Not your latest brand of mosquito spray, for sure.

In fact, it would’ve been a lot nicer if it was just an aerosol spray. At least you get to zap some pesky critters. For the record, I absolutely ABHOR mosquitoes. If you’re one, you better not bzzt too close to me, lest you end up in a violent spray of blood – MY blood. Yeah, I’ll let you suck some, before splattering your guts out with my bare hands.

But I digress.

There’s really nothing right or wrong about the entire issue. *hears a collective dismay* Yes yes, I’ve chosen not to take a stand. If you seek my personal opinion on abortion, I would say it’s horrid and absolutely do not stand for it. But seriously, who am I to say whether entire countries or cultures are right or wrong in doing what they do?

At least future generations of Indian guys won’t have it as tough as future generations of Chinese guys in finding a mate.

Unless of course, interracial love becomes the norm of the 21st century. Or, gay/lesbian marriages and surrogate pregnancies gain widespread approval. Or we all become part of the Matrix and procreation isn’t really something we need to be bothered with.

HMMMmmmmm…not very likely is it? Then maybe it’s time to start an investment fund to invest in matchmaking companies targeting the China market, start a business to tuition Chinese males in the finer arts of female seduction, and create a killer Web 2.0 company whose sole objective is to sign up every single SINGLE Chinese female in this world.

Multi-prong approach + diversified portfolio = guaranteed success high returns!

in·fan·ti·cide (ĭn-făn‘tĭ-sīd‘)
n.

1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.

[Late Latin īnfanticīdium, the killing of a child and īnfānticīda, killer of a child : Latin īnfāns, īnfant-, infant; see infant + Latin -cīdium and -cīda, -cide.]

foe·ti·cide (foē‘tĭ-sīd‘)
n. Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus. Also called embryoctony.

As reported by BBC News, the Indian government is planning to set up a network of cradles around the country where parents can leave unwanted baby girls. The idea is to reduce the rate of female foeticide and female infanticide.

We will have cradles strategically placed all over the place so that people who don’t want their babies can leave them there,” Ms Chowdhury told the BBC News website.

They will be collected and put into homes,” she said. “There are plenty of existing homes and we will be adding some more also.

My initial dismay at such a move quickly turned into support, as I read and gained an understanding of the situation in populous countries such as India. Historically and culturally, the preference for boys over girls have been alluded by various texts to be due to:

1. The family’s inability to support the child financially
2. Population control e.g. Amazonian, China’s one-child policy
3. Traditional customs
   • In the Solomon Islands, some people were reported to kill their first-born and adopt a child from another island
   • In certain cultures, males are viewed to be more important: ability to carry family name, work on farms, support parents in their old age
4. In times of adversity, e.g. famine, extreme poverty, parents have to choose which of their children will live or starve
5. Social unacceptance of newborn e.g. children of incest or illegitimate origins, cross-caste
6. Mothers’ psychological depression combined with unreadiness to care for child
7. The guy’s unwillingness to stand by his gal…
8. And whatever other shitty reasons people can think of

All of the above thus leads to either abortion (foeticide), or infanticide.

My thoughts to come shortly.

It all started with a blog.

David, a young man with severe cerebral palsy, decried the way his friend Ashley was being taken care by her parents.

“Ashley’s parents have committed the ultimate betrayal,” he writes. “They have treated their daughter as less than human, not worthy of dignity…. What strikes me about ‘the Ashley treatment’ and has brought me to tears is that the very people in all of society whom this child should trust have betrayed her.”

I quote from CNN since I am too lazy and short on time to compose it in my own words:

When Ashley was 6 years old, her parents and doctors agreed to have her uterus and breast buds removed so she’ll never reach puberty. She was given estrogen treatments and will never be more than 4 feet 5 inches and 75 pounds. Like the Terri Schaivo story before her, Ashley and her story have a lot to say about what it means to be disabled, what it means to be different and what it means to be human.

Sounds horrible? Think again.

Ashley, 9, has a condition called static encephalopathy, which means an unchanging brain injury of unknown origin. She’s in a permanent infant-like state — can’t hold her head up, speak or roll over on her own.

But then again, you guys know how it is in the land of the free. Feminist groups and disability activists are out for blood against the doctors who performed Ashley’s uterus removal and hormonal treatment. Ashley’s parents are outcasts among the global community of parents of disabled children.

Original CNN article Interview with Ethicist in Ashley’s case Ashley’s parents’ blog

I draw a parallel with what Lao Zi once said:

“子非鱼，安知鱼之乐？”
(How would a human be able to appreciate the joys of a fish?)

Of course, this diatribe could go on forever:

“子非我，安知我不知鱼之乐？”
(Since you’re not me, how would you know that I am unable to appreciate the joys of a fish swimming freely in the waters?)

Cut it out guys, Ashley’s probably never going to know, and none of you have the right to judge whether her parents’ actions are right or wrong. I am a traditionalist and I am not saying that abortion is any less correct or wrong. Since Ashley’s parents had the courage (or didn’t know better) to bring her to this world, they are in the best position to decide what’s best for her. Sure, there are parents in this world who physically or even sexually abuse their kids. Yet after reading the various sources, I am convinced her parents had her best interests at heart.

Certainly, Ashley’s parents’ reasons for her treatment might not be 100% altruistic. But then again, is there anything in this world that’s ever 100%? Such an imperfect world we live in, could there ever be people who choose to see things only in perfect absolutes?

Let us judge not the outcome of their actions, but the process that Ashley’s parents went through to arrive at their final decision. Short of being the parents themselves, I can only rely on anecdotal evidence from blogs and news reports. Was the process rigid enough? Were all grounds covered? Did the ethicist do his job? How…

Yes, yes, yes, yes…

David may have started all these with his blog entry. I rest my case with mine.