SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTION Introduction Sex-selective abortion (SSA) is one of the most controversial contemporary moral issues. Selective abortions, such as those based on gender or disability, pose unique challenges in abortion policy and ethics because they are performed to prevent a child with certain unwanted characteristics from being born. Even some individuals who support the legality of abortion are against some forms of selective termination, including SSA. SSA is seen as morally repugnant even by people who support abortion rights because of its connection to the problems of sex inequality and gendercide.
Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com
SSA is a common practice in some countries, particularly in South and East Asia, where giving birth to male over female offspring comes with a high social value. In places where SSA is practised, its purpose is to select males against females. For example, in China and India, SSA and infanticide are used to eliminate females for cultural reasons. In these countries, males are perceived to be more economically and socially valuable than females. The connection of SSA to gynecide poses a serious challenge to feminists who support the legalisation of abortion. How can they defend SSA, which eliminates female foetuses because of their sex, leading to the reduction of women in the world and is linked to the devaluation of women? SSA poses a dilemma for individuals who support the right of women to procure abortions. If they support the argument that SSA is morally repugnant and should be prohibited, they compromise their view that allowing women to control their reproductive system through abortion is morally permissible and contributes to sexual equality. They would have to abandon the argument that all pregnant women should be able to access abortion services for whatever reason. Conversely, supporting the availability of SSA means that they will be defending a practice that promotes sexual inequality by being used to eliminate females. Although most prochoice advocates endorse the legalisation of selective abortion to eliminate foetuses with disabilities, they are reluctant to support SSA. Some support foetal abnormality abortions (FAA) by arguing that foetuses are not persons and, therefore, do not have the right to life. However, they argue that SSA should not be allowed as it propagates gender bias against females. The problem being addressed in the paper is: Can the women's right to have an abortion be justified without rationalising SSA? If SSA and FAA involve the selection and termination of foetuses, there is no significant difference between the two practices that should cause the legalisation of one and the prohibition of the other. If people are committed to the stance that
women should be granted the right to procure abortions with regard to FAA, then it is not possible to justify the banning of SSA. All the arguments used to support women's right Supporters of the prohibition of SSA argue that it undermines women's autonomy because they are pressured to undergo it due to its availability. They also claim that it reinforces the notion that women are inferior to men. Another argument made against SSA is that it is tantamount to genocide as it contributes to the declining numbers of women in societies where it is practised. I will argue that these arguments against the legalisation of SSA are illogical. It is not possible to justify women's right to have an abortion without also justifying the legitimacy of SSA. However, this is not a problem as women have a right to make decisions regarding their bodies, including having an abortion for any reason. I will present my argument in several steps. First, I will argue that prohibiting SSA constrains women's autonomy in making decisions about reproduction. Next, I will argue that SSA is beneficial to women who face increased vulnerability to poverty and relationship breakdown as a result of having daughters in cultures where sons are preferred. Next, I will argue that prohibiting SSA would be unfair to women who choose the procedure for other compelling reasons other than cultural demands. For each of the arguments, I will provide an objection and reply. Lastly, I will conclude by providing a summary of the major advantages and disadvantages of the view that SSA should be allowed. Argument: Prohibiting SSA Limits Women's Autonomy One of the arguments in support of SSA is that prohibiting it constrains women's autonomy in making decisions about reproduction. Women should have the right to decide what happens in their bodies, including the decision on whether to procure an abortion or not. A woman's right to make decisions regarding her body is superior to the right to life of a foetus (Boonin 2002).
According to the Good Samaritan argument, a person is not obligated to remain plugged to the violinist to save his life because he has a right to make decisions regarding his body. Even though the violinist is a human being who has a right to life, the person's right to what happens to his body is more important. Similarly, a pregnant woman's right to control her body prevails over the foetus's right to life. Furthermore, an early abortion does not entail killing a person because a foetus is not a human being (Thomson 1971). Some individuals believe that an unborn child should be considered a person since conception and should not face discrimination (Finnis 1973). However, Kaczor (2014) argues that a human embryo is not a person in the same way that an acorn cannot be considered to be an oak tree. Therefore, a woman should not be prevented from procuring an abortion for any reason, including sex selection. Denying women reproductive freedoms, including performing SSA, takes away their hard-won reproductive control and constrains their autonomy. Objection Opponents of SSA object to this argument by claiming that it undermines women's autonomy as the legality of the procedure poses the risk of women being pressured or coerced into performing it even though they would not otherwise undergo it (Williams 2012). Therefore, although autonomy is one of the reasons cited for allowing women to have the right to undergo SSA, some feminists argue that the opposite is true. They assert that in cultures where daughters are devalued and sons preferred, legalising SSA poses a danger to women's autonomy as it puts them under pressure from their husbands, communities, and families to undergo the procedure. Women are unable to evade this pressure because others in the community continue to use SSA, which fosters the notion that it is normal and necessary to find out the sex of the foetus and get rid of it if it is female. Therefore, SSA should be prohibited to shield women from the
expectations and demands of their spouses and families, especially in countries where sons are preferred, such as India (Williams 2012). Prohibiting SSA can also protect women's autonomy in multicultural western countries where the procedure can be sought by members of minority groups whose communities prefer sons over daughters. Reply The argument that legalising SSA limits women's autonomy is illogical because it fails to recognise that cultural expectations affect women from all backgrounds. Therefore, women who choose to procure abortions for other reasons other than the foetus's sex also face similar constraints. For example, women from both non-western and western countries face the pressure to test their foetuses to find out if they have any disabilities so that they can abort them if any positive diagnosis is made (Williams 2012). Society pressures them into believing that undergoing these procedures to test for disability is the responsible and right thing to do. The community, medical staff, family members, friends, and spouses persuade women to test for disability, and this leaves them no option but to undergo the procedure and abort disabled foetuses. Thus, those who oppose SSA based on the notion of autonomy should do away with the assertion that cultural pressure is a valid reason to ban the practice or also object to the availability of selective abortion to eliminate disabled foetuses. Moreover, banning SSA is not helpful to many women in son-preferring cultures who are coerced into aborting female foetuses by threats of violence by their husbands as there are few support systems. Instead of prohibiting SSAs, effective policies to deal with abusive spouses, empower women, and give them practical exit options should be adopted. Argument: SSA is Beneficial to Women in Son-Preferring Cultures
Another argument in support of SSA is that it should be allowed as it is beneficial to women who face increased vulnerability to poverty and relationship breakdown as a result of having daughters, particularly in son-preferring cultures. In some cultures, giving birth to a girl is considered a serious burden to the family in the same way a disabled child burdens the parents. For example, a woman living in cultural conditions in which it is costlier to raise female than male children should be allowed to undergo SSA. In such a culture, females face discrimination in the labour market and cannot make significant economic contributions to the family. A girl continues to financially drain the family until she is married off. During the marriage, her parents will have to pay a substantial dowry to the groom's family (Williams 2012). Such a woman may feel that having a son is an asset, but she cannot afford to raise a daughter. Therefore, she should be allowed to have SSA. Women in India also choose to undergo SSA to spare daughters the humiliation and suffering they experience in society (Saharso 2003). Another example is a woman with four daughters but is unhappy in her marriage because the husband is frustrated and desperately wants to have a son. Such a woman may want a boy to bring happiness in her marriage and should be allowed to have SSA if she becomes pregnant again and finds out that she is expecting another girl (Williams 2012). SSA empowers women who are under pressure to get a male child. By terminating female and keeping male foetuses, women in many patriarchal societies, such as in Asian countries, earn recognition, status, and legitimacy in their communities (Belanger 2002). Objection Opponents of the legality of SSAs can argue against this point with the expressivist objection. The objection to this argument is that SSA conveys a belief that females are inferior to males, reinforcing and validating dangerous sexist attitudes towards women in society (Williams 2012).
Opponents of SSA argue that it is harmful to girls and women as it prevents their existence and inhibits the possibility of achieving gender equality (Williams 2012). SSA reinforces and perpetuates bias against women. Allowing women to select children based on criteria such as sex encourages society to maintain its culturally constructed degradation of the female sex (Oomman & Ganatra 2002). People undergo SSAs because of a cultural norm that upholds the superiority of women and girls. Thus, allowing it reinforces and legitimates the norm and undermines sex equality. It is reinforced because community members will be aware that female inferiority justifies the elimination of female foetuses. The state also legitimates it because the refusal to insist on sexual equality implies that women inferiority is a sensible reason to abort female foetuses (Chambers 2004). The legal availability of SSA sends a negative message about women's worth and status. The direct effect of this demeaning message is that it destroys the ability of women exposed to it to have self-respect. It also has indirect effects, including reminding people that women are inferior in society, which may cause some of them to treat women as having lesser value (Williams 2012). According to Rogers, Ballantyne, and Draper (2007), legalising SSA exposes women to serious harms such as perpetuating discrimination against the female sex, increased violence against women, and disruption to family and social networks. Reply In response to the above objection, women who decide to undergo SSA do not need to believe that females are inferior to males but may feel that giving birth would worsen their circumstances. Therefore, if women SSAs for other reasons apart from the belief that they are inferior, they do not have to express such beliefs. Thus, it is not right to infer that women who choose SSA hold such beliefs because it is not possible to know their stances regarding this
issue. Furthermore, when states allow SSA, it does not necessarily mean that they do not support gender equality. Whether a state shuns gender equality or not depends on why the law allowing SSA was passed. Moreover, it is wrong to outlaw SSA on the grounds that it shows how much women are belittled in society and those who observe this may develop prejudices against females, which further adversely affects gender equality. Doing so is unfair because the burden of eliminating sexism would be placed on child-bearing women who cannot access SSAs even though they want them. If SSA is prohibited, women who feel that they are not financially capable of raising another daughter will either avoid procreation or get pregnant and hope to get a son. Refusing to give birth is not practical in patriarchal cultures as such women may be abandoned by their spouses who expect them to bear sons. On the other hand, getting pregnant with the hope of getting male children will result in pressure on women to get more children until they bear sons (Williams 2012). For example, in Vietnam, parents continue to bear children with the hope of getting a son in spite of increased poverty and penalties and fines for violating the country's two-child policy (Belanger 2002). Disallowing SSA on these grounds deny women the choice to avoid significant harms to themselves. Thus, sexist beliefs in society should be eliminated by other means instead of placing an unfair burden on women. Argument: SSA is Beneficial to Women with Compelling Reasons to Undergo Abortion Prohibiting SSA would be unfair to women who choose the procedure for other compelling reasons other than cultural demands, particularly in western countries. An example of a compelling reason to procure SSA is serious emotional suffering. For example, a girl who faced sexual abuse from her mother during childhood may find it difficult to form close relationships with women in adulthood. This woman becomes pregnant but feels that she cannot deal with the
emotional suffering that she may suffer if she gives birth to a girl but is capable of raising a boy. For instance, she may feel estranged from the female child and may feel guilty if she gives her up for adoption (Williams 2012). Therefore, SSA should be permissible to enable such women to make decisions to have a child of the preferred sex. Objection Opponents of SSA may object to this argument with the claim that SSA is wrongdoing that can be equated to genocide. The offence is referred to as gendercide or gynecide when used to inhibit female births. Opponents of SSA equate it to genocide, which is the methodical and deliberate elimination of people of a certain national, racial, or ethnic group (Williams 2012). Genocide is one of the most objectionable moral offences. There is a deficit of the female population in Asian countries such as China and India, where there is a strong son preference and women are perceived to have a lower status than men (Patel 2007). Moreover, due to China's one-child policy, SSA has led to the birth of excess males. According to Hesketh, Lu, and Xing (2011), there were 1.1 million excess male births in China in 2005, and the number of males aged below 20 years was higher than that of females by approximately 32 million. Reply However, this objection is illogical because if SSA was as serious as a genocide, it would have attracted coercive sanctions. Moreover, all acts capable of holding back or reducing the size of any group of people are not considered genocidal. For example, women are not accused of genocide when they practice family planning, even though this act deprives the female sex of a new member. Although gynecide could be perpetrated by a state that implements a policy to force women to abort female foetuses, it does not occur if the government makes SSA available to women, and some choose it willingly. Even though the result would significantly reduce the
number of females, this does not constitute gynecide for three reasons. The first is that if the female foetuses are aborted in the first 20 weeks, the female population's decline is not caused by the violation of a basic right (Williams 2012). Persons are entitled to fundamental rights, including the right to life (Little 1999). However, abortion in the early weeks cannot be compared to murder because a foetus is not considered to be a person by liberals (English 1975). Therefore, the right of a person to life is not violated through SSA. Secondly, the reduction in population is not caused by a coordinated action but through decisions that are made independently by women. Thirdly, there is no plan to cause the destruction of the female gender by those involved in the act (Williams 2012). Thus, the claim that SSA is equivalent to gynecide is invalid. Conclusion Overall, it is not possible to justify women's right to have an abortion without also validating the legitimacy of SSA. One of the major advantages of the view that SSA is justified is that it allows women to make decisions regarding their reproductive health freely. It also helps women in sonpreferring cultures to avoid increased vulnerability to poverty caused by the burden of raising daughters. Such women also manage to avoid relationship breakdown and save their marriages by undergoing SSA to ensure that they get the sons desired by their spouses. Another advantage of legalising SSA is that it offers a solution to women who choose the procedure for other compelling reasons such as serious emotional suffering. An example of such individuals includes women who faced abuse in childhood and are unable to raise daughters due to the emotional trauma they experienced. Such individuals should have the autonomy to choose to raise boys instead of girls.
However, the view that SSA should be legalised has several disadvantages. As much as it promotes women's autonomy to make reproductive decisions, it also inhibits their freedom in some cultures, such as where sons are preferred over daughters. The availability of the procedure causes women in patriarchal cultures to be coerced into undergoing it to bear sons for their families. Another disadvantage is that allowing SSA results in the validation of the notion that women are inferior to men. Thus, girls growing up in patriarchal communities accept that they are less valuable than boys because society has accepted and legalised the practice of eliminating female foetuses. Another disadvantage is that allowing the practice of SSA has led to the reduction of females in some countries such as India and China, where the procedure is common. Although SSA cannot be equated to genocide, statistics show that it contributes to significant gender imbalances in such countries, with the rates of female births declining significantly while the male population is on the rise. Although there are various shortcomings to my view, I believe that it is better than the alternatives for several reasons. Firstly, the argument of allowing SSA based on autonomy is stronger than the objection because it upholds basic human freedoms. A pregnant woman's rights supersede those of a foetus since the latter cannot be considered a person. Furthermore, my view respects the cultural practices of Asian countries, such as China and India. It proposes the adoption of other policies to promote gender equality, protect women, and empower them instead of prohibiting SSA. There are cultural justifications for upholding such practices in Asian countries, and they should be respected. My argument also allows women who cannot raise girls for other reasons that are not cultural-related to terminate their pregnancies safely. Forcing women to bear unwanted children through prohibiting SSA can cause serious emotional suffering to them. Furthermore, unwanted female children would undergo unnecessary suffering
in their homes and community, particularly where sons are preferred. Therefore, it is better to undergo SSA to prevent suffering for both mothers and their daughters. All in all, SSA should be legalised to ensure that the option to terminate foetuses is available to women for whatever reason. Proponents of women's right to abortion will also have to accept the legitimacy of SSA because it is not possible to justify the former and while opposing the latter. Women should have the freedom to decide whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including to select the sex of their children. Denying them the right to SSA limits their freedom to make decisions concerning what can happen to their bodies.
Reference List Belanger, D 2002, ‘Sex selective abortions: Short-term and long-term perspectives’, Reproductive Health Matters, vol. 10, no. 19, pp.194-197. Boonin, D 2002, A defense of abortion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chambers, C 2004, ‘Autonomy and equality in cultural perspective: Response to Sawitri Saharso’, Feminist Theory, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.329-332. English, J 1975, ‘Abortion and the concept of a person’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.233-243. Finnis, J 1973, ‘The rights and wrongs of abortion: A reply to Judith Thomson’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.117-145. Greasley, K 2017, Arguments about abortion: Personhood, morality, and law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hesketh, T, Lu, L & Xing, ZW 2011, ‘The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries’ CMAJ, vol. 183, no. 12, pp.1374-1377. Kaczor, C 2014, The ethics of abortion: Women's rights, human life, and the question of justice. Routledge, London. Little, MO 1999, ‘Abortion, intimacy, and the duty to gestate’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp.295-312. Oomman, N & Ganatra, BR 2002, ‘Sex selection: The systematic elimination of girls’, Reproductive Health Matters, vol. 10, no. 19, pp.184-188. Patel, T 2007, Sex-selective abortion in India: Gender, society, and new reproductive technologies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Rogers, W, Ballantyne, A & Draper, H 2007, ‘Is sex‐selective abortion morally justified and should it be prohibited?’, Bioethics, vol. 21, no. 9, pp.520-524. Saharso, S 2003, ‘Feminist ethics, autonomy and the politics of multiculturalism’, Feminist Theory, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.199-215. Thomson, JJ 1971, ‘A defense of abortion’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47-66. Williams, J 2012, ‘Sex-selective abortion: A matter of choice’, Law and Philosophy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp.125-159.