Barbaric

January 10th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

News.com.au reports:

When her mind is clear, Gong Qifeng can recall how she begged for mercy. Several people pinned her head, arms, knees and ankles to a hospital bed before driving a syringe of labour-inducing drugs into her stomach.

She was seven months pregnant with what would have been her second boy. The drugs caused her to have a stillborn baby after 35 hours of excruciating pain. She was forced to have the by officials in China’s southern province of Hunan in the name of complying with national limits on family size.

“It was the pain of my lifetime, worse than the pain of delivering a child. You cannot describe it,” Ms Gong, 25, said in a recent interview in Beijing. “And it has become a mental pain. I feel like a walking corpse.”

Forced abortions are considered an acceptable way of enforcing China’s population limits, but they are banned when the woman is more than five months pregnant. Yet no one has been held accountable for Ms Gong’s late-term abortion, and other women in similar cases also struggle to get justice and compensation.

The issue isn’t compensation, or when a forced abortion happens. The issue is that it is forced. No state should have the power to force a woman to abort. It is barbaric.

Although China in November announced an easing of its “one-child” policy to allow more couples to have a second child, the overall system remains in place and local governments are still required to keep to population quotas.

I don’t support population quotas or the euphemism that some parties use, of having a population policy.

Tags:

41 Responses to “Barbaric”

  1. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    So this is how the Gweens will control NZs population given a chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Fentex (938 comments) says:

    It is vile.

    I also maintain no one has authority over anyone elses reproduction. It is bound with the very essence of personal identity and autonomy and to suppress it is to enslave individuals, one of the basest crimes possible to commit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. jawnbc (82 comments) says:

    Vile indeed.

    But schizophrenia from a trauma? Trigger, not a cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. J Bloggs (237 comments) says:

    jawnbc: that’s always assuming it is actually schitzophrenia. The USSR often diagnosed dissidents and vocal critics of the state as schitzophrenic as a means of discrediting them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Albert_Ross (274 comments) says:

    So this is how the Gweens will control NZs population given a chance?

    That’s the trouble with people who have no actual experience of Government or indeed running anything – They think that all you need to do is pass a law saying “People must do x, or not do y” and the consequence will be that everybody will then do x, or not do y.

    Nope; people still have a choice as to whether to do x or y. If you really want to affect that choice you have to be prepared to make a significant enough difference to the costs and benefits to individuals of doing or not doing it.

    In the case of population control, restricting immigration is an obvious first stage at the national level, though equally obviously it won’t help address the global issue. Thereafter, education and exhortation will be enough to convince some people to restrict their family size. More people are likely to be persuaded if Government also reduces benefits to families if they have more than two children (although this is problematic, since you may effectively be punishing the children themselves).

    But there will remain people who really, really want to have more babies, even though you educate, exhort and financially incentivise them not to, and at that stage Government has to decide what it is prepared to do to stop them.

    What’s really needed here is to go back and consider what exactly is the problem that you are seeking to address through population control, and whether population control is really the best way to address that problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    In the case of population control, restricting

    Governments do not have the right to control population. Period, end of story.

    (Also, we don’t have a problem with people restricting their family size in the west. The increase in population is the same number of births turning into longer lives so more people are living at the same time. )

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (9,856 comments) says:

    urgh, wish i could unread that. thanks dpf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Albert_Ross (274 comments) says:

    Governments do not have the right to control population

    Don’t think that’s clearly established in the absolute way you imply. If a party were to stand for election on an explicitly stated policy of population control and they won the election on that basis, what authority says they don’t have the right to carry out the policy that the electorate has mandated of them? on the contrary, surely in such a case they’d have not only a right but a duty to do it.

    This is not to say that that would be a good thing. I do not think formal population control, per se and as an objective in itself, is a good thing, and that party wouldn’t be getting my vote. Even if population control were desirable (and I repeat, I do not think it is), implementing it is fraught with practical difficulty and the costs very soon start to outweigh any benefits. That party probably wouldn’t win second term.

    I was only trying to make the point that people who haven’t actually tried running anything, often seem to think that bringing about a desired objective is just a matter of pronouncing “Make it so” from a sufficiently high place. It really isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    Governments do not have the right to control population. Period, end of story

    .

    See, we do agree on something.

    http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/HR7_abortion/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross (106 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    That’s the trouble with people who have no actual experience of Government or indeed running anything – They think that all you need to do is pass a law saying “People must do x, or not do y” and the consequence will be that everybody will then do x, or not do y.

    Indeed… like not using drugs… or buying prostitutes… or having abortions… or having gay sex… damn lefties and their inexperience! :)

    In the case of population control, restricting immigration is an obvious first stage at the national level, though equally obviously it won’t help address the global issue.

    There is no global issue in my opinion. The Netherlands has a population density of 405 per sq km. India is 376. The UK is 262. China is 144. Where would you rather live? The Netherlands or India? The UK or China?

    The situation in countries with low living standards appears more a situation of economic and political mismanagement than overpopulation. The barbaric practice of forced abortions are a reflection of those wrongheaded attitudes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott (1,780 comments) says:

    Why is forced abortion barbaric but ordinary abortion, which happens over 14000 times a year in New Zealand, an essential reproductive right? Now I know what you are going to say, one is forced and the other is voluntary. But is that it? Is there something barbaric in the act itself? Of taking the life of an unborn child. I would argue that abortion is wrong, whether forced or voluntary, because it involves the taking of innocent human life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Engineer (69 comments) says:

    Governments do not have the right to control population. Period, end of story

    Depends on national exigencies. If it means avoiding mass overpopulation, and being able to feed a huge population then they bloody well should control the population. Especially when half of the population are still steeped in a primitive feudal mindset.

    Although clearly in the above case, officials were acting disgracefully and illegally.

    Its the same with curfews, or emergency measures in wartime or earthquakes, in democratic countries. Was it Abe Lincoln who said ‘necessity knows no law’

    The solution of courses is rising living and educational standards —in area in which China is making great strides.

    In fact most East Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are afflicted by quite the opposite- –extremely low birth rates, in fact the lowest in the world. Coercion was not required for birth control. All that happened was a third world environment was replaced with a first world economic and social environment.

    Unfortunately China’s modern history was different from these other polities —so it is understandable that she takes what will essentially be short term measures to avoid catastrophe.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lolitasbrother (669 comments) says:

    President Xi China is just the China you expect, has a dirty smiling mouth,
    Mao repeated, utterly vile and venal
    if only we could nuke him , and leave the people unharmed,
    Nuke fucking China leaders

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,324 comments) says:

    This is the country that had/has killing wards for unwanted children…….

    http://pop.org/content/the-scandal-of-chinas-orphans-304

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Engineer (69 comments) says:

    This is the country that had/has killing wards for unwanted children

    Funny how you have to trawl back through almost 18 years of news articles to find one scandalous abusive incident in a country of 1.4 billion people.

    Adoption of Chinese babies is quite popular among Americans and Europeans. Why? It is well know that for a developing country China takes exceptional care of orphans.

    The facts are this:
    “In comparison to other underdeveloped countries, the overall health of Chinese orphans is exceptional. Neither Fetal Alcohol Syndrome nor Syphilis is problematic in this country. And, due to the placement of children at a relatively young age (8-11 months), Bonding and Attachment Disorder issues are less common than in countries where children are institutionalized for long periods of time.”
    http://www.livinghopeadoption.org/whychina.asp

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    And this barbarism is what John Key and Dadid Cunniliffe want us to yield our sovereignty to

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:
    Governments do not have the right to control population

    Don’t think that’s clearly established in the absolute way you imply.

    The government exists to serve the population, the population does not exist to serve the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    In comparison to other underdeveloped countries, the overall health of Chinese orphans is exceptional. Neither Fetal Alcohol Syndrome nor Syphilis is problematic in this country.

    That’s an incredibly silly thing to say in a thread about forced abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Scott (1,548 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    I would argue that abortion is wrong, whether forced or voluntary, because it involves the taking of innocent human life.

    I would argue there are shades of gray as well as trade-offs and unintended consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    Wiki,you’ve hit the nail on the head again.
    everyone condemning this vile action but in the same breath happy to bend over backwards to accommodate these people who are buying up our country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,857 comments) says:

    “….I would argue there are shades of gray as well as trade-offs and unintended consequences….”

    And where on earth are you going to stop with that arguement Weihana?

    Scott nailed it: ‘Why is forced abortion ‘barbaric’ yet other forms of abortion, like abortion on demand not ?”

    “I’m having an abortion because giving support to human infants is just oh so very hard, and I want to go to Bali with my girlfreinds in 3 months time anyway. I deserve it, I worked very hard all year at my job as a teller at the BNZ. My partner has too, he’s paid of lots more on the mortgage, we’ll be mortgage free within 8yrs.”

    Trade offs?

    Your arguements would be just as fucken crass Weihana.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,857 comments) says:

    “….The barbaric practice of forced abortions are a reflection of those wrongheaded attitudes….”

    Said the baby in the womb who is being forced to die because mummy prefers a trip to Paris next spring. Ironicly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    I would argue that abortion is wrong, whether forced or voluntary, because it involves the taking of innocent human life.”

    Then you would argue wrongly.

    A smear of cells is not a human, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (4,857 comments) says:

    “…..A smear of cells is not a human, by any stretch of the imagination….”

    LOL!

    It’s homo sapien!

    Homo sapiens don’t create life Watty – they pass it on – as everything ‘needed’ is already ‘living’ ‘within mum and dad’. Nothing new enters the biological equation.

    Sometimes it can take three people to create a child, but it is still nothing ‘new’ in the biological equation as one women simply ‘carry’s’ the baby to term. No DNA from that ‘carrier’ exists in the new homosapien.

    All good biology books say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. edhunter (538 comments) says:

    Of course so some bitches choice to have multiple offspring she can’t afford suddenly becomes my problem, fuck you why can’t the Govt insist upon contraception as one of the prerequisites of receiving a benefit?
    Unless of course you think we should be able to take the baby from her and give it to a couple who can’t have children & no I definitely don’t mean a gay couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Your arguements would be just as fucken crass Weihana.

    Go easy on the irony, Harriet.

    BTW, the “s” in homo sapiens does not indicate a plural. A singular homo sapiens is still a homo sapiens.

    Maybe you should also go easy on the lol’s

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    The rest of the world has some things to thank China for. The one child policy and the enforcement of it is such. There are apparent resource shortages all over the world currently, a shortage of housing everywhere, an artificially controlled Mainland currency and rising prices as China becomes larger and stronger.

    Imagine if Mainlanders could have had the stereotypical 2.2 children or more that some groups in NZ society seem to think they have the divine right to reproduce? Having children you can and never will be able to afford to pay for yourselves as parents is irresponsible. The Mainland took this decision for parents.

    You may not support a population policy David but if you think the world has limited resources and do not wish to compromise your own standard of living you may just have to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,380 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    And where on earth are you going to stop with that arguement Weihana?

    As with many things in life I would make a judgment based on the available evidence to draw imperfect boundaries separating what I think is clearly acceptable from what I think is clearly not acceptable, leaving the decisions in between to be made by those involved hoping that they use their best judgment.

    Wat Dabney is correct that a “smear of cells” is not “human” in any meaningful sense. It’s not about some narrow biological definition but about substance. At some point the qualities of a living thing that grows takes on a form that reasonably deserves the label “human”. But I am not convinced (through sheer lack of evidence and reason) that some special friend of yours implants a “soul” into each of us at the moment of our conception. Rather, that if it can be said that we possess something called a “soul”, that this thing grows too and that if it exists inside of us (in any sense) merely as a consequence of our conception then it exists inside every living thing.

    Trade offs?

    Yes trade offs. Perhaps in the example you cite the personal interests of the mother are not compelling or deserve to be valued as weighed against the interests of what grows inside her. On the other hand maybe it’s only a “smear of cells” the likes of which are routinely aborted by nature before people are even aware they are pregnant.

    It’s always good not to be too judgmental about things, which are clearly complicated, simply because you have a faith-based belief that things are a certain way. And consider too that just because one can be simple-minded about something doesn’t mean the issue itself is actually simple.

    Do you suppose that a cow has a soul? Does a cow feel? Do something cruel to a cow and see if its reaction convinces you of its ability to feel and experience the world from a subjective point of view (actually do not do that). Is it wrong to eat animals if they feel? Are they irrelevant because they aren’t human? Who decides when a living creature is of a sufficient quality as to deserve empathy and/or respect?

    The reality is that in drawing ethical boundaries we are all guilty of making value judgments about what matters. The difference I suppose is that some people seem to believe that their judgments are handed down to them by a higher power whereas others rely on reason and knowledge while knowing that their judgments will always be limited by the inherent limits of human reason and knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Well said and argued, Weihana! As always.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    I don’t support population quotas or the euphemism that some parties use, of having a population policy.

    Isn’t e.g. immigration policy essentially a population policy? Aren’t financial incentives for families population policy?

    Just because China is taken to some extreme and vile measures to enforce it’s population policy doesn’t mean that such policies (which are essentially goals of what the population should be like in 10, 20, 30 years time) are not worth having.

    While China is battling population growth, other nations are battling shirinking and overaging populations.

    Having a policy to address those issues isn’t per se bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Cactus Kate (532 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    There are apparent resource shortages all over the world…

    …the world has limited resources…

    There are always shortages. If we executed half the world’s population we would still have a shortage of resources. We would have half the number of workers able to cut down forests for wood, half the number of workers able to work in construction, half the number of workers able to hunt for sources of energy, half the number of workers able to work as administrators in business, half the number of workers able to devote their time to the study of science or basic technological research etc. etc.

    While it is true that the Earth constitutes a finite amount of matter that could be made use of by humans, the mere fact that it exists on Earth does not imply it is accessible any more than the fact that space contains practically infinite resources means that scarcity is non-existent. Scarcity will always exist in some form or another and the key to providing for a growing population is innovation. Without innovation we could not support a world population of 7 billion. We lived on the same Earth 200 years ago but in that 200 years we have greatly increased the resources available to us. There is little reason to believe that we cannot greatly increase our wealth even more through continuing innovation: innovation which is advancing quite rapidly today.

    But it is only advancing because of the right economic conditions. If you look to somewhere like North Korea you see a place where authoritarianism stifles growth and innovation leading to mass suffering. China’s one child policy is a consequence of those same authoritarian ideas that blames population for economic failure rather than impractical economic policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Weihana, the purpose of the Chinese policy was

    1. to make economic success easier (improve the standing of the party as per a higher GDP per capita via a lower population and less surplus labour).
    2. to preserve the environment (pollution is a problem even now).

    Some nations accept population decline – as in Europe where they will rely on internal migration from other regions with high unemployment or Japan.

    Some nations ensure growth via immigration led population growth – as per the USA, the UK and us.

    China’s policy is in another category and it is interesting that we can note the result of limited population control, as applied in India, as a comparison. Is the greater freedom there resulting in the innovation required to provide for the greater population growth? Or is even provision of clean water and sanitation beyond them – and they remain reliant on burning coal while China gets into renewable energy?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    On the topic DPF has got this one right, we should oppose forced abortion.

    Surely those who are pro life and pro choice can at least agree on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (6,060 comments) says:

    The government exists to serve the population

    That was his/her point wasn’t it? If over-population is a big enough problem the government serves the population by controlling its numbers.

    I would argue there are shades of gray

    At least 50 :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Cactus Kate, “The Mainland took this decision for parents”.

    Now that would have been Orwellian if the government made that claim. The party did it to make their job easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (6,060 comments) says:

    A smear of cells is not a human

    When does it become human and why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, “If over-population is a big enough problem the government serves the population by controlling its numbers.”

    Some countries have governments that act on the populations behalf after getting a mandate, some do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott Chris (6,060 comments) says:

    Some countries have governments that act on the populations behalf after getting a mandate, some do not.

    Yes, but either way, the most effective and humane way to control population growth is to empower and educate the women. That’s why it is so important to help 3rd world countries become 1st world countries as fast as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    SPC (3,783 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Weihana, the purpose of the Chinese policy was

    1. to make economic success easier (improve the standing of the party as per a higher GDP per capita via a lower population and less surplus labour).

    In 1960 the Chinese population was less than 700,000. Now it is well over a billion. Why isn’t all this “surplus labour” starving to death? Indeed how is it that their unemployment rate is about 4% with so many people?

    The problem wasn’t surplus labour but a government believing that it could run the economy from the top down. You cannot simply increase productivity by not having people, because people are the ultimate source of productivity.

    2. to preserve the environment (pollution is a problem even now).

    Yet more densely populated nations are less polluted.

    The country is very autocratic and corrupt and those in power have the incentive to get rich without concern for environmental regulations because those who are most affected have no say in the matter.

    China’s policy is in another category and it is interesting that we can note the result of limited population control, as applied in India, as a comparison. Is the greater freedom there resulting in the innovation required to provide for the greater population growth?

    Depends what freedom you are talking about. Economic liberalization has made India one of the fastest growing economies in the world with an expanding middle class. Again I think the problem is primarily economic mismanagement than overpopulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. questions (198 comments) says:

    Strange, you guys were all so supportive of Paula Bennett’s eugenics policy when she announced it, why the change of heart?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RightNow (6,986 comments) says:

    “Paula Bennett’s eugenics policy” = offering free contraception to beneficiaries. It is voluntary and reversible.
    Only a retard would equate that with forced abortion…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.