Within the US we don't have the sort of dowry/misogynistic culture referenced in the post. What is the fear of allowing women this choice in the US? My guess is that it might not be the female fetus' that are aborted most often. On a gut level, I really don't like the idea of this. But then, on a gut level I don't like the idea of abortion in general. I'm pro-choice, because I believe it's the mother/fathers decision to make but I am a strong proponent of "choose life." My mom was 18 and unmarried when she found out she was pregnant with me. There were a lot of people whispering in her ear to abort the pregnancy. I'm eternally grateful that she did not.
When things like this come up I like to follow the precedent to its rational conclusion, and this reeks of eugenics to me. If it is okay to choose to abort a girl child because you live in a society where having a girl child puts you/the child at a disadvantage... - is it ok to choose to abort a mixed-race child because you live in the South/a blatantly racist area?
- is it ok to choose to abort a child with Down's syndrome, etc? (Frankly - I am a proponent of 'yes' in this case if you don't think you can handle it, but this is a slightly different question than the one above. A mixed-race child isn't an obligation to pay and care for someone who may never be able to support themselves on their own) A big part of my problem with this woman's argument is that it hinges on "ifs." > The kind of society where dowry systems mean an inconveniently gendered child could bankrupt a family Well, you don't even know if your child is going to get married when you have them. It might be the cultural norm, yes, but at this point we're saying "I want to abort my child based on theoretical futures that won't happen for at least another 15 years" (I say 15 because I assume any society with a dowry system isn't going to be one that advocates waiting til marriage. Let's keep in character.) With a Down's syndrome child though you know with a pretty good chance what your child's life is going to be like and what it's going to cost. What if you live in a society with a lot (let's say 80%) of rape? So 80% of women get raped. Is that an acceptable reason to abort? Consider the costs of counselling, etc. This seems like an argument that could be lead to the conclusion, "I am going to abort this child because I can't afford to pay for its college tuition." Marriage may be more normative than getting a college degree in the theoretical society the author is discussing, but neither of them are requirements. In addition, why are we discounting the daughter's spending power? If she really wants to get married can't she contribute to raising money for her own dowry? If not money, then goods, skills, etc? I am pro-choice. I'm very pro-choice. But I'm not pro-eugenics and this feels a lot like eugenics to me.
I think the author takes a backwards solution to a huge problem. Instead of asking why bring a child into the world where it will be abused or disadvantaged?" We should ask, "how can we make it so the child is not abused or disadvantaged?" Her 'solution' would compound the issue rather than diffuse it. I disagree that it is a good choice. However, that said, I agree with her the in general, if abortion is to be legal, then the only thing that should matter is whether a woman wants an abortion. When a woman seeks and abortion, it is not the doctor's or society's business to ask why. When it's working properly, the law shouldn't make those moral judgments, even if we as individuals can.
Yeah something "feels" wrong about this. Regarding the part you quoted, I get that there could be serious consequences to having a wrong-sexed baby, but in the long term, isn't aborting all wrong-sexed babies just playing into a system that obviously needs to be reformed? I just don't see it as a long term solution.