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

Maybe someone already answered this but...The pro-choice movement is about giving women the option to end an unwanted pregnancy and/or to allow women to save their own lives when threatened by a pregnancy which threatens their health.The pro-choice movement, while not specifically asking the details about the thought making processes, generally doesn't expect people to be using abortion as a means of sex selection.The "typical", though hypothetical, abortion candidate in the mind's eye of the pro-choice crowd is the 17 year old girl who's gotten pregnant by accident, doesn't want to derail schooling in order to have this child. 2nd to this would be the woman with eight kids who just can't afford to have another, etc.They don't imagine the woman, pressured by her culture to produce a male child, who's aborting her 4th pregnancy because yet again it's a girl. It's not a part of American society, so it's not a part of our mindset when considering American policy.As for hypocracy, who knows. Personally, I don't think American policy makers should consider Chinese cultural biases when considering how we write our laws - particularly those laws which aren't related to trade with China.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?As it stands now, the "pro-choice" "pro-life" crowd simply breaks down into "Pro-sexual freedom" "pro-repression".And yet the "pro-repression" crowd somehow thinks they have the moral highground. Hypocracy abounds.

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._____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

i am aware of the story. and i believe it. but there are no policies for this. these are abuses by local officials which can and should be stopped. but probably won't be. and they ought to be. this is among the steps "we" have demanded china take to join the "rest of the world" in respecting human rights. i am aware.the problem is that these policies are imposed when simply educating the population and empowering the position of women would do the job. india has a similar problem and a different solution... none. however, in kerala, they instituted serious education reforms and the population growth stalled on it's own. educated women who don't have to gain the approval of their families by making babies won't make babies. it is a complex problem, but it has a very simple solution which answers the question in the OP. the problem here isn't really the position and policies of the government, those are just a poorly aimed solution. the problem is the position of women and the role they have been forced into. the abuse of female abortions isn't an offense against those fetuses, it's an offense against the women who have been abused into thinking that they are not useful members of society and that to have a daughter (another woman) would make them even less valuable. it is merely a symptom of the all around devaluing of women in that culture.these are the sources for my paper.Agence France Presse. 2006. “China to pay farmers more for having fewer children.” October 16.BBC Monitoring International Reports. 2006. “China implements policies to counter gender imbalance.” September 22.BBC Monitoring International Reports. “China's population to peak soon - family planning official.” October 9.Bongaarts, John. 1984. “Implications of Future Fertility Trends for Contraceptive Practice.” Population and Development Review 10-2 (June): 341-52.Bongaarts, John. 1994. “Population Policy Options in the Developing World.” Science, New Series 263-5148 (February 11): 771-6.Caldwell, John C, James F Phillips, and Barakat-e-Khuda. 2002. “The Future of Family Planning Programs.” Studies in Family Planning 33-1 (March): 1-10.China Daily. 2006. “Population to peak at 1.5B in 2030s.” June 23.China Daily. 2006. “One-child policy 'will not change'.” September 30.David, Henry P. 1982. “Incentives, Reproductive Behavior, and Integrated Community Development in Asia.” Studies in Family Planning 13-5 (May): 159-173.Freedman, Lynn P and Stephen L Isaacs. 1993. “Human Rights and Reproductive Choice.” Studies in Family Planning 24-1 (January-February) 18-30.Gulhati, Kaval. 1977. “Conpulsory Sterilization: The Change in India's Population Policy.” Science, New Series 195-4284 (March 25) 1300-5.Hindustan Times. 2006. “PM frowns on tough population checks.” August 23.Indo-Asian News Service. 2006. “No easing of restrictions in Beijing's population control policy.” September 23.Irish Times. 2006. “China's hard line on family planning.” May 9.Jowett, A J. 1984. “The Growth of China's Population, 1949-1982 (With Special Reference to the Demographic Disaster of 1960-1961).” The Geographic Journal 150-2 (July): 155-170.Laidlaw, Karen A and Edward G Stockwell. 1980. “Fertility Control Programs in Asia: Another Look at the Data.” Asian Survey 20-8 (August): 803-11.Merrick, Thomas W. 2002. “Population and Poverty: New Views on an Old Controversy.” International Family Planning perspectives 28-1 (March): 41-6.Monro, Alexander. 2006. “Hidden legacy of China's family plan.” New Scientist, July 8.Murayama, Hiroshi. 2006. “Population explosion gives way to worker shortages linked to one-child policy.” The Nikkei Weekly, September 4.Narayanan, Vasudha. 1997. “'One Tree is Equal to Ten Sons': Hindu Responses to the Problems of Ecology, Population, and Consumption.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65-2 (Summer): 291-332.Norton, James H K. 2005. India and South Asia. Iowa: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.Ogden, Suzanne. 2006. China. Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.Population Council, The. 1981. “India: Population Growth in the 1970s.” Population and Development Review 7-2 (June): 325-34.Population Council, The. 2006. “Twenty-first century India: Population, economy, human development, and the environment.” Population and Development Review (June).Sen, Amartya. 1996. “Fertility and Coercion.” The University of Chicago Law Review 63-3 (Summer): 1035-61.Sen, Amartya. 2001. “Population and Gender Equity.” Journal of Public Health Policy 22-2: 169-174.Shen, Jianfa. 1998. “China's Future Population and Development Challenges.” The Geographic Journal 164-1 (March): 32-40.Singh, Susheela, Deidre Wulf and Heidi Jones. 1997. “Health Professionals' Perceptions About Induced Abortion in South Central and Southeast Asia.” International Family Planning Perspectives 23-2 (June): 59-67.South China Morning Post. 2006. “New policies needed to tackle an old problem.” May 26.South China Morning Post. 2006. “Shift planned in population policy.” October 10.Spengler, Joseph J. 1956. “The Population Problem: Dimensions, Potentialities, Limitations.” The American Economic Review 46-2 (May): 337-51.Statesman, The. 2006. “From liability to asset.” June 13.Tabbarah, Riad B. 1976. “Population Education as a Component of Development Policy.” Studies in Family Planning 7-7 (July): 197-201.Tien, H Yuan. 1987. “Abortion in China: Incidence and Implications.” Modern China 13-4 (October): 441-68.Tsui, Amy Ong. 2001. “Population Policies, Family Planning Programs, and Fertility: The Record.” Population and Development Review 27-Supplemental: 184-204.US Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Rank Order - Infant mortality rate. http://www.cia.gov/...tions/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html (Novermber 13, 2006).US Census Bureau. World Population Information. World Population Trends. U.S. Census Bureau: Page not found (November 20, 2006).US Library of Congress. China. China (October 28, 2006).US Library of Congress. India. India (October 28, 2006).Wertheimer, Linda and Jill McGivering. 2006. “Morning Edition: Chinese government continues population curbs.” National Public Radio, 17 October.Xinhua News Agency. 2006. “1st Ld-China focus: Gender Imbalance worries China, govt takes action.” September 22.Xinhua News Agency. 2006. “Beijing will not ease restrictions on birth of second child.” September 29.

NJYour good!But you must realize sir, that we don't have the right to tell China what to do. Appearently, it would violate some vaporous, higher, and objective moral law if we did. If you have the time, would you review this thread: http://EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose. -->EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose.Any admonishment or confirmation would be welcome.

no. one or several ant eaters had a long snout and a long tongue and that helped him eat more easily, thus allowing him to survive long enough to fuck a lot and pass on his long snoutedness. again, it's not necessity, really, so much as only the ones who had long penises could mate and they passed on those genes for long penises. if men evolved alone, you might have a point, except not. males are not a species. it is more likely that women, with the capacity to participate in prenatal nurture, would be able to randomly develop asexual reproduction. but it would probably happen by mistake (random fusing of two ova) rather than by any process controlled by genetics. i really couldn't describe for you what it might take for women to start reproducing asexually. btw, of all the asexual species which still demonstrate sexual differentiation (ie being recently asexualizaed) i've only heard of females. like those crazy lesbian lizards who still require copulatory stimulation to initiate a pregnancy. you clearly demonstrate that you don't speak for any man but yourself. don't claim to speak for half of the world population if you don't. am i a dyke because i've been with one other woman in spite of my general preference for and impending marriage to a man? or is that just one more hot thing for you to jerk to? that's a trick question, since i don't consider myself as having a sexual orientation, but you get the picture. i wonder what you would do in prison if presented with the option of seeking protection from another man through favors or be beaten or raped by everyone else daily.there was a pamphlet talked about on this american life by stephen donaldson, an activist with the stop prison rape campaign.
This American Life you should listen to it. or read it on the stop prison rape website.
Stephen Donaldson (activist) - Wikipedia
there's the wiki article on the author.

Ha ha! You are "right" that I've avoided using it. That is because we are comparing the societies of the United States and China.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.As for "Human Rights", which is the inevitable next step in this conversation, I don't believe that we can completely disentangle the hypothetical human from the cultures in which they exist.

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_____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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.

Human Rights in China
Page not found | Human Rights in China | HRIC

​

Reporters Without Borders: 2007 China Report
Bienvenue sur le site de Reporters sans frontires | RSF

​

Amnesty International
Amnesty International

_____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I spotted at least 6 articles that we ourselves are violating while couldn't find any article which pertain directly to PRC's tax laws.Like I said, we should not impose our standards upon them, they should not impose their standards upon us.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.

I think I wasn't clear enough with this sentence."who are we to tell them they are wrong."I don't mean that we don't have the right to "tell" them, as in, we should not communicate our displeasure.I mean, we don't have the right to enforce change upon as a nation as a result of our displeasure.If a non governmental organization wants to organize boycotts of company which do business with China because of these issues, and that in turn leads to change in China, more power to them.I just think that we have a kettle/pot situation going when we hold ourselves out to be the morality police while in turn violating human rights all over the place.

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. 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.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And how exactly to they control this? This is faulty logic. Just because you live in Taiwan does not mean that you are a moral person. You could be a child rapist and still live there. Meanwhile, just because I live in the US does not mean that I am no-account. It simply means that there are more idiots here than smart people.

I'm not sure how I could have done that seeing as how I did not offer any of my own feelings on the matter. What do you care though? According to the Pro-abortion movement, a fetus is a non-human whether that fetus is male or female. Brenna, there is no doubt you are right when it comes to women's rights in China. But we aren't talking about women? We are just talking about inhuman blobs that just so happen to have two X chromosome's. What exactly makes it wrong? Isn't that a matter of opinion that differs greatly from American culture to Chinese culture? I mean, afterall, the naturalist explanation for why morals formulate is due to cultural influence. The Chinese simply grew up differently than you. It would be a difficult thing to do than express their killing of more females than males as morally reprehensible, all the while, defending the act of killing itself.

---

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

You are so close NJ. You are just wrong on one account. We ARE talking about women. I know that pro-lifers despise women, but just stop for a second and think.Who aborts the fetuses. Is it women or men?I know it might be a hard question, so I won't let you wait to long for the answer. In all cases it is women having the abortion.The problem is that since it is the women that are pregnant, they should be the ones making the decision. But the data suggests that they are under some kind pressure to abort female fetuses.If they are pressured into a decision they would not otherwise make, it is BAD. Because we think that human beings should be able to CHOOSE how they want to live their lives, and what happens to their body.So the bad thing is that women are forced to abort, not that they abort. Its not about the fetuses its about the women.

A bit of a tangent here, but notice that pro-lifers say "abortion is murder" but they also say "it's okay to abort in cases of rape."Can you think of any other crimes in which we don't execute the fathers but do execute their children?What's the difference between a fetus conceived through rape and one conceived through consentual sex? The difference is, the woman who chooses to have sex has done something "bad".It's total hypocracy on the pro-life side.But back to the other stuff... I agree completely that there is "some kind of pressure" going on here. The question is, is the pressure coming from the Government or from the society?We have pressures in our own society. "Women should have babies in their 20s to mid 30s" or "the perfect family is 2 kids" or "single women shouldn't have children", etc. etc. etc.Some of these pressures are stronger than others. The pressures in China may be stronger than the examples I gave, but if they are societal pressures they are no more valid or invalid than the ones we experience.If women here are having abortions because they don't want to have kids at a young age, or because they aren't married, etc. that is no better than abortions in China over the babies sex.