[lbo-talk] So who decides which abortions are "abhorrent"?

[// ravi]

On Feb 27, 2012, at 3:27 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> Shane writes:
>> 
>> " From a social point of view, in an (at present) grossly overpopulated  
>> country like India suffering from an (at present) grossly excessive  
>> rate of population growth, female-selective abortion is by far and  
>> away the most practical way by which the people, on their own, can  
>> deal with that problem (given the fertility rate, the rate of  
>> population growth is a linear function of the reproductive-age sex  
>> ratio).
>> 
>> Male homosexuality, socially considered, is the proper response to the  
>> excess of reproductive-age males in any primate society where  
>> population limitation imposes a surplus of males or where younger  
>> males remain in the social group but cannot compete with the stronger  
>> adult males for the available females."
>> 
> Well, uh, no.
> 
> The most practical way for the people to deal with the problem is contraception.
> 
> And, besides, they don't kill female children to hold down population. They kill female foetuses/children because women are a drain on family finances because of dowaries and because once the female is grown and married she is only a financial asset to her husband's family.
> 
> Ravi can correct me if I'm wrong.
> 

You are mostly right. Small correction: traditionally women didn’t work (for pay, that is!), so a girl is a burden for the husband’s family; hence the dowry, which in turn makes her a burden for her own parents. The boy on the other hand takes care of the parents in old age, so he is cherished.

	—ravi