Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 349–360 | Cite as

Why a Criminal Prohibition on Sex Selective Abortions Amounts to a Thought Crime

Original Paper

Abstract

In a sex selective abortion, a woman aborts a fetus simply on account of the fetus’ sex. Her motivation or underlying reason for doing so may very well be sexist. She could be disposed to thinking that a female child is inferior to a male one. In a hate crime, an individual commits a crime on account of a victim’s sex, race, sexual orientation or the like. The individual may be sexist or racist in picking his victim. He or she could be disposed to thinking that one race or sex is inferior to another. I argue that while a prohibition on sex selective abortions is anomalous in a liberal, criminal legal framework, hate crime legislation may not be. The former but not the latter constitutes a thought crime. I define a thought crime as one where an agent’s motivation is not just relevant but sufficient to take an act from the domain of the non-punishable to the domain of the punishable. Ignoring a woman’s sexist motivation in procuring an abortion suddenly renders her act of abortion legal. On the other hand, discounting an agent’s bias in committing a hate motivated assault or murder does not transform the act from a punishable one to a non-punishable one. Assaulting or murdering is already a crime.

Keywords

Sex selective abortions Hate crimes Thought crime 

References

  1. Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hakim, M. (2010). Making room for hate crime legislation in liberal societies. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(3), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayles, M. (1982). Character, purpose, and criminal responsibility. Law and Philosophy, 1(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélanger, D. (2002). Sex selective abortions: Short-term and long-term perspectives. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197. (Symposium).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berer, M. (2003). HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health: intimately related. Reproductive Health Matters, 11(22), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berer, M. (2005). Implementing ICPD: What’s happening in countries: Maternal health and family planning. Reproductive Health Matters, 13(25), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. deCourcy Hinds, M. (1990). Federal judge blocks a new anti-abortion law in Pennsylvania. The New York Times, 1/12/1990.Google Scholar
  8. Dillof, A. M. (1997). Punishing bias: An examination of the theoretical foundations of bias crime statutes. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 1016.Google Scholar
  9. Duff, R. A. (1993). Choice, character, and criminal liability. Law and Philosophy, 12(4), 345–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gellman, S. (1995). Hate crime laws after Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 21, 863.Google Scholar
  11. Gentleman, A. (2008). Indian prime minister denounces abortion of females. New York Times, 4/29/08.Google Scholar
  12. George, S. M. (2002). Sex selection/determination in India: Contemporary developments. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197. (Symposium).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodkind, D. (1999). Should prenatal sex selection be restricted? Ethical questions and their implications for research and policy. Population Studies, 53, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. House Resolution 7016. (2008). Susan B. Anthony prenatal nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes).Google Scholar
  15. Hume, D. (1978 [1740]). In L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hurd, H. M. (2001). Why liberals should hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation’. Law and Philosophy, 20(2), 215–232.Google Scholar
  17. Husak, D. (1998). Does criminal liability require an act? In R. A. Duff (Ed.), Philosophy and the Criminal law: Principles and critique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Husak, D. (2007). Rethinking the act requirement. Cardozo Law Review, 28, 2437.Google Scholar
  19. Kahan, D. M. (2001). Two liberal fallacies in the hate crimes debate. Law and Philosophy, 20(2), 175–193.Google Scholar
  20. Kamn, F. M. (2005). Is there a problem with enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawrence, F. M. (2002). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  22. McDougall, R. (2005). Acting parentally: An argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mill, J. S. (1989 [1859]). On liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge Press (ed. Stefan Collini).Google Scholar
  24. Oomman, N., & Ganatra, B. (2002). Sex selection: The systematic elimination of girls. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197 (Symposium).Google Scholar
  25. Orwell, G. (1961 [1949]). 1984. New York: Signet Classics.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. (1996 [1993]). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, W., Ballantyne, A., & Draper, H. (2007). Is sex-selective abortion morally justified and should it be prohibited. Bioethics, 21(9), 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schaibley, J. R. (1981). Note. Sex selection abortion: A constitutional analysis of the abortion liberty and a person’s right to know. Indiana Law Journal, 56, 281.Google Scholar
  30. Simester, A. P. (1997). On the so-called requirement for voluntary action. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1, 403.Google Scholar
  31. Steiker, C. S. (1999). Punishing hateful motives: Old wine in a new bottle revives calls for prohibition. Michigan Law Review, 97, 1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Choosing sex of children. Population and Development Review, 29(4), 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren, M. A. (1985). Gendercide: The implications of sex selection. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  34. Weiss, Gail. (1995). Sex-selective abortion: A relational approach. Hypatia, 10(1), 202–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zilberberg, Julie. (2007). Sex selection and restricting abortion and sex determination. Bioethics, 21(9), 517–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GovernmentDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations