Woman in China was forced to abort her baby by government officials.

[Yan007]

Yeah, I'm arguing around the hypothetical of the woman wanting the abortion and how much the man has a particular say in that issue.

As long as there is a fair way for a man to pull himself out of an unwanted pregnancy, then I see no problem leaving the final choice of the abortion to the woman as well. As long as her decision makes a man liable to take care of two people for some decades, then he should have a word in the matter or the law should be changed to allow him to pull out of the situation at an early stage so that both parties can have a fair situation.

 

[Woodsey]

Fathers do have a say in the matter, but they're obviously never going to have the final say because they're not the ones who have to give birth or be pregnant for nine months.

Nor does a woman have to spend her life with a pair of gonads hanging in a sack between her legs that hurt real bad when kicked and tends to get gorged with blood at the most inconvenient times.

It takes two to tango, but you're pretending otherwise because you consider the rights and contributions of only one party. Bigotry.

Yeah, life is so tough having a pair of balls between my legs. I don't know how I've coped.

And that's not bigotry, that's accepting the fact that one person has to give a far bigger contribution in the process than the other.

To be frank. "I have the final say because I would be doing most of the work!" Is no different than a man saying "I decide how we spend our money because I pull the most hours and work the hardest!" So I find this logic behind the argument that she should ultimately have the only say that actually matters to be rather ridiculous.

Irrelevant, other options don't work. You can't give people 'equal say' or else it's meaningless, and awarding the man majority say means forcing a woman into giving birth over something that might be a total accident.

And that'd be a major regression on, I dunno, about a century's worth of progress in female equality.

Sure you can.

Both parties agree: A baby is born/is aborted

The man wants and abortion, the woman wants the child: The woman is allowed to have the child but the man is freed of any financial responsibilities if she chooses to have that baby.

The man wants the baby/woman wants the abortion: The growing fetus is removed and implanted into a surrogate. The woman is naturally freed of all financial obligations to the child.

A perfect system? No, but still far and by the best.

Because there are lots of wannabe-surrogates walking around. But again, that still involves the woman going under an operation. And I'm pretty sure you'd have to do that at the embryonic stage anyway.

If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point. And obviously yes if this is passed the embryonic then she probably would gain precedence, but then if it's passed that stage anyway then he should have spoken up sooner if he wanted the child.

'If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point.'

Rather depends on the nature of the operations. And again: there's hardly an overwhelming number of people who want to get pregnant just to give the baby away.

 

[Crazycat690]

Meanwhile in the western world female characters in games are considered an important feminist issue. Considering that the oversexualized characters that gets the most complaints are also asian-made characters the whole thing is kinda funny.

But yeah, China is in a bad situation, desperate times calls for desperate measures.

 

[Skratt]

The country of china contains 1/6th of the ENTIRE PLANETARY POPULATION. It's great to be a pro-life armchair crusader when your country isn't rife with over-population.

Forced abortion is a terrible tragedy but population control is also very important there. Think about it. There are 1+ billion people over there. If China were like the Duggars, in 3 years they could nearly double that number and if the entire world didn't help support that influx of people, hundreds of millions would starve and die. The net loss of life is the same if not more without population controls. It's a cold hard reality and it sucks the proverbial big one, but it's there and isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[Woodsey]

Fathers do have a say in the matter, but they're obviously never going to have the final say because they're not the ones who have to give birth or be pregnant for nine months.

Nor does a woman have to spend her life with a pair of gonads hanging in a sack between her legs that hurt real bad when kicked and tends to get gorged with blood at the most inconvenient times.

It takes two to tango, but you're pretending otherwise because you consider the rights and contributions of only one party. Bigotry.

Yeah, life is so tough having a pair of balls between my legs. I don't know how I've coped.

And that's not bigotry, that's accepting the fact that one person has to give a far bigger contribution in the process than the other.

To be frank. "I have the final say because I would be doing most of the work!" Is no different than a man saying "I decide how we spend our money because I pull the most hours and work the hardest!" So I find this logic behind the argument that she should ultimately have the only say that actually matters to be rather ridiculous.

Irrelevant, other options don't work. You can't give people 'equal say' or else it's meaningless, and awarding the man majority say means forcing a woman into giving birth over something that might be a total accident.

And that'd be a major regression on, I dunno, about a century's worth of progress in female equality.

Sure you can.

Both parties agree: A baby is born/is aborted

The man wants and abortion, the woman wants the child: The woman is allowed to have the child but the man is freed of any financial responsibilities if she chooses to have that baby.

The man wants the baby/woman wants the abortion: The growing fetus is removed and implanted into a surrogate. The woman is naturally freed of all financial obligations to the child.

A perfect system? No, but still far and by the best.

Because there are lots of wannabe-surrogates walking around. But again, that still involves the woman going under an operation. And I'm pretty sure you'd have to do that at the embryonic stage anyway.

If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point. And obviously yes if this is passed the embryonic then she probably would gain precedence, but then if it's passed that stage anyway then he should have spoken up sooner if he wanted the child.

'If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point.'

Rather depends on the nature of the operations. And again: there's hardly an overwhelming number of people who want to get pregnant just to give the baby away.

There is a market for such things, but that's really irrelevant itself. If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world. That is something he took upon himself when arguing for the unborn embryo and is something he must consider.

'If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world.'

So... your plan is to have people walking around with some frozen embryos until they can find someone else willing to have them?

 

[Frankster]

idealist snip

Caramel if i didn't know you were that idealistic i'd have found it difficult to take you at face value >< Cant fault your intentions but i really do feel your wanting to be nice here would just make things 10x worst.

Fact of the matter is that regarding these sort of policies, you need to look at the bigger picture. Your short time generosity (let people have as many kids as they want) would translate in a population explosion with many negative repercussions (higher demand on ressurces, needs jobs to support extra population) leading to more cruelty then if you just implemented a 1 child policy. Chinese history is a sad reflection of that.

Though tbh i'm biased as living in a somewhat poor area of london, I see enough neglected kids and parents having kids too young and for the silliest of reasons (for free benefits so they dont have to work...Just meh, how is that good for anyone, including the kids?) that I often do think our own countries could do with a child restriction policy or even some sort of parenting test.

And then there's the whole dwindling ressources for a growing population problem that will surely need to be dealt with at some point, and draconian measures might be neccesary for the very survival of our species if we drop the ball the enough.

 

[Snowbell]

This is really common in China. And in a way, I approve of China's 1 child policy as the world is seriously overpopulated and at least they're tackling it. But it was cutting it pretty close leaving it until the seventh month. Though it raises the question of why she didn't abort it sooner.

This isn't the worst China's done, post-birth adoptions are common and female children are almost always aborted because of how Chinese families look after only the husbands parents.

I was actually having the same debate with some friends yesterday. As I see it, a better method than the one-child policy is to have a birth cap each year. The previous year, people would apply to have a child and their finance and situation would be assessed to decide whether they would be appropriate to have children.

The benefits to this would be:
Families can still have multiple children (within reason)
There would be no more 'chav' families living off child benefits
Children would more likely be born into a good family structure who can support them
It would create a motivation for people to work hard to be approved
Overpopulation would stop being a problem
Birth control would become mandatory, meaning fewer teenage girls would have to suffer traumatic abortions
Jobs would be created in the form of assessing the families and doing the paperwork
Numbers of adoptions would rise, as they would be exempt from the birth limit

The drawbacks are that rich families could be given preference (though limiting the number of children per family to, say 3 would help prevent this), and there would be a whole lot of fuss from pro-choice factions and religions who're annoyed their congregation can't have as many children to fuel their ranks

Inb4 'That's a really harsh view and you should feel bad': Can YOU think of a better way to prevent overpopulation?
I have a lot of pro-choice views too, and I'm not saying this 'conservative' policy should be implimented I just can't think of a better way to combat overpopulation and job saturation.

 

[HellenicWarrior]

7 months? That's just wrong on do many levels

 

[Woodsey]

Fathers do have a say in the matter, but they're obviously never going to have the final say because they're not the ones who have to give birth or be pregnant for nine months.

Nor does a woman have to spend her life with a pair of gonads hanging in a sack between her legs that hurt real bad when kicked and tends to get gorged with blood at the most inconvenient times.

It takes two to tango, but you're pretending otherwise because you consider the rights and contributions of only one party. Bigotry.

Yeah, life is so tough having a pair of balls between my legs. I don't know how I've coped.

And that's not bigotry, that's accepting the fact that one person has to give a far bigger contribution in the process than the other.

To be frank. "I have the final say because I would be doing most of the work!" Is no different than a man saying "I decide how we spend our money because I pull the most hours and work the hardest!" So I find this logic behind the argument that she should ultimately have the only say that actually matters to be rather ridiculous.

Irrelevant, other options don't work. You can't give people 'equal say' or else it's meaningless, and awarding the man majority say means forcing a woman into giving birth over something that might be a total accident.

And that'd be a major regression on, I dunno, about a century's worth of progress in female equality.

Sure you can.

Both parties agree: A baby is born/is aborted

The man wants and abortion, the woman wants the child: The woman is allowed to have the child but the man is freed of any financial responsibilities if she chooses to have that baby.

The man wants the baby/woman wants the abortion: The growing fetus is removed and implanted into a surrogate. The woman is naturally freed of all financial obligations to the child.

A perfect system? No, but still far and by the best.

Because there are lots of wannabe-surrogates walking around. But again, that still involves the woman going under an operation. And I'm pretty sure you'd have to do that at the embryonic stage anyway.

If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point. And obviously yes if this is passed the embryonic then she probably would gain precedence, but then if it's passed that stage anyway then he should have spoken up sooner if he wanted the child.

'If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point.'

Rather depends on the nature of the operations. And again: there's hardly an overwhelming number of people who want to get pregnant just to give the baby away.

There is a market for such things, but that's really irrelevant itself. If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world. That is something he took upon himself when arguing for the unborn embryo and is something he must consider.

'If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world.'

So... your plan is to have people walking around with some frozen embryos until they can find someone else willing to have them?

It sounds like you assume people are incapable of making plans before they act. Please don't do that. It is entirely possible that the man finds a surrogate prior to the procedure. The embryionic stage lasts roughly two months, that's often plenty of time to set things strait.

The mother might not even realise she's pregnant for a month (I mean Christ, some women have gone into labour before knowing they're pregnant). And I really think you're underestimating quite how difficult it'd be to find someone willing to carry your child when you've only given them a month's notice.

 

[Woodsey]

Fathers do have a say in the matter, but they're obviously never going to have the final say because they're not the ones who have to give birth or be pregnant for nine months.

Nor does a woman have to spend her life with a pair of gonads hanging in a sack between her legs that hurt real bad when kicked and tends to get gorged with blood at the most inconvenient times.

It takes two to tango, but you're pretending otherwise because you consider the rights and contributions of only one party. Bigotry.

Yeah, life is so tough having a pair of balls between my legs. I don't know how I've coped.

And that's not bigotry, that's accepting the fact that one person has to give a far bigger contribution in the process than the other.

To be frank. "I have the final say because I would be doing most of the work!" Is no different than a man saying "I decide how we spend our money because I pull the most hours and work the hardest!" So I find this logic behind the argument that she should ultimately have the only say that actually matters to be rather ridiculous.

Irrelevant, other options don't work. You can't give people 'equal say' or else it's meaningless, and awarding the man majority say means forcing a woman into giving birth over something that might be a total accident.

And that'd be a major regression on, I dunno, about a century's worth of progress in female equality.

Sure you can.

Both parties agree: A baby is born/is aborted

The man wants and abortion, the woman wants the child: The woman is allowed to have the child but the man is freed of any financial responsibilities if she chooses to have that baby.

The man wants the baby/woman wants the abortion: The growing fetus is removed and implanted into a surrogate. The woman is naturally freed of all financial obligations to the child.

A perfect system? No, but still far and by the best.

Because there are lots of wannabe-surrogates walking around. But again, that still involves the woman going under an operation. And I'm pretty sure you'd have to do that at the embryonic stage anyway.

If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point. And obviously yes if this is passed the embryonic then she probably would gain precedence, but then if it's passed that stage anyway then he should have spoken up sooner if he wanted the child.

'If she wanted an abortion then she'd end up needing to see a doctor with his own specialized equipment for that anyway, so moot point.'

Rather depends on the nature of the operations. And again: there's hardly an overwhelming number of people who want to get pregnant just to give the baby away.

There is a market for such things, but that's really irrelevant itself. If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world. That is something he took upon himself when arguing for the unborn embryo and is something he must consider.

'If the man wants the baby then he accepts responsibility for seeing it brought into the world.'

So... your plan is to have people walking around with some frozen embryos until they can find someone else willing to have them?

It sounds like you assume people are incapable of making plans before they act. Please don't do that. It is entirely possible that the man finds a surrogate prior to the procedure. The embryionic stage lasts roughly two months, that's often plenty of time to set things strait.

The mother might not even realise she's pregnant for a month (I mean Christ, some women have gone into labour before knowing they're pregnant). And I really think you're underestimating quite how difficult it'd be to find someone willing to carry your child when you've only given them a month's notice.

*shrugs* We're really only arguing specifics at this point. It's still leaps and bounds more ideal than the situation we have in place currently.

If such a perfect situation were to arise I'm sure people would consider it anyway.

 

[spartan231490]

Old hat. At least the chinese have the stones to address the issue of overpopulation. Also, it's not like she didn't know about the law, the law's been in place for decades. Don't break the damn law, it's not that hard, there are law abiding citizens everywhere.