10 ms·

It's like quoting a wikipedia article, but there was an episode about this in a LastWeekTonight type show[0]. Two takeaways: 1. One of the southern states (tha

It's like quoting a wikipedia article, but there was an episode about this in a LastWeekTonight type show[0]. Two takeaways: 1. One of the southern states (that I'm from) ranks super-high in killing baby girls, despite what one would think intuitively. 2. Doctors offer Levi's style buy 1, get 2nd 50% off style packages for sex-determination test + abortions (both of which are banned). To ensure that parents-to-be get both, they lie that the foetus is a girl. [0] http://www.satyamevjayate.in/female-foeticide/femalefoeticide.aspx http://www.satyamevjayate.in/female-foeticide/femalefoeticid..., scroll down for the episode

heartbreak 8y ago
> killing baby girls Sorry to nitpick, but female foeticide (sex-selective abortion) would be better described as “aborting female fetuses.”
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ihsw2 8y ago
  It is murder.
- praneshp 8y ago
  Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring to female infanticide, not foeticide.
  - heartbreak 8y ago
    The state you’re from ranks highest in female infanticide?! That is terribly sad.
    - praneshp 8y ago
      Super-high. Pretty sure there is a handful worse than us, if it matters..
    - ars 8y ago
      And if it was the highest in female abortions it would not be sad? The end result is identical, and despite being able to see a difference, nonetheless I feel the same way about both situations. Abortions should be reserved for only the direst of situations.
- socceroos 8y ago
  Rant incoming - this isn't targeted at you, but my observations on this. I've always found it ridiculous that effectively 1 planck-time can be the difference between a collection of cells and a human and therefore the difference between selfish rights and outraged sorrow. The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. The very fact that it is the premeditated interference that prevents the baby from continuing to develop should be the light-bulb moment for most discerning and logical individuals. You literally have to kill the baby to stop it from becoming a fully-formed version of itself - that is literally it. You have to kill it to stop it from getting to a point that you 'begin to feel bad'. It is ridiculous. The fact that, when unimpeded, that baby will grow into an adult individual should be a pretty obvious reminder to people of what they're actually doing. I've been saying this for a little while, but I'm sure a time will come when society collectively looks back on this period and shudders at the horror of it all.
  - jake_the_third 8y ago
    Thank you for saying this. It had always disturbed me how people change the name of what is quite literally ending another human life to something else as a means to soften or discard the moral implication associated with said action. It's disgusting. Truth be told though, this renaming-bad-things-to-make-them-passable phenomenon isn't only limited to killing unborn children, and it has been going on for a long time.
    - Canaan 8y ago
      'War'...what is it good for?
  - praneshp 8y ago
    (I'm not sure if I'm giving you the right context, or if you already know about it, etc etc, so blanket apology if required) I understood and didn't take offence at the nitpick mainly due to the fact that foetus vs baby is an important argument in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate in the US; the "women should be allowed to control their bodies" side is usually presented with "should they be allowed to kill a baby to control their body", etc.
- voltooid 8y ago
  I think that the comment above mentioned killing baby girls because that is a thing. The killing of live born baby girls. You are right, that is different from aborting fetuses. Both these things happen.
Karishma1234 8y ago
I personally think this is a good idea. It is better for the well being of the child if parents love him/her instead of having an unwanted child. Female child is expensive in India and Indians are poor hence not all can afford the luxury of female child. I absolutely hate the objectification of women as vaginas for our boys. All the discussion around the topic is "we need vaginas for our boys" who will produce babies if we kill all girls?
- praneshp 8y ago
  > hence not all can afford the luxury of female child. Heh, another fix for that is to work towards making a female child not a luxury
- sevilo 8y ago
  That’s a terrible justification, girls are only a luxury because society make them to be. Through western societies and modern China, it’s already proven that other than physical strength, women are capable of receiving and making good use of education, can generate decent amount of income to support themselves even without a husband, can rise to leadership in many different fields. But in India and rural China, the opportunities for girls to develope are ripped away from them because of traditional beliefs. Hence growing into “luxury” women who have no skills or desirability other than being vaginas to men.
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    Indian parents who do not like girl child will agree with you. Even the most conservative parents do not doubt female ability. It is just that they prove less valuable than male child for following reasons. 1. Parents have to spend more time/money to ensure her safety. 2. The money she earns does not become part of the family but goes to her husband as she leaves house. 3. You invest on her education she get a great job and buys a big house. You don't get to live there her husband gets that house. 4. If she is educated she wants more educated husband which means you have to pay more dowry as there is more competition for highly educated grooms. Even if your daughter is that kickass smarty pants you stand to lose. PS - All these problems mellow once the income level of people rise significantly as people marry through love marriage etc. But there are other skews because majority of Indian girls fall in ugly category hence men compete for 5% of girls in love marriage market where as no one goes after the 95% one. Check this : https://www.singledudetravel.com/2013/12/indias-shocking-lack-of-attractive-women/ https://www.singledudetravel.com/2013/12/indias-shocking-lac...

heartbreak 8y ago

> killing baby girls Sorry to nitpick, but female foeticide (sex-selective abortion) would be better described as “aborting female fetuses.”

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ihsw2 8y ago
It is murder.
praneshp 8y ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring to female infanticide, not foeticide.
- heartbreak 8y ago
  The state you’re from ranks highest in female infanticide?! That is terribly sad.
  - praneshp 8y ago
    Super-high. Pretty sure there is a handful worse than us, if it matters..
  - ars 8y ago
    And if it was the highest in female abortions it would not be sad? The end result is identical, and despite being able to see a difference, nonetheless I feel the same way about both situations. Abortions should be reserved for only the direst of situations.
socceroos 8y ago
Rant incoming - this isn't targeted at you, but my observations on this. I've always found it ridiculous that effectively 1 planck-time can be the difference between a collection of cells and a human and therefore the difference between selfish rights and outraged sorrow. The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. The very fact that it is the premeditated interference that prevents the baby from continuing to develop should be the light-bulb moment for most discerning and logical individuals. You literally have to kill the baby to stop it from becoming a fully-formed version of itself - that is literally it. You have to kill it to stop it from getting to a point that you 'begin to feel bad'. It is ridiculous. The fact that, when unimpeded, that baby will grow into an adult individual should be a pretty obvious reminder to people of what they're actually doing. I've been saying this for a little while, but I'm sure a time will come when society collectively looks back on this period and shudders at the horror of it all.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  Thank you for saying this. It had always disturbed me how people change the name of what is quite literally ending another human life to something else as a means to soften or discard the moral implication associated with said action. It's disgusting. Truth be told though, this renaming-bad-things-to-make-them-passable phenomenon isn't only limited to killing unborn children, and it has been going on for a long time.
  - Canaan 8y ago
    'War'...what is it good for?
- praneshp 8y ago
  (I'm not sure if I'm giving you the right context, or if you already know about it, etc etc, so blanket apology if required) I understood and didn't take offence at the nitpick mainly due to the fact that foetus vs baby is an important argument in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate in the US; the "women should be allowed to control their bodies" side is usually presented with "should they be allowed to kill a baby to control their body", etc.
voltooid 8y ago
I think that the comment above mentioned killing baby girls because that is a thing. The killing of live born baby girls. You are right, that is different from aborting fetuses. Both these things happen.

Karishma1234 8y ago

I personally think this is a good idea. It is better for the well being of the child if parents love him/her instead of having an unwanted child. Female child is expensive in India and Indians are poor hence not all can afford the luxury of female child. I absolutely hate the objectification of women as vaginas for our boys. All the discussion around the topic is "we need vaginas for our boys" who will produce babies if we kill all girls?

praneshp 8y ago
> hence not all can afford the luxury of female child. Heh, another fix for that is to work towards making a female child not a luxury
sevilo 8y ago
That’s a terrible justification, girls are only a luxury because society make them to be. Through western societies and modern China, it’s already proven that other than physical strength, women are capable of receiving and making good use of education, can generate decent amount of income to support themselves even without a husband, can rise to leadership in many different fields. But in India and rural China, the opportunities for girls to develope are ripped away from them because of traditional beliefs. Hence growing into “luxury” women who have no skills or desirability other than being vaginas to men.
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  Indian parents who do not like girl child will agree with you. Even the most conservative parents do not doubt female ability. It is just that they prove less valuable than male child for following reasons. 1. Parents have to spend more time/money to ensure her safety. 2. The money she earns does not become part of the family but goes to her husband as she leaves house. 3. You invest on her education she get a great job and buys a big house. You don't get to live there her husband gets that house. 4. If she is educated she wants more educated husband which means you have to pay more dowry as there is more competition for highly educated grooms. Even if your daughter is that kickass smarty pants you stand to lose. PS - All these problems mellow once the income level of people rise significantly as people marry through love marriage etc. But there are other skews because majority of Indian girls fall in ugly category hence men compete for 5% of girls in love marriage market where as no one goes after the 95% one. Check this : https://www.singledudetravel.com/2013/12/indias-shocking-lack-of-attractive-women/ https://www.singledudetravel.com/2013/12/indias-shocking-lac...