Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These two states are: Illinois (720 Illinois Abortion Law 510/6 (8) of 1975) (“No person shall intentionally perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the fetus.”) and Pennsylvania (Abortion Control Act of 1989). Minnesota is also considering similar legislation. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29511381/). Oklahoma passed a law (Oklahoma HB 1595) prohibiting sex selective abortions but it was ruled unconstitutional on grounds unrelated to the issue of abortion. (http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/court-strikes-down-intrusive-ok-abortion-law-declares-unconstitutional).

  2. My analysis does not consider non-discrimination employment legislation. While these types of laws also look to bias, they do not make employment discrimination a crime. They simply permit the prospective employee to seek monetary damages. My argument considers only criminal legislation.

  3. http://www.lifenews.com/2006/03/22/nat-2164/.

  4. Anti-Defamation League, Model Legislation for Bias Motivated Crimes. http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp.

  5. Anti-Defamation League, Model Legislation for Bias Motivated Crimes. http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp.

  6. I say “generally accepted” because while most scholarly works accepts the necessity of an “act” for criminal liability, there is work that questions it (see, e.g., Husak 1998, 2007; Simester 1998). For instance, in lieu of an act, Douglas Husak posits the requirement of control (whether an agent has control over something that has happened). My analysis does not hinge on this debate. The important point is that the actus reus requirement interpreted even as a signifier of control is an objective element, one that is not about what the agent thinks but about an outwardly state of affairs.

  7. John Rawls’ account in Political Liberalism articulates the classic liberal distinction between the right and the good (Rawls 1996 [1993]).

  8. Such a proposal may infringe free speech rights (see Schaibley 1981), considerations that are beyond the scope of this essay.

References

  • Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Hakim, M. (2010). Making room for hate crime legislation in liberal societies. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(3), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayles, M. (1982). Character, purpose, and criminal responsibility. Law and Philosophy, 1(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, D. (2002). Sex selective abortions: Short-term and long-term perspectives. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197. (Symposium).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berer, M. (2003). HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health: intimately related. Reproductive Health Matters, 11(22), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berer, M. (2005). Implementing ICPD: What’s happening in countries: Maternal health and family planning. Reproductive Health Matters, 13(25), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deCourcy Hinds, M. (1990). Federal judge blocks a new anti-abortion law in Pennsylvania. The New York Times, 1/12/1990.

  • Dillof, A. M. (1997). Punishing bias: An examination of the theoretical foundations of bias crime statutes. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R. A. (1993). Choice, character, and criminal liability. Law and Philosophy, 12(4), 345–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellman, S. (1995). Hate crime laws after Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 21, 863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentleman, A. (2008). Indian prime minister denounces abortion of females. New York Times, 4/29/08.

  • George, S. M. (2002). Sex selection/determination in India: Contemporary developments. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197. (Symposium).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodkind, D. (1999). Should prenatal sex selection be restricted? Ethical questions and their implications for research and policy. Population Studies, 53, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Hume, D. (1978 [1740]). In L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hurd, H. M. (2001). Why liberals should hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation’. Law and Philosophy, 20(2), 215–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Husak, D. (2007). Rethinking the act requirement. Cardozo Law Review, 28, 2437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (2001). Two liberal fallacies in the hate crimes debate. Law and Philosophy, 20(2), 175–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamn, F. M. (2005). Is there a problem with enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, F. M. (2002). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge: Harvard Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, R. (2005). Acting parentally: An argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 601–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1989 [1859]). On liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge Press (ed. Stefan Collini).

  • Oomman, N., & Ganatra, B. (2002). Sex selection: The systematic elimination of girls. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 184–197 (Symposium).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1961 [1949]). 1984. New York: Signet Classics.

  • Rawls, J. (1996 [1993]). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Rogers, W., Ballantyne, A., & Draper, H. (2007). Is sex-selective abortion morally justified and should it be prohibited. Bioethics, 21(9), 520–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Harvard Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simester, A. P. (1997). On the so-called requirement for voluntary action. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1, 403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiker, C. S. (1999). Punishing hateful motives: Old wine in a new bottle revives calls for prohibition. Michigan Law Review, 97, 1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Choosing sex of children. Population and Development Review, 29(4), 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. A. (1985). Gendercide: The implications of sex selection. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Gail. (1995). Sex-selective abortion: A relational approach. Hypatia, 10(1), 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilberberg, Julie. (2007). Sex selection and restricting abortion and sex determination. Bioethics, 21(9), 517–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I presented earlier versions of this paper at a conference on reproductive technologies at the University of Minnesota Law School and the Legal Studies Workshop at Dartmouth. I received important feedback at these venues. In particular, I thank Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ann Bumpus, Susan Brison, John Carey, Glenn Cohen, Larry Crocker, Elvin Lim, James Murphy, Ronald C. Den Otter, and Lucas Swaine for their helpful comments. I also thank Suneal Bedi for providing feedback I could not have done without. I thank the anonymous reviewer for providing comments to sharpen and clarify the argument.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Sonu Bedi

Authors
  1. Sonu Bedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonu Bedi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bedi, S. Why a Criminal Prohibition on Sex Selective Abortions Amounts to a Thought Crime. Criminal Law, Philosophy 5, 349–360 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-011-9123-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-011-9123-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation