty of premeditated murder when they undergo an abortion, then abortion opponents must radically redefine what they mean by murder in the case of abortion. Real reason/fact/issue No.6--women in consultation with their doctors (or whomever they choose voluntarily to consult with) should be the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions and rights. If men got pregnant, they would never submit to the judgement of an outside agency.

The use of ultrasound to weed out female (or male) embryos is the only case I can think of that should be suppressed. That it is a characteristic of misogynist cultures/religions is no accident, and the practice would and should wither in those places and cultures when women are fully the equals of men in law and civil practice, and have access to confidential, effective contraception.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

> Real reason/fact/issue No.3--abortions will be performed. They will be legal and safe, or illegal and dangerous.


What a fallacy. In fact, the canard of the dangerous back alley abortion has long since been debunked. In reality, illegal abortions had been getting safer and safer ever since the advent of antibiotics. You should read up on that. They were safe before Roe, and the legalization didn't significantly alter that.

Why must the issue in India be forced? Are mothers not also interested in the welfare of their family situation? Are they not also concerned with long-term financial costs? What would the difference be between a woman wanting an abortion to not interrupt her education and improving her long-term financial stability, and a woman wanting an abortion to avoid the crippling dowry that would need to be provided to obtain a good marriage? You may not like her reasons for it, but if she believes in that system, and is not coerced, I don't think there is a difference.

Most of what you label as "fact" is really just your opinion.

According to a CDC report from 1976, there were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before the Roe decision. In 1973, there were 19, and in 1974 there were 5. Given the Guttmacher Institute's estimate of 130,000 illegal abortions in 1972 (https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/abortion-and-after-legalization), that is a 0.03% chance of death from an illegal abortion. Keep in mind that for those 3 years, the number of deaths from legal abortions (yes, abortions were legal in some circumstances prior to 1973) remained steady at 24-25 per year. So illegal abortions were not really any more dangerous than legal ones. There you go. There are some facts for you.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> From your post #57:
> 
> Forgive me for going beyond your vague statement and trying to determine what you meant. You say gender-based abortion is "unsettling." Why? In this country, that isn't illegal. To my knowledge, at least for early abortions, the woman doesn't need to provide any rationale. Then you say that it "has to be addressed." In what way? And why? I think most of us are assuming that in India, there is probably some pressure coming from the father in these circumstances, but I don't think that need necessarily be absolute. A mother, knowing that she is carrying a daughter, may look at the family's financial situation and determine they can't afford the extra added difficulty of the long-term costs of a daughter in India. To that extent, the country has already tried to do away with the ruinous dowries - clearly not yet very effectively.
> 
> ...


You apparently want to use the subject of the OP for general ant-abortion purposes. I choose to stick to the subject of the OP. For instance, you are parsing my statement and leaving out the critical, '_to the extent that it occurred'_

You also ignored my other statement on the subject:



DaveM said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. You want to make the subject purely about abortion. The situation would have to be addressed which would probably involve changing the reasons for the gender-based behavior which is probably what has to be addressed in India.


Why is the additional '_to the extent that it occurred_' important? Because out of 216 children born in a 3 month period in 132 villages, none were girls. Also, _'Last year an Indian government report found about 63 million women were statistically 'missing' from the country's population due to a preference for male children.'_
_
'India outlawed selective abortion of female fetuses in 1994, but it has not stopped the practice_.' The answer probably lies in changing longstanding behavior secondary to societal practices/realities that go back centuries. How to do that is beyond my pay-grade.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike, I will yield to your superior knowledge of the safety of illegal abortions. We can all be comforted, both pro- and anti-choice proponents, that we have an effective, clean illegal abortion mechanism immediately available for the use and comfort of the poor in those states that choose to limit or essentially criminalize abortion. The wealthy will, of course, just head for a brief stay in a pro-choice state, get their abortions legally, and head back to ol' 'Bama.

Actually, all my facts are correct. Funny that your only comment was your seal of approval for the cleanliness and safety of illegal abortions. Who would have guessed?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> You apparently want to use the subject of the OP for general ant-abortion purposes. I choose to stick to the subject of the OP. For instance, you are parsing my statement and leaving out the critical, '_to the extent that it occurred'_
> 
> You also ignored my other statement on the subject:
> 
> ...


Yes - I am extrapolating this out to the broader picture because I think, wherever it occurs, abortion brings about all kinds of unsavory unintended consequences. In India, it helps to exacerbate prejudices against females. In the United States, it leads to radicals with their "shout your abortion," turning it from a "woman's right to choose" to "dammit, yes, taxpayers should pay for my abortion," and the issue of ethical questions surrounding harvesting aborted fetuses like they are used cars to be scrapped for parts.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Why is the additional '_to the extent that it occurred_' important? Because out of 216 children born in a 3 month period in 132 villages, none were girls. Also, _'Last year an Indian government report found about 63 million women were statistically 'missing' from the country's population due to a preference for male children.'_


This is a statistical red flag that the report is ********. 213 children in 132 villages, just over one child per village. It is suggestive that the data was cherry picked, selecting villages in which one or maybe two children were born and they were male. You could define such a sample even if births were 50/50, so it puts no constraint on what happened. I don't doubt that selection of males is happening to some extent, as evidenced by the 63 million "missing women." But 63 million "missing" from a population of 1.3 billion is a deficit of about 5%, which is a serious deficit, but a far cry from 213 boys and no girls born.

Aside from that, the fact that India is a culture that, to some extent, considers females to be human chattel is to be condemned. I don't see that there is a decisive relationship with abortion policy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Hearing of a woman or women "Shouting" their abortions can surely be an unnerving experience for those so unfamiliar with women that they cannot imagine that some woman they might know or even be related to has had an abortion. It's like keeping news of the family alcoholic or drug addict or pedophile a closely-held secret. But, in any case, we are not beleagered by traffic-jamming armies of placard-wielding women "shouting their abortions"--they are a very small fringe and exist primarily, to some minds, as a convenience with which to characterize/demonize an entire larger movement, freedom to choose.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Yes - I am extrapolating this out to the broader picture because I think, wherever it occurs, abortion brings about all kinds of unsavory unintended consequences. In India, it helps to exacerbate prejudices against females. In the United States, it leads to radicals with their "shout your abortion," turning it from a "woman's right to choose" to "dammit, yes, taxpayers should pay for my abortion," and the issue of ethical questions surrounding harvesting aborted fetuses like they are used cars to be scrapped for parts.


I'm against any behavior that trivializes the issue of abortion. I am also aware that there can be 'unsavory unintended consequences' both secondary to allowing abortion and to criminalizing abortion. IMO, criminalizing abortion in this country, especially to the extent that is being tried in certain states, can lead to some of the worst consequences in addition to those related to women's rights issues. That's my final word on the subject.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> This is a statistical red flag that the report is ********. 213 children in 132 villages, just over one child per village. It is suggestive that the data was cherry picked, selecting villages in which one or maybe two children were born and they were male. You could define such a sample even if births were 50/50, so it puts no constraint on what happened. I don't doubt that selection of males is happening to some extent, as evidenced by the 63 million "missing women." But 63 million "missing" from a population of 1.3 billion is a deficit of about 5%, which is a serious deficit, but a far cry from 213 boys and no girls born.
> 
> Aside from that, the fact that India is a culture that, to some extent, considers females to be human chattel is to be condemned. I don't see that there is a decisive relationship with abortion policy.


Excellent point. But what do we actually know about the "facts" of the report? Certainly one of the consequences of sex-selective abortion in both China and India, especially India, is the commodification of increasingly scarce women for men to marry, and increasing probabilities of rape and violence against women. As a man, I affirm that I find men often a sorry lot and that our gender has made a mess of things through wholesale cultural misogyny, much of it firmly rooted in religion.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> This is a statistical red flag that the report is ********. 213 children in 132 villages, just over one child per village. It is suggestive that the data was cherry picked, selecting villages in which one or maybe two children were born and they were male. You could define such a sample even if births were 50/50, so it puts no constraint on what happened. I don't doubt that selection of males is happening to some extent, as evidenced by the 63 million "missing women." But 63 million "missing" from a population of 1.3 billion is a deficit of about 5%, which is a serious deficit, but a far cry from 213 boys and no girls born.
> 
> Aside from that, the fact that India is a culture that, to some extent, considers females to be human chattel is to be condemned. I don't see that there is a decisive relationship with abortion policy.


->don't know if it's been mentioned, but:

"_The reports said 216 boys and no girls were born in the 132 villages between April and June. But officials found 180 girls and no boys were born during the same period in 129 different villages. And to complete the mixed picture, 88 girls and 78 boys were born in another 166 villages ... Overall 961 live births were recorded in Uttarkashi between April and June. A total of 479 were girls, while 468 were boys._"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49109767


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

joen_cph said:


> ->don't know if it's been mentioned, but:
> 
> "_The reports said 216 boys and no girls were born in the 132 villages between April and June. But officials found 180 girls and no boys were born during the same period in 129 different villages. And to complete the mixed picture, 88 girls and 78 boys were born in another 166 villages ... Overall 961 live births were recorded in Uttarkashi between April and June. A total of 479 were girls, while 468 were boys._"
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49109767


More and better information! Always good! Thanks for the post.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> This is a statistical red flag that the report is ********. 213 children in 132 villages, just over one child per village. It is suggestive that the data was cherry picked, selecting villages in which one or maybe two children were born and they were male. You could define such a sample even if births were 50/50, so it puts no constraint on what happened...


Overall, you're not disagreeing with my post so above is just for interest purposes. Statistics can be looked at in different ways. What would be the Las Vegas odds (if there were such a thing) that, assuming no gender-based abortion selection, the next 213 children born in the 132 villages would not include one girl? Also, we don't know that births were evenly distributed among the 132 villages. Maybe one village had 10 births with no girls.

Edit: Fwiw, the additional information a few posts above was posted while I was writing mine.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

joen_cph said:


> ->don't know if it's been mentioned, but:
> 
> "_The reports said 216 boys and no girls were born in the 132 villages between April and June. But officials found 180 girls and no boys were born during the same period in 129 different villages. And to complete the mixed picture, 88 girls and 78 boys were born in another 166 villages ... Overall 961 live births were recorded in Uttarkashi between April and June. A total of 479 were girls, while 468 were boys._"
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49109767


As the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

DrMike said:


> As the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics


Well-defined statistics don't lie. There is an art to misleading by presenting statistics without specifying the conditions under which they were compiled. It was clear to me from the presentation of the original claim that no conclusions could be drawn from the statistical result as it was presented.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The original how-to book, from 1954. I believe the Disraeli quote was used right up front.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

Years ago a family friend who was also a professor at the University of Michigan told me that in the 1920s he "hitchhiked" through parts of China. He said he was horrified on one occasion when on the outskirts of a city he chanced on a dumpster into which mothers were tossing their live, newborn daughters. Of course I have no way to verify his claim; but he was noticeably upset as he related it.


----------

