Female Foeticide – Please Help me Fight this logic

Following Sunday’s airing of Satyamev Jayate, it isnt a surprise that the hot topic of conversation around watercoolers is Aamir Khan/ Female Foeticide. As one would expect, the overwhelming reaction was positive, admiring the actor and deploring the practice of killing the girl child.

I did, however, have one conversation which left me with a lot of difficulty – though morally reprehensible, this gentleman (who shall not be named) provided a logical reason to support female foeticide. And, for once, i could not argue with him on his logic, which has caused me considerable distress.

This is how the conversation went.

Him: Ok, imagine that there is one man and 100 women. Theoretically how many children can be born in 1 year?

Me: Theoretically, well, 100 i guess. (Assuming that man is as virile and handsome as me of course)

Him – ok, now assume there are 100 men and 1 woman. How many children can be born in 1 year?

Me – well, only 1.

Him – Correct.That is why forced sterilisation didnt work in the 70s – we were focussing on the wrong gender. Instead of vasectomies for men, if we had forced tubectomies on women, we would have had more of an impact on birth rates.

Me – well, you can’t be sure about that

Him – I can. Women are the limiting factor in children. Specifically, the less working  wombs there are the less kids you can have, right? if you tie one man’s tubes, some other man can still f*** his woman and make her pregnant. Tie a woman’s tubes, and then, no matter who f***s her, she cant have kids – its more efficient

Me – dude, that’s callous

Him – its a fact! Lets take it one step further. If the limiting factor of population growth is number of available wombs, then the “ideal” way is to kill a female child even before its born. That way we dont even waste resources in making her grow to a reproductive age only to tie her tubes. We have the same effect – one less available womb. Except its even MORE efficient.

Me – DUDE! That’s just wrong! Your mother is a woman! if she didnt exist, neither would you!

Him – that’s just the luck of the draw. Some people get born, some dont… it has nothing to do with the logic

Me – ya, but increasing birth rates have to do with NRR (net reproductive rate), if we can bring NRR down…

Him – again, thats post facto – we are trying to bring down NRR because of so many available wombs. If those wombs didnt exist, birth rates would automatically drop. You cant fault the logic

Me: But…

Him – you *cant* fault the logic. Female foeticide is the most efficient way of long term population control, which is india’s biggest challenge

Me – …. …. I am *SO* tweeting about this.

So, there you have it. One man’s logic as to why female foeticide should be supported. And for the LIFE of me, i cant find a way to LOGICALLY argue his point. I can always get emotional and call him a murderer, or a nazi or try to make him think aout how sweet little girls look like when dressed up as a princess, but he’s just going to respond with “That’s all glitter, my underlying logic is sound”

Female Foeticide is morally reprehensible. And what Satyameva Jayate is trying to do is to bring up these onversations for discussion. How do i fight this guy’s logic? Someone help me?

Advertisements

About Tarun

Joker, smoker, midnight toker. Teacher, writer, general gadabout
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Female Foeticide – Please Help me Fight this logic

  1. We have a population explosion on Earth? Whattay, no problem at all! Let’s go and do a Genocide in Nigeria; after all it’s a fact that some people die and some are born. Who cares if they wanted to be born / live a life. I will play God and make the choice for them. I am an intelligent animal being, and that is why I can come up with such “effective solutions”.

    ~ If only we could all take a few steps back and give better education to the world. There would be less employment and thus less strain on getting money from dowry. A few of the educated men will send their girls to schools too, some girls out of that will become independent women soon and some out of those will give birth to more independent women.

  2. It’s inhuman. Is that not a reason enough?

    • Pinacol says:

      A lot of things we do are inhuman. I am surprised that was the only argument you could think of against it.

  3. zennmaster says:

    I reckon the bigger problem is NOT female foeticide but gender inequality. The reasoning provided is to control population at large which if you look at the context of the conversation, makes all the sense in the world. The equation you need to look at is 100 men wanting to have sex with 100 females. The unequal weight of one variable, male or female, will always result in one section of the ‘society’/population to be open to exploitation. What I am trying to say is that don’t fight the logic but realize and rephrase the problem.

    • Tarun says:

      ok, this seems like a starting point. please continue…

      • To Add to what Zenn said, gender imbalance is the real issue and it initially leads to an increase in population. When the number of women start decreasing, men start marrying young since the older they grow the lesser there is a chance of finding a bride. Younger marriages mean greater fertility and thus a subsequent increase in population. So, this approach will not really help, for a start.
        Now, taking the idea forward from the current starting point, ie, assuming each generation keeps aborting female embryos in an increasing number, at one point the imbalance becomes unmanageable. The rational agent model of representation that this person has used in his argument does not represent real human behaviour. Shortage of women will lead to greater problems perpetuated by men. Even at current imbalance levels there is enough exploitation of women due the large number of unmarried men. A worsening of the imbalance cannot improve the situation. This idea very slyly places the burden of the side effects population control on women. If it were to accept that men can be responsible and not have children, this debate won’t even be necessary.

  4. What is the rationale behind female foeticide? That women are useless and are a liability more than an asset. The moment the rationale changes to population control, will the sexism prevail still? Plus, while population control is important, population balance is equally important. There are still jobs that are gender dominant/specific. Entire markets are developed for each sex. Plus, no matter what people say, romantic relationships are important in a happiness index. You can’t wipe out an entire sex just for the sake of population control.

    So now, a population that’s morally okay with female foeticide has more men than women. Will this same population be okay with homosexuality?

  5. Sasha says:

    What an ass. Go browse through UNFPA’s site. If women can control their fertility, they do. Eliminating women doesn’t decrease population. Because the remaining women STILL DON’T HAVE CONTROL over their own bodies.

  6. Female foeticide isn’t about population control. It’s because some people don’t WANT girls. They’re a burden, and sometimes a stigma. Boys help on the farm, can be sent off to factories to work at a very early age and they GET dowry.

  7. Kunal says:

    But female foeticide has nothing to do with sex (the verb). His main argument is for population control. But parents who want a male kid, are not even thinking in that area. They just want a boy. Also in that case, for population control, make heterosexual marriages against the law and make gay marriages legal, assuming that majority of Indian have sex after marriage.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Tarun, I think you are giving too much credibilty to this immoral, inhuman and cruel idea. If killing a girl in the womb is his solution for curbing the population just because the action leads to the result may also justify death sentences to petty thieves by the consideration that major criminals most of te times start out as petty ones. Kill all the petty ones and you have no Dawood or Tiger to terrorize your state? Point is, in sociology and population science, a particular result may be favorable and more importantly attainable through various actions, because of the fact that too many variables decide these results. But we need to understand that just because a particular action leads to a positive result of population control, it cannot be justified right. Just how, nuclear attacks and natural calamities can in a more efficient way wipe out population, doesnt make them a positive event.

    • Tarun says:

      yeah, i guess you’re right. i wish i had come up with that while talking to him.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes! Someone said my point. & that person is mixing two problems: female foeticide & Population explosion. In India female foeticide is not a way to fix population explosion. & even if it could Its not a viable option because of so many other serious problems it will lead to.
      And there is something called “Birth Control”, in case a woman want to get fucked by whole town. I live in USA & I see women/men getting laid everyday (often with different partners). But, I don’t see babies every nine months.

  9. Here’s the other thing. While you want to control population. You don’t want to wipe it out. Say this one in a hundred woman has 5 sons over 5 years and then develops fertility issues. Or worse yet. Has two daughters and both grow up to either only procreate with their brothers (genetic issues in future generations there) or one dies and the other has bum ovaries…

  10. Tvisha says:

    Population control is NOT about using forced sterilization or controlling the gender ration.

    As a democracy and a country that offers citizens basic rights and freedom, our moral responsibility lies in creating awareness among people to consciously have fewer children to better the family’s standard of living, regardless of the gender of the child or his or her fertility.

    Having children is a personal choice that all human beings are entitled to. Capability/capacity to have children is not a valid argument.

  11. ahujaneha says:

    Ok so : His logic is valid, you can’t have a child without a female womb, but the fact also is you can’t have a child without a male sperm as well! No matter what 2 females do to each other they CANT concieve a child without a male sperm. So why don’t we go ahead and kill male childs as well, after all any male child killed will be one less contributor to population growth right ? If there is 100 men and 1 women she can have 100 Kids but what if there is 1 women and 50 men then we cut down the ratio by 50 men directly. And these 50 men have higher potential to go fuck 50 chicks each that the 1 women to fuck 100 men. Coz let’s face the fact we all no which is the hornier sex. Why the fuck target only women…Let’s kill the male child also

    In anycase, I don’t see how the argument is even related to female foeticde, coz yes every family who Kills a girl child is surely thinking of INDIA’S growing population. A piece of bullshit logic just to make himself feel better. A girls only purpose to be born in not to shell out kids, just in case people don’t know! She can very well live a life she deserves have the no of children she can take care of and then take her tubes out … The solution to this is EDUCATION not MURDER.

  12. Imp's Mom says:

    If there are no men, would population increase? And if you kill only females, there will be only men left. What would happen then?

  13. shreyashively says:

    So by that logic, female foeticide will solve the problem of rape also na?! No more vaginas… no more rape. Woohooo!

  14. Anonymous says:

    #1 Female foeticide is not a method that can in anyway be logical enough for population control. Its Murder. Period.
    #2 why not we all just become celibates. Skip the medical expenses of Vasectomy and all the tubes this man wants to tie. ( whatever happened to other temporary means of birth control).
    #3 Women aren’t an object, a substance, a virus in the air, an unwanted phenomenon or a rolling stock of whatever equipments that are recycled for the good of the environment. We breath, move, sing, dance and laugh and are as human as Men are, so pls talking about us as if we are a breed of insects swarming a mass of land. Thankyou very much

  15. this logic assumes that killing is a perfectly viable method of reducing population.

    consider a poor man with 9 children. Wants more. This logic will prefer killing the new child instead of vasectomy of man.

    also, the point of someone else might fuck the women n get them pregnant is wrong. No one fucks your wife. It’s India.

  16. Must Clap! Firstly for coming up with such a logical argument. And secondly for being so shamelessly proud of it!

    So tell me.. how does he plan to randomise which girl child will stay so that the human race continues and which ones will be killed? A lottery? Lucky draw perhaps? Or does he not want or care for d human race’s existing beyond say a 100 yrs in the hopes of solving population explosion?

    Ok. Lets Just agree that women are possibly the cause of population increase (rolls eyes). That too if we conveniently ignore the fact that willingness to have sex (with every other man) is even a factor to it.
    So then fine, I can even understand forced tubectomies after the birth of first child or say second child. But what logic is it eliminating a woman at birth itself?

    Is the factor of population so important that the rest of a woman’s life is meaningless? What he suggests would eventually mean no existence of women at all; thus solving d problem!? How?
    So then that would mean .. No more humans after all d women die.. And all d men have anal sex to please themselves! What a world!

    For a human being (women) who only has a productive womb from d age of 12 – 50 (40yrs) – your solution is death at birth? And for another human (men) whose sperms are available since 12 – 70 , 80, whatever year.. And though they may have less mobility they still have a chance at impregnating a young girl.. Or woman.. You let him jerk off the entire universe!! Right?

    Let’s forget that one 100 me will be ****ing 1 woman and she is just suppose to oblige bcz it will solve the problem of population explosion.
    What your friend needs to understand is that population explosion was the cause behind femal foeticide. The cause was gender inequality. How is this “self proclaimed intellectual” being so unaware that he doesn’t even know the root of the problem?

    In all honesty. Its the weakest argument made with the utmost confidence, which probably stumped you, rather than the fact that he was actually right!
    Tell this “Mr. IFeelSorryForWhoeverMarriesYou” that he was not being asked to solve a mathematical equation. Societal problems are to be dealt with emotions as well as rational thoughts.. EVEN if it was indeed MATH — when the assumptions / factors / parameters are incomplete.. the thus proven theorem is automatically incorrect !

    Ive posted this on my blog too.. thanks Tarun for starting this conversation.. 🙂

  17. His twisted “logic” would also work if all men were to be castrated or neutered.

    “Women are the limiting factor in children. Specifically, the less working wombs there are the less kids you can have, right? if you tie one man’s tubes, some other man can still f*** his woman and make her pregnant. Tie a woman’s tubes, and then, no matter who f***s her, she cant have kids – its more efficient.”

    The less working wombs there are = The less working testes there are.

    He also seems to flaunt an obvious disregard for the woman, as is proved by his callous statement of “no matter who fucks her, she can’t have kids”, like women have no say in whom they wish to fuck or whether they wish to have a man’s child or not.

    The world is full of such “logic”. For example: Human flesh is also a form of nutrition, so why do we refrain from eating it? Or why do we judge baby-eaters when they are just eating a form of nutrition which was not hunted or killed by them?

    The man is sexist, obnoxious, and his argument is a waste of time.

  18. Pinacol says:

    “If the limiting factor of population growth is number of available wombs, then the “ideal” way is to kill a female child even before its born. That way we dont even waste resources in making her grow to a reproductive age only to tie her tubes.”

    Women serve a role in our society which, I hope you realize, is a little more than being kid-factories.

    • Anonymous says:

      It would be better to cut off the penis of all the males than kill females for population control.so that none are able to f*** any female,and produce a baby,increase the population….Because cutting an appandage is better than murdering that is the Logic

  19. Anonymous says:

    the premise of the argument is faulty as it assumes the foeticide is a morally aceetable proposition. every child has a right to live and once born it should enjoy that priviledge. In order the control population the government can increase taxes on more than one child and make it very expensive for parents to plan their future too. there are other ways ot go about this.

  20. anuyaja says:

    Hasn’t this guy heard of a little something called birth control?

    • Tarun says:

      according to him, female foeticide is the best, most effective, most foolproof, cheapest form of long termbirth control!

      • how can it be the cheapest form and also long term ?
        doesnt a woman have to get pregnant and have an abortion ? how is that going to cost more than a birthcontrol pills?? and y shd one get pregnant repeatedly and abort a child? female foeticide is nt permanent solution ! crazy fuck he is!

  21. Dr.Unk says:

    Firstly, the issue here is not population control, it is sex-discrimination. It’s more of a personal/family level issue than a state level issue. Those who discriminate against unborn females can and will discriminate against and abuse women, for they are, at heart, sexists. Female foeticide is just a manifestation of the real issue of sex-discrimination. When females are only considered reproductive machinery, and there are lesser females, there are more chances of a single female being made pregnant multiple times than when females are regarded equals and given equal rights. In reality, as opposed to the hypothetical situation the arguer has come up with to advocate his logic, a very important factor of population growth is a 21year old anaemic female with three living kids already made pregnant for the fifth time. (This is from numerous such cases I’ve seen in KEMH, Parel). Even if the sex ratio is skewed in favour of men, for reasons of species survival, in reality, it cannot be so skewed as to there being only 1 woman per 100 men. In reality it’s more like 90 women per 100 men, and that combined with the sexist attitude leads to a much higher population growth, as we have seen here.

    Why do we need such a regressive method of population control when much more effective and efficient methods are available? A condom or a tubal ligation costs much much less than a USG and abortion. A management guy should know that.

    Maybe his logic cannot be faulted in the hypothetical situation but can it explain the low population growth rates in spite of a higher or equal number of females (in the reproductive age group) in the more developed countries?

    • Tarun says:

      thank you doc! i should’ve thought of using the japan/germany example!

    • Tarun says:

      one point – if you take into account the “cost of rearing a girl to reproductive age and then do tubal ligation/birth control, wont the total cost be higher than an abortion, with the same end result? (it makes me feel disgusted to even talk like this)

      • huh? why do u speak of tubal litigation like its the end of a woman’s life? not that i even support that.. coz y the fuck shud my tubes be stitched up bcz a man cant decide to keep his sperms to himself.. but in any case i wud rather have a tubal ligation by choice than never be allowed to be born !! tarun i dont understand why do you want to argue on behalf of him..

      • Tarun says:

        i’m only arguing the logic. i do not condone it in any way.

      • Dr.Unk says:

        What end result do we desire? Population control or extinction? Reproduction is not undesired, overdoing it is undesired. Population is dynamic, we want the total number to be stable but the population growing older must be replaced. For that we need women (and men too) of reproductive age. Any form of contraception is the most cost-effective way of population control where both men and women can continue having a healthy sex life, after having reproduced as required. Population control is not about eliminating reproduction altogether. Reproduction is required.

        Having 1 woman per 100 men would result in the woman being abused, the men being sexually frustrated and the population becoming extinct in no time.

  22. As we know that one of the major reason for population explosion is people giving birth to hordes of girls in the want of a male child. So we have families with lots of girl child before a boy was born.

    Now, the only person to blame for the birth of girl child is the man. It’s his chromosome which decides who gets developed inside a mother’s womb.

    So, let’s find the men who are producing more and more X chromosomes and thus ensuring the birth of girl child, and then kill them.

    This way the number of girls and subsequently, the number of potential mothers will reduce.

    This process is as logical as the one explained by that abomination of a man.

    • Tarun says:

      hmmm. thats quite a good plan!

      • Dr.Unk says:

        One does not simply produce more sperms with X chromosomes! Men produce equal number of sperms with X and Y chromosomes and each of them has equal chances of fertilising the egg with the X chromosome. This is nature’s way of making sure that the population remains balanced with an almost equal number of males and females (in an infinitely large sample over a long time) in order to keep the species from becoming extinct. Any severe imbalance in this gene pool will affect the entire species in a detrimental way.

        CAUTION : HERE LIES A RANT WITH STRONG LANGUAGE AND SOME EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC. READ DISCRETION ADVISED.

        A scenario of 1 female per 100 males would over time go through something like this… All of the men would fight for the one female and will end up killing each other. In all that frenzy some twisted senseless sexist man, like our mangement guru, might rape and kill the female while the others are fighting and then go on to kill himself, for his purpose in life is fulfilled. All that the surviving men can do now is suck each others dicks and buttfuck each other until they die one by one.

        Or, if we wish to stretch the story on like a Hindi TV soap, maybe the woman survives and the men kill our manager ’cause he fucked her, they’d have to be sensible enough to let the woman and her child live for the sake of the species. If they’re really lucky she gives birth to a girl, and doesn’t die in childbirth which is a real risk for women in such stone age societies. By then, we have only three alpha males left who somehow learn to co-operate and take turns to fuck the woman once every nine months. In the meanwhile, they buttfuck each other. This system somehow works for a while, the woman eventually dies, and after a few generations of inbreeding we have a superbly crippled and diseased population with individual life expectancies lesser than puberty, when this thriller of a TV soap has to be taken off air.

        That’s the fate of self-serving ‘logical’ theories.

      • Dr.Unk says:

        My apologies for the rant, but it is quite clear that continuing selective female foeticide, while theoretically limiting the reproductive potential in a single-generation hypothetical scenario, would in the long term give rise to a dangerously imbalanced (in sex and age distribution) population and threaten it’s existence instead of being an effective method of healthy and balanced population control.

  23. Aditya says:

    Flipping the logic (??) around a bit.. why not start a male foeticide practice.. sure, to start off with, the rationale that this guy has provided with will hold fort – males, even though lesser in number will still be able to have sex with multiple women and produce more babies.. but the eventuality lies that the ratio of men to women will go down so drastically in the long run, that the mitigating factor will no longer be the abundance of female wombs available… but the acute shortage of men to carry forth the reproduction. Theoretically (as the guy has propounded), we would be looking at an extinction of the male species as opposed to the female one in the distant future.

    The guy could of course say that he did not mention that all women should be killed.. that it’s a luck of the draw.. what happens now is what will continue to happen.. but this disregards basic human logic that tries to correct what is wrong. When one puts forth a theory, all possible permutation combinations have to be addressed – the point that female feoticide as a birth control mechanism will not manifest itself as a practice across society does not hold. The logic is flawed in its very basic premise that matters will remain as it is if no corrective action is taken.. that this practice will not become wide enough to eventually lead to the eradication of women altogether in the distant future.

    • Tarun says:

      unfortunately, this logic doesnt work. One man’s one ejaculate is enough to impregnate 200 million wombs. Men are not the constraining factor, women are.

      • Aditya says:

        hmm.. agreed.. but if you come to a situation when you have no guys, how on earth would you produce the sperms required to reproduce in the first place.. either that or as Abhinav above pointed out.. kill all guys producing predominantly X chromosomes.

        this is too skewed a logic to even merit serious discussion.

      • Aditya says:

        also, since you discussed the cost scenario above with the doc, the cost of finding out men ejaculating mainly X chromosomes and killing them post that is definitely higher than the process of female feoticide.. it’s a disgusting logic which i find myself arguing with for no particular reason.

      • Tarun, this statement which keeps being repeated is highly conjectural. Please treat it as such, and stop referring to it as a fact. Also, forgive me if I’m wrong, but why does it seem like you nearly agree with this pathetic excuse of a human being.

      • Tarun says:

        im not putting anything down as a fact. And i am looking for LOGICAL responses to his point of view, so am correcting anything which is not a logial response. do note that Dr.Unk and abhiandnow have made some good points which attacks this mans logic, as opposed to going into outraged hyperbole, which is the first step to losing an argument

        further, i’d appreciate it if you do not make arbitrary judgements on my opinions. I find it emotionally difficult to make the “logical” points I’m making in response to comments, but the objective of this is primarily as an intellectual exercise, not as an excuse to outrage, and i am treating it as such.

      • Fair enough, I understand my opinion is unwelcome and I’m out of here, but if this statement – “One man’s one ejaculate is enough to impregnate 200 million wombs” is not an outraged hyperbole, I don’t know what is.

        Also, I thought we were having a tamed discussion, I don’t understand you getting so defensive over it and lashing out like that, when we are all sharing opinions here. I hope I didn’t touch a raw nerve.

        Anyway, peace. Over and out.

      • Tarun says:

        That statement is not outraged hyperbole, but a biological statement of fact.

      • Roy says:

        Exactly. Kill off the 200 million sperms, and leave that one womb alone. Why constrain something that’s already fairly limited anyway?

      • Tarun says:

        The theory of constraints implies that it is the womb that is the limiting factor, not the testicle.

  24. Ritika says:

    Am sorry for Mr. Him who thinks female foeticide is the way to go.. As for the person who could not find a logical explanation – here it is:

    In context of Satyamev Jayate, these women are not given a choice whether they want to have a girl or not. They are being simply killed and yes, the reason is sex discrimination.

    Imagine wanting to have a baby – a baby and not a girl or a boy. Then imagine being forced to abort her and at times, just given an injection so the baby dies – why? Because we waited 2-3 months and found out the baby is a girl. Just because she is a girl.
    Can you see any logic in that?

  25. smokefreemumbai says:

    These are the assumptions I spot in his logic (please try to find more):-
    1 – and I quote “population control, which is india’s biggest challenge”
    1a – Controlling population is more important than preventing female infanticide.
    2 – There are no steps that can be taken to control population that haven’t already been tried.

    I disagree with all of the assumptions above. You may disagree with one or more of them. His logic is resting on the premise of these assumptions, and if we can’t agree on these assumptions then we obviously won’t accept his logic. Taking from what Zennmaster and dingoesatemyblog said, a world with a controlled population can very well be a worse place to live in than where we are today. It is certain that the gender equality will cause women to be exploited more than they are today.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Well, just cut this imbicle’s dick off. That way he wouldn’t impregnate any woman and at the same time he would know who he is. A bloody huha. Castration of as many men would solve the problem. Fucking kill him only..one less human thereby population controlled.

  27. Sagar Dubey says:

    I think Mr.Him’s logic is flawed here:

    Him – its a fact! Lets take it one step further. If the limiting factor of population growth is number of available wombs, then the “ideal” way is to kill a female child even before its born. That way we dont even waste resources in making her grow to a reproductive age only to tie her tubes. We have the same effect – one less available womb. Except its even MORE efficient.

    – How do you know the baby being born is going to be a female? Considering there are many more male babies being born than female. This is not an ‘ideal’ way to kill a female child simply because the gender is indeterminate till the baby is born. This is an ideal way to basically stop all births, not just female births.

    By sterilizing women, you may be saving resources but also hampering male births which are potentially good for the society? Imho there are too many unknowns to determine what is ‘ideal’.

    Sterilizing women basically brings the Net Reproductive Rate to an effective zero while we are looking at reducing it. Just stopping all births invalidates this whole exercise.

  28. Anonymous says:

    If you accept the gent’s premise that 100 men f***ing 1 woman would cut down on population rates you would also have to accept the premise that the social setting where this practice would be commonplace would constitute a breakdown in civilization as we know it. We would be like ravenous dogs f***ing whatever we can get our hands on – mothers, sisters, nuns the works. The logic is sound, the side effects are apocalyptic.

  29. engravedotin says:

    The intent of population control may not necessarily be wrong but the unintended consequences of the means adopted (i.e. female foeticide) are damaging when you take a long term view. And that is what the show SJ was about. So yes, the gentleman here may have an iron-clad argument, but the debate’s about something else.

  30. meeeee says:

    Tell that guy, not to F**ck..even once in his life…for his own child…or “boy’ child and encourage and spread the same logic. Birth rate will come down, automatically. The best solution. Why even get your female pregnant when you are gonna kill the child. What for? your own sadistic pleasures? . And secondly, females don’t and can’t concieve without males. So we should kill male foetus (if killing is no big deal for him) as well..from time to time, for long term birth rate reduction plan ?

  31. freya says:

    Please stop calling this bullshit POV as “logic” and that you can’t find a “logical” argument to fight his “logic”. I can shoot his “logic” down in less than 2 minutes if you get me talk to him. With this insanely stupid and unobjective stance, he just made himself the epitome of misogyny and sexism.

    • Tarun says:

      please do put your responses to his “logic” here!

      • freya says:

        1. Female feoticide is not done for the noble cause of population control. It is done because male child desired over female child.

        2. Even as he very “intelligently” suggests, female foeticide is done for population control, you would just end up torturing women and that is against human rights itself. It’s not logical, it’s stupid, sexist, misogynist, sadist, inhumane and INSANE.

        3. Other countries in the world aren’t over-populated or suffering from population explosion because they killed off all the prospective working wombs.

        4. His “logic” emanates from his misogynist, sexist notion that women are nothing but baby machines. If a woman is educated, empowered and has control over her own body, she’d choose how many babies she’d like to have.

        5. The real reason for over population is men like him who have a gala time fucking women as much as possible and later on slaughtering them for the “greater good” of controlling population.

        6. Lastly, I would point out that his “logic” is no different than that of China’s rule of
        limiting one baby per couple. When it comes to population control, people always come
        up with easy idea of “Hooray! Let’s curb the woman’s reproductive rights!” instead of
        taking the actually sensible, logical approach of educating everyone and creating
        awareness.

  32. Roy says:

    a) The assumption is that the only thing men and women are doing with their time and life is procreating – and that’s why everyone is having sex, all sex leads to pregnancy, all pregnancies lead to childbirth. Right? Wrong.

    If the nameless wonder had picked up a book in his life, and actually gone to the root of the population issue (as opposed to waiting to make inflammatory remarks about it), he’d understand that the real issue is about the lack of choices. Otherwise, urban populations would be having many more children because we have apartments to ourselves, romantic music, fragrant candles, etc – basically all the things needed for seduction and sex and the requisite babies. But childbirth in educated populations is falling drastically because we also have one other thing – a choice. Making that CHOICE available, to men and women, is what’s so difficult, and worth struggling for. Otherwise, place machine guns in the hands of tots, line up all the men (no sperm, no babies!), and watch the population diminish.

    b) If population explosion (and not just the explosion of wombs) is really his concern, then the real solution lies in controlling food. Everyone lives and reproduces because of food (not because of fire, or metal or love and fresh air) and the more food you have, the more a population grows to consume it. Now that’s a historically proven fact – a civilization has grown as soon as its food sources have grown. Limit food surplus, and you’ll limit population surplus.

    • Tarun says:

      actually, horrific as it sounds, I agree with(b)

      • Pallavi says:

        I disagree with (b), we grow more food BECAUSE the population increase demands it, not the other way around ! In US, the GMO (genetically modified organisms/food) revolution helped them get tons of food at such cheap prices, all because they needed it ! Infact, thats the reason corporate giants in GMO biz say that sooner or later India will hv to adopt GMO methods, due to our population increase !

      • Tarun says:

        Actually, research show that rose in food production happens first, then population. Do read this paper http://www.sacredlands.org/food_and_population.htm – it is an empirically proven fact.

  33. Rishabh says:

    This is what a friend wrote:
    firstly murdering children is very different from birth control. by the same logic he used, you could murder a lot of male children since without sperm providers you would have no children. His argument against vasectomies is also flawed – societal constraints prevent most indian women from sleeping around so none else can impregnate your wife – noone stops men from fooling around though. When the number of women decrease as in china/haryana the men start importing them either from neighboring states or countries so it doesn’t reduce the overall population and increases trafficking and migration . no state with a declining ratio has seen a decrease in population. reduction of 50-60 women per thousand wont be responsible if the vast remainder are overproducing. his view is thus highly misogynistic since he could achieve his outcome by killing by killing men as well – since male and female contribution is the same , reducing one factor to a heavy extent isn’t better than reducing both by a moderate effect. If the number of women was theoretically decreased, by his logic all the men in the village could decide to impregnate and use her as a baby factory to fulfill reproductive requirements – this would just increase social injustice and welfare not to mention rape by a roving horny population. So one woman can still have ten babies with ten men, but imaging a village of only women, they can have any babies at all now can they? the guy is basically sexist not to mention highly stupid..

  34. Anon says:

    I would probe Mr Him on his reasons behind wanting population control in the first place (i.e. his fundamental assumptions). In my humble opinion, most believe population control will lead to a happier, healthier life for people as they will have access to adequate resources to evolve and thrive. The scenario he paints may indeed lead to population control, but surely doesn’t lead to the underlying objective of a better life for those who are alive.

  35. Barada Regmi says:

    every logic is not always a correct logic…..

  36. That is some sociopathic reasoning to justify female foeticide! But even if I keep my humanity aside and think of your friend’s logic on purely mathematical terms (which is what I suppose he was going with unless someone went and cloned Hitler and told nobody about it) the fallacy in it can be easily proven.

    1 really virile man + 100 surprisingly co-operating women equals 100 babies a year. 50 boys are now born (assuming the biological probability of 1/2) along with 50 girls, who for the sake of the argument have been killed before birth. The equation now becomes 51 men + 100 women. When the 50 hit puberty, assuming none of the 100 women have died already, on the next iteration that’s 50 more boys to the equation. Now the equation is 101 men + 100 women. By the next cycle, the men will far outnumber the women. As the women in Mothers United 100 start dying, and the men keep coming, soon your population will become all men. Sure you controlled it initially with your twisted logic but now you’ve wiped it off the face of the Earth entirely.

    And that’s how you defeat logic with logic!

  37. “LOGIC”- What is it? Numbers, math? What about beyond it? Logic for some (If not the man who wanted you to think “logically”) is also integrating his Math and numbers on women and men with a little bit, if not too much, of common sense.

    Anyway, talking “logically”, 1 men:100 women = 100 children. That’s IMPOSSIBLE. Even theoretically! You know how? Let’s get a little bit of biology into this. Not all those 100 women are going to be able to bear children. There is a PROBABILITY, least to say, and that cannot be ignored. (unless he picks his 100 women keeping in mind their fertility)

    Moving on to 100 men:1 woman, equals theoretically, 1 child. AGREED. Since the sex ratio is anyway in favor of men in India, say 100:77, so why don’t you just kill the rest 23? Why waste resources on them so that they can just sit and jerk off? Kill them, no? Their sperms are useless!

    Continuing on the same lines, the “ideal” way would be to kill these men even before they are born. That would leave 77 men to 77 women. GENDER EQUALITY, much? YES! Isn’t this one of the main (if not the sole) reason why MOST people are AGAINST Female Foeticide?

    Alright! ASSUMING that my mathematical logic is still weaker than the dude who thinks birth is some kind of a lucky draw, some people get born and some don’t – then let that happen NATURALLY. Female Foecticide as well as MALE FOETICIDE would both result in population control. Its not who is giving birth, it is a also SEX. Both the sexes indulge in it, and without applying any math, both are equally responsible for the birth of the child (50% of each individuals chromose are found in the child). Hence killing either, shall control the population – without a male a male cannot be born and without a female a male cannot be born! “LOGIC”? Let’s not even go into the social evils that will happen due to lesser number of women.

    At the end of it, population control is not the reason as to why Female Foeticide is being carried out. There are several other selfish reasons to it, which most of us are aware of it. And if population control is what one is trying to do, there are so many other fool proof methods to bring it about rather than just killing so as to have lesser number of wombs.

    I’m definitely not done! Theoretically and logically speaking 100 or so down the line there are going to be about 25 “lucky” females who on a lucky draw basis ( and not naturally) are going to choose which of the 10,000 odd surviving men on earth should she be having sex with. The rest are just going to be left deprived and frustrated and shall probably go mad and kill themselves, due to the lack of sex (mainly) or other reasons. WHY DID WE WASTE RESOURCES ON THEM, AGAIN!?

  38. Anonymous says:

    I dont think he was supporting female fetocide as such…he was talking about a more over all birth control method targeting women. if you eliminate the egg.you eliminate the child.irrespective of whether the child is male or female.

  39. Tej says:

    I dont think he was supporting female fetocide as such…he was talking about a more over all birth control method targeting women.if you eliminate the egg.you eliminate the child.irrespective of whether the child is male or female

  40. Pingback: When stupid is passed off as logic. |

  41. Stupidosaur says:

    The flaw in his logic is that it assumes women reproduce with 100% ‘efficiency’ or ‘duty cycle’ in the phase of their life where they are capable of reproduction. That is, they birth a baby once every 9 months. Or if we use the favourite phrase ‘in 1 year’ of that guy, it would be 75% duty cycle. (9 months in 12 months)

    But that is not true at all. Lot of factors would determine how many times a woman chooses (or is forced) to have a baby, in her lifetime, and that will not most directly be linked to the number of men. Same couple may want 50 kids over the years, or same couple may choose to have few or no kids, or woman may have many kids with many men (we are looking from woman’s ‘reproductive time efficiency’ perspective here, hence taking only this scenario of multiple partners). So yes, the ‘time efficiency of woman’s producing babies’, which needs to be very high for the “unknown intellectual’s” argument “less women = less babies” to be valid, depends on lots of social & psychological factors and is generally low. So the argument is just a ‘simplistic mathematical fantasy’, ignoring ‘real world’ factors.

    Then there is the aspect of survival of the born child, even if we assume convenient 100% or 75% ‘time efficiency’ or duty cycle of female reproduction. What I am assuming here is, whether in the wild or in human civilized society, father’s support would be very vital in the baby’s survival during the first year at least, due to mother’s weaker condition (even weaker than usual, since by conventional wisdom, women are the weaker sex) in which mother might not be able to protect and feed the young well (in wild) or earn money by any means (assuming we do allow for the woman to be an economic contributor. If we don’t then the necessity of the father becomes emphasized even more!!)

    If we go by the numbers chosen in the argument, if there was 1 man and 100 women, maybe, just maybe the guy would have baby with all 100 women in the year (as the argument goes). But how many of those would he be able to provide for, and so how many would ultimately survive to contribute to population growth? The one guy’s ability and resources would be divided among 100 kids. So only 0.01 goes to each. If we consider mother+father as total ‘parent factor’ of 1, the child only gets 0.5 (mother) + 0.005 (father) = 0.505 parent factor!

    And on other hand, lets see if there were 100 men and 1 woman, and suppose they all really ‘get in a line’ for having a baby with that one woman, as the argument goes. Then in a given year, there would be only child, for a particular father. The mother and father have no other child to fend for. So father’s availability is 100% not 1% like the previous case. And the ‘parent factor’ (term I just invented back there :P) would be a nice 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 instead of 0.505 only.

    So if there are more men than women, more chances of each born child to survive, and hence higher the population.

    I think I have turned the Intellectual anonymous guy’s sick argument on its head satisfactorily. Thank you.

    *Takes a bow*

  42. Anonymous says:

    so dude your point men are however gonna f**k right?
    so lets make sure men can’t do it anymore!
    so no fertile men no issues at all right?
    disgusting thing you are, you deserve to be cut, fried and thrown in sea.

  43. bhasadman says:

    to start with whats logical need not be implementable always
    for instance…
    support genocide and wipe out a section of population…less people to take care,more efficiency something like what hitler did.

    y control an epidemic or carryout rescue ops after a natural calamity…let people die..and when their bodies have disintegrated ..rebuilt the place and transsfer excess pop there

    y have traffic signala..let people meet accidents and die….power saved cud b used elsewhere…infact why have laws…policemen..infact y not remove hospitals…space cud be used for agriculture..industries helping earn more

    no matter how sound the logic is..it does not and cannot supersede laws and our fundamental rights.
    in this case..his arguments violate fundamental right of right to life(article 21)..n hence will be rejected.

  44. vrindasharma says:

    DUDE!
    u got it all wrong, killing population- male or female is a sure short solution to populaiton control- OF COURSE, just like u cna kill roaches and control their population.
    100 males and 1 female is not 100 kids, one female has a reporductive period of 40 yrs and 9 months of pregrancy and 1 month post which she can not conveice(google for details, m just busting the nonsense of a logic) so even if this female starts to have children the day she hits puberty she will have 48 kids {IF SHE IS NOT DEAD} so the logic of 100=100 is foolish…so was the explanation.

    however the reason female foeticide is done is not to reduce the populaiton- its like a gender selective genocide that starts due to social reasons, grows due to medical technology and then gets hidden due to money and family’s sanction.

    While the issue of woman’s right to have or abort a child is her own, when lakhs of females are eliminated there is social imbalance and evils like bride import happens which often leads to abusive polygamy(i dont think ur friend minds that though). so read thru all this, for this is my own words so u (in my opinion u r the friend u r quoting) have sm clarity

    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/declining-sex-ratio-forces-import-of-brides/
    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/cost-of-a-small-family-dont-have-daughters/
    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/not-all-girls-get-to-live-in-punjab/
    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/bribe-me-with-a-bride/
    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/crime-against-women-on-the-rise-in-punjab-haryana/
    http://vrinews.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/brides-purchased-then-exploited-in-haryana-punjab/

  45. PRAVEEN KUMAR PAL says:

    I gone through so many replies…and so many is left…
    I would love to give you one point not to challange logical guy
    but to make him understand that the motive of satymev jayte was different..
    and the motive our Mr. logical is carrying is different…
    first of all the root cause of female foeticide is dowry..

    And ask Mr. logical that now the coming generation is smart enough to understand that
    small family is happy family…

    I agree that population problem is there..
    trust me the problem will be solved..
    yeah it’ll take some time..

    “aag ka kya hai pal do pal me lagti hai,
    bujhte bujhte ek zamana lagtahai.”

    By:-

    Praveen Kumar Pal

  46. lakshmi dwivedi says:

    well,a women doesnt stop at one child does she??

  47. anchal rai says:

    gies sometimes i think that y i,m a girl but by the next time i think that i,m the luckiest person in the world as compared to others .i want to make a humble request to all the parents pledze prevent doing this pledze

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s