NationStates Jolt Archive

Please don't turn this into yet another flame war.

This is a real situation in the town I am living in in China.

A friend of a friend of ours got pregnant. Unmarried, going out with an older married man -- you know the story. Anyway, in China, as part of the one-child policy, she will have an abortion one week from today (she found out she was pregnant today).
So....
Pro-choice people: This is the government's choice, not hers. People are prohibited from bringing a child to term until they have been married at least a year.
Pro-life people: There are people that have a child out of wedlock secretly, at home. The parent(s) are then fined at every step in the child's life (school, etc), and the woman would be fired from her job, and socially stigmatized.

So....from either side of the abortion issue: Opinions? Advice?

Remember that for me as a foreigner in China, the quickest way to get kicked out of the country is to criticise the one-child policy.

And please, don't flame each other in this thread, people -- I think both sides can agree on this particular issue.

I think China's one-child policy ought to be outlawed, it's a restriction on basic human rights. And I am pro-choice, but I think she shouldn't have an abortion, because it wasn't her decision, but the government's. If she wants to have a baby, she has the right to have one.

~Czardas

She could only have gotten pregnant one way and she shouldn't have been doing that. The government did not declare that she had to have pre-marital or even adulterous sex, so I can not see it as being the choice of the government. The government's law has been in effect for long enough for her to know that by doing what she was doing, she could bring herself to a position where she'd be considering an abortion. I can only see this issue as being the government's choice if they sprang the law on her the day before she got pregnant.

nice philosophy......anything more practical?

nice philosophy......anything more practical?

Well, you like to put the government at fault. That's wrong in my opinion, but the way I see it is that if she's having an abortion, ultimately the most innocent party, the unborn child, is put at fault. I don't mean to sound uncompassionate, but she should carry the child and live with the consequences. She brought them upon herself.

By the way, where do you live in China?

Pro-choice people: This is the government's choice, not hers. People are prohibited from bringing a child to term until they have been married at least a year.

Well.. techically I am neither pro-choice or pro-life, but contra-harm. Which in most cases happens to be equivalent to being pro-choice. In this case however it is hard to determine what does more harm..

A. Allowing her to have the child she wants, while she cannot support it, would therefor potentially be a drain on an already not too rich nations resources to the detriment of other citizens, as well as a potential social outcast.
B. Preventing her from doing that harm to herself, society and the future child by ordering her to have an abortion against her will, thereby harming her directly.

I am undecided as to who is right in this case :s

Please don't turn this into yet another flame war.

This is a real situation in the town I am living in in China.

A friend of a friend of ours got pregnant. Unmarried, going out with an older married man -- you know the story. Anyway, in China, as part of the one-child policy, she will have an abortion one week from today (she found out she was pregnant today).
So....
Pro-choice people: This is the government's choice, not hers. People are prohibited from bringing a child to term until they have been married at least a year.
Pro-life people: There are people that have a child out of wedlock secretly, at home. The parent(s) are then fined at every step in the child's life (school, etc), and the woman would be fired from her job, and socially stigmatized.

So....from either side of the abortion issue: Opinions? Advice?

Remember that for me as a foreigner in China, the quickest way to get kicked out of the country is to criticise the one-child policy.

And please, don't flame each other in this thread, people -- I think both sides can agree on this particular issue.

She should have thought about this before she messed around with a married man! She's brought it upon herself!

She should have thought about this before she messed around with a married man! She's brought it upon herself! I'm inclined to agree... the only problem is that the bloody government won't help her at all. I believe that if you're going to ban abortions (yes yes in my book) you should actually help mothers with unwanted, stigmatised children.

The way the one child policy is carried out in China is most certainly cruel. Yet I personally have more problems with other issues, such as political freedoms. The way the government carries out the issue is the main problem and needs to be solved first.

Well, you like to put the government at fault. That's wrong in my opinion, but the way I see it is that if she's having an abortion, ultimately the most innocent party, the unborn child, is put at fault. I don't mean to sound uncompassionate, but she should carry the child and live with the consequences. She brought them upon herself.

By the way, where do you live in China?


Umm, not to be rude but She's not getting the abortion because she broke the law, she's getting the abortion because she would break the law if she didn't. Please, read and make sure you understand the post before replying to it :rolleyes:

And Californian Refugees, Personally I think she shouldn't be forced to have an abortion, but there doesn't seem to be much that could be done here. I know the obvious thing would be to skip the country, but that's harder than it sounds, because where would she go? How would she get the money to leave China? Does she speak any other languages? How would she get a job and a home in an unfamiliar country? But then again, all options should be explored.

Maybe, since she is Chinese, she should be the one to criticise the law instead of you doing it and getting kicked out, unless of course it would bring bad consequences upon her on top of being forced to end the pregnancy.

But without actually having lived in CHina and been familiar with the laws, and without actually knowing you and/or your friend, there really isn't much I can say about it. Though I do know Chinese girl, maybe I could email her about it or post on her discussion board to get some advice for you?

Well, you like to put the government at fault. That's wrong in my opinion, but the way I see it is that if she's having an abortion, ultimately the most innocent party, the unborn child, is put at fault. I don't mean to sound uncompassionate, but she should carry the child and live with the consequences. She brought them upon herself.

By the way, where do you live in China?

Avios, in this case the government policy is dictating upon her abortion.

Chinas law requires abortions for more than one child, for pregnacies occuring out of wedlock, and for ones occuring earlier than a year into the marriages.

Your "she should carry the child" is moot, because she is forced by law to abort the child.

Whether you're pro-life, or pro-choice, the issue is the same: Chinese law is a clear violation of human rights; while reasoning from both platforms may be different, the result is the same.

China's policy is born of desperation. I think personal freedoms should be curved to prevent the crippling effects of overpopulation, which are numerous and ultimately more tragic.

Your "she should carry the child" is moot, because she is forced by law to abort the child.

Your "she is forced by the law" is moot, because no one forced her to have this affair.

Umm, not to be rude but She's not getting the abortion because she broke the law, she's getting the abortion because she would break the law if she didn't. Please, read and make sure you understand the post before replying to it :rolleyes:

I understand the situation perfectly and have voiced my opinion. I realize she did not break a law yet. Maybe you should have read my post more throughly.

Damn, and once again the CCP steps in. I guess it is up to her if she wants to try and have the child in secret or not. I have heard that some of the rual families have pretty much been thumbing their noses at the central committee on this and having children whenever. Advice, I have none to give. Opinion, well, I have never been fond of the CCP. I understand the logic behind the one child policy, but, this is why I am pro-choice, any goverment has no right making these choices for people.

This seems like a horrendous situation. Certainly not one an expectant mother needs to be saddled with.
Is there any legal way for her to leave the country? Does she have to stay in China?
This may sound ignorant, but I dont know. How shamed will this child be, growing up in China? Will he be considered a "bastard"? Will he ever know his father? Is it a disgrace there?

Your "she is forced by the law" is moot, because no one forced her to have this affair.

The affair is meaningless, the question is the validity and properness of the Law, you pedantic embicile.

I understand the situation perfectly and have voiced my opinion. I realize she did not break a law yet. Maybe you should have read my post more throughly.


I did read your post thouroughly, and you said that she should carry the child and live with the consequences, but it was clearly stated in the first post of the thread that this is impossible because by law she is required to abort the child. I'm doing my best to word my posts so that they don't sound rude, and I'm sorry if I do sound rude, but I feel this point really needs to be made because that is what is in question here: Whether it is right for her to be forced to abort, and what should she do if she wants to carry the child to term.

Again, I'm sorry if I appear rude I'm really trying not to be.

China's policy is born of desperation. I think personal freedoms should be curved to prevent the crippling effects of overpopulation, which are numerous and ultimately more tragic.

I fully agree

The affair is meaningless, the question is the validity and properness of the Law, you pedantic embicile.

Oi! Stop right there before this turns into a flame war! Flaming was asked to be left out of this thread, so let's stop before it gets any worse!

On the subject of the One-Child policy, I belive that it's pretty bad, but consider the alternative! Overpopulation, starvation, reccession! This could lead to the world being brought to its' knees! Don't belive me? How many products carry the logo "MADE IN CHINA"?

How many products carry the logo "MADE IN CHINA"?

Almost anything made from plastic. Almost everything sold in walmart.

Almost anything made from plastic. Almost everything sold in walmart.
Most of your clothing and shoes.

How many products carry the logo "MADE IN CHINA"?

Almost anything made from plastic. Almost everything sold in walmart.
Everything sold in any "Dollar" store. Everything sold in any "Party City".

I have seen a few clothing items "Made in Russia" and "Made in Syria" lately, which I had never seen before.

I saw cedar wood blocks designed to hang in a closet on sale for $1.00 each. The package said it was made in China from cedar grown in the US.

How cheaply does a chinese worker work? The lumber is harvested in the US-shipped to China, fashioned into these smooth blocks and shipped back. And sold for a dollar. What is the profit margin? how can someone profit?
It must have cost far more to ship it to China and then back to the US than the raw material and the labor cost. This was in a Target, not a dollar store or "Odd Lot" type store.

Almost anything made from plastic. Almost everything sold in walmart.
Everything sold in any "Dollar" store. Everything sold in any "Party City".

Most of your clothing and shoes.

This is why I consider the One Child Policy to be the lesser of two evils. Can anyone suggest something better that does not involve taking over neighbouring countries and exiling the natives?

Again, I'm sorry if I appear rude I'm really trying not to be.

Fair enough. It was that last comment that I should have read the post completely that peeved. Tekania, on the other hand, is a worthless flamer.

This is basicly a conflict between personal freedom and the good of the nation/world.

A one-child policy may not last long, but it's there to put an immediat stop to the growth, in time it will become a 2-3 child policy in order to get a steady state of the population. I do think that a 'more fair' policy, that has the same effect on the population, would be a policy in which every woman may have one child, not just married women.

If you choose for personal freedom in this case you'll end up with a population way bigger than you can sustain and you end with starvation and conflicts over land and food. Personnaly, i'm glad they did something as i don't like the idea of 2 billion (add random number larger than the current population here) chinese people that are forced to expand in order to survive.

On the subject of the One-Child policy, I belive that it's pretty bad, but consider the alternative! Overpopulation, starvation, reccession! This could lead to the world being brought to its' knees! Don't belive me? How many products carry the logo "MADE IN CHINA"?

Pretty bad, is Pretty bad. Therefore it should go. I could care less what the "theoretical alternative" is. Nothing else has been tried... Most of which would involve the people foreably replacing the tyrant regime which controls said state.

There is really no justification for denying the rights of these people; not only in this issue, because the actual issue here, and the reasoning, and the problem, has little to do with "overpopulation", but rather oppressive tyrany by the state, which rapes the people of their livelihood, allows foreign markets to exploit their people, while the state officers live in overt luxury at their expense.

Am I to assume Avion and yourself, see exploitation of the populous by a tyrant regime, a justifiable act? And therefore, more state tyrany, to "Control" the results of said exploitation and tyrany is also justified? Because the "alternative" to their "control" of the results of their exploitation and tyrany, is allowing the results to further impede upon the people being tyranized?

"Pedanitic" is to be severly narrowminded. That is, not looking at the complete picture of the situation. This goes beyond this single person in question, and it goes beyond mere concerns of "overpopulation" in this state. But questions upon the STATE itself.

If you're socialist, you're going to have severe problems in logical justification; since you oppose privitized exploitation, but seem to feel that exploitation by a military state is justified.

If you're a statist, there really is no discussion, because you're diametrically opposed to the ideals and principles of myself, and most of the free-world.

Avion seems more inline with what the system says, as opposed to what validates the system itself (s/he would have made a great Consul for Octavian and Nero while they torched people for fun).

This is basicly a conflict between personal freedom and the good of the nation/world.

A one-child policy may not last long, but it's there to put an immediat stop to the growth, in time it will become a 2-3 child policy in order to get a steady state of the population. I do think that a 'more fair' policy, that has the same effect on the population, would be a policy in which every woman may have one child, not just married women.

If you choose for personal freedom in this case you'll end up with a population way bigger than you can sustain and you end with starvation and conflicts over land and food. Personnaly, i'm glad they did something as i don't like the idea of 2 billion (add random number larger than the current population here) chinese people that are forced to expand in order to survive.

Except, the "overpopulation" and poverty stem from lack of persona liberties, and overt exploitation by the state in the first place.... More exploitation, and denial of liberties "solves the overpopulation problem" but not the actual CAUSE of the problem in the first place (which is exploitation through tyrany)

The affair is meaningless, the question is the validity and properness of the Law, you pedantic embicile.
I am not familiar with the word embicile? Was it supposed to be imbecile or does it mean something else?
Either way ad-hominem is still a logical fallacy

That sucks, personally I think the one child policy could stand being raised to two. They shouldn't depopulate too quickly, maybe they can import women from the Phillipines. ;)

Almost anything made from plastic. Almost everything sold in walmart.
Everything sold in any "Dollar" store. Everything sold in any "Party City".

I have seen a few clothing items "Made in Russia" and "Made in Syria" lately, which I had never seen before.

Holy Crap! Where the hell was that? I have never seen anything from syria besides insurgents in Iraq :)
Seriously though, it's a bad situation but ultimately she has to abort. the ethics are interesting as the government would not have forced an abortion if she had done the right thing. Although it sad it's necessary. China needs the One Child Policy as it's population is already around 1.1 billion which is about 4 times the U.S. (~285,000,000) or 55 times the Australian population (~20,000,000)

Holy Crap! Where the hell was that? I have never seen anything from syria besides insurgents in Iraq :)
Seriously though, it's a bad situation but ultimately she has to abort. the ethics are interesting as the government would not have forced an abortion if she had done the right thing. Although it sad it's necessary. China needs the One Child Policy as it's population is already around 1.1 billion which is about 4 times the U.S. (~285,000,000) or 55 times the Australian population (~20,000,000)

How much is one billion. There are at least two ways of doing it. Is it 1,000,000,000, or 1,000,000,000,000? Confused.

you pedantic embicile.
Flaming is unacceptable. Knock it off.
Tekania, on the other hand, is a worthless flamer.
Counter-flaming is unacceptable. Knock it off.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

How much is one billion. There are at least two ways of doing it. Is it 1,000,000,000, or 1,000,000,000,000? Confused.
it's the first one (1,000,000,000)

it's the first one (1,000,000,000)

Thanks! I get confused, so I just speak in terms of thousand-millions most of the time.

as a pro-choice person, i am of course against the notion of forced abortion.

there is nothing you can do but help her get through this. as a friend, give her emotional support, if she wanted the baby, she is going to need it.

Please don't turn this into yet another flame war.

This is a real situation in the town I am living in in China.

A friend of a friend of ours got pregnant. Unmarried, going out with an older married man -- you know the story. Anyway, in China, as part of the one-child policy, she will have an abortion one week from today (she found out she was pregnant today).
So....
Pro-choice people: This is the government's choice, not hers. People are prohibited from bringing a child to term until they have been married at least a year.
Pro-life people: There are people that have a child out of wedlock secretly, at home. The parent(s) are then fined at every step in the child's life (school, etc), and the woman would be fired from her job, and socially stigmatized.

So....from either side of the abortion issue: Opinions? Advice?

Remember that for me as a foreigner in China, the quickest way to get kicked out of the country is to criticise the one-child policy.

And please, don't flame each other in this thread, people -- I think both sides can agree on this particular issue.

I'm pro-choice. I didn't think that the one child policy was that strict. She shouldn't have to have an abortion as if she does't want to she will be scared for life. Leave the country. Theres no way I'd live in such a repressive society

This is a real situation in the town I am living in in China.

A friend of a friend of ours got pregnant. Unmarried, going out with an older married man -- you know the story. Anyway, in China, as part of the one-child policy, she will have an abortion one week from today (she found out she was pregnant today).
So....
Pro-choice people: This is the government's choice, not hers. People are prohibited from bringing a child to term until they have been married at least a year.
Pro-life people: There are people that have a child out of wedlock secretly, at home. The parent(s) are then fined at every step in the child's life (school, etc), and the woman would be fired from her job, and socially stigmatized.
That's disgusting. Reminds me of why I hate the Chinese government.

(pro-choice, btw)

1. Forcing a competent pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will is a violation of basic human rights. Period.

2. Overpopulation is a problem. This is not the solution.

3. I am honestly surprised that some who are "pro-life" have been so quick to shed their alleged principles in order to support punishing a "slut." I am not surprised that many advocate anti-choice due to their fear and loathing of sex and their misogyny -- I just didn't expect to see it so readily admitted.

4. Alas, I have no good advice for the young lady in question. She should probably have the abortion. Under the oppressive system in which she lives and under the circumstances of the pregnancy, this seems what is best for her. It is an outrage that the heavy hand of government imposes itself on this decision.

EDIT: I am not accusing all who are alleged pro-life. Just those who have demonstrated their hypocrisy herein.

Holy Crap! Where the hell was that? I have never seen anything from syria besides insurgents in Iraq :)



I was buying "Bike Week 2005" T-shirts in Daytona Beach Florida. Several I saw were made in Syria. They were likely immitations of the original, but I thought it was odd they were from Syria.

3. I am honestly surprised that some who are "pro-life" have been so quick to shed their alleged principles in order to support punishing a "slut." I am not surprised that many advocate anti-choice due to their fear and loathing of sex and their misogyny -- I just didn't expect to see it so readily admitted.


Yeah … and I bet they wont remember this … the fact that we are supporting CHOICE not abortion

This womans choice was removed by forcing her to have an abortion … we are against that
We are also against forcing a woman NOT to not have an abortion

They seem to focus on the latter rather then the former as well

1. Forcing a competent pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will is a violation of basic human rights. Period.

This is disgusting. I think they still practice partial birth abortions there too.


4. Alas, I have no good advice for the young lady in question. She should probably have the abortion. Under the oppressive system in which she lives and under the circumstances of the pregnancy, this seems what is best for her. It is an outrage that the heavy hand of government imposes itself on this decision.


Is leaving China a possibilty? Assuming she wants to keep the child. Is she allowed to leave?

Overpopulation is a problem. This is not the solution.

Then what is?

Then what is?

Sex education.

Ubiquitous contraception. Improved contraception. Advocacy and acceptance of contraception.

Family planning.

Better use of resources.

etc, etc, etc, etc

There are volumes and volumes written on the subject that do not involve either forcing women to have abortions or prohibiting them from having abortions.

Treating women like people is a fine option. Someday more will try it.

Sex education.

Ubiquitous contraception. Improved contraception. Advocacy and acceptance of contraception.

Family planning.

Better use of resources.

etc, etc, etc, etc

There are volumes and volumes written on the subject that do not involve either forcing women to have abortions or prohibiting them from having abortions.

Treating women like people is a fine option. Someday more will try it.

Sounds good to me. I assumed all these were in place, you see.

Sounds good to me. I assumed all these were in place, you see.

We're talking about China, not the USA or EU here. Normal contraceptives are virtually unavailable.... The State instead using Abortion and Forced Sterilization as a "form" of birth control... Sometimes combined.

My problem, is this is like fixing a broken clock, by having someone rotate the hands manually.... It fixes a "result" of the problem, without addressing the "source" of the problem, mainly the source being the chinese people living in abject poverty from exploitation by the state... And merely applying more penalties to the people (to sink them further into poverty), and further exploitation....

Sure, pro-lifers may rant about "she should be forced to carry the child to term"..... But that's not what is happening here... The government is taking action, to exploit people, to protect against overpopulation caused by a lack of resouirces due to exploitation by the government.

The Government, regardless of how you look at it, is at fault... Because it is what CAUSED this to happen in the first place. I'm no fan of communists, but they should be up in arms over the Chinese State on this issue in here.

We're talking about China, not the USA or EU here. Normal contraceptives are virtually unavailable.... The State instead using Abortion and Forced Sterilization as a "form" of birth control... Sometimes combined.

My problem, is this is like fixing a broken clock, by having someone rotate the hands manually.... It fixes a "result" of the problem, without addressing the "source" of the problem, mainly the source being the chinese people living in abject poverty from exploitation by the state... And merely applying more penalties to the people (to sink them further into poverty), and further exploitation....

Sure, pro-lifers may rant about "she should be forced to carry the child to term"..... But that's not what is happening here... The government is taking action, to exploit people, to protect against overpopulation caused by a lack of resouirces due to exploitation by the government.

The Government, regardless of how you look at it, is at fault... Because it is what CAUSED this to happen in the first place. I'm no fan of communists, but they should be up in arms over the Chinese State on this issue in here.

In retrospect, I agree with you.

China has way too many people,the one child policy will be around as distasteful as it is, for a while yet.

Then what is?
Logan's Run.
:p

She could only have gotten pregnant one way and she shouldn't have been doing that. The government did not declare that she had to have pre-marital or even adulterous sex, so I can not see it as being the choice of the government. The government's law has been in effect for long enough for her to know that by doing what she was doing, she could bring herself to a position where she'd be considering an abortion. I can only see this issue as being the government's choice if they sprang the law on her the day before she got pregnant.

Okay.

Glad you got that out of your system.

Now, did you have any input about the QUESTION that was ASKED?

Well, you like to put the government at fault. That's wrong in my opinion, but the way I see it is that if she's having an abortion, ultimately the most innocent party, the unborn child, is put at fault. I don't mean to sound uncompassionate, but she should carry the child and live with the consequences. She brought them upon herself.

By the way, where do you live in China?

Whether or not she wants the child is irrelevent, the law of the land dictates an abortion.

You are saying that the 'mother' should be 'punished'.... effectively because the society punishes mothers, and favours abortion.

How is it you absolve the father of blame? Why do you think that the government is NOT at fault?

Since you seem to be playing the anti-abortion card, here... why should the pro-abortion government be less culpable than the coerced girl?

Why do you PRETEND concern for the unborn child? You KNOW if it is born, it's life will be made miserable by the punishments forced upon the mother... so why do you insist that child should be punished by extension?

In fact - this being China - there is always the possibility that the child might not see it to it's first birthday if it is not aborted... why are you MORE concerned about an embryon than about a crying infant?

Yes, the woman shouldnt've had an affair with a married man, but that's not the point. After all, a pro-life advocate would look to the more important question - will she keep the baby or not? She commits, or does not commit, the sin or murder based on whether or not she decides to have an abortion. Of course, adultery is a sin also, but one would think that murder is a little more serious.
With that said, as far as pro-life/pro-choice goes, this woman is culpable only to the extent that she knew that conceiving would automatically lead to abortion, because she doesn't make the choice to have an abortion. So the woman herself is culpable of creating the occasion of sin, the occasion of murder, but she is not guilty for the murder itself. That sin rests upon the Chinese government. The woman was weakened and blinded by passion, and so she does not escape responsibility entirely, but it is the Chinese government who is guilty of murder, and more broadly of an assault on the fundamental reproductory nature of human beings.

Yes, the woman shouldnt've had an affair with a married man, but that's not the point. After all, a pro-life advocate would look to the more important question - will she keep the baby or not? She commits, or does not commit, the sin or murder based on whether or not she decides to have an abortion. Of course, adultery is a sin also, but one would think that murder is a little more serious.
With that said, as far as pro-life/pro-choice goes, this woman is culpable only to the extent that she knew that conceiving would automatically lead to abortion, because she doesn't make the choice to have an abortion. So the woman herself is culpable of creating the occasion of sin, the occasion of murder, but she is not guilty for the murder itself. That sin rests upon the Chinese government. The woman was weakened and blinded by passion, and so she does not escape responsibility entirely, but it is the Chinese government who is guilty of murder, and more broadly of an assault on the fundamental reproductory nature of human beings.

To bad its not murder ... using emotive language may convince some people but it can and wont be “murder” unless it is the ILLEAGAL taking of human life

You have not yet proved that an embryo or fetus is fully human nor is it illegal so it is not murder

To bad its not murder ... using emotive language may convince some people but it can and wont be “murder” unless it is the ILLEAGAL taking of human life

You have not yet proved that an embryo or fetus is fully human nor is it illegal so it is not murder

You are right - murder must be unlawful according to Webster's.

But I follow God's Law. And God's Law calls it Murder.

Sure wouldn't want to offend you by exercising my 1st amendment rights.

Also, IMHO, I think there's a little more meat to my argument than a word I use fewer than a half-dozen times. Note, for example, the apparent acrobatics allowing me to take a pro-life stance while not blaming the poor woman herself. It'd be nice if someone looked at the full argument and gave me some constructive feedback.

Wow. That's awful.

I would hope even pro-life people would have some sympathy for the woman in this situation and understand that she has very little choice in the matter.

I'm in two minds about the One Child Policy. It causes stuff like this to happen, but I don't know what else china could do about its overpopulation problem.

This is why I consider the One Child Policy to be the lesser of two evils. Can anyone suggest something better that does not involve taking over neighbouring countries and exiling the natives?
well that strategy wouldn't be entirely unheard of.

You are right - murder must be unlawful according to Webster's.

But I follow God's Law. And God's Law calls it Murder.

Sure wouldn't want to offend you by exercising my 1st amendment rights.

Also, IMHO, I think there's a little more meat to my argument than a word I use fewer than a half-dozen times. Note, for example, the apparent acrobatics allowing me to take a pro-life stance while not blaming the poor woman herself. It'd be nice if someone looked at the full argument and gave me some constructive feedback.
Oh and where does gods law specificaly call it murder?

Except, the "overpopulation" and poverty stem from lack of persona liberties, and overt exploitation by the state in the first place
how so?

You are right - murder must be unlawful according to Webster's.

But I follow God's Law. And God's Law calls it Murder.

Sure wouldn't want to offend you by exercising my 1st amendment rights.

Also, IMHO, I think there's a little more meat to my argument than a word I use fewer than a half-dozen times. Note, for example, the apparent acrobatics allowing me to take a pro-life stance while not blaming the poor woman herself. It'd be nice if someone looked at the full argument and gave me some constructive feedback.

Where does 'gods law' say that abortion is murder?

Oh and where does gods law specificaly call it murder?

Damn. Should have read the thread through, first.

You already beat me to it. :)

:fluffle:

Oh and where does gods[sic] law specificaly[sic] call it murder?

mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought
---Merriam-Webster's online

Thou shalt not kill.
---Exodus 20:13, King James version

God's Law deems all killing to be murder, because all killing is unlawful according to the Commandments.
As for the fetus being or not being a person, I believe it is, as does the Catholic Church with 200 years of history behind it. If you disagree, fine. But that's not what this thread is about and I suggest you take your argument elsewhere. Thus far the only posts dealing at all with mine have completely ignored my actual argument in favor of snipping at my language. Deal with my actual argument or please go discuss general abortion in another thread and stop threadjacking.

mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought
---Merriam-Webster's online

Thou shalt not kill.
---Exodus 20:13, King James version

God's Law deems all killing to be murder, because all killing is unlawful according to the Commandments.
As for the fetus being or not being a person, I believe it is, as does the Catholic Church with 200 years of history behind it. If you disagree, fine. But that's not what this thread is about and I suggest you take your argument elsewhere. Thus far the only posts dealing at all with mine have completely ignored my actual argument in favor of snipping at my language. Deal with my actual argument or please go discuss general abortion in another thread and stop threadjacking.

Actually - this is one of the points where the KJV is a weak mistranslation.

Exodus 20:13, in the Hebrew, is only one word: 'Ratsach'... meaning to murder, specifically to kill with premeditation.

Of course, elsewhere in the text, God condones killing - for example, one should kill ALL Canaanites, or 'witches'...

Your argument relies on the fact that God's Law forbids all killing, whereas, of course, it doesn't.

China has the policy for a reason. I agree that overpopulation originates from poverty and poor education, and while it may be true that those are caused or at least made worse by the actions of the communist government, it doesn't change the fact that steps must be taken to fight the issue itself. Keeping overpopulation at bay by these rather radical measures makes it possible to fight poverty, whereas without these rules poverty would only get worse and worse. Maybe in the future it's possible for this policy to be less strict, but until then there really is no choice.

China's policy is born of desperation. I think personal freedoms should be curved to prevent the crippling effects of overpopulation, which are numerous and ultimately more tragic.

And it's the result of years of Chairman Mao's strongly pro-life views that encouraged prolific reproduction in an effort to overwhelm the rest of the world with sheer force of numbers. Which would work just fine if you were willing to provide them with air fair to other countries.

Whenever any country adopts any crazy extremist ideologically driven policy then you're going to have to pay the price for that with a compensating policy further down the road. Unfortunatly too many people define "extreme" as "really different from what I already think."

We're talking about China, not the USA or EU here. Normal contraceptives are virtually unavailable.... The State instead using Abortion and Forced Sterilization as a "form" of birth control... Sometimes combined.


The Government, regardless of how you look at it, is at fault... Because it is what CAUSED this to happen in the first place. I'm no fan of communists, but they should be up in arms over the Chinese State on this issue in here.

Well, I'm fairly sure that birth control is made freely available to all married women. The problem is that they take the view that unmarried women aren't supposed to be having sex, so we should just pretend that they're not. (of course, there are a billion people in China, most living in rural areas far from the help that is officially available)

It's rather like how here in the US we use "abstinence only education" (also known as institutionalized ignorance) because if teenagers aren't supposed to have sex why should we take measures to solve the problems that will result when they almost certainly will have sex.

On another note, the UN world fund travels to places like China where overpopulation and sexual ignorance proliferate and teaches safe sex and birth control practices. Bush cut their funding by millions on the pretext that they help people in countries like China that practice coerced abortions. But these countries see declining abortion rates when the world fund begins its education practices. Problem is, Dubya is against education.

It's her fault cause she knew the law and the consequences there for she has to deal with it and perhaps use protection in the future.

It's her fault cause she knew the law and the consequences there for she has to deal with it and perhaps use protection in the future.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

You realise that 'protection' isn't easy to obtain for all people, yes?

Ooopps...no obvious yes? Sorry!!

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Exodus 20:13, in the Hebrew, is only one word: 'Ratsach'... meaning to murder, specifically to kill with premeditation.
QUOTE]

I should think that abortion fits this. After all, one hears of very few "accidental abortions." Also, being Catholic, I don't need to take every Biblical event at face value either. So I will *poof* away "the Ban" by saying that its only truth is in its reinforcing of the Jews as God's chosen people, and not the Canaanites etc.

Ooopps...no obvious yes? Sorry!!

No harm, no foul. :)

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Exodus 20:13, in the Hebrew, is only one word: 'Ratsach'... meaning to murder, specifically to kill with premeditation.
QUOTE]

I should think that abortion fits this. After all, one hears of very few "accidental abortions." Also, being Catholic, I don't need to take every Biblical event at face value either. So I will *poof* away "the Ban" by saying that its only truth is in its reinforcing of the Jews as God's chosen people, and not the Canaanites etc.

Your argument makes no sense.

You say abortion is murder according to God's Law, because YOU read God's Law as saying 'don't kill'.

What it says is "Don't MURDER"... in which case, abortion is only against God's Law when it is illegal...

Otherwise, your argument is circular... it is murder because it is against God's Law, but it is only against God's Law BECAUSE it is murder....

Abortion is not murder by civil law - because it is legal, and because the embryo has no 'person' status - and is, therefore, not a 'possible' victim of the specific crime of 'murder'.

Abortion is not a murder by God's Law, because God never speaks specifically to it, and only condemns the MURDER of individuals... you cannot 'murder' a goat or dog... while you could 'kill' them - so the Commandment is specifically relating to persons.

You also do not 'murder' your enemies during war - so the commandment is specifically against the CIVIL crime of killing a person.

Thus - since the CIVIL law says 'not murder', and the Commandment ignores abortion... God's Law does NOT say that abortion = murder.

In fact, the Bible doesn't condemn abortion... and, on a couple of occasions, actually CONDONES abortion.