T Nation

Female Infanticide

[i]A two-day-old baby girl in India has survived after being buried alive in a field by her maternal grandfather in the south of the country.

The baby, who had apparently never been fed, was discovered by a farmer near a village some 150km south of Hyderabad.

He said he only spotted her because her tiny hand was sticking out of the soil.

Police say they have arrested the baby’s grandfather, 52-year-old Abdul Rahman, after he confessed to trying to kill the newborn by burying her alive.

“I am yet to marry off four daughters and cannot take responsibility for a fifth one, even when she is only a granddaughter,” Mr Rahman was quoted as telling police. [/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6275770.stm

I had no idea such barbaric acts were still commonplace in the 21st century. After a bit of research, I found out that in India there are 93 women for every 100 men. Seriously messed up folks over there. To add insult to injury, some ultrasound scanner operators advertise with catch phrases such as “spend 600 rupees now and save 50,000 rupees later” (in reference to the dowry).

This is absolutely outrageous!

I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong. In school they taught me that was a common practice in the middle east till Mohamed put a stop to it.

Statistically women are the majority of the population. In China and India they did a statistcal analysis where they calculated that between thirty and fifty million girls are missing from their populations.

In China it is especially brutal because of the one child per couple policy. It’s quite common to put a rag soaked in gasoline over a baby girls face and suffocate her. It’s a real shame Chinese women can be so beautiful.

It is disgusting.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong. In school they taught me that was a common practice in the middle east till Mohamed put a stop to it.

Statistically women are the majority of the population. In China and India they did a statistcal analysis where they calculated that between thirty and fifty million girls are missing from their populations.

In China it is especially brutal because of the one child per couple policy. It’s quite common to put a rag soaked in gasoline over a baby girls face and suffocate her. It’s a real shame Chinese women can be so beautiful. [/quote]

There is a debate about exporting cheap in-utero sex-identification technology to India and China for exactly this reason.

Query: Does it bother people if parents choose to abort a fetus based on the fact they didn’t want a child of that sex?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Query: Does it bother people if parents choose to abort a fetus based on the fact they didn’t want a child of that sex? [/quote]

While a serious issue, foeticide seems almost a minor concern compared to infanticide.

Maybe its okay since they probably didn’t have enough to feed another baby?

[quote]unbending wrote:
Maybe its okay since they probably didn’t have enough to feed another baby?[/quote]

You disgust me.

Fuck. These people either need more condoms, or need to stop having so much fucking sex.

If you have four goddamn girls, and can’t afford another child, why the fuck would you have another child?

Or were they continually trying for a boy?

This shit is sick.

[quote]lixy wrote:
unbending wrote:
Maybe its okay since they probably didn’t have enough to feed another baby?

You disgust me.[/quote]

I echo this sincere retort.

[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Query: Does it bother people if parents choose to abort a fetus based on the fact they didn’t want a child of that sex?

While a serious issue, foeticide seems almost a minor concern compared to infanticide.

[/quote]

Some of us believe the two are virtually the same thing.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Query: Does it bother people if parents choose to abort a fetus based on the fact they didn’t want a child of that sex?[/quote]

Starting with reluctance to abort in the first place, yes.

It’s funny that technology would be developed to determine the sex of the baby at a more advanced state, but technology to remove whatever inferiority one gender (presumably women) suffers remains illusive. Rather like a culture established to destroy a group based solely on who they are, not what they’ve done or intend to do.

I think that there is a balance of nature that we humans shouldn’t mess with. The practice of selective abortions based upon gender is going against the natural order. I think the Indians are setting themselves up for some big problems down the road. Problems that won’t be readily apparent until they are in really deep trouble.

There have been studies that indicate that the mental health of men suffers when they live as bachelors. Women can do alright without us but we go loopy without them. Life long bachelors also tend to die younger.

[quote]lixy wrote:
unbending wrote:
Maybe its okay since they probably didn’t have enough to feed another baby?

You disgust me.[/quote]

You know… I would be okay with this if your parents decided to do this ages ago.

But you know, lots of nomadic tribes do this. Like the Eskimos. If there isn’t enough to go around for everyone, and puts everyone risk of starvation… they get rid of newborns (or try not to have them in the first place), and the seniors.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Starting with reluctance to abort in the first place, yes.

It’s funny that technology would be developed to determine the sex of the baby at a more advanced state, but technology to remove whatever inferiority one gender (presumably women) suffers remains illusive. Rather like a culture established to destroy a group based solely on who they are, not what they’ve done or intend to do.[/quote]

I think Boston raises an interesting question.

In a very wacky extension of it - and I have mentioned it here before - a representative in the Maine legislature introduced a bill that said were scientists ever isolate to a gene for homosexuality and parents could be notified before the child was born (in the same way they can learn of the child’s sex), an abortion would not be permitted on the basis on that the parents wanted to not have the child because he would be gay.

That example is just food for thought - I am curious as to what pro-choice individuals think of Boston’s question. While infanticide and abortion differ in form, if the motive is the same - get rid of women being born - what is their opinion of it?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong. In school they taught me that was a common practice in the middle east till Mohamed put a stop to it.

I always thought India was Hindu not Islamic.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Fuck. These people either need more condoms, or need to stop having so much fucking sex.

If you have four goddamn girls, and can’t afford another child, why the fuck would you have another child?

Or were they continually trying for a boy?

This shit is sick. [/quote]

Hmmm, I remember when you gave me crap about a couple on welfare with 4 kids. I said they should use the free govt’ condoms and you seemed to think I was mean. Interesting.

[quote]unbending wrote:
You know… I would be okay with this if your parents decided to do this ages ago.[/quote]

I wouldn’t. Not even for the people I despise most (think Hitler, Bush…).

Are you stupid? The cases I cited were sexually discriminating. Don’t try to justify the killing of a fellow human being.

And where the hell would you come up with the idea that feeding a baby would put “everyone risk of starvation” (sic)? If you can’t feed it, let it be.

[quote]unbending wrote:

But you know, lots of nomadic tribes do this. Like the Eskimos. If there isn’t enough to go around for everyone, and puts everyone risk of starvation… they get rid of newborns (or try not to have them in the first place), and the seniors.[/quote]

Holy fuck was this a horrible argument, for many reasons. You should’ve just written, “Well, sometimes tigers eat their young.”

[quote]jawara wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Fuck. These people either need more condoms, or need to stop having so much fucking sex.

If you have four goddamn girls, and can’t afford another child, why the fuck would you have another child?

Or were they continually trying for a boy?

This shit is sick.

Hmmm, I remember when you gave me crap about a couple on welfare with 4 kids. I said they should use the free govt’ condoms and you seemed to think I was mean. Interesting.[/quote]

Wait what? When have I ever been against condoms?

I <3 Condoms. I think we should be giving them out all over the goddamn world.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else…

[quote]unbending wrote:
lixy wrote:
unbending wrote:
Maybe its okay since they probably didn’t have enough to feed another baby?

You disgust me.

You know… I would be okay with this if your parents decided to do this ages ago.

But you know, lots of nomadic tribes do this. Like the Eskimos. If there isn’t enough to go around for everyone, and puts everyone risk of starvation… they get rid of newborns (or try not to have them in the first place), and the seniors.[/quote]

You… are an idiot.