Steven Ertelt #fundie

Steven Ertelt #fundie lifenews.com

For years the "pro-choice" mantra has gone something like this: abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, we can't tell women what to do with their bodies, women have a right to choose, etc. Yet, a recent forced abortion incident in China proves so-called "pro-choice" advocates are nothing more than pro-abortion

58 comments

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

In case you hadn't noticed, China is in a population crisis. While a forced abortion is just as deplorable from a pro-choice viewpoint as an outright ban on them, one must recognise that in the Chinese situation it is one of very, very few options available, all of them pretty distasteful, but none so much as the natural alternative. The natural, hands-off approach is that everyone breeds without restraint, and the population density is kept at a tenable level by starvation, epidemics and other hardship causing mass death, and plenty of suffering even for the survivors. It's not a pleasant thought, but even forced abortion is the lesser evil compared to that; the only "good" solution is to take more long-term measures to control growth, and it's too late for that now - it might not even be tenable anyway, since a large part of even the non-fundie population can be very resistant to something like population control (or, in anything less than a strongly enforced system, apathetic to the point that it has no influence on them).

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

I don't think starvation would get that extreme, anyway... but then I'm vehemently convinced that Malthusian principles don't apply to even a mildly technological society.

That did occur to me, but it would have made for a much longer post and I was a little short on time earlier. I'm not sure I agree with your outright rejection of Malthus either - technology is indeed a potent weapon against such effects, but while it can massively increase the population density a given area of the earth can support, that increased supportable density must still be finite - and, once reached, it must surely become self limiting again by some means, even if it's as simple as there being physically no more room. Even if it became technologically feasible to colonise other planets, boosting the available resources and space and significantly delaying a new Malthusian equilibrium, the space and resources would still ultimately be finite and thus subject to self-limiting effects eventually. I'm sure there are other effects that could act as a self-limiting restriction besides the harsh default of increased mortality - in a slumping economy and times of economic hardship, for example, many sensible people would choose not to attempt to start or enlarge a family, but I don't think such conditions can be relied upon to arise whenever population needs limiting, in such a chaotic system, and economic collapse is still a hard price to pay for it - besides, plenty of people are too stupid to consider and thus be influenced by forces like that.

Limitless growth is simply an impossibility in a finite universe (or a finite accessible portion of an infinite universe). Perhaps the best we could hope for, is that our technology can open up enough space for our naturally unchecked, continuous growth rate, such that it'll take until the heat death to reach the limits of resources and space available to us - after that point, obviously, it wouldn't matter anyway.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

@B_I_A_J: I'd disagree that forced abortion is a "lesser evil". In my mind, forcing that on a woman is equivalent to rape. Is a society that will publicly sanction, even encourage, that worthy of continued existence?

That's a tough one, if the alternative could well be for the society to disintegrate altogether. Having to decide between sacrificing your morality or facing the end of your own existence is no choice any decision-making entity, from an individual to a whole nation, should ever have to face, and they should do their utmost to predict and avoid such a thing ever coming about.

Having reached such a decision, however, what is one to do? If you're religious, it's easy - let yourself cease to exist and hope to reap your eternal reward for doing the moral thing. If you're an atheist, like myself, it's a somewhat tougher call; in fact, I think it's perhaps the worst thing a sentient, moral being could ever have to deal with (and possibly a major factor in the creation of religions). Horrible or not, however, faced with such options one must still make a choice; failure to choose simply lets the decision make itself and abdicates moral responsibility - whether failure or refusal to choose is morally superior, worse or equal to either option could be debated endlessly.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

dg, even if all you describe comes to pass, even the most vanishingly small population growth rate will eventually outstrip finite resources, no matter how efficiently you make use of them. In any case, it's no solution to the Chinese population problem today to tell them to just wait a few generations until the world can support them - they need space and resources now, and an optimal course of action until that point must be decided on, somehow.

If one considers the possibility of enforced abortion, as described in the original post, the problem is acute, and as old as civilisation itself: how does one weigh suffering of an individual against suffering of a whole population? I'm strongly inclined to think that if the distributed suffering of the many is even slightly less intense per person than it would be applied to a smaller number, then one should choose the distributed option out of simple fairness. Having thought at greater length about the matter on that basis, and I thank you for provoking me to do so, I'm beginning to suspect that enforced abortion isn't the lesser evil after all. But, then again, how does one weigh the intangible hardship of an enforced abortion, in the form of emotional damage and usurping the right to self determination of the prospective mother, against the physical hardships caused by massive overpopulation, and its corollary effects such as unemployment and homelessness - starvation, exposure, etc. I think we're well into apples and oranges territory here, so how can one weigh the odds and make a choice based on that?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Yet, a recent forced abortion incident in China proves so-called "pro-choice" advocates are nothing more than pro-abortion"

Why don't you go over to China and protest against the virtual industrial-scale abortions that go on there, then? Oh, but I forgot - China isn't a 'Soft Target', is it? Unlike America, if you went around bombing abortion clincs there, you wouldn't just be jailed, oh no. You'd be jailed in a 're-education' camp for ten years, be beaten, brutalised, and forced to recant your 'Faith', and become an Atheist, and follow the Party line, especially on abortion (and if you slipped up once, even after 9 years 364 days, you'd have to undergo it all over again!). Or you simply don't care about what's happening there, therefore you're not a Christian. So, go on, if you TRULY care about the situation in China, go there & protest, nay, bomb an abortion clinic there for JAYZARSE!

Or you could simply STFU and keep your nose out of other peoples' business. Besides, I don't exactly see you 'Pro-Lifers' coming up with what to do with all those unwanted babies in the world, specifically ALL you 'Pro-Lifers' looking after all the unwanted babies in the world.

old comment by CT

Yes... the incident mentioned here is one that is of interest...

The mother, knowing about the laws in China, became pregnant with her thrid child... it should be noted that the maximum for where her husband is registered is two children. Any children after those two result in a massive fine.

The mother, after being ADVISED to have an abortion, did a runner... so, since it was obvious she was intending to have the child, the authorities threated to seize her families assets to pay the fine.

The mother, having found out about this threat, came back and went straight to the hospital... where she made clear her intention to have an abortion, but where it was also made clear that she can appeal against the fine due to her husband being registered in a place where they don't live. (farm areas can have three children before the fine turns up)

Now... the authorities haven't forced her to choose the abortion. They are in fact letting her appeal against the fine and have the child.

Throughout all of this, the mother has had the choice... have the child and pay the fine, of don't have the child and don't pay the fine. The only "forcing" the authorities have done is to force her to make the damned choice, knowing what the results would be!

She STILL has the CHOICE! No-one has taken that away from her... no-one says she can't have the child... no-one is making her submit to an abortion...

So, where is the link between this and being pro-abortion? Anyone would think you've taken something, left out a HUGE amount of detail, and used it to say the exact opposite of what it says.

Typical fundie dishonesty...

Steven Ertelt #fundie lifenews.com

58 comments

Confused?