Forced abortion

[Mao]

Restarted from : Forced abortion for a mother who failed to sign a form

Stimulus: http://www.theage.com.au/world/a-forced-abortion-for-a-mother-who-failed-to-sign-a-form-20120615-20eu6.html

Rules:

1. Failure to obey the rules means I will delete your post without warning.
2. No flaming. If you want to call someone a dumbcunt, you can get fucked.
3. I'm fairly sure the personal images thing has been dealt with, but let's make that explicit. Personal information of any kind, no matter where they are from or how publicly available they are, are not allowed.
4. Opinions are like nipples, everyone has them. Just because you have nipples doesn't mean your nipples are better than others. Respect others' opinions. You can argue against someone's opinions, but ridiculing them will attract a kick in the balls. It will be up to my discretion to decide how much ridicule is too much.
5. Severe cases of straw man and ad hominem will attract a mod edit where I replace your profile picture with "lewl i am teh stupid".

Now the ground rules are laid out.


I would like to invite SpecialistAtSpecialist back into this debate, he is doing an honourable thing by playing the devil's advocate. A completely different opinion is far more valuable in a debate compared to a room of samefags agreeing with each other.

In some parts, I agree with S@S's point of view. There are a couple of considerations:
1. None of us know the full story. This, as portrayed by western media, may be horrendously skewed.
2. Forced abortions happen all the time in China, some because the parents don't like the husband, some because someone hasn't paid a debt, this particular case is the government enforcing some regulations.

The constitution says everyone has rights and freedom and blah blah. China doesn't have the constitution. Why must people in China have freedom and rights? (99.9% of people get on just fine in China) Is the Western view of morality necessarily better, or is it only better because Western-educated people can only conceive morality in this way?

In my opinion, the government did go too far, but not in the way it is portrayed in the media here. Missing paperwork is one thing, but if I was a father, that would be the most important paperwork of my life, why would I miss it?

Furthermore, if this missing paperwork is widespread, the local government would have no idea what is happening, and if it bends to everyone's excuses, it will effectively lose control of the population. I won't go into what I think about the political ideals in China, but losing control is as good as anarchy. Sometimes 'making an example' is a necessary step to maintain control. In this case, it probably is a bit too far, but you have to agree it achieved all the goals of 'making an example' on a nationwide scale.

[paulsterio]

OK, so I'll keep this one civil, I hope everyone else does too. But here's what I have to say.

I think that whether forced abortions happen in China all the time or not are besides the point because we know that just because something happens doesn't mean that it is right, for example, theft occurs all the time in some parts of the world, but just because of that, it doesn't make theft "right".

I don't agree with everything that happens in the Western world, just like I don't agree with everything that happens anywhere, but I think that it's important that everyone at least has some fundamental rights, which include, what happens to their body. In the case that this does not occur, I think there should be clear rules which outline what the punishment is for the crime. For example, if it was said that the highest possible punishment for murder is capital punishment, then it's fair enough if a court finds that that is the right punishment for me. However, I've asked a few Chinese friends (I'm not Chinese - so I'm not sure about all this) - but there doesn't seem to be any "norm" that suggests you will be forced to have an abortion if you don't abide by the one child policy.

Other issues include the fact that the woman wasn't given much of a chance to defend herself, one of the great things about Australia and other such countries is that we have a stringent court system and we're entitled to the presumption of innocence, I don't think she was allowed this, and fair enough Mao, that it was important paperwork, but there might have been reasons why she might not have been able to get the paperwork in, we can't just treat everything as black and white, because sometimes, the shades of grey do exist.

I'm not saying that we should bend to everyone's excuses, as that would lead to an anarchy, but we should have some sort of system where it is fair, because sometimes those excuses might be legitimate, maybe/maybe not in this case, but surely there would be cases where it is so.

From a medical perspective, what they did was also quite dangerous, given that in Australia, it is very difficult to secure a long-term abortion, you must get the approval of two doctors, but on top of that you are just encouraged not to do it because of medical complications which might arise, I don't know if this was thought about before they aborted the child.

TL, DR? Well just read this, I just think that human life isn't something we can sacrifice so easily. It's true, she might have broken the law, but that does not mean we can kill her child, we can argue about it logically however we want, but emotionally, it is still not right, it still saddens me that there are doctors out there, who are willing to perform this, as in this case. Sometimes, we just need to show a little sympathy towards others, mistakes happen, but they can be fixed in a way that is both logically and emotionally better.

[Russ]

Well I missed this last night. Shrug.

This issue is probably rooted in philosophy rather than practical issues. If you simplify down all the fancy words, like neo-this etc. it's fundamentally a question of whether you believe the end justifies the means. If there's an issue of overpopulation or something that needs to be addressed via infringing on the rights of others, is that a sufficient justification for doing so? Can you justify killing one to save many is the typical scenario.

I swing pretty hard to the individual rights, objectivist (somewhat) view of no government intervention in personal matters, which should tell you my opinion on the matter. That said, I don't object to the abortion but to the infringement of her liberties. Government has no place doing that, fuck off. If you want a one child policy then find a better way to enforce it.

I'm sympathetic to the view that sometimes it is necessary to act in this manner, since it pretty clearly can have massive benefits. I just object to it and oppose it, because I don't like it.

TL, DR? Well just read this, I just think that human life isn't something we can sacrifice so easily. It's true, she might have broken the law, but that does not mean we can kill her child, we can argue about it logically however we want, but emotionally, it is still not right, it still saddens me that there are doctors out there, who are willing to perform this, as in this case. Sometimes, we just need to show a little sympathy towards others, mistakes happen, but they can be fixed in a way that is both logically and emotionally better.

Are you saying we can't kill the foetus according to ethics or because she hasn't given consent? I'm not sure why it saddens you that there are doctors willing to perform late term abortions, unless you're referring specifically to this situation.

[paulsterio]

Are you saying we can't kill the foetus according to ethics or because she hasn't given consent? I'm not sure why it saddens you that there are doctors willing to perform late term abortions, unless you're referring specifically to this situation.

I'm saying you can't kill the fetus because she hasn't given consent. I'm not talking about late-term abortions, I'm referring specifically to this case, the fact that they forced her down, and other nuances are just a worry, given how much emphasis the Monash MBBS course places on things like empathy.

[Eriny]

This is an interesting issue from a feminist perspective. At the moment, in the US there are increasing moves to restrict the reproductive rights of women, especially with this latest thing in Michigan where they are debating banning all abortions after 20 weeks, even if that would mean that a woman would have to carry to term and give birth to a dead/severely defected baby, even if the woman has health issues and physically can't say pregnant, etc. (it's the debate in which a woman was kicked out of the speaking house because she said the word 'vagina').

It's normal for governments to want to control reproduction, because it's the best means of controlling the population and production. In a xenophobic society like America, fewer abortions means that the population is more 'American', and they don't need to rely on immigration on their future productivity. In China, the population is huge, they need to lower it by whatever means necessary because of issues like food and resource supply, even means that are (in my view) completely horrific.

Bodies (especially female bodies) attract control in all different kinds of contexts. I think it is fair to condemn China for this practice, but don't think for a second that Western culture is somehow 'above' regulating our bodies, albeit mostly in ways that are relatively benign (taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, subsidisation of medical treatments, etc.), but were Western cultures to suffer from huge overpopulation pressures in amounts similar to China, I couldn't be certain that the same things wouldn't be happening here.

[binders]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279-h/21279-h.htm

[MonsieurHulot]

From The Age's article, which may or may not be correct, I believe that the Chinese government has acted illegally and immorally. Illegally by abducting the woman and holding her to ransom, and immorally by aborting her baby. Even if the law allowed forced abortions, it would still be an unacceptable practice. Just because it is the law doesn't mean that it is moral or right. The end in this case in no way justifies the means.

Sometimes 'making an example' is a necessary step to maintain control. In this case, it probably is a bit too far, but you have to agree it achieved all the goals of 'making an example' on a nationwide scale.

Yes, it achieved the goal. The abhorrent goal of making women fear that if they don't hand in the paperwork, their baby will be murdered.

[ninwa]

Yes, it achieved the goal. The abhorrent goal of making women fear that if they don't hand in the paperwork and bribe the officials, their baby will be murdered.

^ fixed that for you

/welcome to china

[Thu Thu Train]

Before we begin: I found a picture of Mao. Come at me bro.


Anyway: Regardless of whether or not the fetus is "alive"(I don't know when a fetus is considered alive). Women have every right to do what they want with the growth inside their body and the government has no right to force this or any woman to have an abortion regardless of their "policies".

[MonsieurHulot]

Anyway: Regardless of whether or not the fetus is "alive"(I don't know when a fetus is considered alive). Women have every right to do what they want with the growth inside their body and the government has no right to force this or any woman to have an abortion regardless of their "policies".

I don't know when life begins for the baby, but I disagree that "women have every right to do what they want with the growth inside their body". Say that life begins at six months from conception, then the baby should have all the rights of one that has been delivered. In that case, the woman should not be able to do as she likes with it, she would have to do everything in her power to keep that baby alive and healthy.
Before the hypothetical six month age of consciousness, then the woman should be able to have an abortion, although I'm still uncomfortable with abortions at any time.

[Russ]

Abortion is just a series of continuing shades of grey. I mark the time of "life" as when the foetus could survive outside the body, without medical intervention. Before that, there's really no biomedical difference between it and a parasite, other than the fact that most women want babies. It's her body, not an incubator for the baby and she certainly shouldn't have to act in its best interest rather than her own.

In a xenophobic society like America, fewer abortions means that the population is more 'American', and they don't need to rely on immigration on their future productivity.

Do you really think it's the xenophobia and not the overt religious influences? Xenophobia might be a part of it, but I think their position is being informed by their religous morals.

[MonsieurHulot]

Abortion is just a series of continuing shades of grey. I mark the time of "life" as when the foetus could survive outside the body, without medical intervention. Before that, there's really no biomedical difference between it and a parasite, other than the fact that most women want babies. It's her body, not an incubator for the baby and she certainly shouldn't have to act in its best interest rather than her own.

It's both her body and an incubator for the baby. If one decides to have sex, they (should) accept the responsibility that a baby may be conceived through their actions. Although there may be no biomedical difference between a baby and a parasite, there is a huge difference in terms of worth. A baby is a human being. It has a right to life, just like you or me. The argument that a women should be able to terminate/kill/abort the baby growing inside her just because it's her body isn't valid in my opinion.

[ninwa]

It's not a human being if it cannot survive on its own outside the womb, thus making it no better than a parasite, thus at that point the woman's right to her own body is paramount and she may do whatever she wishes

[paulsterio]

Can we not turn this into an abortion debate? This is not an abortion debate, and the original issue can be discussed without having to discuss abortion, but I see where both Russ and MonseiurHulot are coming from.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the woman if she chooses to have sex without protection, however, there may be special cases which we haven't considered yet, so I think it's not something that we can say is right or wrong, it depends on the situation.

[ninwa]

and the original issue can be discussed without having to discuss abortion

dude the title of this thread is "forced abortion"