Having it both ways (Chinese abortion policy & Pro-choice/life considerations)

I heard an interesting thing the other day that, to me, seemed hypocritical. I was listening to a program that was speaking about how a certain nation, (I believe it was China), aborted 5 times as many female's than male's. Here in the States some people have expressed disdain over this. But who was complaining? Was it Pro-Life advocates? No, actually the disdain was coming from the Pro-Choice camp.This is completely paradoxical to me for obvious reasons. How can anyone who is Pro-Choice speak out against the abortion of a fetus because it seems one sex is being targeted? What difference does it make to them when they do not consider a fetus to be a human with basic rights in the first place? The sex of a fetus, whether male or female, is most often viewed as superfluous information at best to someone that believes abortion is a viable option. So why the concern only when it seems that one sex is being targeted?So I ask the reader: Is it wrong to abort more female's than males? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Chinese abortion policy & Pro-choice/life considerations)" part to the topic title.

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Most of the criticism that I've heard about China and abortions is directed to the government's policy that requires women to get abortions under certain circumstances. The reasons for any thinking person to oppose this policy are clear. (Curiously, Pat Robertson's criticism of the policy was mild at best.) You don't have a great track record here for getting details right, so I'm skeptical of your description of the program.However, you seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that many in the anti-abortion camp have; the idea that supporting the right to get an abortion equates with agreeing with the reasons someone is getting an abortion. People who believe there should be a right to get an abortion free from governmental intrusion into the decision are not "pro-abortion." They simply believe that it's not the government's place to dictate when and under what terms it should be allowed. That isn't the same as saying they agree with every reason anyone would have for getting one. One can easily argue for a right to an abortion and still argue against whether someone should have an abortion in any given case.It's analogous to free speech. I firmly beleive that Nazis, the KKK and any other hate group has the same right to speak that I do, but I vigorously oppose the message that they send.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No. If we look at 150 random abortions, and 125 happen to be female, I don't think anyone Pro-Choice would start complaining. Their complaints don't originate from the actual abortion of these females, but instead from the thought up intention of reducing the number of females in the Chinese society. Is this wrong? To want to reduce the number of females in society? I don't think it is, so long as such reductions are not being carried out by ending the lives of people already in the world. Some societies value male children, and the families have little use for the females. Some societies value female children, and the families have little use for the males. The Chinese population is doing what it thinks will help it better survive. It is falling into the beautiful formula of Darwinian evolution, just like every successful criter on the planet. I would assume also, however, that many Pro-Choicers are also female rights activists. In my opinion, it is the fact that they are feminists before Pro-Choicers that is causing this reaction. One point which they might have, is that the women are not being allowed to choose in China whether they want the abortion or not. I don't know if this is truly the case, but perhaps Pro-Choicers see something like high female abortions as being a sign that women are forced into aborting. This of course takes away their choice, and that would cause the Pro-Choicers to grow red with angry rage. Myself, as a Pro-Choicer, could care less how many children of each sex are aborted. So long as both couples freely choose to abort--in absense of necesity based on the mother's ability, health etc.--and one member of the couple does not force the decision on the other (including women forcing it on the men), I do not see why there should be any problem one way or the other.Jon

the issue taken with this action is that a society-wide devaluing of the roles and lives of women has resulted in a preference for sons. this is because only sons are viewed as bringing honor and being able to provide for their parents. in the light of the population reduction programs that have been implemented since the 60s (i think. i wrote a paper on this but god help me i'm bad with dates.) such as the one child policy in which parents are financially punished for having more than two children. (there is no stated policy for mandatory abortions, and the national government has spoken out against them on numerous occasions, but some local authorities have utilized such.) likewise, parents are rewarded for having only one child. parents with two children receive no aid or censure. the current policy is, however, two children, one son in which families with a daughter can try for a son. this policy is intended to reduce the gender disparity which is rapidly growing and some 8 million men will be without potential wives in about 20 years.the protest in this case is against that devaluing of women which results in the specific abortion of female fetuses in preference for a son.

in my research, there are no such policies. 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. however, any higher parity children are not killed, simply taxed. there have been local abuses, but there is no national policy resembling this draconian suggestion.

once again you're obfuscating reality just to bad-mouth people who disagree with you.the issue here is that the purpose of abortion in this country is to have the right to control the output of one's own uterus irrespective of the wishes or opinions of anyone else. the purpose of abortion in china has been to get rid of a "useless" daughter in order to be able to have a son. this is because men are the only valued members of society, free to their choice in employment having the ability to provide for their parents. women are required to serve specific limited roles and are not viewed as bringing "honor" to their families. when a woman marries, she becomes a part of her husband's family, leaving her parents with no children. in the light of the programs implemented to reduce the population growth in china, this leaves parents with no desire to raise a daughter only to comepletely lose their investment in her.the idea is that if women had equal rights and opportunities in the country, then women would be selected for just as often. might i mention... do you really want 8 million frustrated chinese men? do you know the kind of social issues that could result from gender disparity? increases in sexual slavery kidnappings, increases in disease with unregulated prostitution, increase in violent crime from the gangs necessary to run an underground sex industry, fraud, money laundering, extortion... do i need to go on? not to mention a potential army of unattached 8 million chinese men who could easily be drafted and sent out to war with who increases their level of frustration.it is not wrong to seek to ensure that you have a child who will be able to care for you in your old age. it is wrong to perpetuate ideas that women have no value.

Because they're not making a choice; they're having a choice forced on them by government policies and social necessity.Pro-choice isn't just a slogan, slappy, like the way "pro-life" is. It's an actual description of the fact that we'd prefer women had the free choice about who was able to gestate inside their bodies. Because it's indicative of the fact that being female is a liability in Chinese society.And you'll notice that none of the pro-choice feminists who are concerned about this issue say that the solution is to prevent anybody in China from having an abortion. (Go on, I dare you to find someone who's said that.) The proposed solutions eliminate the liability of being female and so eliminate the reasons one would practice sex-selective abortion in the first place.

Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I've been traveling alot this month.But anyway... I'm going to address this point only because the rest of your post seemed like a bit of a tangent.The issue with China forcing abortions to lessen the amount of children being born is always an issue that is concerning to pretty much all parties involved. Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is unified on this one aspect. Both parties seem to be in agreement that it is a moral injustice.But this is getting away from my main premise, which is the humanity of it all-- or in this case, the inhumanity. How can some of us have it both? How can you in one instance say that a fetus is not a human being at all with no rights available to them, and yet, hypocritically cry foul ball because more female non-humans are being killed at a higher rate than male non-humans? That makes no sense whatsoever.What difference does the sex make if a fetus is not even considered a person in the first place?I read some of the other posts and many went on tangents that misses the focal point. I would like this to be addressed because this, as I suspected, forces proponents of abortion to face the humanity of their decision and drives a wedge in between two topics that many feel passionately about. Namely, abortion and women's rights.Which takes primacy?

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

I find some irony in this post. Whats the problem with that? They can all be homosexual, and be happy.

Thank heavens you were here to be able to answer the nature/nurture question once and for all, now we don't need to do any of that tedious research to answer that conundrum.Do you think we can set up some sort of evangelical camp to convert them to being gay?TTFN,WK

A woman's right to choose takes primacy.If a woman chooses to have a son instead of a daughter, where's the dilemna?If a woman is forced to have a son instead of a daughter, where's the dilemna?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

In the long term the real choice will be the same for all of us:Stop too many children from being born or starve them to death afterward.The Chinese (thanks to Mao) left it a generation too late. If the choice of being able to have a child now has to be restricted it is because of the poor choice made a generation ago.As we are going now we will face the same choices in a generation or two.When the pressures build the philosophical descendants of todays fundies and pro-choicers may find themselves on the same side and advocating forced sterilization and forced abortion. Starvation of your own children may sharpen the issues for both sides.

It makes no sense to you because, again, the woman whom the fetus is inside is completely invisible to you. From your fetus-centric view it doesn't make any sense at all.From the perspective of the woman and her choices? It makes perfect sense. One is a woman exercising a (relatively) free choice about who is allowed to gestate within her body; the other is coercion making that choice for her.Learn to see women, NJ, and not just fetuses, and it'll become clear to you.

A very good friend of mine who lived in china for many years told me that the extent of male-female unbalanced ratio is often misunderstood. Yes, on the official papers there are indeed many millions more males than females. However, one has to actually live there to know that there are literally many millions of unregistered females. Why? With the one child policy, a family has to (1) find out if it's male or female and abort if it's female, (2) somehow kill the baby girl and proclaim death at birth, or (3) just don't register the baby girl and hide the fact that you've given birth at all.Most people in China can't afford to have ultrasound find out the sex of the unborn child. Most people would at least feel uneasy killing their own child. With China's population still being overwhelmingly farmers and peasants, not having the authority know that you've given birth is a relatively easy thing to do. Choice 3, therefore, is the logical choice for most people.But as riverrat suggested, since all chinese people are going to hell anyway for not being christian (I'm joking here) there's nothing for them to lose so they should just turn gay...

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!