The Instigator
marcuscato
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
gerrandesquire
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Legalize: Sex selective abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
gerrandesquire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,687 times Debate No: 18285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

marcuscato

Pro

I believe that medically assisted sex selective abortion should be legalized in India. I am not saying that sex selective abortion should be practiced; I am only saying that people have a right to do it.
Definition:

Sex-selective abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy based upon the predicted sex of the fetus. Abbreviation (for the purposes of this debate): SSA.

Morality of abortion: The government of India has legalized abortion in India.

"The government of India, anticipating a catastrophe in the form of severe imbalance in the male-female ratio, has passed an act to prevent sex selective abortion. "This act must be repealed.


Let us look at some of the reasons for legalizing sex selective abortion-

1) Safeguarding the health of women: Even though it is illegal, sex selective abortion is still widely practiced. Due to its illegality, women may resort to unscientific methods or take medical assistance from unqualified professionals. This may result in complications and end up harming the patient. By legalizing SSA, women will be able to avail of proper medical assistance.

Some women can afford to go abroad for the procedure but this will result in increased expenses which cannot be borne by many poor women.

2)Ending female infanticide: Since many women cannot avail of SSA (due to its illegality), they resort to female infanticide. It should be noted that female infanticide is treated as homicide.

3) Proper care to the girl child: Couples who did not want a girl child and did not resort to female foeticide/infanticide may discriminate against the girl child. This discrimination may show itself through malnutrition, denial of higher education etc. If SSA is legalized, couples will have no reason to discriminate on the basis of gender; the girl child will be more likely to receive proper attention.

4) Ethical perspective: If a couple feels that its evolutionary interests can best be handled by a specific gender, they have a right to choose which gender they want to raise, irrespective of the scientific/logical validity of their decision. This is because the couple will be investing significant resources in the upbringing of their child (time/money etc).

Let us look at the effects of an imbalanced sex ratio:

1)Reduction in poverty: The government has illegalized SSA because it anticipates a skewed sex ratio. Due to a decrease in availability of females, many men will not be able reproduce. In general these men will come from the lower classes. The future generation will largely come from families which can give proper attention to their children (education etc.)

2)Stabilization of population: The Indian population is growing at an unsustainable rate. A skewed sex ratio will decrease the number of families. This will result in a decreased population growth rate. A decrease in birth rate is necessary for a sustainable existence.

3)Improvement in the status of women:

Due to a skew in demand and supply, women will be able to demand greater status for themselves. There will be a change in culture; I anticipate an improvement in the status of women.

Widow Remarriage: Due to a decrease in availability of women, men will be more likely to marry widows/divorced women. Thus the society will become more accepting of widowed/divorced women.

The reader will have noticed that my arguments seem to be centered on the female gender; this is because SSA is largely practiced with respect to this gender. I am pro for both: male & female foeticide.

gerrandesquire

Con

I thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. I’m sure this is going to be a riveting debate.
My position is that sex selective abortion should not be legalized in India. In fact, the present laws need to be strengthened and actually implemented.

I agree with the definition.

I am going to first give my case and then rebut your claims.

First of all, let us look at the reasons that forced the government to illegalize SSA. Abortion was legalised by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act (1971). By 1979, a group of entrepreneurs set up the New Bhandaris' Antenatal Sex Determination Clinic in Amritsar, Punjab. It began to advertise its services openly through the press and handbills distributed in public places, railway compartments etc. One copy of the handbill reached the Centre for Women's Development Studies (CVIDS) in the summer of 1982. The advertisement referred to daughters as a "liability" to the family and a "threat to the nation', and exhorted expectant parents to avail of the services of the clinic to rid themselves of this danger. In July 1982 a joint 3 meeting convened by these organisations condemned this misuse of scientific technology. The Union Minister made a strong statement expressing his deep concern over the 'highly unethical, unjust and immoral practice'. He exhorted the State Ministers to take appropriate preventive action. The District Medical Officer, Amritsar, interpreted this statement at its face value and threatened the management of the New Bhandaris' Clinic with legal action. In reply, he received a cool question, asking what law had the clinic violated? In his statement to the Lok Sabha, however, the Health Minister ruled out a ban on amniocentesis. saying that "it was for the people to change their attitude to female children. The State Governments, having realized that there was no legal provision to back such action, also remained inactive. The Forum against Sex Determination and Sex Pre-selection (FASDSP) was formed in Bombay in October 1985, its members were from varied backgrounds - feminists, health and human rights activists, persons Involved in the people's science movement etc. It drafted a private member's Bill with the help of a Senior Officer from the State Assembly and had it introduced in the State Assembly by three members. "The Introduction of the Bill added an entirely different dimension to the campaign and forced the State Government to give serious consideration to the Issue. This Bill laid the foundation of the entire legislative exercise at the State and Central Government levels".

Source: http://tinyurl.com...

Now, with this background information, we need to assess the topic in hand. The present position of the women, though is improving, is still not at par with men. And culturally, they are bound to be discriminated against. If SSA is legalized, the situation is bound to get worse.

1. Cash in on the general discrimination against the women. : There will be no shortage of Bhandaris’ that are going to play on the sentiments and try to cash in on the general discrimination against the women. Given our history, we can be positive that the law will lead to a catastrophe. At least, given the law, the practice is under wraps, and there is a certain taboo in the practice. Given that most people feel justified killing female fetus, legalizing SSA is going to worsen the situation much more.

We can take the example of South Korea, South Korea is the only country that equalized its male-female ratio, and it was a country that legalized SSA, and enforced it ‘vigorously’.

2 Greater Crimes: Legalising SSA will almost certainly lead to a skewed sex ratio, which would lead to greater prostitution rackets, kidnapping, sexual violence, as is seen in China and India already. (The rebuttal to your claim that skewed sex ratio is going to increase women’s position has been addressed at the appropriate place. )

3. Slippery slope: When we legalise SSA, we can be almost certain that the law would be utilized to its fullest. There would be dangerous precedents, and the females would be killed in large numbers, what next? Designer babies? Going by the freedom of choice argument, we can encourage the people to get designer babies, the babies would have green eyes, blonde hairs, whatever the parents please, the false idea of perfection would be reinforced. The divide between rich and poor would increase, with the rich increasingly tailoring their babies, and greater discarding when they don’t match their ‘standards’.

4: Sex selection is unhealthy: It makes the love for the child conditional. Which is in itself an unhealthy trend.

Rebuttal:
//1) Health of women//

I agree. But we need something to deter women going in for SSA. A women who cares for her health can refuse it on the health- grounds. On the illegality grounds. Once you legalise SSA, there is no ground to refuse it, if being pressurized. It is to be noted that the laws focus on sentencing the woman who is opting for the surgery. Thus, this is, in fact, a propellant to reduce female foeticide.

//2)Female infanticide//
This does not help your case in any way. If female feticide increases, female infanticide decreases and vice versa. The point being that the girl is being killed, only the time frame is different.

//3) Proper care//

This is entirely speculation. The parents might grow to love the child too. The assumption in the argument reverberates the common mentality of demonizing those who opt for SSA. I am not arguing that there may not be such people, but the proportion is likely to be very low. Because once the child is born, only those that are okay with being wrong or being a ‘bad parent’ are going to intentionally malnourish his/ her child.

//4) Ethical Perspective //

Freedom of choice is a good principle, but like any other freedom, it has some duties attached to the right. It should not be practiced if it causes harm to anyone, and in this case- it is harming the unborn child, it is harming the status of women by furthering their oppression. It is also harming the society as a whole by causing demographic instability, and by setting poor cultural examples.

Let us look at the effects of an imbalanced sex ratio:
//1)Reduction in poverty//

Ummm… You are assuming that the men will be okay with having no children. Maybe, but they won’t be okay with having no sex. This is against the basic human principle. In fact, this is going to worsen the situation, since there will be an increase in female trafficking, rape cases will increase.

http://tinyurl.com...

There will be more illegitimate children with no one to care for them, except a single mom causing increased dependency. And lower stability. This is certainly not Okay.

//2)Stabilization of population//

Extending the previous argument, maybe the traditional families would decrease, but we cannot ignore the desperation of poor male members unable to find themselves a bride. Increase in heinous crimes is just going to break down the traditional marriages, leading to polygamy. Increase in sexual crimes against women. The population growth may decrease, but the increase in illegitimate children is going to be a major problem. We need to find a better, a sustainable way to decrease population growth.

//3)Improvement in the status of women://

Not really. For women, the deficit situation may not improve their status at all, despite what a rudimentary economic model would have us believe. Scarcity of women would not enhance their position in society, due to the simultaneous increase in pressure to marry, higher risk of gender-based violence, rising demand for sex work and the development of trafficking networks. Moreover, their reduced demographic share in democratic regimes would translate into a weaker political voice in public decision-making, a trend that could be reinforced by women’s lessened involvement in non-domestic activities, such as outside employment and civil life.

http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
marcuscato

Pro

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. 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. 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. 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).



gerrandesquire

Con

//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.

Debate Round No. 2
marcuscato

Pro

Not enough space to include previous round(commentssection).

People cannot change their attitude if the SSA is legalized.
What basis do you have for this statement? There is a difference between cannot and will not. If you meant will not; SSA is currently illegal but it is still widely practiced. Even though certain communities may not change their perception, the population as a whole will change its perception to reflect the new sex ratio(fishers principle).

It will enforce the idea, and the free run of advertising would kind of make it ‘okay’ to kill a girl child.

‘okay’- that’s a moral judgment. Keep in mind that the government has not passed this law due to moral reasons but because they anticipate a social imbalance.

You’re enforcing your morality on others. The constitution does provide for freedom of religion.

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.

“No way for the government to check these”- I do not want to government to check it. That’s the topic of the debate.

Designer babies: There would be a segregation between ‘superior’ modified humans, and pure but inferior ones.

My argument is not pressing for modified babies (which is a different topic). There is no modification of genetics involved, only selection of certain organisms from those which naturally exist.

Genetic aristocracy: Darwin’s theory. Look at the world around you.

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.

WRONG-morning after pills are available over the counter.

it makes the love for the child conditional.

It’s not making the love for the child conditional. The love for the child is already conditional when people choose to opt for SSA.

//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?

Free consent is the basis of laws all over the world. Ensuring the existence of free consent is the one of the most important (if not the most) task for the government.

Indian Contract act of 1872:

http://www.vakilno1.com...

//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.

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 am unable to discuss these ’other factors’ because you have not posted them.

// 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.

Humans exist because they eat other organisms. Uprooting a tree and killing a chicken are both examples of the humans taking the life of organisms. I repeat, abortion is legal.

//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

Alright: Better mating prospects will only result in an increased ‘status’ if women utilize better mating prospects to demand an increased status. If they do not, then they are happy with their current status.

During wars in the your example, males were already placed at a higher status.

No. They attained better mating prospects by killing other males.

They went to wars because they were considered higher.

What does a higher status have to do with going to war? You are being illogical.
They went to wars to gain better resources and to decrease competition for mating.

// If women want to make a correction;... discriminating (during marriage)//
Too much expectations. An inspiring proposal, but theoretical.

So what you are saying is:

1) We(some women) do not want to perform SSA and we want to discourage others
2) We (same women)will reward people who perform SSA by marrying them

// 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.

You are talking about rape. That was responded to. This was in the context of:Reduction in poverty.
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?

/1. Increased pressure to marry:/

while females would be essentially devoid of these things, would not actively pursue these things, since a better life= good rich-er husband.

As I already pointed out, women can gain a better access to resources. No-one is stopping them from pursuing education/jobs etc. They may voluntarily choose not to do so (because they have gained a cushy life by marrying up).What’s wrong with that?

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.

You are missing the point; they may go to extremes because they will not be able to find a mate. 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.

I don’t see a drastic change in the amount of respect given to a ‘wife’, no matter the ratio of males to females.

If you think you can (gain respect); you can. If you think you can’t; you can’t.

Increased force = increased migration of unwilling girls into the market.

Since women would gain more importance, they would gain more protection. The analogy is similar to: Why is Indian life worth so little? (Context: terrorist attacks on India and USA).A comparison of the worth given to American lives and Indian lives.

//"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.

It’s from your source. Caste considerations would become irrelevant when compared to not getting a mate at all.

//You might want to correct this statement://

Why? The source has been provided.

So you’re standing with this statement:

South Korea is the only country that equalized its male-female ratio, and it was a country that legalized SSA, and enforced it ‘vigorously’.

In conclusion, I have successfully defended:
1)Safeguarding health of women 2) ending female infanticide
3)proper care to the girl child 4)Ethical perspective

Sex ratio
1) Reduction in poverty 2) Stabilization of population
3) Improvement in status of women: There seems to be some ambiguity here. My opponent believes that: I don’t see a drastic change in the amount of respect given to a ‘wife’, no matter the ratio of males to females. Essentially saying women will not be able to increase their influence using better mating prospects.

4) National integration and weakening of class system.

Rebuttal:

Greater crimes: I agreed to this. However I pointed out that the burden cannot be placed on the people who opt for SSA.

In my opinion, the remaining points (put forth by my opponent) were not important.

gerrandesquire

Con

// 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!!!

Also: This was a really interesting debate. And I thank my opponent for debating this highly controversial topic with me.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by gerrandesquire 5 years ago
gerrandesquire
@ wiploc: 'She didn't explain those seemingly bizzare claims '

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
Posted by gerrandesquire 5 years ago
gerrandesquire
Ummm... I agree with the vote?
Posted by marcuscato 5 years ago
marcuscato
I strongly disagree with this vote. o well..
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Arguments go to Con as he refuted all of Pro's statements and provided sources of his own.

He had better and reliable sources as well, so CON gets that point.

S/g and conduct were tied.
Posted by marcuscato 5 years ago
marcuscato
I thank my opponent for an excellent debate.
@voters
along with your normal comments please answer this question:
do you think legalising SSA will have largely postive impacts
a)in the short run b)in the long run c)in the short run and long run d)no positive impact
I want you to do this so that we can distinguish between voters who thought point 4 i.e. ethical perspective was the deciding point and people who also took other factors into consideration.
Posted by gerrandesquire 5 years ago
gerrandesquire
It's like- reality in many parts of the world.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Dear batman...
What a topic...
Posted by marcuscato 5 years ago
marcuscato
4) "reduced demographic share in democratic regimes would translate into a weaker political voice in public decision-making"
Even though women currently make up a significant portion of the population, they have do not contribute 50 %( or even 40%) of the members of parliament. There is a proposal for reservation of seats (in parliament) for women.

The effect (on political voice) of a decrease in numbers would only be significant if women voted as united mass. Moreover, a decrease in numbers would be more than offset by an increased influence (arising from a decrease in numbers).

Lastly I would like to showcase a point (not present in my opening argument) from my opponent's source:

"If this condition persists, there will be inter-caste marriages that may help in diluting the caste identity and prove helpful for national integration also."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

This is one more benefit: a weakening of the cast system and greater national integration.

I thank my opponent for an excellent debate. I request her to post any new points which she may have in round2. I will not be able to respond to any new points which she makes in round 3.

To my opponent: I also expect female only immigration from other countries. Would you like to discuss the effects of the same on our country?

You might want to correct this statement:" We can take the example of South Korea, South Korea is the only country that equalized its male-female ratio, and it was a country that legalized SSA, and enforced it ‘vigorously'. "
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
marcuscatogerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not comfortable with Pro's arguments, but at least they made sense. Con's claimed that a skewed sex ratio would lead to rape and prostitution, but she didn't explain those seemingly-bizarre claims.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
marcuscatogerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment section for RFD