JDG wrote:
Well, obviously I disagree. You haven't really provided any
evidence to back your view that it "is very close to zero", other
than to refer me to Charlie's posts. As near as I can tell,
Charlie's posts are a "long run" argument. Well, in the "long run"
we're all dead. In the meantime, that could be tens of millions of
people being born into unbalanced generations.
Here's some evidence; Chinese sex ratio male/female 1.06/1 Indian sex
ratio 1.07/1 this despite a extremely strong bias towards males and
despite pre-birth methods to identify the sex of the child (ultrasound)
for over 20 years. You suggest that the U.S. could reach a ratio of 3:1
in a short period of time despite having no sexual bias. I'm sorry John,
but the suggestion is absolutely off the scale ridiculous.
If we couldn't make laws based on imaginary scenarios, we also
wouldn't have laws banning the sale of prescription drugs until they
have undergone clinical trials.
Drugs often have unintended side effects. Not imaginary.
I also think that we have the experience of countries like India and
China to suggest that in the short term, it is possible for
misaligned incentives to cause parents to produce imbalanced
generations.
Not anything remotely close to the 3:1 ratio that you have suggested
_despite_ a strong cultural bias towards male offspring.
Here's the thing, Doug. Either you agree that the State has a role
in preventing misaligned generations, or you don't.
Sure they have a role: monitor the ratio and if it looks like there might
be a problem take appropriate action.
I'm not at all
sure if you are denying the role of the State to prevent misaligned
generations, or are just saying that our particular State (the USA)
shouldn't be taking any action at this time.
Neither. I'm saying the state has a role if and when there is a problem.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. I mean really, are
you going to ban sunglasses next because they might block the
twinkle in Daddy's eye?
Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple.
That's your definition, not common usage.
I can't believe that after all my years on the List you could still
bring up the tired old saw about "every sperm is sacred", as if you
*still* don't recognize where I see the difference.
I know where you see the difference but I think you are being pedantic and
I think that you tend to focus on the symptoms of a problem rather than
the problem itself. Here you are focusing on a procedure that allows folks
to choose the sex of their child, but the problem is the _attitude_ (in
places like China) that creates the desire for male children and a
male/female offset. Change the attitude and you go a long way towards
solving the problem. But if you prohibit the procedure, chances are
people will find a way to do it anyway because you haven't changed their
attitude.
With abortion in general you again focus on prohibiting them while the
real problem in most cases is unwanted pregnancy. If you reduce unwanted
pregnancy you will reduce the call for abortion. If you outlaw abortion
in South Dakota, people will go to Minnesota to get one. You haven't
solved anything.
How many times does it need to happen for it to be a "problem"?
As with many other things, it's a judgment call.
I’ve got to say, I admire your tenacity. I barely have the time and/or
patience to keep up with you alone. If I had two or three other people
pounding on me, I’d probably give up.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
