js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/10/85)
I was flipping the channels of the tube recently when a documentary on
China's overpopulation problem and the steps the chinese government has been
taking to solve it. I stopped to watch the rest of it, and thought that
it might be of some interest to net.abortion readers.
I'll attempt to describe the documentary first, and save my comments till
later:
They started out by explaining just how tough the problem currently is,
with the aid of a graph of population vs. time. In historical times, the
land that is currently China supported a population which was a *tiny* fraction
of the size of their current population. With the advent of the industrial
revolution and modern medicine, china's population began ramping up until it
had reached 500 million by the time of the revolution. The graph they were
using became essentially vertical after that point, and the population has
now reached ~1 billion. All of the farmable land in china, divided into this
population leaves 1/5 acre per person, just *barely* enough to produce enough
food to feed one person. Moreover, due to the recent population increases,
much of the population is still young and of childbearing age.
The government's plan is to try to have only one child per couple for the
next hundred years of so. With this plan in effect, China will go through
10-15 lean years as the population peaks at 1.2 billion in the year 2000,
and there is only 1/7 acres of farmland per person. Without this plan, there
will be 1.4 billion chinese by the year 2000, unless people start starving
to death before then.
In order to put this plan into effect, the government has chosen a few
model towns in which to achieve this low birthrate to demonstrate that it
is possible. The people making the documentary were allowed to interview
a woman who had already had her one child, and had just been 'persuaded' to
have her third abortion, this one in her eighth month. It was very sad.
It seems that she had been attempting to hide her pregnancy, hoping to have
a son this time, and she went unreported until her seventh month, when a
'family planning' counselor was assigned to persuade her to have an
abortion. They also interviewed this woman, the counselor, who actually
did seem to be very concerned about the health and well-being of the
pregnant woman, and who also seemed to be very relieved that she had been
successful in persuading the other woman to have an abortion before she
gave birth. No questions were asked either woman concerning their
opinion of the morality of the whole business. The counselor also said
that she had tried to persuade the woman to be sterilized, but that she
was unsuccessful.
End of description of documentary.
Long-time readers of net.abortion know that while I am pro-choice, I would
not be opposed to a law which limited abortions to the first trimester or
so. Personally, I am appalled at the idea of an abortion in the eighth
month of pregnancy, but cannot help but wonder if it is kinder than letting
the kid grow up to starve to death when they are 15.
I don't have an easy solution to the dilemna the chinese face. I'm sure
pro-lifers will condemn the chinese government for its solution, but would
they rather see the chinese use Malthus' solution?
--
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
"Pulled a muscle in my ear!"-Penfoldjohnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/16/85)
> > I don't have an easy solution to the dilemna the chinese face. I'm sure > pro-lifers will condemn the chinese government for its solution, but would > they rather see the chinese use Malthus' solution? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Pulled a muscle in my ear!"-Penfold Pro-choicers have consistently said that abortion is DEFINETLY NOT a means of birth control. Let's stick to that. As birth control techniques have matured our country has turned back a high birth rate before abortion was legalized. Abortion is demonstratably not the answer. Mike Johnston
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (04/16/85)
In your description of the Chinese situation you neglected to mention that the one child permitted a family in the model towns would be assured excellent daycare, health care and education. This is an incentive for parents to limit their families. I wonder if such care were assured here to women with unwanted pregnancies (at present even those of us which planned children often cannot find or afford such things) that perhaps the abortion rate would drop. (orignal article follows) > > I was flipping the channels of the tube recently when a documentary on > China's overpopulation problem and the steps the chinese government has been > taking to solve it. I stopped to watch the rest of it, and thought that > it might be of some interest to net.abortion readers. > I'll attempt to describe the documentary first, and save my comments till > later: > They started out by explaining just how tough the problem currently is, > with the aid of a graph of population vs. time. In historical times, the > land that is currently China supported a population which was a *tiny* fraction > of the size of their current population. With the advent of the industrial > revolution and modern medicine, china's population began ramping up until it > had reached 500 million by the time of the revolution. The graph they were > using became essentially vertical after that point, and the population has > now reached ~1 billion. All of the farmable land in china, divided into this > population leaves 1/5 acre per person, just *barely* enough to produce enough > food to feed one person. Moreover, due to the recent population increases, > much of the population is still young and of childbearing age. > The government's plan is to try to have only one child per couple for the > next hundred years of so. With this plan in effect, China will go through > 10-15 lean years as the population peaks at 1.2 billion in the year 2000, > and there is only 1/7 acres of farmland per person. Without this plan, there > will be 1.4 billion chinese by the year 2000, unless people start starving > to death before then. > In order to put this plan into effect, the government has chosen a few > model towns in which to achieve this low birthrate to demonstrate that it > is possible. The people making the documentary were allowed to interview > a woman who had already had her one child, and had just been 'persuaded' to > have her third abortion, this one in her eighth month. It was very sad. > It seems that she had been attempting to hide her pregnancy, hoping to have > a son this time, and she went unreported until her seventh month, when a > 'family planning' counselor was assigned to persuade her to have an > abortion. They also interviewed this woman, the counselor, who actually > did seem to be very concerned about the health and well-being of the > pregnant woman, and who also seemed to be very relieved that she had been > successful in persuading the other woman to have an abortion before she > gave birth. No questions were asked either woman concerning their > opinion of the morality of the whole business. The counselor also said > that she had tried to persuade the woman to be sterilized, but that she > was unsuccessful. > > End of description of documentary. > > Long-time readers of net.abortion know that while I am pro-choice, I would > not be opposed to a law which limited abortions to the first trimester or > so. Personally, I am appalled at the idea of an abortion in the eighth > month of pregnancy, but cannot help but wonder if it is kinder than letting > the kid grow up to starve to death when they are 15. > > I don't have an easy solution to the dilemna the chinese face. I'm sure > pro-lifers will condemn the chinese government for its solution, but would > they rather see the chinese use Malthus' solution? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Pulled a muscle in my ear!"-Penfold
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/21/85)
I'm sure there is no easy solution to the problem the Chinese face. But it bothers me to see present the alternative (as if it were the only one) as "Malthus' solution", as if we had to choose between these two. Did the documentary bring out the fact that infanticide against female babies has risen dramatically because families are forced to have one child and most of them want that one to be a boy? Did it say what happens if the "8 months pregnant woman" can't be "convinced" to have an abortion? Did it mention the economic sanctions imposed as penalties on families that have more than one child? What really justifies the state in forcing parents not to have children they want? Is this really a "pro-choice" solution, Jeff? (I know it bothers you in spite of your being pro-choice, but you still resign yourself to it anyway.) Did the documentary inform you that women are required to use an IUD after their first child, and be sterilized after their second? (For another reference, the reader may refer to a three-part series done on China's birth control practices by the Washington Post, which concluded Jan. 8.) I would hope a solution could be found that doesn't impose so much on human rights. I would also hope that the blame for the problems of a large population would not be placed so easily on the backs of the poor families that want to have children. What attempt has there been to explore the economic factors that contribute to families wanting large numbers of children in less developed countries? If we approached the problem from that angle, I fear the solution would probably hit too close to home and say something about our own standard of living and its effect on other countries. Nope, I'm sure the answers aren't easy. But China's answer seems to be the easiest for all concerned, except those families who are denied their children. What do their feelings matter? Shouldn't one be enough? Pity the poor woman for trying to hide her pregnancy as if she thought she might keep her child. Disgusting, sure enough. But even more disgusting to me is how easily we are led to accept the idea that such solutions are the best options. How easily we will gloss over basic human rights to settle on such solutions that will "take care of the problem". If it we truly thought these things to be disgusting, we wouldn't give up so easily on finding solutions that are not disgusting. Obviously disgusted, -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/23/85)
> > I'm sure there is no easy solution to the problem the Chinese > face. But it bothers me to see present the alternative (as if > it were the only one) as "Malthus' solution", as if we had to > choose between these two. Of course there are other solutions. Seperating men and women into seperate concentration camps would be one. Having a major war would probably help too. I'm sure you could think of others, but I haven't been able to think of any *superior* to what they are doing. Can you? > > Did the documentary bring out the fact that infanticide against > female babies has risen dramatically because families are forced > to have one child and most of them want that one to be a boy? > Did it say what happens if the "8 months pregnant woman" can't > be "convinced" to have an abortion? Did it mention the economic > sanctions imposed as penalties on families that have more than > one child? What really justifies the state in forcing parents > not to have children they want? Yes, no, I'm not sure. The state's justification is that they don't have a better way to avoid mass starvation. What would justify the state in pursueing a course of action which demonstratably leads to mass starvation? > Is this really a "pro-choice" > solution, Jeff? No. I never claimed it was. > I would hope a solution could be found that doesn't impose so > much on human rights. I would also hope that the blame for the > problems of a large population would not be placed so easily > on the backs of the poor families that want to have children. I wish there was one too. I won't condemn the chinese government for their solution unless I can think of a better one, though. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/25/85)
A reply to Jeff Sonntag's reply to me: }> I'm sure there is no easy solution to the problem the Chinese }> face. But it bothers me to see present the alternative (as if }> it were the only one) as "Malthus' solution", as if we had to }> choose between these two. } } Of course there are other solutions. Separating men and women }into separate concentration camps would be one. Having a major war }would probably help too. I'm sure you could think of others, but I }haven't been able to think of any *superior* to what they are doing. }Can you? Yes, I think I could think of a better solution. I think you could too. Tell me, how long did it take you to exhaust all of the possibilities? The main point of my last article, however, is that I don't think you really care too much about finding a superior solution. This impression seems to be borne out by your off-the-cuff remarks here. You pull the above quote out of the context of my article and answer it as if I implied that one of these "other solutions" you mention here should be considered or that you are overlooking them. Don't waste your time, Jeff. You know that the thrust of my article was that we should give ourselves a little more impetus for thinking out solutions that are "not disgusting". }> Did the documentary bring out the fact that infanticide against }> female babies has risen dramatically because families are forced }> to have one child and most of them want that one to be a boy? }> Did it say what happens if the "8 months pregnant woman" can't }> be "convinced" to have an abortion? Did it mention the economic }> sanctions imposed as penalties on families that have more than }> one child? What really justifies the state in forcing parents }> not to have children they want? } } Yes, no, I'm not sure. The state's justification is that they }don't have a better way to avoid mass starvation. What would justify the }state in pursuing a course of action which demonstratably leads to }mass starvation? So many things that you aren't sure about, yet you so easily accept the Chinese solution to the problem. You accept the state's justification, for their actions, and imply that any other solution will indeed lead to "mass starvation". Are you as uncritical of our own government as you are of totalitarian regimes? What course are you speaking of that would demonstratably lead to starvation? How has it been demonstrated? Do you think the Chinese government would accept a solution that would require a decentralization of the government and economy? Suppose that were part of a solution. Is it an inferior solution to forced abortions and birth control? Do you think the government has seriously considered it? Have you? If the government excludes solutions that don't infringe so much on basic human rights, then are they really as justified as you imply in violating those rights. I think you would agree that they are not. With the population density of Hong Kong, how much farmable land do you think they have there? Has mass starvation ensued? Hong Kong has the highest population density of any part of China. If too many people "demonstrably" lead to mass starvation, how has Hong Kong supported so many for so long? These questions should open the door for consideration of a solution. Some other things that ought to open the door wider: 1) What constitutes "farmable land" for the Chinese and what can be done about the land that is not farmable? If the farmers could own their own land would there be more incentive for them to develop it and produce more? 2) Families in economically developed countries tend to voluntarily limit their size. What can be done to stimulate such economic growth in China? As it is, China is aborting nearly as many future food producers as they are food consumers. They depend on a much larger segment of their population for food production than do the more developed countries. 3) In the event that China does experience problems with starvation while it is doing all it can to develop sufficiently, would a solution that required technological and financial aid, trade incentives and agricultural training from the developed countries in the interim be acceptable? (If not maybe those countries would gladly share in the blame for China's human rights violations?) }> Is this really a "pro-choice" }> solution, Jeff? } }No. I never claimed it was. } }> I would hope a solution could be found that doesn't impose so }> much on human rights. I would also hope that the blame for the }> problems of a large population would not be placed so easily }> on the backs of the poor families that want to have children. } } I wish there was one too. I won't condemn the Chinese government }for their solution unless I can think of a better one, though. Good. I hope you haven't stopped thinking, though. Because if you do and continue to withhold criticism then you are indeed accepting of their solution to the problem. Whether or not you claim it as the pro-choice solution, it becomes so by default if you cease to critically examine it and accept it. In this article, I have pointed to what I think are some of the building blocks to a better solution for the Chinese. They could be spelled out in more detail and added to, but I think it would be more constructive to have the pro-choice folks do some of their own thinking. Many of them claim to be as concerned about the basic rights of individuals as the pro-lifers (or even more so). You see, what really bothered me in this whole thing is not so much the difficulty of the solution (I acknowledge that it is difficult) but the apparent ease (demonstrated by one pro-choice advocate) with which we acquiesce to "solutions" that trample over basic human rights. Much of the burden for thinking our solutions to the problems like these is easily placed on the shoulders of the pro-life camp because they detest abortion. Pro-choice folks are accepting of abortion in various degrees and have always seemed to value individual choice highly. I'm beginning to get the impression, however, that the pro-choice mentality lends itself very easily to sympathy for *pro-abortion* (as pro-choicers themselves define the term) practice. I'm glad pro-life folks don't have that luxury. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/25/85)
> Do you think the Chinese government would accept a solution that would > require a decentralization of the government and economy? Suppose that > were part of a solution. Is it an inferior solution to forced abortions > and birth control? I doubt whether the chinese government would accept such a solution, but that's immaterial until someone comes up with such a solution. Have you? How would decentralizing the government help? Would it allow more food to be grown on the same land? I doubt it. Would it cause the same people who want large families so badly that they are willing to risk the government's displeasure to voluntarily limit the number of their offspring? > > With the population density of Hong Kong, how much farmable land do you > think they have there? Has mass starvation ensued? Hong Kong has the > highest population density of any part of China. If too many people > "demonstrably" lead to mass starvation, how has Hong Kong supported > so many for so long? By becoming a manufacturing and trading center, they can presumably earn enough to import food from elsewhere. That's a hell of a lot easier for a people who represent a small fraction of the world's population to do than for people who represent a large part of it. The food *has* to come from somewhere. The whole world can't just keep reproducing more people than they can feed and plan to import it from elsewhere. It doesn't work when 1/2 of the population of the world does it either. (I know, the chinese don't represent 1/2 yet. But if they don't limit their birthrate and don't starve to death, they will within a few decades.) > Some other things that ought to open the door wider: > > 1) What constitutes "farmable land" for the Chinese and what can be > done about the land that is not farmable? If the farmers could own > their own land would there be more incentive for them to develop it > and produce more? > As I understand it, these people already farm land that we wouldn't even consider farming. I suppose it's possible that intense effort could terrace a few more mountainsides, but even a healthy increase in the amount of arable land doesn't stand up against an exponentially growing population. > 2) Families in economically developed countries tend to voluntarily limit > their size. What can be done to stimulate such economic growth in China? I don't know, but this could be a good idea, though it seems kind of long-term (ie. unlikely to be effective before Malthus.) > As it is, China is aborting nearly as many future food producers as > they are food consumers. They depend on a much larger segment of their > population for food production than do the more developed countries. More people can produce more food to a limited extent, but this is an example of disminishing marginal returns. Past a certain point, with finite land resources, an additional person cannot produce more additional food than they must consume. China passed this point long ago. > > 3) In the event that China does experience problems with starvation while > it is doing all it can to develop sufficiently, would a solution that required > technological and financial aid, trade incentives and agricultural > training from the developed countries in the interim be acceptable? > (If not maybe those countries would gladly share in the blame for China's > human rights violations?) > I think 'feasible' is a better word for juding solutions than 'acceptable'. Maybe it would be enough *if* china can slow it's growth rate. Nothing like this can be enough if china's growth rate remains exponential. Also, solutions which involve 'helping out' after people begin starving, are (to me) inferior to solutions which do not cause starvation. I know that 'lifeboat ethics' aren't much fun, but can you really blame them for paddling towards shore? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/26/85)
Another reply to Jeff Sonntag: }> Do you think the Chinese government would accept a solution that would }> require a decentralization of the government and economy? Suppose that }> were part of a solution. Is it an inferior solution to forced abortions }> and birth control? } } I doubt whether the Chinese government would accept such a solution, but }that's immaterial until someone comes up with such a solution. Have you? How }would decentralizing the government help? Would it allow more food to be grown }on the same land? I doubt it. Would it cause the same people who want large }families so badly that they are willing to risk the government's displeasure }to voluntarily limit the number of their offspring? I think it might help. When people are given more responsibility for producing their own food on their own land, for their own families (as well as being able to sell it to others) they generally do a better job. They have more incentive to improve their land. The situation in Ethiopia some 20-30 years ago bears some resemblance. In that country the poor could farm the land, but if they made any improvements (e.g. irrigation, planting designed to curb erosion and build the soil) that made the land more valuable, it could be taken away by the rich. All they had to do is forge some documents that claimed ancestral ownership of the land in question, and the peasants were legally helpless. So, since poor, eroding land was better than no land, the poor didn't improve their land. As a result much of Ethiopia's valuable topsoil is now in Egypt, carried there by erosion. I doubt there would be famine in Ethiopia today if there had been land reform. Curiously enough, many people blame the famine there on "too many people". In Communist China, farmers don't own their land either. There is no incentive to make it more productive. If, in fact, the Communist social and economic structure is contributing to the problems the Chinese face, what right does the government have to impose forced abortion and birth control on its people? How does this take away our right to criticize their "solution"? }> With the population density of Hong Kong, how much farmable land do you }> think they have there? Has mass starvation ensued? Hong Kong has the }> highest population density of any part of China. If too many people }> "demonstrably" lead to mass starvation, how has Hong Kong supported }> so many for so long? } } By becoming a manufacturing and trading center, they can presumably }earn enough to import food from elsewhere. That's a hell of a lot easier }for a people who represent a small fraction of the world's population to do }than for people who represent a large part of it. The food *has* to come }from somewhere. The whole world can't just keep reproducing more people than }they can feed and plan to import it from elsewhere. It doesn't work when }1/2 of the population of the world does it either. (I know, the Chinese }don't represent 1/2 yet. But if they don't limit their birth rate and don't }starve to death, they will within a few decades.) My point was that a large population density does not automatically lead to mass starvation. I also said that the birth rate tends to decline in developed countries. In fact, in most developed countries the birth rate is below replacement level. As the mean age of the population increases, so does the death rate (I know life expectancy has increased some, but it can't keep up with the aging population.) }> Some other things that ought to open the door wider: }> 1) What constitutes "farmable land" for the Chinese and what can be }> done about the land that is not farmable? If the farmers could own }> their own land would there be more incentive for them to develop it }> and produce more? }> } As I understand it, these people already farm land that we wouldn't }even consider farming. I suppose it's possible that intense effort could }terrace a few more mountainsides, but even a healthy increase in the }amount of arable land doesn't stand up against an exponentially growing }population. If you look at China's people as a resource that can be used in developing farmable land, then I think the intense effort is workable. As I said before, incentives that would help the farmers produce more would also cause them to voluntarily limit their family size. That is, if they were responsible for their own land, they would also be responsible for feeding their families from it and making a living. They would have to strike their own balance between what they need to make their farm run and and what they could support from the farm. As it is, they have no incentive for either, since all their productivity is absorbed by the state, and the state has to support their children. }> 2) Families in economically developed countries tend to voluntarily limit }> their size. What can be done to stimulate such economic growth in China? } } I don't know, but this could be a good idea, though it seems kind of }long-term (ie. unlikely to be effective before Malthus.) Yes, it's long term, but I don't think the term is much longer than what they're doing now. Maybe something could also be said about people dying of starvation vs. killing persons who may be dying that way in the future. With forced abortion, the Chinese are killing both those that will starve and those who won't. If you treat people as individuals, no one can say at the time of birth whether any given individual will starve, or grow up to help China solve its problems. Keeping in mind that the supposed inevitability of starvation for many of these aborted children is the justification for aborting *all* of them, is it still the best solution? If the only justification is to prevent starvation, why not just kill those who are actually starving (which will also take care of their progeny)? Why is this a less acceptable solution? Only because with abortion, the carnage is less visible? What do we really care about, people starving, or saving ourselves from having to watch their death? With forced abortion, they are intentionally killing some who will probably starve, but also some who won't. Why is this better than intentionally killing those who are actually starving, and putting them out of our misery? For myself, I don't think it comes down to a choice between these two options. But I've been hearing that to ward off starvation, forced abortion is the best option. It seems, however, that some selfish motives contribute to that thinking on the part of pro-choice folks. }> As it is, China is aborting nearly as many future food producers as }> they are food consumers. They depend on a much larger segment of their }> population for food production than do the more developed countries. } } More people can produce more food to a limited extent, but this is }an example of diminishing marginal returns. Past a certain point, with }finite land resources, an additional person cannot produce more additional }food than they must consume. China passed this point long ago. The point is that the Chinese solution is not really gaining that much. They are not decreasing the impact of the problem on the Chinese population. They are only reducing the scale of the problem. The percentage of people starving in the future will be pretty much the same. The amount might be less, but that would only be because their population would be less. I am pointing toward a solution that would decrease the impact of the problem while providing incentive for Chinese families to voluntarily limit their offspring. }> 3) In the event that China does experience problems with starvation while }> it is doing all it can to develop sufficiently, would a solution that }> required }> technological and financial aid, trade incentives and agricultural }> training from the developed countries in the interim be acceptable? }> (If not maybe those countries would gladly share in the blame for China's }> human rights violations?) }> } I think 'feasible' is a better word for judging solutions than 'acceptable'. }Maybe it would be enough *if* china can slow it's growth rate. Nothing like }this can be enough if china's growth rate remains exponential. Also, solutions }which involve 'helping out' after people begin starving, are (to me) inferior }to solutions which do not cause starvation. } I know that 'lifeboat ethics' aren't much fun, but can you really blame }them for paddling towards shore? The problem with invoking "lifeboat ethics" here is that you are advocating killing the people who haven't even had a chance to get into the lifeboat yet. It's intersting that you implicate forced abortion as something which does not cause starvation. The supposed victim still dies, however (as the result of our direct intentions as a matter of fact; we aren't even leaving it up to the *chance* that she will starve). I suppose I could be prevented from starving to death too if someone killed me right now. Is that a solution? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/29/85)
> > For myself, I don't think it comes down to a choice between these two > options. But I've been hearing that to ward off starvation, forced abortion > is the best option. It seems, however, that some selfish motives contribute > to that thinking on the part of pro-choice folks. > Please don't confuse your terminology: Pro-choice means giving women a choice on the matter. Forced abortion does not do any such thing and as such is even more barbarian than forced pregnancy. I am pro-choice, but I'd rather live in a country where abortions are not available than live in one where they are forced on me. To me, there is not much difference between forced abortions and rape. They both are unwelcome invasions of my body. If one cannot control one's own body, then one cannot have much human dignity left whether one is starving or not. People who are for forced abortion are not pro-choice. They are pro-abortion. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie