House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions

[Associate Justice PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights? Last time I checked, abortion on demand does mean abortion on demand, motivations be damned. This bill is a transparent attempt at abrogating of the rights of women.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 

     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

     Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 

     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

To use another example, article 15 of India's Constitution bans discrimination based on caste, and though caste discrimination has diminished as India has modernized, it is still quite common in rural areas.  Since caste discrimination still exists, was it a pointless legal exercise to have banned such injustice?  Or was it important regardless to send a signal to the population that caste discrimination needed to end? 

I argue the same applies to the ongoing genocide being directed against female infants.  In time, the practice will end but it is important that we begin somewhere -even if it is initially just a legal statement.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't much of a problem now, but at some point it could become one.  I see no reason why we can't take pre-emptive action now to indicate to incoming immigrants from East and South Asia that the United States does not approve of the murder of baby girls, and will do whatever is necessary to prosecute those who engage in such actions. 

     It's not a pointless exercise, but it's not the complete solution. Beyond that, an effort has to be made to present arguments against the prevailing prejudices. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that some people think that passing a law is all that needs to be done.

     My point is, passing the law in question carries the negative impact of eroding away women's abortion rights. It may carry a positive impact in preventing the spread of this practice to the United States, but I think that at this early juncture we could avoid the issues of the proposed law by making attempts at educating immigrants from areas where sex-selective abortion is practiced. Let them know that forcing women to have abortions against their will inevitably violates various U.S. laws.