Dear Saurav: It is probably important to understand that the social norms or pressures which drive people to female foeticide (and by extension, infanticide) in India are not simply matters of abstract social values.
They are driven by certain ground realities - among them, soaring dowry prices, the ability of unmarried daughters to grab property share (and perhaps related to this -the inability of emerging family structures to care for unmarried female dependents). To add to it, the increasing tendency for dowries in wealthy families to be at least as large as the daughter's share of property + a preium for the groom's matket value. The latter implies that the wealthier a household is, the more it has to lose by way of dowry when marrying off a daughter and hence greater the incentive to indulge in selective foeticide from that angle (the cost being roughly same for poor and rich families). I personally think there is precious little that the state can do other than economic empowering and education of women so that the mothers can resist. But my own dilemma is related more to the issue of whether liberal values ought to give the unfettered right to parents (or mothers) to decide on whether to abort. If Samantha in Massachusetts decides to go for abortion because she thinks the baby will cram her style, affect her career or because she cannot afford it - and we strongly support her right to do so - then can we ethically turn to Mala (assuming its Mala who is deciding) in north Delhi who for similar economic reasons (can't afford dowry, don't want to reduce standard of living ...) wants to abort the foetus, and say - that's a crime, that's murder. The fact that Mala wants to abort only a female foetus may be tautological for its only the female baby which will lead to economic decline in her life (in her perspective). If women are forced by their family to abort their female foetus, its clear that its a crime. Its equivalent to traffic in women. But if a mother voluntarily decides to do so (and it happens just as often) then is she protected by the same liberal right that we grant (if we do, that is) Samantha? If not, should we not think a bit more about what kind of right we want to grant Samantha in Massachusetts? For Kant's sake. Santanu-da. > > From: Saurav Pathak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/09/19 Thu AM 07:32:52 EDT > To: Santanu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Foeticide slur on posh Delhi / From ToI > > on second thoughts, i dont think that quite solves the dilemma. > because it is not possible to decouple individual choice from > societal values cleanly. > > > Thus spake Saurav Pathak: > > + > + > + > + Santanu Roy said on AssamNet: > + > + + I have many questions: > + + > + + Would a pro-choice point of view support selective choice in abortion? > + > + this looks like a curious problem, but if one goes to first > + principles, then it is not. pro-choice is the right of individuals > + to make a choice against societal norms. selective abortion in > + india is a result of societal norms. parents decide not to have a > + female child because of societal pressures. therefore, a pro-choice > + advocate can argue that selective abortion is the result of a lack of > + choice. > + > + -- > + saurav > > -- > saurav >
