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

[RJ 17]

Yeah, just wanted to point out that this is nothing new. China doesn't "want" to implement a 1 child policy, it already HAS implemented a 1 child policy. It's been going on for a pretty long time now. Barbaric as it is, they justify it by saying they're a nation of x billion people, population control is a necessity for the preservation of resources. I don't like such a policy, but that's their justification for it.

 

[Woodsey]

I think you're confused about why abortion is advocated in the first place: women's control over their own bodies.

Another human being is not your own body.

The issue is not her body but the body she is creating for everyone else to feed, clothe, and house.

He was talking about why abortion is advocated in the rest of the world, and that's why we advocate it in the rest of the world.

It doesn't make it any less incorrect if we're going to be pedantic about it.

What doesn't make what less incorrect if we're pedantic about what?

Well the concept of "My body my rights" Is only half correct. Technically speaking, you can't lay claim to your future child's body as though it's your property any more than you can your grandfather's corpse.

Well, yeah, you can, given that it's a group of half-developed cells in your body that's going to have to exit your body.

Anyway, the other guy took a line of my post and addressed it out of context; the thrust of my comment was that pro-choice in the rest of the world exists because it's ultimately a matter of women's rights. The guy I quoted was saying it would be hypocritical to condemn them for this when we already accept abortion - I was saying that was stupid. We don't accept abortions no matter what.

And so there's no confusion, who is "We"?

The Western world, collectively, has a consensus that women should have the choice to have abortions, because it is perceived as a matter of women's rights.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, just wanted to point out that this is nothing new. China doesn't "want" to implement a 1 child policy, it already HAS implemented a 1 child policy. It's been going on for a pretty long time now. Barbaric as it is, they justify it by saying they're a nation of x billion people, population control is a necessity for the preservation of resources. I don't like such a policy, but that's their justification for it.

One would think your viewpoint may be different if your culture was shaped around multiple widespread famines that resulted in child slaves and children being openly used as a source of food.

Yeah, it might. But guess what? It wasn't. As such I'm well within my rights to say that I don't agree with their system, but I understand the justification for it.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Some of these comments disturb me .. I understand the law is the law- but people are allowed to question whether if that law is really an aspect to society or just a ridiculous one that only inflicts communities in a negative manner. And this law, is wrong to me.

I don't understand how China can do that- forcing a woman to abort a baby. Regardless if it was intended or not, pregnancies do happen and it's not fully under people's control. Imagine if USA came up with a law that if you didn't have enough money to support a baby, you would have to abort it. Because of the law made, should we accept it and scold every mother for having a baby while being poor anyhow? I say no.

Considering how over-populated China is I really don't have an issue.

I won't judge you nor call you out of course but... why would you say that if I may ask? The baby was 7 months old and was almost ready. I mean, I can understand how you could see it as such but still.. a place that's over populated doesn't excuse what the mother was forced to do. Also if their government allowed it- the mother could of moved out of China and kept the baby so would you still have no issue if there was another solution at hand?

Its the way China operates, they can not allow one to slip through because others would want the same treatment. China is not like America, their freedoms are limited. I would of rather have put it up for adoption, but honestly with everyone suffering the way they are I couldn't picture it working out.

In the end the Baby wasn't allowed to live in China. What does that leave for this child?

I want another solution, but I'm having trouble finding one.

 

[Yan007]

They are becoming overpopulated, there is reason behind this, the problem is though about girls being killed or aborted because they tend to be less useful for physical labour

Ahahahahahaha! Wait, you're serious?! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

The reason why families want boys and not girls is plain and simple when you get down to it: If you have a boy he will have to take care of you when you get older and if you have a girl she is not expected to take care of you but of her husband's family instead.

 

[Yan007]

I think you're confused about why abortion is advocated in the first place: women's control over their own bodies.

Another human being is not your own body.

The issue is not her body but the body she is creating for everyone else to feed, clothe, and house.

Actually it is a non-issue here in a day-to-day basis. If you don't have any family to take care of you or if you're too poor, you can simply die and no one will do anything. There is no welfare money if you can't provide for yourself.

 

[Woodsey]

I think you're confused about why abortion is advocated in the first place: women's control over their own bodies.

Another human being is not your own body.

The issue is not her body but the body she is creating for everyone else to feed, clothe, and house.

He was talking about why abortion is advocated in the rest of the world, and that's why we advocate it in the rest of the world.

It doesn't make it any less incorrect if we're going to be pedantic about it.

What doesn't make what less incorrect if we're pedantic about what?

Well the concept of "My body my rights" Is only half correct. Technically speaking, you can't lay claim to your future child's body as though it's your property any more than you can your grandfather's corpse.

Well, yeah, you can, given that it's a group of half-developed cells in your body that's going to have to exit your body.

Anyway, the other guy took a line of my post and addressed it out of context; the thrust of my comment was that pro-choice in the rest of the world exists because it's ultimately a matter of women's rights. The guy I quoted was saying it would be hypocritical to condemn them for this when we already accept abortion - I was saying that was stupid. We don't accept abortions no matter what.

And so there's no confusion, who is "We"?

The Western world, collectively, has a consensus that women should have the choice to have abortions, because it is perceived as a matter of women's rights.

I disagree with this consensus honestly. Surely the father should also have a say in the matter. I realize that this goes off tangent slightly, but making a child requires two individuals, and neither should be under represented.

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.

 

[aestu]

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.

 

[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.

Sharing finances isn't quite the same as somehow sharing the act of giving birth. I suppose you could force a melon out of your arse hole whilst your girlfriend is forced to give birth next to you because you demanded so.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, just wanted to point out that this is nothing new. China doesn't "want" to implement a 1 child policy, it already HAS implemented a 1 child policy. It's been going on for a pretty long time now. Barbaric as it is, they justify it by saying they're a nation of x billion people, population control is a necessity for the preservation of resources. I don't like such a policy, but that's their justification for it.

One would think your viewpoint may be different if your culture was shaped around multiple widespread famines that resulted in child slaves and children being openly used as a source of food.

Yeah, it might. But guess what? It wasn't. As such I'm well within my rights to say that I don't agree with their system, but I understand the justification for it.

So then what exactly would you do instead?

Well since China already has Big Government to take care of everything, have a state-sponsored foster program to offer adoptions to people in other countries while maintaining various incentives - other than forced abortions - for families to have no more than 1 child. Any child that doesn't get adopted gets sent abroad at a certain age (say, 18) to live and work for x years before they can come back. Not so much deporting your own people as it is sending them on a Quarian-style pilgramage.

 

[Denamic]

I think you're confused about why abortion is advocated in the first place: women's control over their own bodies.

Another human being is not your own body.

The issue is not her body but the body she is creating for everyone else to feed, clothe, and house.

He was talking about why abortion is advocated in the rest of the world, and that's why we advocate it in the rest of the world.

It doesn't make it any less incorrect if we're going to be pedantic about it.

What doesn't make what less incorrect if we're pedantic about what?

Well the concept of "My body my rights" Is only half correct. Technically speaking, you can't lay claim to your future child's body as though it's your property any more than you can your grandfather's corpse.

Well, yeah, you can, given that it's a group of half-developed cells in your body that's going to have to exit your body.

Anyway, the other guy took a line of my post and addressed it out of context; the thrust of my comment was that pro-choice in the rest of the world exists because it's ultimately a matter of women's rights. The guy I quoted was saying it would be hypocritical to condemn them for this when we already accept abortion - I was saying that was stupid. We don't accept abortions no matter what.

And so there's no confusion, who is "We"?

The Western world, collectively, has a consensus that women should have the choice to have abortions, because it is perceived as a matter of women's rights.

I disagree with this consensus honestly. Surely the father should also have a say in the matter. I realize that this goes off tangent slightly, but making a child requires two individuals, and neither should be under represented.

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.

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.

It's her body.
She's the one carrying it.
She's the one that gives birth.
She's the one risking her life.
The man only put his dick into her.
It's obvious that the woman gets the final say.

 

[Yan007]

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.

I'm pretty sure we could both agree though that if a man does NOT want the child his partner wants to give birth to, then if he makes this known at the beginning of the pregnancy (with legal stuff implied to removed foul play), then he should be allowed to not pay anything to the mother and the kid as she made the final choice of keeping the kid knowing full well she would have no support from the dad.

 

[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.

snip

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.