Legalize: Sex selective abortion

// What basis? difference between cannot and will not. (fishers principle). // I meant cannot. The perception cannot change if the law legalizes this. The Fisher’s principle is *not* valid over here because it argues that increased mating prospects will translate to better status, whereas, as I have argued, it will lead to declining status, because of the increased crimes against women, and because of increased pressure on them to get married. As was predicted by the Christophe Z Guilmoto study (link) . http://tinyurl.com...... // ‘okay’- that’s a moral judgment… anticipate a social imbalance. I do not want to government to check it. // Morality of an action DOES influence the law. Justice is based on morality, to quote my opponent. However, this was an obvious extension of the events that would follow. Once SSA is legalized, the clinics will start publicizing it, and try to play on the insecurity of the populace and emphasize on the ‘illogicity’ of having a girl, when you can have a boy. My opponent doesn’t seem to think this is a problem, however, for me, it would be then we would ask for illegalizing SSA, making it pretty useless to legalize it in the first place. //My argument is not pressing for modified babies (which is a different topic). // This was the slippery slope effect. I know you are not advocating it, but that would be the next logical progression, since once we are allowed to chose the gender, why not the eye colour and skin colour? //Genetic aristocracy: Darwin’s theory. .// This is US interfering to make it that way, it’s not the natural way of life. Something we have control over. AND the poorer ‘pure’ people will not cease to exist, they’d just be second citizens, leading to the genetic aristocracy. That’s another topic, though, just strengthening my slippery slope argument. //WRONG-morning after pills are available over the counter. // That’s not abortion. That’s like, the fetus isn’t even born the next day. It’s an emergency contraceptive. . http://www.nyabortion.com... //It’s not making the love for the child conditional. // It’s legally making the love for the child conditional. There is a huge difference between the two. //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 thought they were obvious. Like love for the boy, the financial standing of the family, whether or not family approves of the girl going for job, etc. During marriage, asking whether the family allows SSA cannot be the deciding factor, because- as can be quite obvious in any searching-for-the-boy process, compromise is accepted. There are so many factors that shape the decision, that one or two of the points in the checklist are bound to be overlooked. //Humans exist because they eat other organisms. I repeat, abortion is legal. // I know abortion is legal, but it is legal WHEN the fetus is a danger to the woman, or has a high probability of being profoundly handicapped. Similarly poultry farming is legal, but just because it is, SSA should not be too. //Alright: Better mating prospects will only result in an increased ‘status’ if women utilize better mating prospects to demand an increased status. // It’s not in their hands! This is a collective group, the status will not increase if they arbitrarily demand an increased status. That’s what we are arguing, giving sources and all, that the ‘other’ factors will lead to a declining status. The skewed ratio in favour of males will discourage the women from entering the workforce, leading to reduced representation, leading to reduced power. As was predicted by the Christophe Z Guilmoto study. //No. They attained better mating prospects by killing other males. // . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... No, they didn’t. The loss of status of women was because of the ‘religious’ teachings of Manu. And then, after the Mughals came, there status degraded further. //What does a higher status have to do with going to war // They went to wars because they were thought to be better at fighting. //So what you are saying is:// How are people going to know whether a family performed SSA previously? It isn’t exactly an advertised quality. That is why the proposal was theoretical’. It is not practically possible. // This was in the context of:Reduction in poverty. // This was actually in relation todecreasing population. To which I responded that this would not be sustainable, because of increase in illegitimate children. //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? // Not increase in poor people, this would lead to a social problem that would be quite hard to control. Both mental effect of such a scenario, clubbed with the biological effects would be disastrous. Yes, increasing rapes would lead to increasing illegitimate children, that’s a logical conclusion. // What’s wrong with that? // Decreasing of their status, since they are depending on their husbands. The societal structure would shift, making this pretty common, and as a result, though no one is stopping them, the need would reduce further. // 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. // They would go to extremes to find a mate. I am questioning the sources they’d use to get hold of a woman to marry. And the resulting effect on the women being supplied. And their freedom and status. //If you think you can (gain respect); you can. If you think you can’t; you can’t. // It’s not about what we think. Once a girl is married into the family, what does it matter that there 2 more alternatives or 200? Once she is married, the respect depends on her, NOT the other girls outside the equation. //Since women would gain more importance, they would gain more protection. The analogy is similar to: Why is Indian life worth so little? .// America, as a country, is quite strong. I don’t understand this point. The worth of life in both the countries is same. It’s just that America is quite powerful, and hence took reactive measures, and increased it’s security so there were no consecutive attacks. India did not take them, the security was still low, hence consecutive attacks. Applying the same logic to women, the fallacy would be that though women would gain importance, they would be targeted when they are not strong. They’d be pushed in the trade when young, and by the time they gain sense, either they’d like the life, or they’d be too addicted to drugs and all to get out of it. // Caste considerations would become irrelevant when compared to not getting a mate at all. // Caste consideration of the male wouldn’t matter, since females would have plenty of choice from their own caste. //South Korea is the only country that equalized its male-female ratio, and it was a country that legalized SSA, and enforced it ‘vigorously’. // Oops. So sorry, I meant illegalized. Aww… That was a messy goof-up. Anyway, the point still stands. In conclusion, I showed that SSA should not be legalized because: 1. It would reinforce gender discrimination and severely lower the gender ratio: My opponent agrees with this. However he states that the gender ratio would correct itself as predicted by Fisher’s principle, however, according to Christophe Z Guilmoto study, the analyses ignores major parameters like increased pressure to marry and lower incentive to work and get an education. 2. Greater crimes 3. Slippery Slope 4. An unhealthy trend Also I addressed every claim of my opponent, and provided sound sources to back up my rebuttals, and claims. Vote Con! !!