Legalize: Sex selective abortion

I forgot to post my source for definition of SSA in round1: http://en.wikipedia.org... I welcome my opponent to this debate. I thank her for her argument. I begin my rebuttal of her arguments. First of all, let us look at the reasons that forced the government to illegalize SSA- This statement is misleading because the following paragraph illustrated the circumstances in which the law was passed(as opposed to a reason). The Union Minister made a strong statement expressing his deep concern over the 'highly unethical, unjust and immoral practice'. Unethical, unjust and immoral- Justice is based on morality. Morality is subjective. The constitution of India provides for the freedom of religion. Different people have their different ideas of ethics and morality. The government has legalized abortion. Minister ruled out a ban on amniocentesis, saying that "it was for the people to change their attitude to female children.” This is exactly what I’m saying. 1. Cash in on the general discrimination against the women- This point does not refute my argument, it augments it if anything. You are merely stating that legalizing SSA will create business options/employment.2. Slippery slope-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’? 3. Sex selection is unhealthy:” It makes the love for the child conditional. Which is in itself an unhealthy trend.” -You want to deny rights on this basis?4. Greater crimes- I agree. There will probably result in a greater crime rates for the crimes (prostitution rackets, kidnapping, sexual violence)which you mentioned. The women opting for SSA are not responsible for these crimes. You are unfairly placing the burden on the couples that have a child of a specific gender. This is like faulting a woman who got raped for dressing skimpily. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that the people are protected. We can always increase investments in jails etc. Defense of my arguments: 1)Health of women: “I agree.”-Excellent. My opponent seems to be worried about pressure from the family. The decision to abort is one that can only be taken by the woman. Any law which legalizes SSA must take care to ensure that there is explicit consent of the woman. I do not think it is valid to take into account pressurization because a woman can always take legal remedy. More importantly, if a woman is against SSA; she should not marry into a family which will ask her to perform SSA. She can further safeguard against this via pre-nuptial agreements. My opponent’s source further bolsters my point: “In addition, there is a risk that stronger enforcement of the ban on sex determination and sex-selective abortions would risk endangering access to reproductive-health services, potentially driving abortion users underground. Elsewhere, where abortion is widely used to terminate unwanted births, officials fear that strengthening the regulation of abortion may result in an incontrollable upsurge in fertility.” 2) Female infanticide-“This does not help your case in any way”- I strongly disagree. Infanticide is homicide. The government has legalized abortion. Infanticide=abortion IF you are anti-abortion. If you legalize abortion then infanticide=/=abortion. 3) Proper care: “At the same time, a far more common method is simply neglecting a girl child, a passive strategy intended to deprive girls of fair access to and share of household resources, with reduced survival probability as a consequence. “ http://www.unfpa.org... 4) Ethical Perspective-“It should not be practiced if it causes harm to anyone, and in this case- it is harming the unborn child.” Anyone or anything? We practice poultry farming; mass murder. We arbitrarily discriminate against different organisms. Abortion is not treated as homicide. “It is harming the status of women by furthering their oppression.” Legalizing SSA will IMPROVE the status of women due to better mating prospects (assuming males outnumber females). It’s called Fishers principle:  Suppose female births are less common than male.  A newborn female then has better mating prospects than a newborn male, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.  Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce females tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.  Therefore the genes for female-producing tendencies spread, and female births become more common.  As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing females dies away.  The same reasoning holds if males are substituted for females through-out. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio http://www.indiana.edu... Better mating prospects will translate into better ’status’. Wars result in a decrease in the male population. In older times, wars resulted in more females as compared to males and this translated into a lower ‘status’ for women. Cultures reflect this very basic ratio. Islam allowed men to have up to 4 wives; this was the direct consequence of wars which resulted in large decreases in male population. Legalizing SSA will result in a temporary decrease in female population. Currently, the society is neither here nor there: We are not at the 1:1 ratio but our culture has still not corrected itself to reflect the new sex ratio. If women want to make a correction; they can make this correction by actively discriminating (during marriage) against those communities (the states of Punjab and Haryana have the worst sex ratios) which are practicing female foeticide/infanticide. Defense: Positive effects of a skewed sex ratio: 1) Reduction in poverty: My opponent has conceded this point. Objections not relating to this point (but given under this heading) have been addressed in the section titled ‘greater crimes’. 2) Stabilization of population: My opponent has conceded this point. She has however raised an interesting point: there may be an increase in illegitimate children. I do not see why the children need to be illegitimate, the woman will have greater choice (in terms of mates), and she can choose the man she wishes to have children with. If a woman who is already married has children with some other man, it is the fault of the woman and the man. This cannot be a reason to deny rights. Polyandry may result. However responsibility for the consequences of such actions lies with the parents. 3) Improvement in the status of women: My opponent has raised fascinating points. 1. Increased pressure to marry: This would probably happen. I think it will probably happen in the economically weaker classes. Who will exert this pressure? The parents will. Why? Since women from the weakest classes will essentially be marrying into a higher class, a married woman would gain an improved access to resources. A woman can always reject the pressure if she does not want to marry (for whatever reason). 2. Higher risk of gender based violence: This will happen. However, on the whole, the society will give more respect to women. Also, those men who are likely to commit acts of gender based violence would simply become extinct; their acts of violence would result from their inability to find a mate. 3. Rising demand for sex work and trafficking networks: 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. 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. I have run out of characters, I am posting the remaining argument in the comments section. I will repost the remaining in my 3rd round(if i have space).