Legalize: Sex selective abortion

//This statement is misleading //Though this does not affect the argument that much, the circumstances were the reasons that created a pressing demand for illegalizing SSA. //This is exactly what I’m saying.//The example aimed to prove that even though the minister thought the same, he HAD to pass the law because of the utter chaos *not passing the law* created. People cannot change their attitude if the SSA is legalized. It will enforce the idea, and the free run of advertising would kind of make it ‘okay’ to kill a girl child. // You are merely stating that legalizing SSA will create business options/employment.//Even forceful recovery of loans might create employment, but it is certainly not desirable. 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. //What’s wrong with ‘designer babies’? The divide between rich and poor would increase-can you explain this? Is it because manual selection will result in genetically ‘superior children’?//Families that can afford these procedures would be few in number and this will only create disparity between different social classes. There would be a segregation between ‘superior’ modified humans, and pure but inferior ones. Sooner or later, this situation would turn ugly. And this is without taking into account the procedure would have on the child. A parent who ‘perfects’ his child is bound to show a greater control and expect a lot more from his child, putting him under undue pressure. We are talking about freedom of choice of a parent. What about the freedom of choice of a child? And Genetic aristocracy?// You want to deny rights on this basis?//Yap. What are rights? Something we feel we deserve. Right to abort a baby because of her sex is a strike at the basic core of parenting. 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. A child is not a game or a toy. http://www.medindia.net....// I agree. The women opting for SSA are not responsible for these crimes. //This was aimed at pointing out why SSA should not be legalized. The reason why the woman opting for SSA should not be allowed was stated as : Freedom of choice should not be executed when it harms someone, and that it makes the love for the child conditional. Rebuttals: 1)// My opponent seems to be worried about pressure from the family. 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?//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. // I strongly disagree.Infanticide is homicide. If you legalize abortion then infanticide=/=abortion.//Abortion is legalized WITH some rings to it. Abortion is not legal if you do not like the eye colour or the skin colour of the child. It is legal 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.’ // 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. //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, which is what I predicted in the previous argument, since there would be a simultaneous increase in the pressure to marry’, coupled with decreasing demographic representation. And higher risk of gender-based violence, rising demand for sex work and the development of trafficking networks. During wars in the your example, males were already placed at a higher status. They went to wars because they were considered higher. It implies a correlation, not causation.// If women want to make a correction; they can make this correction by actively discriminating (during marriage)//Too much expectations. An inspiring proposal, but theoretical. // 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. //1. Increased pressure to marry://The society as a whole adjusts to the conditions following every change. With a large number of males as compared to females, the ‘pressure’ would translate into a societal norm. Marrying would be more profitable than getting a job or studying. Men would be desperate because of the lower number of females. They would have higher education, better jobs while females would be essentially devoid of these things, would not actively pursue these things, since a better life= good rich-er husband. The status would not increase, instead a steady decline in the role of the wife would start. // Also, those men who are likely to commit acts of gender based violence would simply become extinct//; 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. // Since the presence of a woman will improve the status of a household, she will become an asset which will be protected (even more than now) by the family.//That is what the situation is today. I don’t see a drastic change in the amount of respect given to a ‘wife’, no matter the ratio of males to females. Once a girl is married into the family, the respect is uniform. //I personally do not think prostitution is wrong, the problem only arises when it is forced. As such it has no effect on the status of women.//Prostitution is, more often than not, forced. At least in the initial stages. And during a time when there would be even more demand for the services, the prostitution market would flourish. Increased force = increased migration of unwilling girls into the market. 4) //if women voted as united mass. Moreover, a decrease in numbers... increased influence // The equality would diminish, the status would equate with that of a minority. Democracy is rule by majority, and protecting the rights of the minority. The women's role would drop to a level where they'd need to protect their rights. Can you see the problem here?//"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. //Would you like to discuss the effects of the same on our country?// Sure //You might want to correct this statement:// Why? The source has been provided.