Indian Doctor Jailed For Agreeing To Abort Female Fetus

Pages

AuthorTopic: Indian Doctor Jailed For Agreeing To Abort Female Fetus
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #0
quote:
A doctor in the Indian state of Haryana has been sentenced to two years' imprisonment for agreeing to abort a foetus because it was female.

It is estimated up to 10 million female foetuses have been terminated over the past 20 years, forcing the gender ratio of babies in some Indian states to fall to fewer than 600 girls for every 1,000 boys.

The doctor was caught in a sting operation when Government officials sent in three pregnant women to find out if the clinic would carry out abortions based on sex selection.

It is illegal for doctors to reveal the gender of a foetus.

But a court in Haryana saw video evidence that Dr Anal Sabani told one of the women that she was expecting a girl and then offered to take care of it.

This kind of practice is widespread and getting worse, partly because a greater number of Indian families can now afford scans.

- BBC

Killing the fetus is fine, just so long as you aren't sexually discriminating? :confused:

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
Profile Homepage #1
This is true. They are obviously considered people as far as sex discrimination is concerned, but not as far as the right to live is concerned. At least be logically consistent.

--------------------
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein
--------------------
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #2
Ahem- China.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #3
I'm not keeping up with the latest on sex discrimination, but I think the issue here may be less about protecting the unborn girls and more about protecting the born boys from having to face painfully skewed sex ratios.

[Edit: There is no Freudian subtext to sex rations.]

Forbidding sex-based abortion puts a slightly more legitimate stamp on it, though.

—Alorael, who thinks an absence of potential child bearers would work wonders for birth control and anti-wonders for morale.

[ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 07:42: Message edited by: Wang is Sympatriot ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 1558
Profile #4
Painfully skewed sex rations?

Yeah, I could see how this might become more clear over time.

--------------------
DONOR Fat Freddys Drop
Shirow Miwa
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #5
Yes, it makes perfect sense. When the ratio of girls to guys is about 1:10, I can see why sex would need to be rationed.

I agree the article does sound a bit awkward, especially to those who are against abortion in general. However, this is a genuine problem in many poor and culturally male-dominated countries: For those who cannot care for two children, the advantage of having a son over having a daughter is strongly ingrained.

Up to now, this has been balanced by the technical inability to predict the gender, and by the social mores against killing newborns (note that this isn't universal, but most would not kill a newborn daughter because they wanted a son).

The arrival of cheap ways to determine gender and abort pregnancies before birth could severely unbalance the population. The only ways to prevent this are either evolving the cultural customs to the point where having daughters is as advantageous as having sons (impossible in practice, in any reasonable timespan), or abolishing the high poverty rate (also difficult in a short timespan), or outlawing the technology (with immediate effect).

[ Tuesday, April 04, 2006 20:47: Message edited by: thaet waes gode cyning ]

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #6
Or, y'know, outlawing abortion.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #7
Outlawing abortion would not solve the problem. Abortions would continue, they would just be illegal, dangerous and exploitative. I don't expect everyone to agree that abortion is morally 'right', but to my mind the problem in India at the moment is not to do with abortion, it is to do with culture and gender equality, as Aran and Alorael implied.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #8
quote:
Originally written by Thin Air:

Outlawing abortion would not solve the problem. Abortions would continue, they would just be illegal, dangerous and exploitative.
They would continue, sure, but at a much lower rate. I'd expect a level of success at least comparable with the one that they're experiencing with trying to stop doctors from telling women the sex of their babies, probably significantly better.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #9
Ashby, you invincible dunderhead. Indian culture doesn't share the same insane assumptions about abortions that you do, and you have no particular reason for caring about sex-based abortion except those insane assumptions.

By the same logic, they ought to have us outlaw eating beef. The better to solve our problems with veal and steroids, of course.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #10
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

They would continue, sure, but at a much lower rate.
I doubt it would be a much lower rate. Abortion is legal in India, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that most people want it outlawed. So assuming a majority there agree with abortion, outlawing it tomorrow would do little to discourage people from doing it.

Whether you are pro-abortion or not, the point is that legal abortion does not create any NEW problems, it just makes abortion much safer. Allowing abortion on the basis of gender however, DOES create new problems, and that's what they're trying to prevent at the moment.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
Profile #11
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Killing the fetus is fine, just so long as you aren't sexually discriminating? :confused: ... (Followed by other confusing pro-life comments.)
Now this is why I'm glad I live in Finland. We've never, ever had a problem with religious groups trying to outlaw abortion. Religion, as well as abortion, are considered to be such a private matter that they don't merit public debate - people don't flaunt their religion as arguments for anything, and noone cares if a twenty-year-old aborts her unborn child.

Still, I'm always a bit uncomfortable when I have to watch a pro-life, or (for example) Creationism/ID debate. The arguments presented by the other side are so out of this (=my) world, that I can't believe my ears.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6912
Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by Thin Air:

Outlawing abortion would not solve the problem. Abortions would continue, they would just be illegal, dangerous and exploitative.
They would continue, sure, but at a much lower rate. I'd expect a level of success at least comparable with the one that they're experiencing with trying to stop doctors from telling women the sex of their babies, probably significantly better.

NOPE wouldn’t decrease at all. They tried this in soviet union and it didn’t even put a scratch on the abortions performed but it increased the amount of woman that died in fact soviet union reinstated its pro-choice laws due to the overwhelming amount of fatalities of abortions performed by rogue doctors

Expansion of western culture into those areas will eventually fix the problem but this will take a few decades.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Wednesday, March 15 2006 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Redstart:

quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Killing the fetus is fine, just so long as you aren't sexually discriminating? :confused: ... (Followed by other confusing pro-life comments.)
Now this is why I'm glad I live in Finland. We've never, ever had a problem with religious groups trying to outlaw abortion. Religion, as well as abortion, are considered to be such a private matter that they don't merit public debate - people don't flaunt their religion as arguments for anything, and noone cares if a twenty-year-old aborts her unborn child.

Still, I'm always a bit uncomfortable when I have to watch a pro-life, or (for example) Creationism/ID debate. The arguments presented by the other side are so out of this (=my) world, that I can't believe my ears.

Why are you bringing religion into it? No one else has so far. Pro-life people simply believe that 1) a fetus is a baby and 2) killing babies is wrong. You don't need to be religious to believe either of those things.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
Profile #14
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Why are you bringing religion into it? No one else has so far. Pro-life people simply believe that 1) a fetus is a baby and 2) killing babies is wrong. You don't need to be religious to believe either of those things.
Oh. Sorry, my bad. Like I said, we don't have a pro-life movement over here, and the only times I've heard their rhetorics, they've been ripe with comments along the lines of "Jesus cries whenever you kill a baby".

So do you believe killing babies (=abortion) is wrong under every circumstance? The classic example:

a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant. Should she still be forced to keep the baby for at least the forty weeks, and then give it up for adoption?

Or even a lighter example: an eighteen-year-old gets pregnant while in university. The father won't step up to the plate. In order to care for her child, she would have to drop out and get a minimum wage job, effectively ruining her chances of a well-to-do future. Still no abortion?

As for my views on this particular incident in India: I believe aborting a fetus based on sex is wrong for two reasons:
1) The obscene notion that a boy is a more valuable child than a girl.
2) Like Alo said, the skewed male-to-female ratios would present a problem for the nation/culture a generation later.

(As for abortion irregardless of sex, it is up to the woman, or ideally the would-be parents.)

[ Tuesday, April 04, 2006 23:22: Message edited by: Redstart ]
Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5450
Profile Homepage #15
Well, I think that is fair enough. If the balance of genders had shifted that much, then action would need to be taken.

--------------------
I'll put a Spring in your step.
:ph34r:
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #16
quote:
Oh. Sorry, my bad. Like I said, we don't have a pro-choice movement over here, and the only times I've heard their rhetorics, they've been ripe with comments along the lines of "Jesus cries whenever you kill a baby".
From context, I gather this should be "pro-life". ;)

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
Profile #17
quote:
From context, I gather this should be "pro-life". ;)
Oops, you're right. It's fixed now. You know, it would be easier if both sides didn't name themselves 'pro-something'. I mean, can't the abortion supporters just call themselves anti-life? I'm sure that wouldn't cause them to lose support.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 125
Profile #18
quote:
Originally written by Redstart:

As for my views on this particular incident in India: I believe aborting a fetus based on sex is wrong for two reasons:
1) The obscene notion that a boy is a more valuable child than a girl.
2) Like Alo said, the skewed male-to-female ratios would present a problem for the nation/culture a generation later.

Well, in the current Indian society it's clear that boys are more economically valuable than girls, because this type of bias occurs. This doesn't mean that this is how it should be, of course, and it's clearly an unbalanced situation.

Although the ratio is shifting, at some point it's bound to halt even if nothing is changed, since (in effect) scarcity will drive the value of girls up to match that of boys. However, this would entail a fairly large cultural shift, which nonetheless may be necessary for any positive change.

--------------------
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Monday, October 8 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 4506
Profile Homepage #19
Yeah, but by the time there's a large enough need for females, it will probably bo too late. Atleast1 entire generation will have too few females, wich will just cause things like rape and population destabilisation etc to occur.

Alarge proportion of the men won't exactly refrain from sex just because there's not enough women. Sexual diseases would rise, and thee would be a general collapse. Ofcourse, they would learn their lesson, but it would take sometime.

- Archmagus Micael

P.S. THis may be a bit pessimistic, but hey.

--------------------
"You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage
--------------------
My Scenarios:
Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong?
--------------------
Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website).
--------------------
MY FORUM! Randomosity at it's highest! :)
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #20
quote:
Originally written by Redstart:

quote:
From context, I gather this should be "pro-life". ;)
Oops, you're right. It's fixed now. You know, it would be easier if both sides didn't name themselves 'pro-something'. I mean, can't the abortion supporters just call themselves anti-life? I'm sure that wouldn't cause them to lose support.

Well, I'm sure the proliferators (ouch!) wouldn't want to call themselves anti-choice, either. :P

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #21
I am rather astounded by the inability of much of the pro-choice movement to understand what Ash just said. It's quite simple: if it has 46 human chromosomes (or 47, but let's deal with non-mutants for the moment), it is a human cell. If every one of such cells in an organism is killed, a human life has been extinguished. Notice I'm not saying that God kills a kitten every time you jack off - 23 != 46 - but in truth, the only real reason it's ok to kill a fetus and not a baby is that you can't see the fetus' cute little face.

Religion has nothing to do with this. 46 = human, death of organism containing 46 = murder (or infanticide in this case). It's simple as that. Call me an ignorant, relion-imposin' fundie if it makes you feel better, but that's the way it lies.

EDIT: When it comes to being given a legal choice whether or not to kill an innocent child before it sees the light of day for the crime of its father, Aran, I am perfectly willing to label myself anti-choice.

[ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 00:41: Message edited by: Sir David ]

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

Polaris = joy.

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
Profile Homepage #22
quote:
Originally written by thaet waes gode cyning:
When the ratio of girls to guys is about 1:10, I can see why sex would need to be rationed.
0. There is always tree-hugging and [deleted to stay within CoC]
1. Just allow gay marriage. You do not have to be born gay.
2. In India there is a long tradition to a related effect read about the (URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29)Hijras(/URL) in this context.
quote:
Originally written by thaet waes gode cyning:
the advantage of having a son over having a daughter is strongly ingrained.
this may have its origin in the shorter lifespan of women due to the health risk of childbearing and the male dominance in the family where the man's parents have a higher priority than the girl's. This is bound to change in no time as girls become a rare commodity first and finally a precious luxury. Let us hope we do not descend to drone status, fellows! We may end up fighting for pro-choice for the guys in India to keep their penisses!
quote:
Originally written by thaet waes gode cyning:
The only ways to prevent this are either evolving the cultural customs to the point where having daughters is as advantageous as having sons (impossible in practice, in any reasonable timespan)
You ain't seen nothing yet, Aran. I was at a boys' high school. The first 3 girls happened to be admitted into the school in my age group at around 14-16. Their social status and function in class (School "culture") was nothing compared to the girls as we knew them from the neighboring girls' high school. Culture is not more fundamental than the sex ratio. It depends on it.

[ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 01:14: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ]

--------------------
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine)
Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
Profile #23
quote:
Originally written by Sir David:

I am rather astounded by the inability of much of the pro-choice movement to understand what Ash just said. It's quite simple: if it has 46 human chromosomes (or 47, but let's deal with non-mutants for the moment), it is a human cell. If every one of such cells in an organism is killed, a human life has been extinguished. Notice I'm not saying that God kills a kitten every time you jack off - 23 != 46 - but in truth, the only real reason it's ok to kill a fetus and not a baby is that you can't see the fetus' cute little face.
I understand this argument, but the trouble is, where does it stop? All that you're destroying is the potential for a child. Aren't you destroying that same potential by using contraceptives? Certain Catholics think so. Aren't you also destroying the same potential by choosing to abstain from having a child? It goes on and on and on. My belief is that this is simply too complicated and that we should just let people do what they want to do with their bodies.

Also, isn't abortion is identical to using contraceptives? The only difference is whether you use it before or after you had sex.

I am also reminded of the mantra "If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Abortions would not be common at all. It would be an emergency procedure. Many, many people would never have an abortion.

--------------------
But I don't want to ride the elevator.
Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by Sir David:

Religion has nothing to do with this. 46 (chromosomes)= human, death of organism containing 46 = murder (or infanticide in this case). It's simple as that.
It is NOT as simple as that. Or else you're over-simplifying. Assuming you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then yes you can use language in a way that defines abortion as murder, but there is more to it.

I agree with legal abortion, but I also agree that abortion kills a human life, or a potential human life. However, the life of the mother is ALWAYS more important. (I realise that in many cases abortion is not about saving the life of the mother and that she might well be able to support the child.) The legalisation of abortion is not intended to make it easier to kill, it is intended to protect the rights of the mother.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00

Pages