SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: The Philosopher who wrote (5789)2/14/2001 12:37:18 PM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Good morning Chris
What I find much more difficult, and may merit some discussion here on the thread, is forced abortion carried out in a medically safe and appropriate way as a means of population control.

I'm not sure that I follow the reasoning for your quandary. I think it fails to deal with the basic question of the humanity of the unborn. For instance would your quandary remain if it were babies under say six months of age that were the target? How about Six days old? I guess the question I have is why is it presumably alright to kill a baby even in the act of being delivered, as in partial birth abortion, but five minutes later that baby is "granted" the full protection of the law and all the rights associated with that.

As far as the idea that this is necessitated by over population, I think I would challenge that basic assertion as well. There is lots of food, and lots of space left on this planet. How interesting that feminists, fail to recognize that so much abortion in the third world is done for the purpose of de-selecting and killing of girls.

Have a good day.
I enjoy reading your posts.
Greg



To: The Philosopher who wrote (5789)2/14/2001 8:20:02 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486
 
After your post she did post that she opposed Chinese rights abuses. But this is totally contradictary to what she has posted in the past, that whatever a society accepts is moral and right.

I see no contradiction at all. X said that the actions of the Chinese government were not acceptable to her, under her own moral criteria. That does not mean that she is claiming that her personal moral criteria are in any way absolute. She also did not claim any right to impose her views on the Chinese, which is of course a moot point since neither she nor anyone else has the capacity to impose another set of moral values on the Chinese.

It seems axiomatic that whatever a society accepts as moral and right is moral and right to them. They make it so by their acceptance. That does not mean that those actions will be considered right and moral by anybody else. This, of course, raises a common question: how drastic does the difference between our neighbor's moral code and our own have to be to justify forcible intervention in our neighbor's affairs?

The theory of self-determination, of course, holds that intervention is never justified. In practice, we often decide that it is justified, though that decision generally has more to do with capacity and self-interest than it does with morality.



To: The Philosopher who wrote (5789)2/15/2001 7:29:45 AM
From: long-gone  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486
 
China Uses Abortion as Female Genocide
CNSNews.com
Thursday, Feb. 15, 2001
LONDON - Shocking pictures of an apparent victim of China's "one-child policy" - a newborn baby girl lying dead in a gutter, ignored by passers-by - have prompted shock and revulsion.
The pictures, published in a British newspaper Wednesday, come at a time British government officials are holding talks in China over human rights issues.

The U.S. administration is also this week expected to decide on whether to support an annual U.N. resolution condemning China's human rights record. Members of the Senate Tuesday introduced a resolution urging President Bush to "take the lead" in an international censure of Beijing.

The photographs were taken by a horrified visitor and smuggled out of China after police questioned her for photographing the dead child, and confiscated films.

The woman said the baby's naked body, spotted lying alongside a road in a small town in Hunan province, was still warm - she had clearly been dumped and had just died.

Many passers-by on their way to work ignored the child, the Mirror quoted her as saying, while some stopped to look, then walked on. Pictures showed life going on as normal, until an elderly man eventually put the tiny body into a box and carried it away.

The woman said she called the police, who took more than three hours to arrive. When they did, they questioned her for an hour, checked her identification papers, and took all her film, except for one she managed to hide.

China's population is expected to increase from 1.26 billion at the end of 1999 to 1.6 billion in 2050.

Abortion Used Against Women

Under a "one-child policy," introduced in 1979 to help slow down the galloping population growth rate, parents are routinely sterilized and face large fines if they have more than one child.

The government claims it has successfully prevented 250 million births since it was introduced.

But it has also been estimated that the policy has resulted in there being 60 million more males in China than females. Many parents, aware they will only have one child to look after them in their old age, want that child to be a son, say human rights campaigners.

As a result, parents who can afford it have their child screened in the womb, then abort girls. Those who give birth to girls may abandon them or leave them to die.

Determination of gender during ultrasound scans has been officially banned for years, but the practice continues. One 1999 report on the International Planned Parenthood Federation Web site says that between 500,000 and 750,000 unborn Chinese girls are aborted every year after sex screening.

Last August, Western newspapers reported a case in which "family planning" officials had killed an unauthorized baby in front of its parents.

The Huang family already had three children when the mother fell pregnant again, according to the reports. Having botched an attempt to induce an abortion, "family planning" officials then ordered the father to kill the newborn baby, whom he instead tried to hide. Eventually they found the baby boy and drowned him in a rice paddy, in front of the parents.

"China's population-control policies allow petty bureaucrats across the country a free hand to ruin people's lives as they extort bribes and gifts and dispense life-or-death decisions," one London newspaper reported at the time.

After a public outcry, authorities reportedly arrested three "family planning" officials.

According to information provided by the Chinese Embassy in Britain, the government views the policy as benefiting the whole of society. It claims that "forced abortion and sterilization are strictly prohibited by the Chinese laws and offenders will be punished according to law."

A Taiwan newspaper in December quoted the director of China's state "family planning" commission as admitting that the policy has led to forced abortions, sex-selective abortions, as well as infanticide and the abandonment of newborn girls.

But China would go on implementing the policy, he said, while continuing to oppose "coercion" and "induced abortion."

The policy has been relaxed in some areas, and some parents are allowed to have a second child, in return for paying a fee, often more than a year's wages.

Desensitized

Britain's largest pro-life organization, Life, said that while the pictures were deeply upsetting, it was grateful to the photographer for getting out images depicting so vividly "the depths that China's so-called family-planning policy has sunk to."

Life spokesperson Nuala Scarisbrick commented on the obvious indifference of passers-by to the abandoned baby.

"Evidently in China they have become as desensitized to the horror of culling newborn children as we in the Western world have become to destroying preborn children."

Scarisbrick berated the British government for funding international "family planning" agencies that promote abortion. She called on the government to follow President Bush's example and stop using taxpayers' money to support these agencies.

The human rights organization Amnesty International said while it did not have a position of the "one-child policy" itself, it was opposed to the resulting human rights violations.

"We believe the Chinese government should take action to ensure that its family planning officials do not commit human rights violations by making women have abortions, even physically detaining them to have abortions," said Amnesty's Isabel Kelly.

Gary Streeter, international development spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said Wednesday it was essential that Britain contributed in no way to "this appalling practice" and lobbied Beijing to ensure that it ends.

In a letter to International Development Secretary Clare Short, Streeter called for an extensive review of all British-funded Chinese government and nongovernmental bodies "to ensure that no British taxpayers' money is directly or indirectly supporting the one-child policy."

A spokesman for Short said in response to queries that the department "does not fund population control in China or anywhere else."

Copyright CNSNews.com
siliconinvestor.com