Forced abortion

[Russ]

I don't believe there is a definitive cut off between the two and as such i don't think there's a clear cut "can't abort people but can abort potential for people"

So let's say hypothetically if there's a person / potential for person that is 6 months and 30 days old, you can abort them, but if they're one day older you can't?

What about 6 months 29 days? 6 months 28 days? 27?

If there was a definitive cut off then it would be pretty clear cut -> no abortion of people but abortion for potential of people (given that sperm and eggs are the same essentially, and if you didn't agree with the latter then you would be saying masturbation is murder)

Your thought process here is really confusing and I have no idea what you're saying. Are you saying it's not okay to prevent abortion of a foetus that can survive but allow abortion of those prior to that point? Why not?

Well theoretically a young foetus doesn't require anything intrinsic to the mother's body to stay alive (hypothetical test tube babies, so if these did occur it would invalidate that justification)

That's irrelevant, if the mother isn't pregnant then how can abortion be relevant. It's not alive no matter where it is.
Also, nice attempt to avoid the topic lol

[Russ]

Why is the mother deciding to have an abortion at 4 months rather than 4 weeks relevant to whether it's morally acceptable?

[Special At Specialist]

Why is the mother deciding to have an abortion at 4 months rather than 4 weeks relevant to whether it's morally acceptable?

Because the fetus is further developed at 4 months than it is at 4 weeks. Eventually, the fetus starts to develop pain receptors and becomes self-aware, and that is when I would classify it as "living".

[Russ]

I think you're right, but at the same time it's worth looking at the context. The anti-abortion lobby in the US has gotten incredibly loud quite suddenly. I can't say for sure why that is, but I'm sure that economic insecurity and the threat of no longer being the world's superpower is related, at least to a degree. Rights to abortion have been established for a very long time, it's interesting that they are under serious threat right now, and not say, ten years ago.

Have they really ever been that quiet though? America has a pretty solid history of violent opposition towards abortion. I suppose it's interesting to consider the social context and the GFC as factors though. I agree that they're probably partly responsible, since people are now starting to reevaluate their role and their own security but there's been opposition ever since Roe v Wade (whenever that was)

On the topic of abortion, I think a foetus does have certain rights. For instance, I think foetal homicide laws are a good thing (as in, criminal penalties for killing a foetus, not necessarily on par with murder charges though). However, the rights of the foetus do not supersede the rights of women. I don't think a debate on whether or not a foetus is 'a human' or 'alive' at a particular point is helpful. Either way, there is a conflict about which rights prevail, and I think that the fully realised woman has to win that conflict.

I like the way this is expressed, so I quoted it <3

[paulsterio]

Because an unfit mother could be classified by some as "mentally ill" or an "inferior mother" and would therefore be ineligible to conceive a child.
Also, do not mistake me. I am only against abortion in some scenarios. I'll try to clarify things:
I am in favour of abortion (by choice) when:
- The fetus has not yet properly developed (less than 28 weeks pregnant)
- The mother is incapable of supporting the child
- The child would be considered a liability (as is the case with overpopulation)
- The mother is at risk from pregnancy
- The mother did not consent to unprotected sex before the pregnancy (such as rape)
I am against abortion (morally, not legally) when:
- The fetus is almost fully developed (such as the last 2 months of pregnancy)
- The mother had ample opportunities for an earlier abortion
- The child would be beneficial to the mother, the family and the country

Forced abortion is different though. In the case of forced abortion, I would expect that the government provides sufficient warning beforehand, explaining the choices and responsibilities of the mother.

So you're saying that if the child is beneficial to the mother or her family then she should have it? Who are you to make that decision for her, about her body and her life?

Also, how do you know if a baby is going to be a benefit to society or not?

[Russ]

Because the fetus is further developed at 4 months than it is at 4 weeks. Eventually, the fetus starts to develop pain receptors and becomes self-aware, and that is when I would classify it as "living".

I am in favour of abortion (by choice) when:
- The fetus has not yet properly developed (less than 28 weeks pregnant)

I think you need to straighten out your opinion here >.<

[Thu Thu Train]

Because an unfit mother could be classified by some as "mentally ill" or an "inferior mother" and would therefore be ineligible to conceive a child.
Also, do not mistake me. I am only against abortion in some scenarios. I'll try to clarify things:
I am in favour of abortion (by choice) when:
- The fetus has not yet properly developed (less than 28 weeks pregnant)
- The mother is incapable of supporting the child
- The child would be considered a liability (as is the case with overpopulation)
- The mother is at risk from pregnancy
- The mother did not consent to unprotected sex before the pregnancy (such as rape)
I am against abortion (morally, not legally) when:
- The fetus is almost fully developed (such as the last 2 months of pregnancy)
- The mother had ample opportunities for an earlier abortion
- The child would be beneficial to the mother, the family and the country

Forced abortion is different though. In the case of forced abortion, I would expect that the government provides sufficient warning beforehand, explaining the choices and responsibilities of the mother.

So you're saying that if the child is beneficial to the mother or her family then she should have it? Who are you to make that decision for her, about her body and her life?

Also, how do you know if a baby is going to be a benefit to society or not?

Exactly! For all we know the baby could be the next Lenin or Stalin!

[Special At Specialist]

So you're saying that if the child is beneficial to the mother or her family then she should have it?

I probably worded that the wrong way. What I meant was, if the child is healthy and able to be taken care of well, then that should be one of the reasons in favour of having a pregnancy (I'm not saying that this is solely enough to be against abortion, just one of the factors).

Who are you to make that decision for her, about her body and her life?

It would be for the greater good. I'm not saying that the means always justify the ends, but unless one of the circumstances that I suggested is prevalent (ie. rape, poverty, health risks, no previous opportunities etc.) then I think that we should prioritise the bigger picture.

Also, how do you know if a baby is going to be a benefit to society or not?

I worded it wrongly. I was more referring to if the baby is likely to be physically healthy and given good opportunities to succeed in life (regardless of whether they are actually successful or not).

[JellyDonut]

I'll play.

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

Without freedoms or rights, or at least a conception of it, they aren't really in a position to voice their need for freedom (or rights). In any case, there isn't an east vs west conflict as the Chinese were apparently as equally horrified.

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.

As far as I'm concerned, the dichotomy between losing control and being in a state of chaos is false. There are other more effective measures in population control than legislating women's birth canals. Secondly, it achieved nothing. Not even in 'making an example'. Filling out birth forms is stuff, I'm assuming, most families do anyway, and the repercussions of forgetting to do one isn't one that should justify murder. It's akin to getting your hand chopped off because you forgot your PE uniform. Moreover, the government were forced to admit wrongdoing which further bolsters my point

[Special At Specialist]

WOAH! Hold on now, tiger.
As long as you've acknowledged the aborted child as a life, I have a few questions for you.
What you're saying is, killing people is completely acceptable, as it reduces the population.
Were you also pro-holocaust? And a pro- any instance of people being murdered?
Let's make a check-list for the holocaust:
- The population is reduced (a) ✓
- The law is enforced (at that time for germany)(b) ✓
- People are discouraged from contributing to overpopulation (c) ✓
- The death of the baby was some was relatively painless (unlike dying from famine, being shot in the head would have been quicker) (d)✓
- The mother has less responsibility (she didn't even have to take care of herself because she wasn't alive) (e) ✓

I think your list of reasons for 'forced abortion' has got to be, by far, one of the more ridiculous things I've ever encountered.

In your diaries, as you've acknowledged the 'being' (what do i call it? Child? foetus? Im not sure) that was aborted, is a child.
and for the mistakes of the parents who didn't sign a form, it was justified to kill it? GG man you need to get some things set straight, for real.

You're pro-murder.. dafuq?
new low S@S

When I first started arguing in the previous topic, I was referring to the general case of forced abortions in China. I was unaware that she had been given an exemption, provided she signed the form, which I later apologised for.
Firstly, I am not pro-murder. The Holocaust is very different because those were free people who were persecuted and killed. In this case, an underdeveloped baby that is confined to the stomach of his mother is not free. Secondly, the mass-genocide in the Holocaust did not serve any real purpose (other than eugenics, which I will try to divert the topic away from), whilst preventing overpopulation does. Thirdly, citizens of China are given the right to have one child and they are fully aware that conceiving of more than one child could result in an abortion. They are given a choice, unlike the Jewish prisoners of WW2. Clearly, you sympathise more for the mother of the baby than for the baby itself.

But the most important thing is the humanity. The death camps of World War 2 were far less humane than injecting an unborn baby with poison which would almost instantly kill the baby/fetus. Once a baby is born, then the baby should be given a significantly larger amount of rights than an unborn baby. The one child policy acknowledges this and will do anything to protect a baby that has taken its first breath of fresh air.

I worded it wrongly.

You do that a lot don't you!

Sometimes, though others do as well. Nobody's perfect.

[Special At Specialist]

Also, I challenge anyone to find a better method of dealing with overpopulation in China which does not involve forced abortions to those unwilling to comply.

[Flying Emu]

Their claim: "sending threatening text messages"

Their example: "[40,000 yuan], it should not be a cent less than that,"

Is that so threatening?

Its more of a justification most likely [I'm assuming] when the couple requested a reduced penalty.

What do you guys think?

Also, I challenge anyone to find a better method of dealing with overpopulation in China which does not involve forced abortions to those unwilling to comply.

I quite agree with S@S here, it could well be one of the few effective methods but is it really the most ethical and moral way of dealing with this issue?

[JellyDonut]

^Yes, especially when coupled with the fact that they kidnapped his wife, extorted the family for money and inform them of what they would do (threaten them essentially)

Also, I challenge anyone to find a better method of dealing with overpopulation in China which does not involve forced abortions to those unwilling to comply.

Gladly,

Parents choose to have smaller families when health conditions improve so that they no longer have to fear that many of their babies might die, and when they do not have to rely on their children to work on the family farm or business or to take care of them in their old age. In addition, more parents are sending their daughters to school, which is important also because women with basic education tend to produce healthier children and smaller families. More women now have opportunities to work outside the home, so they are
starting their families later and having fewer children. On top of all that, access to family planning is improving, so parents can control the number and spacing of their children.

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

Ever wondered why developed nations have low birth rates even without a baby quota?

[paulsterio]

I probably worded that the wrong way. What I meant was, if the child is healthy and able to be taken care of well, then that should be one of the reasons in favour of having a pregnancy (I'm not saying that this is solely enough to be against abortion, just one of the factors).

You seem to word things wrongly pretty often, just putting it out there you know

But how do you know these conditions will exist, and who are you to say whether the mother has the capability to take care of the child or not, who do you think you are, god? It doesn't work like that, you don't have that right.

Thirdly, citizens of China are given the right to have one child and they are fully aware that conceiving of more than one child could result in an abortion. They are given a choice, unlike the Jewish prisoners of WW2. Clearly, you sympathise more for the mother of the baby than for the baby itself.

No, this is not the case, they are not given a choice, sometimes things happen.

Also, I challenge anyone to find a better method of dealing with overpopulation in China which does not involve forced abortions to those unwilling to comply.

Don't worry, the problem will solve itself, because there is horridly more men that women in China, their population will start to decline gradually, simplistic view yes, but over time it will work

[Flying Emu]

^Yes, especially when coupled with the fact that they kidnapped his wife, extorted the family for money and inform them of what they would do (threaten them essentially)

Kidnapping is far from it. Forced it may be, it was still legal, only up to the abortion stage itself then matters went black. If they were taken to jail for failure to pay the fine then matters would have been different, no doubt they probably would have had to 'kidnap' her to place her in jail.

Anyway the money was owed, it wasn't like they were stealing cash from her, the law is there. If you break the law here in Australia and fail to pay the fine anyone would expect to be repeatedly pestered by the government about the payment. They were no threats, although they work for the government, they are citizens like the couple as well, they have a job to do and there is no clear benefits from threatening anyone (and as previously mention it wasn't even threatening). The money goes to the government, not them.

Parents choose to have smaller families when health conditions improve so that they no longer have to fear that many of their babies might die, and when they do not have to rely on their children to work on the family farm or business or to take care of them in their old age. In addition, more parents are sending their daughters to school, which is important also because women with basic education tend to produce healthier children and smaller families. More women now have opportunities to work outside the home, so they are
starting their families later and having fewer children. On top of all that, access to family planning is improving, so parents can control the number and spacing of their children.
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

This is not a solution. This is a reason as to why parents choose smaller families, not how to solve China's overpopulation. It even states so in the first sentence.

Also, I challenge anyone to find a better method of dealing with overpopulation in China which does not involve forced abortions to those unwilling to comply.

Polygamy could possibly solve the answer. As Paul mentioned, there are more men than women, polygamy would satisfy a large proportion of women, and having a relatively small number of babies to parents could easily solve the overpopulation issue. There would be much more space as there are more than a couple living in a single home.

The only problem is getting them to accept it =/.