|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Having it both ways (Chinese abortion policy & Pro-choice/life considerations) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
brennakimi: in my research, there are no such policies. Interesting that this topic opened as new reports of forced abortions emerge in Guanxi Provice: NPR Story families were previously only permitted one child (see my explanation in the above post). how they decided to limit their births is up to them. The government denies supporting 'forced' abortions and sterilisations, true. Coerced abortions and sterilisations by the millions, though, are built into the system. The government does not even bother to deny this. China observers know the Party's official line is often at odds with reality. Its official disapproval of 'forced' abortions under its rule is no exception. Local officials don't go forcing abortions on women as late as eight or nine months pregnant in the absence of incentive to do so. They belong to the same Party as, and were appointed to their posts by, the same national leaders who say they disapprove. National Party officials set and enforce quotas--strictly. They aren't very curious about how their provincial officials meet those quotas any more than they are curious about how individual couples do. Figuring out how to cope is a responsibility of those further down the ladder. For all the official 'disapproval' of forced abortions, journalists who expose the practice get much harsher treatment than the Party officials they expose. Chen Guangchenn however, any higher parity children are not killed, simply taxed. The exorbitant amount of money families are obliged to pay is not a 'tax.' It is a fine. The family has committed a crime. With that the family's problems only begin. Children beyond one are denied official recognition in China. They can get no government ID card in a country where nearly all services are socialized. For all but the wealthy that means no education, no housing, no banking, no employment. Until recently it meant no access to health care; today they may be admitted to a hospital upon payment of huge fees. These individuals are completely dependent on their families and communities for support. The 'one-child-per-family rule' is a classic example of a linear solution imposed on a complex system. The approach has given rise to a host of unintended results that continue to play out. One of them has been noted: the disproportionate number of males to females in the population. A number of social plagues follow from this aspect of it alone.
there have been local abuses, but there is no national policy resembling this draconian suggestion. 'Draconian' is, sadly, a fair description of the whole business. The China Digital Times (UC-Berkeley) provides an excellent omnibus roundup of news about China. I highly recommend the free e-mail subscription service to those who are interested in following events. A few links of interest in this discussion: Main Site _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : url. Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
You're misrepresenting the pro-choice argument, Nuggin.
It's not about 'policy.' It's about reproductive choice as a right. Policies are not rights. Rights exist before policy is made. Rights define the limits of policy. The word right--as in 'reproductive rights'--is one you have consistently avoided using. But rights are exactly what is being asserted. Don't take my word for it. Check it out. Then tell us whether or not you support a right of reproductive choice. _____ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Nuggin: American "rights" are not the same as Chinese "rights". We can not impose our cultural biases on them, nor should we accept their cultural biases imposed on us. Both the USA and the PRC are member countries of the United Nations. In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as 'a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.' You may familiarize yourself with this document here:http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html _____ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Nuggin: If they Chinese have a problem with overcrowding and lack of resources and they believe they have a solution, who are we to tell them their solution is wrong? You have the same right to criticize actions by the Communist Party of China that you have to criticize the Republican Party of the United States. You are presumably a member of neither group. But what these parties do with the power they hold affects millions of people. It affects you. It is affecting you now. And in the case of the Communist Party of China and similar regimes you have a compelling reason to speak out that does not exist in America. The government of China is not elected. It holds power by force. Its prohibitions thus cannot be equated with the will of 'the Chinese,' as you naively assume. Most of these prohibitions would lose in a landslide if China's people were asked. True liberals care about giving a voice to those who have no voice. Hence the term 'bleeding-heart liberal.' It alludes to the reputation liberals got, somewhere along the line, for caring about someone other than themselves. You can meet some liberals here.
_____ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Nuggin: the PRC's tax laws You know by now that we are not discussing a 'tax law.' The issue is government control of reproductive choice. That control is clearly oppressive and has nurtured a climate of abuse. If you don't care, just say you don't care.
If Canada, who to the best of my knowledge isn't violating any of the articles, wants to scold the US or China, they at least have the moral authority to do so. By this logic, I have the moral authority to scold you. I live in Taiwan while you live in the no-account USA. I therefore possess the moral authority that you say you lack. You are wrong. Shape up. __________ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Offered FYI.
BBC: Riots reported after child fines assessedBBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China's child fines 'spark riot' Thousands of villagers have rioted in south-western China over the country's controversial family planning restrictions, reports say. The BBC's consistent use of the word fine to describe the financial penalties is worth noting. Having over-quota children is a criminal offence in China, not a 'tax' measure as some have stated here. The BBC is correct. The article also shows the fines extracted from families to be far in excess of what most citizens can ever pay. The fines are not, like taxes, proportional to income. They are not intended to be. The story does report a recent change. China's regime still limits 'urban dwellers' to one child but allows rural villagers to have two children 'if the first child is a girl.' This latter exception was introduced to ameliorate the widening gap between the number of males and females in China's young adult population. _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Nuggin: How is it interfering with the woman's right to choose?[...] They have put into effect a series of penalties and incentives which make it financially hard to have more than one child. But that's still a choice. More accurately, they make it financially devastating to have more than one child. But you're right---that's such a quibbling little thing to go rioting over. What's a little financial devastation here and there when you retain your freedom to choose? You'll be pleased to know that China has freedom of speech, too. You can say anything you want. True, the government has 'penalties and incentives' on certain subjects. If you talk about the Tienanmen Square demonstrations or the invasion of Tibet, you can expect the government to imprison you for years, or execute you and harvest your organs. In the meantime you can expect your family members to be fired from their jobs, denied travel visas, placed under house arrest and have all their conversations monitored until the government feels better about them. But hey--it's not like the government is rounding up people and cutting out their tongues, is it? Everyone still enjoys freedom of choice. You can say anything you want. Just stand in the middle of Tienanmen Square and try it. _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Nuggin: You make this sound like the options are a) China is a big meanie, or b) everyone lives in Candyland. I made it sound like an answer to your question. You asked how anyone was having their freedom restricted. I showed you. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : quotebox. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024