Oh, this asshole is quite clear that he’s using this as a wedge against abortion rights. I get that. I just think it’s boring to discuss, so I’m trying to take a position which can take some actual debate without putting me to sleep.
You’re absolutely right. Which is why both times I’ve mentioned the theories about the social disasters that could befall us if we end up with a wildly gender imbalanced society, I’ve also said that more research needs to be done before any form of trying to stop the “problem” is put into law. Much, much more research, if that wasn’t clear from my previous posts. That doesn’t mean I necessarily want to wait until it’s an obvious problem here before we address it, but luckily we’ve got other countries a couple of decades ahead of us down that path that we can learn from.
But you’re absolutely right that I’m a huge believer in patient information/education/autonomy. However, it’s not entirely unlimited - while I’m not *happy *with mandatory vaccination, I do believe that children, absent a medical contraindication, should be vaccinated whether they or their parents want to or not. I believe that because the need of the public to not be exposed to vaccine preventable illness trumps patient autonomy.
IF the fears about gender imbalance are borne out by research and future events, I’d put restricting prenatal gender identification (note: NOT banning gender selective abortion; perhaps that’s picking nits, but it’s an important nit to me) in the same category as mandatory vaccination - something I’d hatehatehate on philosophical/political grounds, but support on public health/Greater Good grounds. IF, I repeat, research shows the theoretical risks to be real.
See also: mandatory reporting of certain infectious illnesses, involuntary commitment for violent mental health patients and forced quarantine of noncompliant active TB patients. The well-being of the public must be weighed against the autonomy of the patient.