Forced Abortion in China.

This (sadly) is not news.
Recently Canada deported a woman who was responsible for the forced abortions of thousands of women in China (thereby denying her the ability to immigrate). She claimed she was a pawn of the gov’t and appealled. I can not recall if she was successful or not (i believe not).

[sacarsm]
China is just defending its interests
[/sarcasm]

[sarcasm]falk makes really relavent connections to other arguments, and successfully discredits them [/sarcasm]

Those of you who think of abortion as a right should consider the Nazi and communist usage of those same medical practices there. The choice has been lost.

because abortion was used in a terrible way does not mean that we should ban it here.

I don’t see the sarcasm, and yes, the connection has no other relevancy but to discredit the use of the words “defend your interest”.

because abortion was used in a terrible way does not mean that we should ban it here.

That is true, however this also does not mean we shouldn’t put restrictions on it (such as no partial birth abortion and parental notification laws) or even outlaw it entirely as some would desire.

Just to throw this into it…

I have a little test for pro choicers… Some I believe feel that it is a woman’s right to an abortion, and to take it away is some kind of "control’ men want to have over women. Or, are you just a fem nazi man hater. Well, here it is.

First, for this to be at all accurate I have to assume that if you are pro choice than you believe that, that covers abortions for financial reasons. If a woman either can not afford, or does not want to have a baby because of the cost than she should be able to have an abortion.

Ok, can a man abort his financial resposibility the same way? Meaning, before the child is born, can a man tell a woman (and the court) “I do not want this child, if her choice is to have this child than she assumes all responsibility.” The woman, now having this new information can decide if she wants to keep this child and take the full burden of the cost.

This right of “choice” has always been one way because of the idea “it is her body, you have no say”. This scenerio has nothing to do with her body, she can do as she pleases. But the man now has been given the right that women claim the entire abortion issue is about.

A very interesting question!

I am somewhat divided on the issue. I do think abortions and birth control help to level the historical field of responsibility towards child-rearing. Women were unquestioningly burdened by children in a way that men typically have not been (within patriarchal societies of course). This is not to say that children are a burden, but rather that the choice about pregnancy never really existed. There was no effective method of prevention, and the physical impact was placed on the mother. Plus, social networks, which were ideally supposed to spread care around, etc., couldn’t necessarily be relied upon. From a responsibility aspect then, I would lean towards saying no, the husband does not have a right to abrogate financial responsibility, since it’s 1. not clear that decisions over a baby are purely the mother’s prerogative (legally if not morally), and 2. I would be concerned about a “bait and switch” routine. A father, for example, shouldn’t simply lead a mother on until late in the pregnancy, then announce his position.

That said, however, I find that a time limit mitigates a lot of these feelings. If the father makes a statement within the first trimester of his intentions while an abortion (at least the first one) may have little impact on the mother’s health, then I could imagine that due warning has been given, and equal protection has been provided. In that case, I would lean towards yes, a father does have the right to abrogate responsibility, provided that he must support whatever medical procedures are necessary to either abort the baby or bring it to term, depending on what the mother would like.

I think an important factor that I have left out is the disproportionate share of physical burden that the mother must undertake. When we think of compensation, we have talked about it as after the baby is born. But, does the fact that the physical impact of pregnancy inheres to mothers therefore eliminate any need for equal protection? However, do the options provided by birth control and abortion for women’s choice therefore allow men some (but not total) say over how the pregnancy, etc. should proceed? Since we’re dealing with the choice side of the debate, what trumps: choice for men or sanctity of body for women?

Thanks for a very thought-provoking question.

Chengora,

I’d be interested in your thoughts (and others who may want to discuss) regarding how this scenario plays out between parents and minors. For example, do you think the parents of a pregnant 15 yr old can force an abortion because they will have to financially support the child, at least for the first few years? Must they financially support the child? If not, who does?

Ah, tricky again. I was also thinking of a scenario between boyfriend and girlfriend versus husband and wife, and what changes that makes.

As for the parent-minor concern, my initial reaction is over “ownership,” loosely defined. Children, while they can sue to divorce their parents, aren’t full adults, and so don’t have full control of their bodies, livelihoods, etc. As such, I would say, yes, parents can force their child to have an abortion, provided they and the minor are fully cognizant of the health and psychological risks, if any, that might be involved. As an implementation though, I’m not sure how that would work. Strapping a teenage girl down to an operating table doesn’t seem like an especially good idea. However, this solution rather simply assumes who pays: the parents of the minor. I’m not certain that’s the case. If the minor is the one who must take financial and social responsibility for the child, then I’d be inclined to think differently. If that’s the case, then because of inherence of responsibility, the minor could bring the baby to term over the objections of her parents.

I think we can further complicate the situation further by asking what the father and his parents would want. I can envision a nightmare scenario where one set of parents wants the child, while another does not, but that may also conflict with the desires of both the mother and father. This is why I never want to go into family law. I think ultimately it is a social call though: what limits do we set for minors to have control over their own bodies? And how does that complement (or not) policies on the age of responsibility and adulthood? Moreover, how does something like religion play in? What if the parents religiously cannot accept abortion, but the mother or father can? What if the roles are reversed?

The best that I can say for this is I hope that the instances of its occurrence are rare. For the ones that do occur, I hope that mediation can resolve the dispute. But, for those awful times when it all comes together, I am slightly inclined to think that the one who pays is the one who decides, but this must be measured against the potential for health and psychological harm. I don’t know if any family or individual in this kind of situation can walk out of an abortion or resolution to keep the baby and not be utterly devastated by it. If that’s the case, then maybe there’s an argument for more birth control. :-?

Since we’re dealing with the choice side of the debate, what trumps: choice for men or sanctity of body for women?

the problem comes when the father wants the child, but the mother does not. how can you proceed there? im reluctant to say that the father can force the mother to carry to term, but at the same time, its his baby as well. it should not be purely the womans decision. its a difficult question. but, if the sex was consensual, and contraception was used, then neither planned on having a baby, but does that give the mother the right to abort it even if the father wants it? i dont know… im pro-choice, but i dont think abortions are “good” things, that is, i support their existence, but i dont like the idea, nor do i think that people should use them wantonly (have unprotected sex, then abort anytime they get pregnant). i would be inclined to say that if there are no health risks, if the father wants the child, then the woman should have to carry it to term.

but i agree that as long as the father notifies the mother sufficiently early to be able to abort it or carry it, then the father should be able to abort his connection to the baby as well, if the mother wants to carry it. if they use contraception, and it was consensual sex, then neither planned on the baby, so because the mother wants it isnt a reason to punish the father. he should be involved in the pregnancy, either until its carried to term, or till its aborted, financially as well, but after that, i think he should be able to terminate his responsibility to that child, if he didnt want it.

@Chengora:

As such, I would say, yes, parents can force their child to have an abortion, provided they and the minor are fully cognizant of the health and psychological risks, if any, that might be involved. As an implementation though, I’m not sure how that would work. Strapping a teenage girl down to an operating table doesn’t seem like an especially good idea.

this kind of turns the “pro-choice” movement on its ear.
I’ve seen and heard of similar scenarios - where a young woman is “forced” to abort her child by her parents. This is not a physical “strapping down to the table” that you describe (again - that would be “assault”) but financially, emotionally, etc.
Lucky for her that her parents were “pro-choice” . . . .

Hmm…you know, if money isn’t an issue, and the father wants the baby but the mother does not, then I’d probably defer to the wishes of the mother. Her body (definitely) and psychology (probably) are much more impacted by pregnancy and child-birth. But, I agree with your assessment of abortions. They’re not good things, but their existence is necessary, I think.

I’ve also wondered whether the concern over wanton abortions is somewhat exaggerated. I don’t know the numbers, but I thought the procedure itself can be rather expensive, and that that in itself would make the decision at least a careful one.

@Chengora:

Hmm…you know, if money isn’t an issue, and the father wants the baby but the mother does not, then I’d probably defer to the wishes of the mother. Her body (definitely) and psychology (probably) are much more impacted by pregnancy and child-birth. But, I agree with your assessment of abortions. They’re not good things, but their existence is necessary, I think.

I’ve also wondered whether the concern over wanton abortions is somewhat exaggerated. I don’t know the numbers, but I thought the procedure itself can be rather expensive, and that that in itself would make the decision at least a careful one.

not in a country with sociallized medicine.

I don’t know what the costs are but I am certain the cost is much, much less than child support would be (this is the fathers point of view). It would also be much, much less than the opportunity cost that the mother would give up due to the subsequent difficulties of gaining a college degree or career with kids (this is the parents point of view).

I don’t think that the cost would really be that big of an influence argueing against having an abortion.

@221B:

I don’t know what the costs are but I am certain the cost is much, much less than child support would be (this is the fathers point of view). It would also be much, much less than the opportunity cost that the mother would give up due to the subsequent difficulties of gaining a college degree or career with kids (this is the parents point of view).

I don’t think that the cost would really be that big of an influence argueing against having an abortion.

Valid points certainly, but I was thinking more that the cost of an abortion, while certainly far less than the costs you mention above, would still be prohibitive of the type of reckless behavior that we mentioned. I did a google search, and it appears that they can run US$400-600 in the first trimester and $500-5000 in the second. The question here isn’t so much whether an abortion is prohibitively expensive the first time, but whether it is expensive enough to deter future behavior based on a somewhat cavalier attitude.

Well, perhaps I am giving too much credit for people in that not everyone has great foresight nor does everyone have the ability to prepare for tomorrow when they must make ends meet today. Certainly there are those who only live day-by-day (whether by stupidity or by necessity) and $500 would be a big deal.

I get mixed answers when I ask that question, most to the left will concede that a man should have that choice. But there are some that are fanatical that think that it is all the womans say (I DESPISE when someone says “when a man can get preg. than he can have a say”). Somehow a man not wanting to become a parent is not relavent. Most to the right think a man should have a say, (even if they are pro life, they would like to have some say… even if they will never use it). But there are those who think that this (and it probably would) lead to more abortions. Also consider that if this was made law, the scenerio of a woman getting preg to try to hold onto a man in a relationship that is dead would not happen nearly as much. Just about all “relationships” that come about because of pressure of an unwanted baby end very badly.

I believe that abortion in the first month is ok. That is before the child has brain waves. That is when I think it is human (yes, all animals have brain waves and are not human, but using that standard than you could “abort” after the baby is born because it is no more inteligent than a chimp). If a woman wants one than I don’t think anyone has the right to stop her.

You may think a month is not enough time to decide to have one, or even to know if you are preg. To that I say first… tough, you need to make a decision quickly - a human life is at stake. And about not knowing, if you are gonig to take on the resp. to have sex than you should you should have to take on the resp of knowing if you are preg. You miss a period, test yourself and decide.

I am pro life, but I am not insane with it. My sister died because she gave birth. She didn’t know it would kill her. And I fully support a woman who wants to abort if her life/health is at stake no matter how far along the preg. is.

If the morning after pill works, and is SAFE… it should be made legal IMO. I think that pill would solve a lot of the problems.