HRS

“Members of the feminist cult…”
I wouldn’t know about that, have never belonged to a group or cult. The fact that other people have the same opinion as I do is their business; I express my personal views, not those of a cult.

“programmed to call someone a misogynist if that person disagrees with them…”
LOL, you seem to be programmed against anything that benefits women. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that women in these countries need more rights and that the problem is that girls are seen as a problem?

You actually have presented only one on-topic argument, which was, ““The problem in India can be easily solved by restricting the number of times a woman is told if her unborn is a boy or girl”
You provide the best monologues I’ve ever seen on OLO. Same old same old argument that you’ve used several times and has been refuted several times.
Read back and either give a reply to these rebuttals; ‘coz merely repeating the same ol’ ain’t doing it for me.

Keep repeating your one-and-only on topic argument and I won’t bother to reply to you anymore.

HRS, do you know who has to cough up for the dowry for dear daughter in order to get her married? That's right, it is daddy.

When the wife produces a son, that means dowry coming INto his household. HIS household.

Many sons-increased wealth and status; and support in old age.

But if the wife keeps on producing daughters, that's bad. OUT goes the wealth to some other family. Result: poverty and no kids to look after you when you are old and infirm.

Do you think it just might be possible that it is daddy who wants to know if a pregnancy will produce a son or daughter?

You as a women loving daddy would gladly pay for all your daughters, regardless of personal cost, we know that, but unfortunately not all men are as caring and loving towards their women folk as you are. We're not talking about feminists here, but your daughters.

We know that to you it would not matter one iota if you had many daughters and not one son, but not all men are like you. Some men want sons to carry on the family wealth, name, prestige and bring comfort in old age. Just as your daughters and their husbands will be doing in your son-in-laws families.

Hi Yvonne

I don't think the analogy was remotely illuminating actually. Rather than labour through it, here is a point-form summary of the original article:

1. Many people (me and by all accounts, the author too) support safe legal termination of pregnancy (TOP) but find sex-selective TOP repugnant

2. China and India do it a lot for cultural reasons despite its being illegal - in practice the illegality is irrelevant as it is easily circumvented

3. Large sex-ratio imbalances will (already are) causing social problems

4. Ethically, sex-selective TOP represents a potential 'thin end of the wedge' for selecting out genetic 'imperfections'

5. There are several ways of tackling the problem. One is changing misogynist attitudes through education (which appears to be Celivia and your opinion also, no?)
Another, favoured by the author, is economic development that provides equal access to employment/education for women

6. At no point does he say TOP should be banned

So based on the above, I am utterly mystified at your objection to the article.

Celivia said:

"I am, perhaps, one of the people who are ‘foaming at the mouth’ when someone agrees with the author that free access to therapeutic terminations has a downside."

What? How can you possible deny that there are downsides to TOP? It is a medical/surgical procedure, which means that there are complications, including (rarely) death, and more commonly uterine/cervical damage rendering future pregnancies problematic. I am not saying this is common but it happens (link to consent form women sign prior to surgery http://www.health.qld.gov.au/informedconsent/ConsentForms/obgyn/O&G_26.pdf)
There can also be psychological damage (especially when as Yvonne rightly points out, there is pressure from the father).

By all means say that after weighing up the pros and cons, on balance it is better to have access to safe, legal TOP (as I already have) but to deny downsides to TOP is ludicrous.

(cont)

Funny thing is, I don't think I actually disagree with you two about all that much. The common ground is:
- China and India have appalling patriarchal attitudes to women and women feel they are forced into TOP
- It would be better to change the culture so that this pressure does not exist
The author disagrees with neither from my reading. So why the argument?

The only query I am left with is, from a philosophical point of view, do you both disagree ethically with sex-selective TOP?

Hi Stickman,
Yes we don’t disagree all that much.

“How can you possible deny that there are downsides to TOP?”
I’m not.
Remember, I already expressed my concern about the health risks of abortion on June 18 when I replied to Billy.
In short, I said, “Abortions are more of a health risk than proper methods of contraception.”

This time, I was quoting YOU (June 19) and was replying to “free access to therapeutic terminations”.
If a woman needs a therapeutic termination, and has no free access to it, then I can see downsides to NO free access, not to free access.
Aren’t therapeutic abortions usually done in order to preserve maternal health?

My main problem with the author is that he says that sex ratio imbalances cause social problems.

My argument is that this particular reason is no good enough reason to object to sex-selective abortion because NOT having access to sex-selective abortion creates even more social (and other) problems.

The sex ratio imbalance happens to create more problems for men than for women. They can't find brides with dowries. Well, too bad.
Not having access to sex-selective abortion, downside included, creates far more problems for girls and women, and financially, for men, too.

Why does the author think that the problems for men are worse than the problems for women? Why should women have to come to the rescue to solve the men's problems but increase their own ones?

In my opinion, the social (and other) problems for women and girls are far greater than those for men.

Do I ethically agree with sex-selective TOP?
I would have to know the exact situation before I could agree or disagree on ethical grounds.
In some situations there are worse things than not to be born in a certain environment.
And in this particular situation I tend to lean towards agreeing that sex-selective abortion is ethical in some parts of India- at least until the situation for women and little girls improves in these countries.

Celivia,

You seem to be suggesting that it is better to kill girls in the womb rather than have them born into what you regard as a patriarchal society.

Your argument seems very similar to the feminist argument of abortion vs adoption. That is, it is preferable to kill the child rather than adopt it out.

Abortion appears to be the answer to everything for aware and loving feminists.

You also seem to be saying that it is necessary to educate people into acceptance of abortion, and also educate people into aborting equal numbers of girls and boys.

However there wouldn’t be more girls being aborted than boys if there wasn’t abortion.

Maybe its time for aware and loving feminists to start and think laterally, and to think of alternatives to abortion.