Sorry for the delay, been busy trying to pass exams.

Celivia defined feminism as: "The principle that women should have political, economic and social rights equal to those of men."

Absolutely. And to the extent that I used the word feminism in a pejorative sense, I apologise.

Billie - your comment about abortion being an acceptable method of contraception is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen on these boards, and that is saying something. Thanks Celivia for setting that straight.

Celivia, I think your characterising me as misogynist would surprise the women in my life, and I am not quite sure how you got to that conclusion, if for the above ill-thought out use of the word feminism then fair enough, but if for any other reason then I am mighty confused. All I have done in this thread is agree with the author's premise that an inevitable and (in my view) sad, consequence of "no questions asked" access to abortion is sex-based termination. Unlike Billie and others on this thread, I do find that disturbing and I don't resile from it. For those of you unperturbed by sex-based termination, I question your moral compass.

Having said the above, I of course recognise the implications of restricting access to termination: backyard jobs, septic uteruses and death. So, like most people, I support therapeutic termination on a benefit vs. harm basis

(cont)
What the author is saying, and I agree, is that free access to abortion has downsides, and his article focuses on one. He never says that abortion should be banned, he just recognises the complexity of the issue. He acknowledges the perspective of those who argue that the focus should be on altering cultural attitudes in China and India so girls are not devalued. And obviously, I agree with that too.

So where I am struggling is trying to understand why some of you are so hot under the collar about the article? What is so wrong with the premise? He is really just stating the obvious isn't he?

Yvonne said:

"There are some of you who read the word ‘abortion’ and start foaming at the mouth. It makes it impossible for you to remain even slightly rational or logical and look at what is the real problem. I find that curious, especially if you are so against abortion.

You are not at all interested in saving foetuses, you don’t give a toss about foetuses, babies or children. You don’t even pretend you do. It is control over women you want. Uterus envy plain and simple. That women could have any power at all rankles deeply with some men."

Yvonne, I hope you aren't referring to me. But if you are, two points:

1. Au contraire. I think maybe you start foaming at the mouth if anyone has the temerity to suggest that free access to therapeutic terminations has a downside.

2. I have a partner, a 9 month old child (hopefully more to come) and have just completed a term in paediatrics and reproductive medicine. My views are not uninformed and were not arrived at quickly. I love wome and babies (and foetuses!) and I might just end up working with them for a career

Stickman, no I wasn't thinking of you with the 'foaming at the mouth' criticism. You have to admit though that there are a few posters who have no truck with listening to a woman's point of view, or women full stop. Hopefully they love other men, otherwise life would be pretty lonely, not to say cold every night.

In any case, the venom of some, especially HRS, is particularly sad. It is blatantly obvious that he has been deeply hurt and this forum is an avenue for him to offload his anger.

I have read the article a couple of times and still the article is of no assistance or enlightenment. The article is about population imbalance. Whether abortion was available or not, there would still be a population imbalance.

You state you are working in the health field.

Say the title was 'The Global Surgical bind'. The article points out an obsession with physical beauty in our Western society and links this with surgery.

You, the reader are to assume:
-surgery to improve physical appearance is always bad.
-People would not do anything about their physical appearance if plastic surgery was prohibited.
-People would not be obsessed with their physical appearance if there was no plastic surgery.
-the population should naturally be divided into ugly and beautiful people.

What does the issue of available surgery in itself have to do with our notion of physical beauty or ugliness and the importance of this in our society?

Just because the author states the obvious, that abortions are also used for sex selection, adds nothing to the issue of the implications of a cultural preference towards a particular sex on a population.

The author was very careful not to make any inference to the morality of abortions. He didn't need to. You could almost hear the audible gasp throughout cyberspace: WHAT! Abortions just because the woman wants a boy! Now those women have gone TOO far! LOOK at the consequences!

That's the nub of the article. Real clever, now we're arguing abortion.

Celivia,
There have been a number of aware and loving feminists who have proposed that the male population is culled, and reproduction carried out through IVF only. I have always been suspicious of this, as there seems to be very few feminists who oppose IVF.

Ultimately the greatest problem with large scale abortion (and in Australia we have large scale abortion) is that it reduces the development of other forms of contraception, or the development of other ways of stopping unwanted pregnancy.

For example: There is (or was) an Indian medical researcher who was researching a form of male sterilization that was easily reversible, and could be carried out without any form of surgery. However that researcher is up against the abortion industry, and in India the abortion industry must be a very large industry with enormous capital behind them.

Even if the researcher's method of male sterilization did work, that researcher would have a very large task ahead of them trying to get their method used, because they would be battling the abortion industry.

So feminists continuously pushing abortion is also maintaining the abortion industry, which has shown itself to have the most minimal ethics or real concern for women (and of course no concern at all for the unborn)

It is questionable that women are badly treated in India, as Indian women live on average 3 years longer than Indian men. If women were being badly treated in India, then women in India would be dieing much younger than men in India.

I haven’t been able to find anything of any reliability in feminism, and I doubt very much whether feminists could ever adequately represent anyone except feminists.

Yvonne,
For someone who thinks that aborting more baby girls than boys allows women more choice in who to marry, I think you are very feminist, very similar to the aware and loving feminist Billie, who wants to treat as farmyard animals, suitable only for their sperm.

A very perspicacious analogy, Yvonne!
If the author had been writing about plastic surgery, it wouldn’t have surprised me if he’d suggested to ban mirrors for ugly people. Ugly people would still be discriminated against, enslaved and exploited by the beautiful, but hey, at least they wouldn’t request surgery and join the elite beauty club.

Stickman,
That I called you a misogynist was mainly based on your first post combined with the tone you used to Yvonne.
I do know Yvonne from other debates and I find her views balanced and down-to-earth.
I haven’t met you in other threads and bunched you together with HRS here because of that comment. I apologise that I jumped to that conclusion. I am glad that you agree that women should have equal rights, thank you for making that clear.

I am, perhaps, one of the people who are ‘foaming at the mouth’ when someone agrees with the author that free access to therapeutic terminations has a downside. As I said, there are worse things than not to be born as a girl in these girl-hating, boy-worshipping environments. It’s more humane to shape up the laws and reinforcing them- such as the ban on dowries than it is to ban sex-selective abortion.

HRS
“It is questionable that women are badly treated in India…”
OMG I don’t believe you're even denying that!
Women have biological advantages; they are more resistant to malnutrition and disease. They do not live longer because they’re being treated similar to men. They have a huge social disadvantage and many live in ill health.

Ironically, the health of women is very important for their offspring. By not looking after the health of females, they produce weaker offspring and boys, because of their biology, are more susceptible to these weaknesses than girls. By improving the health of females, the health of baby boys is improved as well.
This is something that misogynists overlook.
So what if women live a few years longer than men if their quality of life is abhorrent?
It just means a few more years of suffering.

Celivia,
Members of the Moonie cult were programmed to call someone a Satanist if that person disagreed with them.

Members of the feminist cult are being programmed to call someone a misogynist if that person disagrees with them.

Same thing, different cult.

The problem in India can be easily solved by restricting the number of times a woman is told if her unborn is a boy or girl, but of course feminist don’t seem to want any restrictions placed on abortion.

Abortion is central to the cult of feminism.