Thanks, everyone, for your reply to the first abortion question I read everyone’s thoughts and meant to answer a few of them, but I spent pretty much all the time I had to devote to this talking with Carol. (And Carol, sorry to let that conversation fall where it stands – I’ll come back to it in a few days if I have time, but I want to move on to other things.)
That first question was a bit tricky for me. My instinct was that sex isn’t so special that the normal rules don’t apply, and that conversely there aren’t special rules that only apply to abortion and contraception. But that’s where things get very tricky very quickly. If you want me to say what kind of restrictions I think apply, I first need to work out what the purpose of laws are. That’s touching on an area of philosophy I’m increasingly drawn to, but that I’ve only waded in ankle-deep. (I know, I know, most people aren’t nearly this anal about politics and the law. I am.) And I think that’s something I was trying to drive at: that there could be restricitons, but only the kind of things we’d accept in other situations that had nothing to do with women and sex. I still think that’s a good place to start. But as for the specific suggestions I mad about what restrictions, exactly, the law should impose, or the goals laws needed to be aiming for? I’m completely persuadable on those grounds. I don’t think I know enough to argue for specifics, and what little I do know would take too long to go into.
Now I’d like to move on to the nest question:
In 2010, the Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?
( Collapse )