What does it mean when people that already prefer the birth of male children over female are given the ability to choose the biological sex of their child?

Really, if people are going to go to these kinda lengths to avoid getting a girl, I'm glad that it's getting less likely that girls will accidentally be born to people like this. Sooner or later they'll either realize that woman are worth something, or they'll no longer be able to reproduce since there's no women. So let them have their technology. It just means less women they can punish until they remember that women are people too.

Not always, Marle. From what I've read about a similar situation in China is that it only makes things worse. Women and girls from neighboring countries get abducted and forced into marriage in China. Often, as soon as they have a son, they're given away to a new husband so that he can have a son, too. I'd imagine some of the same goes on in India, or will go on if the ratio continues to skew.

Anyway, I don't have much of a moral problem with a couple choosing the gender of their child. And if the number who choose girls are approximately equal to those that choose boys, that moral quibble, already weak, pretty much disappears.

"This could be why female infanticide ravages India. In July, body parts from approximately 36 female fetuses were found packed in plastic bags and discarded in the state of Orissa. Last year in Punjab, the remains of at least 50 female fetuses were found dumped in a well. The United Nations recently declared that in India about 2,000 female fetuses are aborted every day."

marle: I think we also have to remember the enormous numbers of poor-to-destitute people who, living in third world countries like India, can't afford the $18,000 procedure and will turn to the above barbaric methods to make sure they don't have a girlchild. And, as they have little or no money, they have more motivation than their wealthier fellows not to have a baby they cannot afford.

What really needs to happen (although, your idea of letting them breed themselves into extinction is somewhat satisfying) is to change the 'woman=property and thus costs money' cultural dynamic. This is yet another reason to further feminism in the global scheme. I personally think feminism in the US and other western countries has hit a plateau of sorts, if you will, because until feminism reaches the level it's achieved in the west in underdeveloped countries, it cannot and will not foster genuine gender equality anywhere. IMHO, anyway.

Not to mention the ethical responsibilities of these fertility institutions. Funny how abortion clinics are so demonized and yet, as long as you are still going to have a baby, you can abort one in favor of another.

Excuse me while I retch.

Not to mention the ethical responsibilities of these fertility institutions. It's interesting (and extremely rage-inducing) that abortion clinics are so demonized, but, as long as you're still going to have a baby, then aborting one fetus in favor of another is perfectly fine.

Excuse me while I retch...

A few things are troubling about this:

First, using the words infanticide and fetus referring to the same thing. Anything that results in a bag of fetus body parts is abortion, not infanticide. I'm not any more impressed by this image than I am by the anti-abortion folk's sensationalizing of the prodecure.

The second thing is, this seems like a slippery slope questioning women's right to get an abortion for any reason. There is a hint of racism here in that this condemns another culture's practices (i.e. they can't be trusted with abortion but we can because they're backwards). I'm all for working with local women's groups to end sexism and thus the desire to only give birth to boys, but meanwhile I understand a woman not wanting to bring another woman into the world to have to suffer under this system. Whatever the motivations that lead to this practice, when it comes down to the choice to get an abortion, IT'S NOT FOR US TO JUDGE.

In some ways this could almost benefit future generations of women. As women become significantly more scarce than men, will it really make sense for them to continue to have a dowry? Women will have much better selection of future mates, as there will be hundreds of single men for whom there is no one to mate with. (This is of course theoretical, based on economics, who knows what crazy gender biased cultures like this might do.) My concern is that hundreds of desperate single guys, especially in their late teens to early twenties, may not necessarily be a good contributor to a stable society. Especially when there are groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban that may take advantage of this.

Part of the reason gender selection is such a difficult problem is that each decision in and of itself seems fairly innocuous. (That is, assuming everyone were choosing gender before birth, selective abortion is obviously not innocuous.) But for one family to choose a girl instead of a boy seems rather mundane. It is only one choice. And to me anyway, it seems wrong to interfere with that choice.

However because we are dealing with the future of the survival of the species it is important to keep the ratio of men to women close. This is not merely one familie's decision it is the sum of all their decisions. In order for society to remain relatively stable the ratios need to remain close. How do we ensure that selective conception does not lead to an extreme imbalance in the genders? (like it is currently doing in india and china)

So what do you do in this situation? Do you legislate and tell these people that they cannot chose their child's gender, or that they must choose a certain gender?

This is certainly problematic, for reasons of gender equity, exploitation of less-affluent societies by Western businesses, perpetuation of patriarchy, and what have you. But it's only tangentially related to abortion, which seems to have gotten mixed into the discussion here.

The clinic does not provide abortion services, it provides services to increase the likelihood of birth of a baby of a chosen sex through IVF or artificial insemination. As Marle points out, this prevents the practice of sex-selective abortion by the same couple (though as Werechick also points out, that doesn't eliminate other associated problems). The quote from Atashi Chakravarty seems to be out of context; at the least she is wrong that women "are using [this kind of technology] to abort female fetuses". Using this kind of technology, they can get what they (or, more likely, their husbands) want without aborting any fetuses.

Like abortion, the technology itself is not immoral, and can be useful under the appropriate circumstances. It is the cumulative effects of harmful cultural pressures on the use of the technology that is the problem.

"Whatever the motivations that lead to this practice, when it comes down to the choice to get an abortion, IT'S NOT FOR US TO JUDGE."

I have to wonder how often the choice is the woman's and how often it is the husband's decision. It probably varies. Also, I would never approach an individual woman and tell her she was wrong for having an abortion. Individually everyone's decisions are their own, however when looked at as a movement, as something that is happening in large numbers this is a serious long term issue, not just the decision of one woman.

I do think that it is important that we discuss these motivations in the abstract. I don't agree that we should just accept what is a social movement towards preventing the birth of children due to their gender because the individual decisions are none of our business.

"Whatever the motivations that lead to this practice, when it comes down to the choice to get an abortion, IT'S NOT FOR US TO JUDGE."

Is that the new western Prime Directive? hehe.

It seems like a hard decision. What trimester are these fetus' being aborted? To hear the phrase "female body parts" is really grose and makes me think of actual born babies rather than a 4 month old fetus...

It sounds as though these abortions are happening quite late in the pregnancy. *squimish*

Does anyone have further information on the abortions that are being performed? Approximately what trimester of the pregnancy? I'm curious to know.

I'm personally not too concerned with the gender ratios in India becoming imbalanced. Maybe it would lead to women being valued more by society, who knows. In any case, it certainly isn't about "survival of the species." India has more than a billion people and has major concernes with overpopulation.

Anti-choice people could use exactly the same arguments: it's not about the individual, it's about the millions of babies that are aborted. And as Shinobi says, "when looked at as a movement, as something that is happening in large numbers this is a serious long term issue, not just the decision of one woman." Do we really want to go down this path?

A lot of people are made squeamish by the idea of abortion. In fact, the right was exploited this to win new limits on abortion, such as abortions in the third trimester, which have been perfectly legal until recently. Poor people have more trouble accessing abortion in the first and second trimester.

Abortion rights aren't about what makes us feel good, it's about a women's absolute right to control her own body.

There is a strong element of colonialization here I feel here in our response to things like this. We are really casting these women as victims when we don't actually know anything about the actually circumstances and power dynamics going on here.

My personal opinion is that's going to skew the gender balance over time, but as a western feminist I'm not sure it's my place to comment.

zekeo, thanks for the explination. I'm just weighing in on my opinion. I know perfectly well why abortion rights are needed. In canada its relatively easy to get an abortion in the first trimester. I dunno much about the united states but suspect its very expensive and with shit going on now...

Anyway, I'd still be interested to know at what point these sexist abortions are happening.

You know, this whole thing could be easily solved if they merely set up a baby swapping arrangement with the Utah polygamists who were mentioned here recently. India wants more boys; Utah wants more girls... ca-ching!

/snark

I sort of agree with marle on this one.

Ideally, people would not devalue girls.

However, for people who DO devalue girls, and who are up front about it, it seems a good idea if they don't have more girls. Why would you want otherwise?

I'm personally not too concerned with the gender ratios in India becoming imbalanced. Maybe it would lead to women being valued more by society, who knows.

That's not what's happening in China...

I think it's false logic that assumes things will get better for girls if there is less of them. People have pointed out China, but have we even pointed out ourselves?

In the late 1800s, there was a huge difference in the male to female ratio in the US. As a consequence, there was more violence, more prostitution, and more anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Women were property, whether to force into the sex trade (if they were poor) or into marriage (if they were higher class).

The point is that women are treated as property, and that will never be good no matter the ratio. Being viewed as a more valuable piece of property (more expensive if you are trafficking her, or selling her into marriage) will not make women's lives better. There is no good in this situation, and people will not see this issue as a result of their actions. They will simply acquire more violent and patriarchal methods of control.

I agree that the increasing gender imbalances in India and China are going to make it worse for women. Worse case senario is as more women are trafficked - and for supposedly culturally important reasons of marriage - it will become more profitable and local officials in villages will be more likely to turn a blind eye as it would be more shaming to have a bachelor village.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3601281.stm

Is a sad account of what is happening and what is beginning to happen with regards to China's one child policy and preference to males.

Scary stuff.

I agree that this has less to do with abortion rights than it does with cultural mores.

The fact remains that, while a select wealthy few may be able to choose the gender of their baby before it even becomes a fetus (not sure of the exact science there), the practice simply compounds the view that males are more valuable than females and will result in the, as mentioned above, infanticide, not abortion, of more baby girls. Should the science be available to all, then the infanticide would not continue, and I think the epidemic of female infanticide is the crux of the issue.

I also agree that simply having fewer females in the population would not do anything even remotely close to improving women's lives. If they are already expensive as the property they are, imagine the price on each of their heads should females become rare. This is where the instutions' ethical responsibility comes in. They make money off of it, but if it weren't for the women=property thing, they wouldn't be in business (at least not to the point that 20% of all their revenue comes from these culturally encouraged gender selections).

Definitely frightening and seriously disturbing.

But how to address the problem and arrive at a solution?

ha! obviously there isn't one. But I'm very pesimistic. You should ask some more idealistic people...

I think it's false logic that assumes things will get better for girls if there is less of them.

I don't think things will be better for them, but at least there's less girls that have to deal with the oppressive misogyny there.

I think the goal should not be to limit gender selection, but rather severely limit or expel the dowry system. If parents cannot pay out in any meaningful way for having a daughter, and it won't be such an economic disaster to have a daughter, then maybe they will consider having one.

In India, people are penalized for having daughters, so it makes no sense to have one. Take away the penalties, and more people could be willing to close the ratio.

zekeo, you say you're not worried about gender ratios. But what's happened in China may also happen in India, should such gender selection continue. I'm not talking about the increase in human trafficking that under_zenith pointed out; I'm talking about incest villages: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,265428,00.html.

zekeo, you say you're not worried about gender ratios. But what's happened in China may also happen in India, should such gender selection continue. I'm not talking about the increase in human trafficking that under_zenith pointed out; I'm talking about incest villages: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,265428,00.html.

god, those articles are awful. It seems like they're "oh poor men, they must marry their cousins and siblings because there are so few women around". Shouldn't it be focusing on the fact that girls and women are being killed or neglected, or FORCED TO MARRY THEIR COUSINS AND SIBLINGS?! WTF?

The desire to only have male children is a symptom of a society that doesn't value women, not the cause. I wholeheartedly support groups working for women's rights in India (led my Indian women). Focusing on selective abortion and a few wealthy people paying to select a gender is a distraction at best and cultural imperialim/anti-women's rights at worst.

I think it's really hypocritical for a pro-choice blog to speak of abortion as if it's something horrific. I understand why gender-selection technology is disturbing, but if the alternative to either murder newborn babies because their female, or subject them to lifelong slavery for the same reason, abortion might be the best option in those cases. We can't force a gender-egalitarian society on India, but we CAN at least understand why some of the families there choose abortion, when the only other option may be for their children to be objectified and enslaved.

I'm eleven weeks pregnant right now, and I know that I would strongly prefer to have a girl. I also know that I would be happy to have a boy, and certainly wouldn't view the baby's sex as a reason to have an abortion. However, if we were living in a culture in which one sex or the other would be treated as if s/he is subhuman, I might think differently about it. Please bear in mind that other cultures are facing very different choices for very different reasons.

"The second thing is, this seems like a slippery slope questioning women's right to get an abortion for any reason. There is a hint of racism here in that this condemns another culture's practices (i.e. they can't be trusted with abortion but we can because they're backwards). I'm all for working with local women's groups to end sexism and thus the desire to only give birth to boys, but meanwhile I understand a woman not wanting to bring another woman into the world to have to suffer under this system."

I totally agree.

"In some ways this could almost benefit future generations of women. As women become significantly more scarce than men, will it really make sense for them to continue to have a dowry? Women will have much better selection of future mates,"

It's more likely that women's fathers will have a much better selection of men to accept bride prices from.

People who think less women will mean better rights for women are sadly mistaken. Taking experiences from places where gender ratios are really skewed, what often happens is buying women from neighboring areas, kidnapping and shotgun marriages, and increased prostitution.

People who think less women will mean better rights for women are sadly mistaken. Taking experiences from places where gender ratios are really skewed, what often happens is buying women from neighboring areas, kidnapping and shotgun marriages, and increased prostitution.

Abortion of female foetuses in India is only the beginning of lifelong hostility against women. Girl childs are neglected, they often don't get enough food and medical care, they don't receive the same education as boys and are generally perceived as a burden.
And no, this practice does not strenghten women's position at all. As a consequence of the shortage of brides Indian men buy young women in Bangladesh and Nepal. The practice has led to an increase of illegal trafficking of women into India and these women have no rights at all. They are seperated from their families at at the mercy of their "husband".

I would not hold your breath hoping that a shortage of women would raise womens 'value' in these areas. I've seen a few newspaper articles (can't find any links from a quick search though) on villages ending up being entirely male (shortly before dying out) as a result of this practice - with some suggestion that some monastries were initally formed due to this.

I think the goal should not be to limit gender selection, but rather severely limit or expel the dowry system. If parents cannot pay out in any meaningful way for having a daughter, and it won't be such an economic disaster to have a daughter, then maybe they will consider having one.

Sepra, India already figured that out a long time ago. Dowries have been illegal for a long time, but the tradition won't die. Unfortunately, researchers found that even the wealthiest Indians adhere to selective female abortion, and they don't even have money to worry about whatsoever! You'd think that having female children would be a status symbol of their wealth and eventually bring having girls back in fashion, but it's so ingrained to think of women as subhuman that their misogyny really isn't about poverty anymore.

If only there were a way to selectively export the very smartest of the few non-misogynistic young men to America...

That would be a nice solution to the gender imbalance (for us selfish American girls, anyway).