NationStates Jolt Archive

If you´re a rabid american on the pro-life/pro-choice cultural war, take a look how things can really get nasty when it comes to abortion...forced abortion, that is.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html.
No moral relativisms here, no "ho, its their culture, dont pass judgement so you wont be judged" crap.
These bloody animals, these heinous savages are conducting a State-sanctioned genocide. They are forcing themselves on full-term pregnant women and killing their babies, so they can stay in good terms with the powers-to-be. The one-child-policy has been somewhat eased lately, but it seems that local officials in China are getting berated by their superiors on acount of mounting birth rates.
So what do they do...?

the world is overpopulated as it is.

the world is overpopulated as it is.
Yes, overpopulated by sick deviant thugs that dont think twice before injecting poison into a baby still in the mother´s womb.

I see you didn't mention the Nanny Police...

Their job (as appointed and respected elder members of the community) is to ensure that the families obey the rules. They are the first line of defence against over population. They go and check on the women in their jurisdiction. They are non-threatening and just check to make sure that birth control (condoms and pills) are actively being used. They also check to make sure that women who weren't given permission to have a baby that year are menstrating regularly.

They are the first line before the forced abortion. They direct the women who are pregnant to go seek an abortion before it comes to the point where it is forced.

The strict rules about this apply in the cities, where families are encouraged to keep girls and are taught that girls are a blessing and not a curse.

In the countryside, there are lax rules so that the number of baby girls murdered are reduced. They allow more than one child for rural families so that the number of abandoned baby girls is greatly reduced.

Sergio, in all your indignation you overlooked that you are talking shit.

Sergio, in all your indignation you overlooked that you are talking shit.
Oh? Please do elaborate.

Sergio, in all your indignation you overlooked that you are talking shit.
In his ranting lunacy, he does make a valid point. There are state imposed abortions should the families flout the law and not have prior permission from either the local officials or from their work place (the latter is being taken away to reduce bureaucratic red tape).

Yes, the state-impose abortions are damn cruel, but, they are issued to defiant women who won't follow the rules.

Yes, it is inhumane, but given their overpopulation issue, there has to be something done to control it. Yes, it is crude, but they put themselves in this position with Mao's big family policies.

It is inhumane, but, it isn't genocide because there are laws in place and if people violate the law, they lose rights.

In his ranting lunacy, he does make a valid point. There are state imposed abortions should the families flout the law and not have prior permission from either the local officials or from their work place (the latter is being taken away to reduce bureaucratic red tape).

Yes, the state-impose abortions are damn cruel, but, they are issued to defiant women who won't follow the rules.

Yes, it is inhumane, but given their overpopulation issue, there has to be something done to control it. Yes, it is crude, but they put themselves in this position with Mao's big family policies.

It is inhumane, but, it isn't genocide because there are laws in place and if people violate the law, they lose rights.
Look, to make things clear. i´m not an american, but im strictly pro-choice.
I do believe that womeen are entitled to govern their body as they seem fit.
Having said that, i really believe you should take a look at the story in Time magazine.
And do remember that genocide can easily happen under the cushy confines and support of a State ruled by law.

Oh? Please do elaborate.

"We have heard about the situation in Shandong, and it's totally against national law," a member of the State Family Planning Commission's secretariat in Beijing told TIME. "We are investigating the situation now." A public statement from the commission said that central and provincial authorities have cautioned Linyi officials to follow national regulations, vowing to punish lawbreakers."
does not equal

State-sanctioned genocide.

Besides, wrong use of genocide as well.
Indignation, passion and claiming high moral ground do not good arguments make.

overpopulated by sick deviant thugs
If the world was overpopulated by those it wouldnt be deviant behaviour anymore. You are constructing a case of illegal behaviour of a officials in a single sub-province to be "the chinese" mode of operation and thus are talking a load of bull.

Indeed, I've come to expect no better from a totalitarian dictatorship. It's a real-life Oceania.

Look, to make things clear. i´m not an american, but im strictly pro-choice.
I do believe that womeen are entitled to govern their body as they seem fit.
Having said that, i really believe you should take a look at the story in Time magazine.
And do remember that genocide can easily happen under the cushy confines and support of a State ruled by law.
Would you please stop calling it 'genocide', since it isn't that. If anything, it is possibly - though a long shot - infantcide, which is the killing of babies.

I never said you were American... I don't care for that matter where the hell you're from! I don't know where you got the idea that I said, or even therein implied such. I never made any reference to it.

Nor did I mention anything about your beliefs about stance.

Further, I did read it and I'm already informed about this topic and unless it can tell me something I don't already know, I don't see a reason why I ought to analyse it in depth in order to get the full essence thereof.

I don't think this is a good thing, at all. But I can't say I'm surprised at all, either.

As the human population on this planet continues to increase exponentially, and people refuse or are unable to use contraception, this sort of thing becomes necessary. This is the wrong way to go about it. The government should be universally supplying contraception and, if necessary, and imposing penalties on those who persist in having large families despite it.

Forced abortions aren't the way to do it, but something has to be done to curb the population before everyone suffers because of it.

does not equal



Besides, wrong use of genocide as well.
Indignation, passion and claiming high moral ground do not good arguments make.


If the world was overpopulated by those it wouldnt be deviant behaviour anymore. You are constructing a case of illegal behaviour of a officials in a single sub-province to be "the chinese" mode of operation and thus are talking a load of bull.
Yes, i can almost picture the provintial authorities meeting..."so, comrade. Hin, it seems that the birth rates in your sub-region are rather bloated...
-Hum..yes...i supose so, comrade...
-Well, wouldnt want you to loose all those hefty fees from municipal payoffs in your area..
-Humm...what do you sugest, comrade?
-Now, i sugest nothing, comrade Hin, nothing..i just would like to see the problem handled in the most humane manner..."humane" as in the Cultural Revolution´s sense, that is."

Look, to make things clear. i´m not an american, but im strictly pro-choice.
I do believe that womeen are entitled to govern their body as they seem fit.
Having said that, i really believe you should take a look at the story in Time magazine.
And do remember that genocide can easily happen under the cushy confines and support of a State ruled by law.

First, please stop calling it genocide. I'm not saying it's not or it is; I'm saying it's hard to take you seriously when you're spouting distilled emotivism.

Secondly, yes, state-sponsored abortion is heinous.

Thirdly, would you rather China, of all the world's countries, had a population boom with the end of the one-child policy and overwhelmed the world's food supplies?! You're asking for a choice: kill thousands of things which can only just feel pain and certainly don't have the mental capacity to fear their own deaths or allow to starve to death potentially millions upon millions of people of all ages, which will cause resource wars, totally deplete the oceans of anything useful and bring about chaos. I'm not saying it's for that reason; I'm saying condemn it, by all means, but think about what'd happen if they relaxed the one-child policy totally right now.

I don't think this is a good thing, at all. But I can't say I'm surprised at all, either.

As the human population on this planet continues to increase exponentially, and people refuse or are unable to use contraception, this sort of thing becomes necessary. This is the wrong way to go about it. The government should be universally supplying contraception and, if necessary, and imposing penalties on those who persist in having large families despite it.

Forced abortions aren't the way to do it, but something has to be done to curb the population before everyone suffers because of it.
That's why they make use of the Nanny Police (see earlier post for brief explanation).

These people are the eyes and ears of the government. They make sure that people are following the law before any forceful action has to be taken, because, humans are prone to ignorance, fault and bad choices. They are there to make sure that forced abortions are kept as a deterant.

There are already penalties in place in the form of no funded education and healthcare. The state takes those away as well as job opportunies, which effeictively punish the bigger families and rewarding the smaller ones. The only exception applies in the rural country side where big families are needed to tend to the farm and boys are needed to support the parents when they age.

In that case, the penalties are reduced. But in the cities, the penalties are steep.

However, they have massive campaigns to promote girls as a blessing and not a curse at all abortion clinics. So that if a women comes in because she knows it's a girl, and if she doesn't already have a child, she is educated first and told about how a girl is a blessing.

Maybe they should execute their many destitute citizens as well, as well as the old and the crippled, that should free up some room for population growth.

LOL at utilitarianism.

If you´re a rabid american on the pro-life/pro-choice cultural war, take a look how things can really get nasty when it comes to abortion...forced abortion, that is.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html.
No moral relativisms here, no "ho, its their culture, dont pass judgement so you wont be judged" crap.
These bloody animals, these heinous savages are conducting a State-sanctioned genocide. They are forcing themselves on full-term pregnant women and killing their babies, so they can stay in good terms with the powers-to-be. The one-child-policy has been somewhat eased lately, but it seems that local officials in China are getting berated by their superiors on acount of mounting birth rates.
So what do they do...?

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it gets out of hand when you call the entirety of China "bloody animals and heinous savages". I'd suggest that you keep away from those sort of generalizations, and you'll be fine.

Why do they always have to go after women with this sort of shit. They should have mandatory vasectomies instead of forced abortions.

Wow, news from the future!!!! OMG!

Am I the only one that notices the "September 19, 2005" date on the link? Oh well, I'm sure if Time magazine gets the date wrong its a simple error and they're unlikely to get anything else wrong. ;)

Wow, news from the future!!!! OMG!

Am I the only one that notices the "September 19, 2005" date on the link? Oh well, I'm sure if Time magazine gets the date wrong its a simple error and they're unlikely to get anything else wrong.

That's probably the date of the edition. Like when you buy a magazine, it says "July" and it's like the first day of June.

Maybe they should execute their many destitute citizens as well, as well as the old and the crippled, that should free up some room for population growth.

LOL at utilitarianism.

If it can and does fear death, painlessly killing it is wrong. Foetuses can't. I'd rather this didn't happen: please look at the second point of my post. Nor am I claiming anyone actually doing these abortions is acting for the greater good, rather than just enjoying their own power or acting out of overriding loyalty to the State.

What I am pointing out is that China, of all countries, does not need a population explosion. Neither does the world.

Would you please stop calling it 'genocide', since it isn't that. If anything, it is possibly - though a long shot - infantcide, which is the killing of babies.

I never said you were American... I don't care for that matter where the hell you're from! I don't know where you got the idea that I said, or even therein implied such. I never made any reference to it.

Nor did I mention anything about your beliefs about stance.

Further, I did read it and I'm already informed about this topic and unless it can tell me something I don't already know, I don't see a reason why I ought to analyse it in depth in order to get the full essence thereof.
Yes, it is a genocide, as it targets a number of targets solely based on a particular characteristic: this case, the fact that they are "expendable" babies. If you dont like the word "genocide" or if it has any specific ressonance with you, i´m quite sorry, but "genocide" isnt a trade brand.
Again: Chinese officials are carrying out a sistematic campaign of destruction of unborn babies strictly to acommodate their higher-ups. In other times and places, this would rouse strong moral outrage, but i guess we´re to jaded and blazé nowadays...

Yes, it is a genocide, as it targets a number of targets solely based on a particular characteristic: this case, the fact that they are "expendable" babies. If you dont like the word "genocide" or if it has any specific ressonance with you, i´m quite sorry, but "genocide" isnt a trade brand.
Again: Chinese officials are carrying out a sistematic campaign of destruction of unborn babies strictly to acommodate their higher-ups. In other times and places, this would rouse strong moral outrage, but i guess we´re to jaded and blazé nowadays...

Lets assume you're right. What good will our moral outrage do? This is China, not some pissant broken middle eastern nation the US can push around with both hands tied behind it's back.

Yes, it is a genocide, as it targets a number of targets solely based on a particular characteristic: this case, the fact that they are "expendable" babies.

You want a definition war? Here's genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide) for you. And if you're going to try to argue that that's the more broad sense of the word, in normal use, allow me to point out to you that all of those examples given are of trying to annihilate an entire category of people, based on race, culture etc. China is not trying to annihilate all babies. Ergo it's not a genocide. Get it right.

Yes, it is a genocide, as it targets a number of targets solely based on a particular characteristic: this case, the fact that they are "expendable" babies. If you dont like the word "genocide" or if it has any specific ressonance with you, i´m quite sorry, but "genocide" isnt a trade brand.
Again: Chinese officials are carrying out a sistematic campaign of destruction of unborn babies strictly to acommodate their higher-ups. In other times and places, this would rouse strong moral outrage, but i guess we´re to jaded and blazé nowadays...
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

You could argue that they are being targeted for none of thoes therefore genocide is an incorrect term, not to mention they are not trying to get rid of the ENTIRE group just some of them (though it is a petty arguement)

Would you please stop calling it 'genocide', since it isn't that. If anything, it is possibly - though a long shot - infantcide, which is the killing of babies.

I never said you were American... I don't care for that matter where the hell you're from! I don't know where you got the idea that I said, or even therein implied such. I never made any reference to it.

Nor did I mention anything about your beliefs about stance.

Further, I did read it and I'm already informed about this topic and unless it can tell me something I don't already know, I don't see a reason why I ought to analyse it in depth in order to get the full essence thereof.

Technically, neither was the Holocaust because Jews had their rights as citizens revoked ;) Yay for ethical relativism!!!! :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it gets out of hand when you call the entirety of China "bloody animals and heinous savages". I'd suggest that you keep away from those sort of generalizations, and you'll be fine.
Quite right, didnt mean to encompass all of the chinese population under the epithet, was just refering to the communist officialdom. But if i seemed to overreach, i apologize.

The problem is the people who abuse their power for personnal gain. They should be more educated about the importance of their mission.

Yes, overpopulated by sick deviant thugs that dont think twice before injecting poison into a baby still in the mother´s womb.

true but American soldiers inject lead into baddie soldiers etc etc and in the end pro choice or not if we dont change things it wont matter if nasty things like that happen anyway will it.

Lets assume you're right. What good will our moral outrage do? This is China, not some pissant broken middle eastern nation the US can push around with both hands tied behind it's back.

Well, for one thing we could stop allowing free American enterprise with China....

*sigh* When will morality take precedence over greed? :(

You could argue that they are being targeted for none of thoes therefore genocide is an incorrect term, not to mention they are not trying to get rid of the ENTIRE group just some of them (though it is a petty arguement)

Sadly, it's not petty, it's very important. Only about 10% of politics and political debate is about being right. The rest is generally about getting people to listen, which usually requires rhetoric and lies. He is not allowed to use the word genocide, but by doing so, he recruits more mindless minions to his cause. It doesn't matter if his cause is right or wrong; rhetoric helps nobody when, five years, twenty years, a generation down the line, their followers become bitter and jaded, having learned everything they were taught was so hyped-up as to be worthless.

whats wrong wid chinas greed? they got a lot of people to feed.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it gets out of hand when you call the entirety of China "bloody animals and heinous savages". I'd suggest that you keep away from those sort of generalizations, and you'll be fine.

Poor Dragons Bay left just in time :D

Maybe they should execute their many destitute citizens as well, as well as the old and the crippled, that should free up some room for population growth.

LOL at utilitarianism.
Not when population growth is inherently exponential.

what do you propose chinas other options are then? the system they have and methods they use are the only ones that are going to work, they got a lot of people to look after american style freedom wont work over there they dont have the recourses

You want a definition war? Here's genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide) for you. And if you're going to try to argue that that's the more broad sense of the word, in normal use, allow me to point out to you that all of those examples given are of trying to annihilate an entire category of people, based on race, culture etc. China is not trying to annihilate all babies. Ergo it's not a genocide. Get it right.
No, china is indeed targeting a entire category of people, not that of all the babies, but rather that of the "expendable" babies.

Well, for one thing we could stop allowing free American enterprise with China....

*sigh* When will morality take precedence over greed? :(

Oh right, a trade embargo will make China nicey-nicey. Somehow I'm skeptical. I see you are just trying to blame free enterprise for everything. Well you know, many of these same actors in China like to blame that policy, too. That's why they're trying to control their "human resources" market. Free enterprise would actually be *not* having the state control said market via forced abortions. I don't see why you would advocate more government control in face of this act of evil by a government, when you probably think we should ban all corporations because of Nike.

So nobody else thinks that it would be a lot better if they forced sterilizations on men instead of forcing them on women as well as forcing women to have abortions?

A vasectomy is much less painful than having a tubal litigation (I think that's the term for it) or an abortion.

Okay, I'm not a fan of execution, but wouldn't it be far more just to kill those who are less innocent and worthy of society first? IE, criminals. Not just, but more just than forcing mothers to kill their children.

Okay, I'm not a fan of execution, but wouldn't it be far more just to kill those who are less innocent and worthy of society first? IE, criminals. Not just, but more just than forcing mothers to kill their children.
Great, capital punishment in china is the punishment for most crimes anyway, so your saying china should kill all criminals which would be far worse than killing babies that arnt born yet? is that a pro-life persons idea of justice? hmm

Sadly, it's not petty, it's very important. Only about 10% of politics and political debate is about being right. The rest is generally about getting people to listen, which usually requires rhetoric and lies. He is not allowed to use the word genocide, but by doing so, he recruits more mindless minions to his cause. It doesn't matter if his cause is right or wrong; rhetoric helps nobody when, five years, twenty years, a generation down the line, their followers become bitter and jaded, having learned everything they were taught was so hyped-up as to be worthless.
Yeah Emotional connotations means a lot in a debate (I forgot to take the petty out … it was in reference to my shorter post which I then added to lol)

Oh right, a trade embargo will make China nicey-nicey. Somehow I'm skeptical. I see you are just trying to blame free enterprise for everything. Well you know, many of these same actors in China like to blame that policy, too. That's why they're trying to control their "human resources" market. Free enterprise would actually be *not* having the state control said market via forced abortions. I don't see why you would advocate more government control in face of this act of evil by a government, when you probably think we should ban all corporations because of Nike.

I'm not saying it would solve the problem, but trading with an evil government is itself morally reprehensible...nor am I opposing free enterprise. However, I am advocating the limiting of free enterprise to non-totalitarian nations without strong records of human rights abuses.

I'm not saying it would solve the problem, but trading with an evil government is itself morally reprehensible...nor am I opposing free enterprise. However, I am advocating the limiting of free enterprise to non-totalitarian nations without strong records of human rights abuses.

I think you mean *with* strong records of human rights abuses...

Anyway, the problem is that trading benefits us, so we just hurt ourselves by cutting it off, and China shrugs and kills more people and says "Yeah? Watchoo gonna do NOW homes?" Nothing is accomplished.

So nobody else thinks that it would be a lot better if they forced sterilizations on men instead of forcing them on women as well as forcing women to have abortions?

A vasectomy is much less painful than having a tubal litigation (I think that's the term for it) or an abortion.

Sounds reasonable, at least in contrast to the two alternatives you posed.

Yes, i can almost picture the provintial authorities meeting...
I dont give a flying fuck about what you can imagine, dont molest me with the pictures in your head, bring facts to the table.
Fact is, the cases in a singular district in a single province of China do not equal official policy, neither in words nor deeds. Fact is, not all chinese, or even all chines affiliated with the bureaucracy governing China or members of the communist party are deviant murderers. Fact is, even if such policy was enforced throughout China, it would still not be genocide, as genocide is defined differently. Fact is, you base your "argumentation" on emotional catch-phrases and are riled up.

Thus i call bullshit.

I think you mean *with* strong records of human rights abuses...

Anyway, the problem is that trading benefits us, so we just hurt ourselves by cutting it off, and China shrugs and kills more people and says "Yeah? Watchoo gonna do NOW homes?" Nothing is accomplished.

No, I meant "without". If it was "with," I would have contradicted myself.

Anyway, I believe we have the moral obligation to not endorse their rights violations by refusing to trade with them. Is our own desire for wealth better than doing the right thing? It won't solve the problem, but it will most certainly wash our hands of their blood.

I'm not saying it would solve the problem, but trading with an evil government is itself morally reprehensible...nor am I opposing free enterprise. However, I am advocating the limiting of free enterprise to non-totalitarian nations without strong records of human rights abuses.
OK, people, i didnt intend to turn this into a pro-life/pro-choice debate...what i do believe we have here is a civil rights issue (yes, i know, the chinese people cant have civil rights and liberties, mayheem would follow, China isnt prepared for democracy, and so on)...when public officials feel entitled to break in someone´s home, kidnapp a full-term preagnant and forcefully have her perform an abortion, i would say the buck stops here.

No, china is indeed targeting a entire category of people, not that of all the babies, but rather that of the "expendable" babies.

Definition 2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry). To twist the word similarly, you could say the USA commits genocide of murderers. Besides, it's neither systematic nor planned - though if you're going to define "expendable babies" as "those terminated by this method" then yes, you're exactly right, but you've just uttered a tautology made of your own personal definitions.

I dont give a flying fuck about what you can imagine, dont molest me with the pictures in your head, bring facts to the table.
Fact is, the cases in a singular district in a single province of China do not equal official policy, neither in words nor deeds. Fact is, not all chinese, or even all chines affiliated with the bureaucracy governing China or members of the communist party are deviant murderers. Fact is, even if such policy was enforced throughout China, it would still not be genocide, as genocide is defined differently. Fact is, you base your "argumentation" on emotional catch-phrases and are riled up.

Thus i call bullshit.
First of all, i didnt stoop to obscenities in my posts. I do believe that any issue can be discussed without wallowing in vulgarities.
Next i should state that China´s political culture and human-rights record provides the ideal framework for this kind of thing to happen.

No, I meant "without". If it was "with," I would have contradicted myself.

Anyway, I believe we have the moral obligation to not endorse their rights violations by refusing to trade with them. Is our own desire for wealth better than doing the right thing? It won't solve the problem, but it will most certainly wash our hands of their blood.
Curiously enough, the US has strived to keep a weapons embargo on China, but the EU plans to start selling several lethal goodies to the former...severe blot on the EU track record.

Definition 2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry). To twist the word similarly, you could say the USA commits genocide of murderers. Besides, it's neither systematic nor planned - though if you're going to define "expendable babies" as "those terminated by this method" then yes, you're exactly right, but you've just uttered a tautology made of your own personal definitions.
Yes, its sistematic and its planned centrally by the local authorities of the province.
Please, dont try to snare me with the age old "abortion/death penalty" thing, its beneath you ;)

No, I meant "without". If it was "with," I would have contradicted myself.

Anyway, I believe we have the moral obligation to not endorse their rights violations by refusing to trade with them. Is our own desire for wealth better than doing the right thing? It won't solve the problem, but it will most certainly wash our hands of their blood.

Trade doesn't endorse anything. If I sell a man a pack of cigarettes, and he goes and rapes someone, am I endorsing rape? What if he was a convicted rapist?

The US's hands will always be bloody, this is just a drop.

and you said, "I am advocating the limiting of free enterprise to non-totalitarian nations without strong records of human rights abuses."

To me that seems like, if a non-totalitarian nation that does NOT have a strong record of human rights abuses, you want to limit free enterprise. So thats why I said with instead of without... you accidentally contradicted yourself as it was.

A minor point but ah well.

Trade doesn't endorse anything. If I sell a man a pack of cigarettes, and he goes and rapes someone, am I endorsing rape? What if he was a convicted rapist?

The US's hands will always be bloody, this is just a drop.

and you said, "I am advocating the limiting of free enterprise to non-totalitarian nations without strong records of human rights abuses."

To me that seems like, if a non-totalitarian nation that does NOT have a strong record of human rights abuses, you want to limit free enterprise. So thats why I said with instead of without... you accidentally contradicted yourself as it was.

A minor point but ah well.
Quite, but when you start selling certain products to countries that have a poor human rights record...for instance, in the 90s the UK had a ban on weapons sales to Indonesia because of fears that these would be used against the rebels in the occupied island of East-Timor.
Later on, i believe the restriction was circumvented when indonesian authorities ensure3d that the weaponry wouldnt be used in East-Timor.
Still, dont you think some curbs should apply in the case of some products?

Quite, but when you start selling certain products to countries that have a poor human rights record...for instance, in the 90s the UK had a ban on weapons sales to Indonesia because of fears that these would be used against the rebels in the occupied island of East-Timor.
Later on, i believe the restriction was circumvented when indonesian authorities ensure3d that the weaponry wouldnt be used in East-Timor.
Still, dont you think some curbs should apply in the case of some products?

Yes, like military products. Other things directly sold by the government to another government.

I'm amazed how many people do not seem to be absolutely sickened by this. While because of the nature of the Chinese government and the little control that there is over the local officials in some areas of the country it may be difficult for there to be an easy way to stop such things happening, still surely such acts be condemned absolutely for their barbarity?

Yes, like military products. Other things directly sold by the government to another government.
Not just governements sell weapons to countries...companies operating out of the EU do it too.

I'm amazed how many people do not seem to be absolutely sickened by this. While because of the nature of the Chinese government and the little control that there is over the local officials in some areas of the country it may be difficult for there to be an easy way to stop such things happening, still surely such acts be condemned absolutely for their barbarity?
People´s tolerance for iniquity has risen to unexpected heights.

People´s tolerance for iniquity has risen to unexpected heights.
Naw not really people thought history have put up with massive atrocities

Really about the same

Maybe you are just starting to realize it more

"Are ther no work houses???? Are there no prisons???

Naw not really people thought history have put up with massive atrocities

Really about the same

Maybe you are just starting to realize it more
I still feel that this is simply a civil rights issue, and not a abortion debate...although seemed to think otherwise.

I certainly don't like the idea, but none of our countries face the same problem as China or India.

China's ideal population level would be around 650 million
China's current population: 1300 million
China's Critical limit: 1600 million

Thanks to China's one child policy China will not reach that point. Corruption is another problem that china has in spades unfortunately.

Sounds reasonable, at least in contrast to the two alternatives you posed.
I was actually just trying to point out how entirely sexist their system is.

I certainly don't like the idea, but none of our countries face the same problem as China or India.

China's ideal population level would be around 650 million
China's current population: 1300 million
China's Critical limit: 1600 million

Thanks to China's one child policy China will not reach that point. Corruption is another problem that china has in spades unfortunately.
And that makes forced abortion -and the example from Time magazine of the injection of poison into the unborn baby could represent a danger to the mother too-legitimate?

And that makes forced abortion -and the example from Time magazine of the injection of poison into the unborn baby could represent a danger to the mother too-legitimate?
Uhm... How many times do I have to explain it to you - those are done when people fail to listen to Chinese authority. The forced abortions only occur when the families fail to comply with Chinese law and the recommendations by the Nanny Police in the area. The Nanny Police are the first line before the forced abortion.

The fact is the people will learn what the rule of law is when the Nanny Police pays them a visit. They are given the means to prevent it. But, if they don't, they have broken the law because they choose to not get an abortion or use birth control after they've already had their one child.

Yes, it is inhumane, but as it has been pointed out statistically...

China's ideal population level would be around 650 million
China's current population: 1300 million
China's Critical limit: 1600 million

There is also bouts of massive corruption and loopholes in the law, such as that regarding divorce and remarriage, in which case, even if either the husband or wife already has a child from a prior marriage, they are legally allowed to have a second.

There is also the loopholes regarding rural families. (I made a post about this on the first page).

Irregardless of whether or not you think it is inhumane, it is the law of their country and there are layers in place so that forced abortion isn't the first thing that happens if a child is illegally conceived.

Uhm... How many times do I have to explain it to you - those are done when people fail to listen to Chinese authority. The forced abortions only occur when the families fail to comply with Chinese law and the recommendations by the Nanny Police in the area. The Nanny Police are the first line before the forced abortion.

The fact is the people will learn what the rule of law is when the Nanny Police pays them a visit. They are given the means to prevent it. But, if they don't, they have broken the law because they choose to not get an abortion or use birth control after they've already had their one child.

Yes, it is inhumane, but as it has been pointed out statistically...



There is also bouts of massive corruption and loopholes in the law, such as that regarding divorce and remarriage, in which case, even if either the husband or wife already has a child from a prior marriage, they are legally allowed to have a second.

There is also the loopholes regarding rural families. (I made a post about this on the first page).

Irregardless of whether or not you think it is inhumane, it is the law of their country and there are layers in place so that forced abortion isn't the first thing that happens if a child is illegally conceived.
Hum...how many times do i have to explain to YOU (>tries to assume aristocratic look>) that there are such thins as States ruled by law and states ruled by legality...it isnt the same thing...Nazi Germany was a state ruled by legality, that is, mass opression and homicide (i almost dread using the word "genocide" as not to ofend anyone) was consented by law, and as such, were "legal"...but when the time came for reckoning, the argument that these things were strictly "legal" didnt stick...to contend that the people in any country have to submite to unjust and inhuman commands from a authoritarian governement just because these commands are laid down in the text of the law would be the same as to claim that civil desobedience could never be seen as an possible venue of action...

Hum...how many times do i have to explain to YOU (>tries to assume aristocratic look>) that there are such thins as States ruled by law and states ruled by legality...it isnt the same thing...Nazi Germany was a state ruled by legality, that is, mass opression and homicide (i almost dread using the word "genocide" as not to ofend anyone) was consented by law, and as such, were "legal"...but when the time came for reckoning, the argument that these things were strictly "legal" didnt stick...to contend that the people in any country have to submite to unjust and inhuman commands from a authoritarian governement just because these commands are laid down in the text of the law would be the same as to claim that civil desobedience could never be seen as an possible venue of action...
Ok...

*plods to through numerous spelling errors and grammar annoyances*

Hmn... I could grasp the essence of your argument, if not for the needless comparison to Nazi Germany's eugenics policies, as well as others. Though by bringing it up, you pave the way to show the difference between following the state law and not being forced into a corner, and state sanctioned eugenics (much more severe than the less than selective forced abortion by the Chinese authorities) and wide-spread systematic genocide.

They [Chinese] don't have to submit to the inhumane commands lest they flout the rule and spirit of the law. If do they follow, they're fine, where as in Nazi Germany, unless you physically fit their ideals, you couldn't escape the long arm of the 'law' or Himmler's SS.

That is a major difference. Merely following the law in Nazi Germany only worked if you fit the cookie-cutter description of a patriotic German, whereas in China, if you submit before the law (like in other nations, though the consequences should they be flouted may be far more forgiving), you're not targetted.

The "legalities" and legislative measures didn't stick during the trials because of the blatant inhumane nature of the Nuremburg Laws as well as others.

They didn't provide alternatives. The Chinese are.

Most interesting of all is that everyone everywhere has to submit to the rule of the law in their country irregardless of how 'inhumane' they may seem.

From forced religious observance in the Islamic states of the Middle and Eastern nation to the asinine dated laws of the west (such as... "you can't eat ice scream on Bank Street on Sunday" [Ottawa, Ont, Canada].)

If you´re a rabid american on the pro-life/pro-choice cultural war, take a look how things can really get nasty when it comes to abortion...forced abortion, that is.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html.
No moral relativisms here, no "ho, its their culture, dont pass judgement so you wont be judged" crap.
These bloody animals, these heinous savages are conducting a State-sanctioned genocide. They are forcing themselves on full-term pregnant women and killing their babies, so they can stay in good terms with the powers-to-be. The one-child-policy has been somewhat eased lately, but it seems that local officials in China are getting berated by their superiors on acount of mounting birth rates.
So what do they do...?
The horror of China's forced abortion policy has nothing to do with "babies." There are no "babies" in those situations, only fetuses. Stop using incorrect terms out of emotion.

What is ACTUALLY alarming is their potential violation of the right to choose...it's every bit as sick and twisted as the anti-choice efforts in America. Though at least the Chinese provide alternative options; the "pro-life" movement doesn't even want there to be alternatives, they just want to punish every woman who has sex. Your example is the perfect case for keeping government the hell out of reproductive health decisions; if we rule the government has the right to tell women they CAN'T get abortions, then I don't think it will be long before the government gains the power to command women to GET abortions. Probably just poor women, minority women, or otherwise troublesome demographics at first, but I don't think it will be long before all women become state-regulated incubators who must bear or abort at the whim of the government.

In his ranting lunacy, he does make a valid point. There are state imposed abortions should the families flout the law and not have prior permission from either the local officials or from their work place (the latter is being taken away to reduce bureaucratic red tape).

Yes, the state-impose abortions are damn cruel, but, they are issued to defiant women who won't follow the rules.

Yes, it is inhumane, but given their overpopulation issue, there has to be something done to control it. Yes, it is crude, but they put themselves in this position with Mao's big family policies.

It is inhumane, but, it isn't genocide because there are laws in place and if people violate the law, they lose rights.

Ya gotta be fuckin' kidding me.

"Concentration camps may be inhumane, but it's not genocide because there are laws in place and if people violate the laws, they lose rights. They're only for defiant Jews who don't obey the laws against their existence."

"Yes, killing black protestors may seem cruel, but they bring it on themselves by trying to get into our schools. The sooner these uppity negroes learn their place the better."

I'm not suggesting you support either the Holocaust or segregation, but your logic applies supports both handily.

I mean, come on, this isn't even a 'when is it a baby' issue. Pro-choicers should be up in arms over China, even more outraged than pro-lifers (if it's possible). This is a government forcing abortion on women. The fact that we never hear anything about China from the pro-choicers means one of the following:
1. They're ignorant of the situation.
2. They're actually pro-abortion, regardless of their protests to the contrary.
3. They're not actually pro-abortion, but they think there are circumstances that warrant government forcing abortion on women.
3. They're not actually pro-abortion, but they don't want to speak out because of other considerations (busy elsewhere, afraid of political fallout, &c.)

I mean, come on, this isn't even a 'when is it a baby' issue. Pro-choicers should be up in arms over China, even more outraged than pro-lifers (if it's possible). This is a government forcing abortion on women. The fact that we never hear anything about China from the pro-choicers means one of the following:
1. They're ignorant of the situation.
2. They're actually pro-abortion, regardless of their protests to the contrary.
3. They're not actually pro-abortion, but they think there are circumstances that warrant government forcing abortion on women.
3. They're not actually pro-abortion, but they don't want to speak out because of other considerations (busy elsewhere, afraid of political fallout, &c.)

You're forgetting the fact that China has over 1.3 billion population, as well as an extremely fast growing economy and that they hope to rival (and succeed) America. Place yourself in China's shoes. Would you rather kill fetuses who probably don't feel pain as of when they're injected, or let them be born and thus have another mouth to feed?

China's doing everything they can with the resources they have. It's just too difficult. They've been through bigger disasters, dumber leaders and more civil wars than most countries in the world, and they still have a massive 1+ billion to maintain.

You're forgetting the fact that China has over 1.3 billion population, as well as an extremely fast growing economy and that they hope to rival (and succeed) America. Place yourself in China's shoes. Would you rather kill fetuses who probably don't feel pain as of when they're injected, or let them be born and thus have another mouth to feed?

China's doing everything they can with the resources they have. It's just too difficult. They've been through bigger disasters, dumber leaders and more civil wars than most countries in the world, and they still have a massive 1+ billion to maintain.

So they need to make sure there's enough living space? I see. Well, at least they have the courtesy to kill the excess population before it's born. Some of the time, anyway. You see, the 'one child' policy has this little side effect of families drowning girl babies because they wanted a boy. Never mind the fact that there are a lot of Christians in China, and they don't want abortions. But no, of course coersion can be justified by the desire for hegemony.

First up, this has nothing to do with sexism (points at Dakini). The foetus is the target, not the mother. The foetus is in the mother because men don't host foetus, but that's nature and nature is sexist, in the sense that is treats women and men differently. Nothing wrong with that, or maybe yes, but then nature is wrong, and you can complain all you want nature doesn't give a shit about your opinion.

Secondly, this fact is used here as a propaganda tool against the 'communist' government. Propaganda against communism is common and accepted in your culture, but if you gave us an article saying a black men killed children, and therefore black men are creating an environment making those killings more likely, it would sound odd to you. Well guess what, accusing the government you call communist with no evidence at all sounds odd to me and I can give you thousands if not millions of examples where any government has failed, starting with Hiroshima, via the countless wars for profit to the financial mass killings in the third world.

Thirdly, this act should have been avoided and the responsibles should be replaced with more competent people, so as to avoid such problems in the future.

China's one child policy is a social disaster.

THey will grey before becoming a developed nation and would end up having fewer productive people to shoulder the burden of increasingly unproductive people.

Who knows...the CPC thugs may resort to another "innovative" way of doing away with the older unproductive folks.

On another note, I remember reading somewhere that there is a big shortage of girls to marry and about 40 million Chinese will be forced to stay single.

Methinks the poor bachelors will find another "innovative" way ;)

China's population is also going to age much faster then ever thought.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/images/anim/ch_all2.gif
(that's the best image on the internet of projections)

This is going to cause problems as China does not have a stable social structure to support the elderly like Europe and the US. This could have bad effects on the economy which is already overheating.

Well as far as all those single men.. do you think they'll turn to each other? :D Go gay? Hahahah.. just a thought my friend brought up.

:mad: i think that if your a pro lifer or a pro choicer you should be appauled at this! They should hand out condoms and birth control... Itd cost the same and if a big mean china man with a gun came to my door saying if you dont use these your a dead mofo, id start using birth control.. Cuz this is genocide here!

Methinks the poor bachelors will find another "innovative" way ;)

lmao

Methinks the poor bachelors will find another "innovative" way ;)

Highly frowned upon in China. Like, more than your average American fundie preacher. Fred Phelps might be more averse to homosexuality than the movers and shakers in the PRC.

Highly frowned upon in China. Like, more than your average American fundie preacher. Fred Phelps might be more averse to homosexuality than the movers and shakers in the PRC.

Oh it may be frowned upon, but they gotta get off in one way or another.. and the hands can only go so far.

Oh it may be frowned upon, but they gotta get off in one way or another.. and the hands can only go so far.

Maybe... but I'm just saying the closet door's a lot heavier over there.

:Cuz this is genocide here!
No its not we covered that ... using emotive language in incorrect situations only detracts from discussion

In his ranting lunacy, he does make a valid point. There are state imposed abortions should the families flout the law and not have prior permission from either the local officials or from their work place (the latter is being taken away to reduce bureaucratic red tape).

Yes, the state-impose abortions are damn cruel, but, they are issued to defiant women who won't follow the rules.

Yes, it is inhumane, but given their overpopulation issue, there has to be something done to control it. Yes, it is crude, but they put themselves in this position with Mao's big family policies.

It is inhumane, but, it isn't genocide because there are laws in place and if people violate the law, they lose rights.


It takes two to be defiant in that manner, and you know what I mean. Perhaps men should just be sterilized after they impregnate one woman. That might have the same effect.

It takes two to be defiant in that manner, and you know what I mean. Perhaps men should just be sterilized after they impregnate one woman. That might have the same effect.
Actually, that is often brought up.

I remember when my class covered this very debate in OAC (grade 13) World Issues (back in 2001/2002), that was a proposed idea for helping combat the issue of overpopulation.

It would work too. After all, the women is no more at fault than the man. It is just more obvious because of the consequences.

Think about it - the husband and wife conceive a child and when she delivers her baby, at that time her husband is sterilized.

Or they could reserve sterilization for each husband who impregnates his wife more than once.

This makes me think of something interesting - twins...triplets...quads...quins... they would be exempt, wouldn't they? After all, aborting one baby from a set would put the lives of the others endangered.

the world is overpopulated as it is.
So the ends justify the means?

So the ends justify the means?
Technically yes, its better to kill a fetus that hasn't even been born then to be forced to starve to death

Harsh, but effective though. Makes me feel kinda sad right now.

But come again, it could be a win win solution.

Heck, girls are such a rare commodity right now. Their importing from South East Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, etc). Good for the economy.

Okay.. i'm being cruelly sarcastic. :D

Technically yes, its better to kill a fetus that hasn't even been born then to be forced to starve to death

Ach, you're looking at it differently than I am. I'm looking at an intrusion into a woman's right to choose that makes this heinous. It's her body, and no government has any right to do this. But, totalitarianism is China's game, and choice isn't an option there.

On top of this, besides the fact that I'm pro choice, I also don't like abortion at all. So, it's kind of the worst of both worlds to me.

*Another reason why I despise the PRC*

Ach, you're looking at it differently than I am. I'm looking at an intrusion into a woman's right to choose that makes this heinous. It's her body, and no government has any right to do this. But, totalitarianism is China's game, and choice isn't an option there.

On top of this, besides the fact that I'm pro choice, I also don't like abortion at all. So, it's kind of the worst of both worlds to me.

*Another reason why I despise the PRC*

Sigh... fine its her body and then China become's overpopulated and then they can't feed everyone, and then they starve. Then everyone screams at them for being idiots for not controlling the population. Either way they're going to get bashed so they might as well get bashed and help a crucial problem in China at the same time.
;)

China become's overpopulated and then they can't feed everyone, and then they starve.

If resources are properly used and food is efficiently distributed, there is enough
food for everyone in the world. The Malthusian view has been proved wrong.

If you´re a rabid american on the pro-life/pro-choice cultural war, take a look how things can really get nasty when it comes to abortion...forced abortion, that is.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html.
No moral relativisms here, no "ho, its their culture, dont pass judgement so you wont be judged" crap.
These bloody animals, these heinous savages are conducting a State-sanctioned genocide. They are forcing themselves on full-term pregnant women and killing their babies, so they can stay in good terms with the powers-to-be. The one-child-policy has been somewhat eased lately, but it seems that local officials in China are getting berated by their superiors on acount of mounting birth rates.
So what do they do...?

There are several "bloody animals" in this forum who have inferred these kind of methods be used to control the Latin American population in the U.S.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9544599#post9544599

If you´re a rabid american on the pro-life/pro-choice cultural war, take a look how things can really get nasty when it comes to abortion...forced abortion, that is.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html.
No moral relativisms here, no "ho, its their culture, dont pass judgement so you wont be judged" crap.
These bloody animals, these heinous savages are conducting a State-sanctioned genocide. They are forcing themselves on full-term pregnant women and killing their babies, so they can stay in good terms with the powers-to-be. The one-child-policy has been somewhat eased lately, but it seems that local officials in China are getting berated by their superiors on acount of mounting birth rates.
So what do they do...?

I'm an American who is NOT on the pro-life/choice war since I consider it a smokescreen issuse by politicans not doing squat with our tax paying money. It irritates me that people are so hung up on those issues that at times doesn't even directly concern them, nor do they give any damned about more pressing issues.

I'm more concerned with our orphan situation than I am about an issue that never ****ing ends.

That said, don't worry about China. Maybe when they get around to invading the America's I'll get anti-China, but untill then, their interior political business IS their goddamned business. Not mine or yours.

Thomas Malthus was wrong anyway. Simply speaking, animals aren't people. I can't believe the PRC has appologists on this forum. One day, the chinese peoples groaning will come to an end.

The sterilizing is a bad idea. Vasectomies can't always be reversed. If the child dies what then. Are the couple then not allowed to have any children.

The overpopulation of the earth is a myth. Statistically you need around 3 children to even keep a population at 0 growth. Look at europe. Many countries of Europe seem to have hit 0 growth. Don't forget, people die before they are old enough to work. When the young are not capable of caring for the aging population they will start offing the aging population. The government knows this. They can't possibly not know this.

Who's the racist that said the chinese can't have an american style government. I'm sure another socialist.

Actually couples having two children maintains nominal population growth in developed countries that is. A lot of Europeans are having less then 2 kids often, leading to future declines.

Ok...

*plods to through numerous spelling errors and grammar annoyances*

Hmn... I could grasp the essence of your argument, if not for the needless comparison to Nazi Germany's eugenics policies, as well as others. Though by bringing it up, you pave the way to show the difference between following the state law and not being forced into a corner, and state sanctioned eugenics (much more severe than the less than selective forced abortion by the Chinese authorities) and wide-spread systematic genocide.

They [Chinese] don't have to submit to the inhumane commands lest they flout the rule and spirit of the law. If do they follow, they're fine, where as in Nazi Germany, unless you physically fit their ideals, you couldn't escape the long arm of the 'law' or Himmler's SS.

That is a major difference. Merely following the law in Nazi Germany only worked if you fit the cookie-cutter description of a patriotic German, whereas in China, if you submit before the law (like in other nations, though the consequences should they be flouted may be far more forgiving), you're not targetted.

The "legalities" and legislative measures didn't stick during the trials because of the blatant inhumane nature of the Nuremburg Laws as well as others.

They didn't provide alternatives. The Chinese are.

Most interesting of all is that everyone everywhere has to submit to the rule of the law in their country irregardless of how 'inhumane' they may seem.

From forced religious observance in the Islamic states of the Middle and Eastern nation to the asinine dated laws of the west (such as... "you can't eat ice scream on Bank Street on Sunday" [Ottawa, Ont, Canada].)
First of all, let me express sincere thanks for the appreciation you showed for my grasp of the english language. I´m not a native of a english-speaking country, although i strive everyday to learn something new...which is more you can say about a lot of anglos who never learn anyother language besides cosy olénglish.
But getting to the point: in Nazy Germany, the anti- jewish discrimination laws didnt start right away hoarding up jewish citizens to take them to the death camps; this was a gradual process. First, the jews were banned from certain public spaces, like coffe shops and museums; some time after that, they were prohibited from having certain jobs, like law professions; later on, mixed marriages were outlawed...so, for quite some time jewish citizens just had to follow the several discriminatory laws and they would be just fine...there were alternatives provided: the jewish citizens simply had to abstain from some acts to escape public punishement.
Yes, there are injust laws everywhere in the world...but that doesnt mean that they have to be followed like they were the word of some all-powerfull deity...if the american revolutionaries had bowed to the laws of the British Crown, there would never be a independent US...

The horror of China's forced abortion policy has nothing to do with "babies." There are no "babies" in those situations, only fetuses. Stop using incorrect terms out of emotion.

What is ACTUALLY alarming is their potential violation of the right to choose...it's every bit as sick and twisted as the anti-choice efforts in America. Though at least the Chinese provide alternative options; the "pro-life" movement doesn't even want there to be alternatives, they just want to punish every woman who has sex. Your example is the perfect case for keeping government the hell out of reproductive health decisions; if we rule the government has the right to tell women they CAN'T get abortions, then I don't think it will be long before the government gains the power to command women to GET abortions. Probably just poor women, minority women, or otherwise troublesome demographics at first, but I don't think it will be long before all women become state-regulated incubators who must bear or abort at the whim of the government.
I seemed to not have made myself clear when i staerted the thread..my fault, of course. ;)
What appals me more in this problem is that all this amounts to severe violations of civil rights that should be obvious and self-evident to all nations on the face of the Earth: the right of a woman to dispose of her body as she sees fit. I never intended to present my position as a anti-abortion stance. Chinas´s option for the one-child-policy is a legitimate political move, although i´ll concede that the issue of over-population is moot. However i do take exception when State gestapo-like thugs feel in their own right to carry out such despicable actions on chinese citizens...and i further claim that the widespread culture of human-rights abuse prevalent in China bureaucracy propiciates such state of affairs.

First of all, i didnt stoop to obscenities in my posts. I do believe that any issue can be discussed without wallowing in vulgarities.
Next i should state that China´s political culture and human-rights record provides the ideal framework for this kind of thing to happen.
Instead of being indignated on the use of four-letter words you should hone your argumentation technique. What you did here is weaseling out by getting upset about my tone and ignoring my content. The halfhearted attempt to brush it off with a single, tangential, sentence did not work, sorry. Whatever, keep your views and style, i'll keep mine. I just get angry if someone makes broad sweeping statements about whole nations or groups, as this is the breeding ground for unreflected racism.

Instead of being indignated on the use of four-letter words you should hone your argumentation technique. What you did here is weaseling out by getting upset about my tone and ignoring my content. The halfhearted attempt to brush it off with a single, tangential, sentence did not work, sorry. Whatever, keep your views and style, i'll keep mine. I just get angry if someone makes broad sweeping statements about whole nations or groups, as this is the breeding ground for unreflected racism.
Look, i already acknowledged that i might have used a somewhat excessive tone when adressing this issue...i didnt mean to imply that all chinese citizens share the same mindset about human rights that chinese bureaucracy does...what i do contend is that these kind of actions are to be expected in a country where public officials show a utter disregard for human rights (extrajudicial executions, lack of free speech,etc). I think to say that is not the same as trumpeting a racist agenda.

Thomas Malthus was wrong anyway. Simply speaking, animals aren't people. I can't believe the PRC has appologists on this forum. One day, the chinese peoples groaning will come to an end.

The sterilizing is a bad idea. Vasectomies can't always be reversed. If the child dies what then. Are the couple then not allowed to have any children.

The overpopulation of the earth is a myth. Statistically you need around 3 children to even keep a population at 0 growth. Look at europe. Many countries of Europe seem to have hit 0 growth. Don't forget, people die before they are old enough to work. When the young are not capable of caring for the aging population they will start offing the aging population. The government knows this. They can't possibly not know this.

Who's the racist that said the chinese can't have an american style government. I'm sure another socialist.


The world may not be overpopulated or even close, but China is approaching that limit.

But getting to the point: in Nazy Germany, the anti- jewish discrimination laws didnt start right away hoarding up jewish citizens to take them to the death camps; this was a gradual process. First, the jews were banned from certain public spaces, like coffe shops and museums; some time after that, they were prohibited from having certain jobs, like law professions; later on, mixed marriages were outlawed...so, for quite some time jewish citizens just had to follow the several discriminatory laws and they would be just fine...there were alternatives provided: the jewish citizens simply had to abstain from some acts to escape public punishement.
Yes I am aware of this.

However, the reason I didn't bring this up because this is like comparing apples and oranges.

There is one unified law that applies to all Chinese, whereas there was a separate set of laws, known as the Nuremburg Laws (created in 1935 at the Numreburg Conference) that applied strictly and solely to the Jewish population under the Nazi regime in Germany.

However, the Chinese don't face the same restrictions. Only those who actually break the law would face repercussions, usually in the form of job restrictions and healthcare education reduction. And even then, there are loopholes in this law, such as when it comes to rural families (if they have a girl, they can have another child) and divorced families (since they've remarried, they're allowed to have 1 child).

Yes I am aware of this.

However, the reason I didn't bring this up because this is like comparing apples and oranges.

There is one unified law that applies to all Chinese, whereas there was a separate set of laws, known as the Nuremburg Laws (created in 1935 at the Numreburg Conference) that applied strictly and solely to the Jewish population under the Nazi regime in Germany.

However, the Chinese don't face the same restrictions. Only those who actually break the law would face repercussions, usually in the form of job restrictions and healthcare education reduction. And even then, there are loopholes in this law, such as when it comes to rural families (if they have a girl, they can have another child) and divorced families (since they've remarried, they're allowed to have 1 child).
Look, what i do take offence at is the mindset in chinese leadership that empowers (maybe not even intencionally, i´ll grant that) low-rank officials to carry out this sort of thing...
And lets face it, chinese law on this point only targets the impoverished classes...i mean, a member of the upper-classes can spawn how many children as he wants, because he´ll be able to support any fines or health-care reduction he likes...and he can even take advantage of China´s all-pervasive courruption sistem and bribe public officials to look the other way.

Look, what i do take offence at is the mindset in chinese leadership that empowers (maybe not even intencionally, i´ll grant that) low-rank officials to carry out this sort of thing...
And lets face it, chinese law on this point only targets the impoverished classes...i mean, a member of the upper-classes can spawn how many children as he wants, because he´ll be able to support any fines or health-care reduction he likes...and he can even take advantage of China´s all-pervasive courruption sistem and bribe public officials to look the other way.
Uhm... Not necessarily. The "impoverished" or rural families do have incredible leeway because many of them own farms and they need extra hands and often the parents have to work into old age to support themselves, so having a boy helps them. Two is better for them. So, they can get around it like that as well. Why do you think I keep mentioning rural families?

Uhm... Not necessarily. The "impoverished" or rural families do have incredible leeway because many of them own farms and they need extra hands and often the parents have to work into old age to support themselves, so having a boy helps them. Two is better for them. So, they can get around it like that as well. Why do you think I keep mentioning rural families?
I supose it would take a more profound knowledge of china´s society, but i would say that most chinese living in rural areas work for landowners and have no land themselves...so, they have no leeway to equal a fine brought on by infringing the one-child rule.

They have a proportion of their own land. Economically it's not much different from America.

I supose it would take a more profound knowledge of china´s society, but i would say that most chinese living in rural areas work for landowners and have no land themselves...so, they have no leeway to equal a fine brought on by infringing the one-child rule.
They do have leeway when they keep producing girls. Boys are seen as a retirement fund because culturally the boys live at home and bring a wife to live at home, where as the girl goes to live with her husband and his family.