I heard the novel argument this past weekend that the whole debate about abortion (especially re: the Roe reversal and the state legal clamping downs that followed) is an overblown issue that is unfairly used as a rallying cry by the democrats since it only affects a small minority of the population. I was surprised by the flipping of the narrative but not surprised. Quick thoughts:

* It is easy to say that it only affects a small minority, thus inconsequential from a big picture POV. Given that roughly one million abortions were performed in 2013 in US, the lack of legalized abortion will ruin countless mother and child lives (e.g. Romania has countless of stories from the 80s and buttloads of orphans to prove it, and one of my own aunts died before she turned 30 due to a botched illegal abortion). And whatever portion of that one million abortions that will be suppressed post-2013 is just the yearly installment on a mortgage on America’s future that will compound interest over many generations and that will take a very long time to pay off (if ever).

* Restricting abortion is a step back towards a toxic oppressive patriarchal society of yesteryear that is buttressed by moral arguments drawn from (un)holy books (written and interpreted by men), as it turns women into second-class citizens that are at the mercy of the state (usually led by mostly men, especially when abortion is not available even for rape, incest, life-threatening fetal malformation or even when mother's physical or mental health is in danger, by forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term). Sadly, today's abortion restriction laws are often more draconian than laws (or customs) from many centuries ago when there was at least an acknowledgement around the viability of the fetus around the quickening (regardless how crude, still wrong or fuzzy that concept is).

Overall, I found the argument regressive, ultra-conservative, tendentious and even a smidgen callous.
I just finished watching One Child Nation and a few things stood out:
1. As the narator (Nanfu) astutely observed, US abortion restrictions and China's abortion enforcement are truly the same thing: exerting control over women bodies.
2. As China shifted from their One-child policy (1979-2015) to a Two-child policy and more recently to a Three-child policy, I thought that maybe they should just simplify the whole process and stop wasting brain power by simply having a periodic draw in which they pick a number between 0 and 3 that will decide how many children each family can have and once a family has their first child they get locked in at that year's draw? If the drawn number is not whole, they can either round up or down, and/or randomly pool together multiple families and let them decide how to trade amongst them the fractional parts or create a market for fractional parts (e.g. if draw reveals 1.3, group three families which would be allowed a total of 4 kids, or if the drawn number is 0.25, then four families would be allowed only 1 child total). Of course, if a multiple birth exceeds the quota, they would have to give away the extra kid(s) to a well-moneyed desperate Western family that was very deserving.</s>
3. Some of the stories were harrowing, e.g. Peng Wang's discarded fetuses or the 2011 story about the Duans, the abandoned baby girls and the orphanage networks that adopted out thousands of possibly abducted babies, a story picked up by the NY Times.

D-l Neamtu (oficial) a sters postul FB (de la 11 iulie) despre dezbaterea "Sunteţi de acord cu dreptul la avort?" de la TVR (1, 2):










Read more... )

Profile

JMA-PSOS

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 1 234 56
78 9 1011 12 13
14 151617 181920
21 222324 2526 27
28 29 30 31   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 4th, 2026 11:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios