Legalize: Sex selective abortion

Not enough space to include previous round(commentssection).People cannot change their attitude if the SSA is legalized.What basis do you have for this statement? There is a difference between cannot and will not. If you meant will not; SSA is currently illegal but it is still widely practiced. Even though certain communities may not change their perception, the population as a whole will change its perception to reflect the new sex ratio(fishers principle). It will enforce the idea, and the free run of advertising would kind of make it ‘okay’ to kill a girl child. ‘okay’- that’s a moral judgment. Keep in mind that the government has not passed this law due to moral reasons but because they anticipate a social imbalance. You’re enforcing your morality on others. The constitution does provide for freedom of religion. The argument pointed out that the social structure of India is not favourable for legalizing SSA. It will reinforce the gender prejudices, and people would cash in on these and there would be no way for the government to check these, because they would not breaking any law. Just like Bhandari. “No way for the government to check these”- I do not want to government to check it. That’s the topic of the debate. Designer babies: There would be a segregation between ‘superior’ modified humans, and pure but inferior ones. My argument is not pressing for modified babies (which is a different topic). There is no modification of genetics involved, only selection of certain organisms from those which naturally exist. Genetic aristocracy: Darwin’s theory. Look at the world around you. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits abortion to be performed only when the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or, of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or, when there is a substantial risk of the child being born with physical or mental abnormalities so as to be seriously handicapped. i.e. it does not allow the parent to discard the child as long as it does not infringe on the personal health of the mother or the child. WRONG-morning after pills are available over the counter. it makes the love for the child conditional. It’s not making the love for the child conditional. The love for the child is already conditional when people choose to opt for SSA. //Any law which legalizes SSA must take care to ensure that there is explicit consent of the woman.//Laws like these are hardly ever effective. How are we going to check the efficiency of these laws made to strengthen the law? Free consent is the basis of laws all over the world. Ensuring the existence of free consent is the one of the most important (if not the most) task for the government. Indian Contract act of 1872: http://www.vakilno1.com... //More importantly a woman is against SSA; she should not marry into a family which will ask her to perform SSA. // Unfortunately, a lot of other factors too affect these decisions. If you don’t want to perform SSA, then not marrying into a family which will ask you to perform SSA is commons sense. I am unable to discuss these ’other factors’ because you have not posted them. // Poultry farming... Abortion is not treated as homicide.// Two wrongs do not make a right. If poultry farming is legalized, that does not mean SSA should be too. Humans exist because they eat other organisms. Uprooting a tree and killing a chicken are both examples of the humans taking the life of organisms. I repeat, abortion is legal. //It’s called Fishers principle: Better mating prospects will translate into better ’status’. Wars…// Yes, the ‘mating prospects’ would increase, but that would not lead to an increase in ‘status’, instead it will result in declining status Alright: Better mating prospects will only result in an increased ‘status’ if women utilize better mating prospects to demand an increased status. If they do not, then they are happy with their current status. During wars in the your example, males were already placed at a higher status. No. They attained better mating prospects by killing other males. They went to wars because they were considered higher. What does a higher status have to do with going to war? You are being illogical.They went to wars to gain better resources and to decrease competition for mating. // If women want to make a correction;... discriminating (during marriage)// Too much expectations. An inspiring proposal, but theoretical. So what you are saying is: 1) We(some women) do not want to perform SSA and we want to discourage others2) We (same women)will reward people who perform SSA by marrying them // I do not see why the children need to be illegitimate,// No no no. The man in question isn’t a consensual partner. The illegitimate children were the product of higher rape cases that would inadvertently follow. You are talking about rape. That was responded to. This was in the context of:Reduction in poverty. Do you seriously believe that there will be so many successful rapes, women who will get pregnant, choose to give birth to the child, fathers and mothers who will not look after the child, to the point that there will be an increase in poor people? /1. Increased pressure to marry:/ while females would be essentially devoid of these things, would not actively pursue these things, since a better life= good rich-er husband. As I already pointed out, women can gain a better access to resources. No-one is stopping them from pursuing education/jobs etc. They may voluntarily choose not to do so (because they have gained a cushy life by marrying up).What’s wrong with that? I guess men going to such a length to get a mate would eventually find some way to get a mate. Which would, more often than not, be not consensual. You are missing the point; they may go to extremes because they will not be able to find a mate. If they can find a mate, it will be in their interest (the principle is similar to respecting other people’s right to life) to not perform rapes. I don’t see a drastic change in the amount of respect given to a ‘wife’, no matter the ratio of males to females. If you think you can (gain respect); you can. If you think you can’t; you can’t. Increased force = increased migration of unwilling girls into the market. Since women would gain more importance, they would gain more protection. The analogy is similar to: Why is Indian life worth so little? (Context: terrorist attacks on India and USA).A comparison of the worth given to American lives and Indian lives. //"If this condition persists, there will be inter-caste marriages that may help in diluting the caste identity and prove helpful for national also."// Speculation. The men might be more willing, but the women, holding the right to mate, would have pretty large choice from the male members of the same caste. It’s from your source. Caste considerations would become irrelevant when compared to not getting a mate at all. //You might want to correct this statement:// Why? The source has been provided. So you’re standing with this statement: South Korea is the only country that equalized its male-female ratio, and it was a country that legalized SSA, and enforced it ‘vigorously’. In conclusion, I have successfully defended:1)Safeguarding health of women 2) ending female infanticide3)proper care to the girl child 4)Ethical perspective Sex ratio 1) Reduction in poverty 2) Stabilization of population3) Improvement in status of women: There seems to be some ambiguity here. My opponent believes that: I don’t see a drastic change in the amount of respect given to a ‘wife’, no matter the ratio of males to females. Essentially saying women will not be able to increase their influence using better mating prospects. 4) National integration and weakening of class system. Rebuttal: Greater crimes: I agreed to this. However I pointed out that the burden cannot be placed on the people who opt for SSA. In my opinion, the remaining points (put forth by my opponent) were not important.