A couple is not a unit. It is made of two individuals, each with their rights. The man has a right to hit himself, but not to hit the woman. Because a woman has the right to be not hit. Right in this case isn’t about choice. The choice is whether or not you want to hit yourself. Not if you can hit another.

@2 “Till date, I really haven’t seen anyone who speaks about the gender-ratio issue, take a stand that it is *incorrect* to ban selective-abortion.”

#2 2 effectively disproves #1. The people have spoken and disapprove of selective abortion. Since “we the people” are individuals, they take a stand that is binding on all. ( The remainder of the arguments on collective will are on your post.)

I also provided a link from law archives of the legal views on when foetus can be considered a person. And how it devolves on the State to interfere.

““However, when a person is denied the Right to Life because of their sex – in any manner – be it abortion, murder, poor quality of diet – then it is WRONG.â€?. Forget murder and other methods of denying right to life, and speak solely about abortion: HOW is it wrong? ”

The whole point, pal V. is that she ISN’T talking about abortion ( of which she is in favour of, and we differ). The issue here is
“when a person is denied the Right to Life because of their sex “.

An unborn foetus is not a person, therefore it doesn’t even *have* a right to life. An unborn foetus has no rights whatsoever. Effectively, it is a part of its mothers’ body – nothing more. And the mother may choose to abort it, out of her own free will, as she may choose to amputate her hand just because *she wants to*

I apologise, if you took it personally – The ‘weasel-way’ bit wasn’t directed personally at you. It was directed at all those who lament female foeticide and state that it is really sad that nothing is happening despite government control. And I guess you missed the sarcasm too.

Till date, I really haven’t seen anyone who speaks about the gender-ratio issue, take a stand that it is *incorrect* to ban selective-abortion. When feminists condemn female foeticide, they also effectively condemn foeticide in itself and imply that it is all right to ban gender-selective abortions. I don’t care a tinkers’ curse whether a blanket ban on gender-selective abortion will actually work, or what measures people will take to circumvent it. Regardless of whether it works, it is unjustified: Similiar to sentencing a man to death for stealing a cigarette.

You say:

At some point in time – I do point out that punitive control doesn’t work – and there are ways to escape laws. And that punitive control has meant the issue going underground further still.

Even you emphasize that punitive control is useless ‘because it does not work’. I don’t care how well it works. What I seek to express is that, to hell with whether it works or doesn’t, punitive control is WRONG, because it meddles with an individual’s (or a couples’) personal affairs – and that the state has no right to do so. A single mother or a couple has a complete right to do whatever they wish with their unborn baby – whether to carry it to full term, or whether to kill it, or for that matter even to use the aborted foetus as a decorative object for their home. No one, I repeat – absolutely no one has a right over an unborn baby, except the mother, or the couple. When most people argue against female foeticide, in fact, they argue in the favor of crushing the personal rights of the couple involved.

For example, you can make a general statement that not bathing for a week is bad, and start a TV show seeking to educate people that they should bathe regularly, there is nothing wrong with it. However, when you support or advocate laws which state that every individual must bathe once a day, else he will be jailed, you infringe that individual’s right – with what he wants to do with his body. No one who laments female foeticide says that ‘banning female foeticide’ is WRONG – at the most they may say it doesn’t work, like you do.

I indeed did take your comment out of context, for I wasn’t even aware you wrote a post about it. Mr. Dubious did not supply a link, so I glossed over it, and thought that he must be referring to *this post* linking to Pickled Politics and Indianwriting on the issue. I have now read your post, and really appreciated it. It is, in fact, one of the better posts written on the subject, which goes to the core of the issue. I agree with you when you say that social issues are not solved by getting the police to go out on beats, for you then attempt to control the outward incidence and not necessarily the reason.

I don’t completely agree with your post on the subject, however, for you are effectively contradicting yourself. On one hand you say a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy. On the other hand you say “However, when a person is denied the Right to Life because of their sex – in any manner – be it abortion, murder, poor quality of diet – then it is WRONG.”. Forget murder and other methods of denying right to life, and speak solely about abortion: HOW is it wrong?

If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy (and I believe that she definitely does), then she has a right to terminate her pregnancy on any grounds whatsoever – even if the grounds happen to be that the child is female and she doesn’t want a female child. Nobody has a right to say that the woman does not have a right to terminate a pregnancy, specifically if she isn’t happy about the child’s gender, but she does have the right if the reason happens to be something else. I cannot comprehend your duplicity on the issue. What I am saying is, that even though discrimination is bad and that it should be addressed in a holistic manner, every individual does have a *right to discriminate* provided it is a personal issue, and involves private property. I agree that discrimination is bad, however disagree with those who imply that people don’t have a *right to discriminate*. I remember making a post once stating that the proprietor of a privately owned nightclub choosing to deny entry to anyone who sought to enter his establishment while wearing a pink shirt (and he simply doesn’t like the color pink), is well within his rights to do so. This is a similiar issue.

Do not link me to statements that I am not making

I reiterate that the statement wasn’t personally directed at you, but was a refutation of the general arguements I’ve seen on this subject. I apoligise to you, but I still stand by the statement.

or taking things I say out of context to prove them otherwise.

As mentioned before, I’m guilty of that error, but I can assure you that it was inadvertant.

Social issues – incidentally are not solved by getting the police to go out on beats. You then attempt to control the outward incidence and not necessarily the reason.

I suggest you read the post ?! referred to, (And my cross reference) before jumping the gun or getting personal with comments like “weasel way”. If you think you are inherently evil – that really is your problem. Not mine. Do not link me to statements that I am not making or taking things I say out of context to prove them otherwise.

The issue isn’t so much about liberty (as ?! says – This is not about Pro-Choice and Pro-Life). It is about systemic inequality – and the whole cycle of missed opportunities for women. It is symptomatic of a larger imbalance in the society. And now – it has reached proportions that cannot be ignored.

Therefore we must take the weasel-way, and pass ham-handed decrees and declare pre-natal sex-determination and abortion on the basis of it, *illegal* irrespective of the choice of the parents. After all, we are an inherently immoral, evil people: Left to ourselves, we will destroy society. We do not have the capability to think, or to decide for ourselves. Thus, it is the proper function of the government to force ‘popular’ (read majority) doctrines, or for that matter any doctrine cooked up by its officials, down peoples’ throats: Whether they like it, or not.

Come to think of it, isn’t it so much easier to get people do the things you want them to do, by threatening them with imprisonment, if they try to excercize their free will in trying to know the gender of the offspring they will produce, by their *own effort*, without any contribution whatsoever from ’society’ – whatever it is, even before it is born. Fear is such a great motivator.

I do not deny that it is a bigger social issue: it is a huge issue, and it needs a solution. But by passing draconian laws which meddle with individuals’ private lives, effectively makes it a pro-choice vs pro-life issue. Banning gender-determination is as bad as banning drugs or cigarettes. ‘Bigger social issues’ can’t be resolved using draconian shortcuts.

The RTO suggesting that auto-rickshaw drivers should plaster “Women Empowerment” at the back of their rickshaws is understandable, provided they aren’t coerced to do so against their free-will. But this stuff is yet another horrible statist nightmare.

The issue isn’t so much about liberty (as ?! says – This is not about Pro-Choice and Pro-Life). It is about systemic inequality – and the whole cycle of missed opportunities for women. It is symptomatic of a larger imbalance in the society. And now – it has reached proportions that cannot be ignored.

Similarly,Neha’s post on the subject has now digressed to Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debates.

I personally believe that the state has no right to ban female foeticide or gender selective abortions, or meddle in individuals’ private lives. Some thoughts on this