Abortion is Wrong?

[Central Slavia]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

I know that I would not want to see him in a position to raise or influence a child. If I were on a panel that is empowered to decide whether he becomes a father...

Of course, I would never serve on such a panel, because such panels are a disgusting and grossly offensive notion. I'm just saying, people like CS should be careful what they wish for while they're jacking off to their favorite power fantasies.

As in my family there are no serious inherited diseases, i have shown to be above average intelligent, and am not impoverished (people would not be so in the state i propose anyway) i doubt many else would vote in the same way.
Besides i proposed the panels in order to decide whether a woman should get an abortion not whether every pregnancy should be aborted

[Muravyets]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

I know that I would not want to see him in a position to raise or influence a child. If I were on a panel that is empowered to decide whether he becomes a father...

Of course, I would never serve on such a panel, because such panels are a disgusting and grossly offensive notion. I'm just saying, people like CS should be careful what they wish for while they're jacking off to their favorite power fantasies.

As in my family there are no serious inherited diseases, i have shown to be above average intelligent, and am not impoverished (people would not be so in the state i propose anyway) i doubt many else would vote in the same way.
Besides i proposed the panels in order to decide whether a woman should get an abortion not whether every pregnancy should be aborted

Having read your posts, I frankly would not be so confident that you are such great breeding material. It really doesn't show that much intelligence to wank off in public over and over again.

And when it comes to real world, as opposed to your fantasy life, you can shove your panels where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not interested in engaging your troll-play.

[Central Slavia]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

It is the job of the state to direct and help him broadly, but also to cut his ability to harm others.

I disagree that it is the job of the state to direct him in any way other than keeping him from harming others. A state that does so has become overbearing, and should be overturned.

Unlike some ,most people are not so arrogant as to think an individual always knows better than society does

Some of us realize that "lots of people say so" doesn't make a given decision right.

CS better hope that's so because very poll ever taken shows that the majority of people in the US and most other countries all say that people like CS are flat-out wrong, that they are anti-democratic, that they seek to violate basic human rights, that their desired policies are abusive and oppressive, and that women should have the right to choose how to control their own bodies and how to plan their pregnancies.

That sure is "lots of people say[ing] so".

There are many countries that understand benevolent authoritarianism is better than wild unregulated "freedom" which just becomes rule of the few powerful and rich and where people expend effort fighting each other with no use
Ergo, do not be surprised if china overtakes the west soon.
Besides most russians support putin who is of such opinions as well. That is for the human rights and antidemocratic rant.

[Central Slavia]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

I know that I would not want to see him in a position to raise or influence a child. If I were on a panel that is empowered to decide whether he becomes a father...

Of course, I would never serve on such a panel, because such panels are a disgusting and grossly offensive notion. I'm just saying, people like CS should be careful what they wish for while they're jacking off to their favorite power fantasies.

As in my family there are no serious inherited diseases, i have shown to be above average intelligent, and am not impoverished (people would not be so in the state i propose anyway) i doubt many else would vote in the same way.
Besides i proposed the panels in order to decide whether a woman should get an abortion not whether every pregnancy should be aborted

Having read your posts, I frankly would not be so confident that you are such great breeding material. It really doesn't show that much intelligence to wank off in public over and over again.

And when it comes to real world, as opposed to your fantasy life, you can shove your panels where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not interested in engaging your troll-play.

I am not saying to be great material , just not utterly bad one.
Also i do not wank in public or engage in other such indecent activities or endorse them as as opposed to some i have some common sense. You mistook me for the homosexual marches.

And what a constructive way of addressing you totally misunderstanding what i said.

[Muravyets]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

It is the job of the state to direct and help him broadly, but also to cut his ability to harm others.

I disagree that it is the job of the state to direct him in any way other than keeping him from harming others. A state that does so has become overbearing, and should be overturned.

Unlike some ,most people are not so arrogant as to think an individual always knows better than society does

Some of us realize that "lots of people say so" doesn't make a given decision right.

CS better hope that's so because very poll ever taken shows that the majority of people in the US and most other countries all say that people like CS are flat-out wrong, that they are anti-democratic, that they seek to violate basic human rights, that their desired policies are abusive and oppressive, and that women should have the right to choose how to control their own bodies and how to plan their pregnancies.

That sure is "lots of people say[ing] so".

There are many countries that understand benevolent authoritarianism is better than wild unregulated "freedom" which just becomes rule of the few powerful and rich and where people expend effort fighting each other with no use
Ergo, do not be surprised if china overtakes the west soon.
Besides most russians support putin who is of such opinions as well. That is for the human rights and antidemocratic rant.

Okay, that's it. No more feeding you. Successful troll is successful, but now you've gone beyond any semblance of not being just 100% bullshit. It is clear you only post this idiotic stuff to annoy and provoke people, and that you toe a careful line to avoid a charge of flamebaiting. But frankly, that is what you are doing -- trying to bait people into getting angry, cursing you out, flaming you, etc. You apparently have a whole list of button-pushing things to say, guaranteed to get a rise out of someone, anyone. Fuck that. I'm not playing around with you anymore. You're not funny, you're not smart, you're not original, you add nothing to any serious topic. You're just mean-spirited, obnoxious, hostile and repetitive.

In just this thread alone, you have baited people with: grotesque insults against women's morals, character, and intelligence; over-the-top callousness about human suffering, sickness, injury, and deaths in the hundreds of thousands; childish personal insults against select posters; obvious logical fallacies and belligerence in posting; a long digression into fantasy land; and now an attempted threadjack with this "benevolent authoritarianism" bullshit.

Can anyone look over your posts herein and fail to see that you've just been jerking everybody around and post any BS you can think of to keep the thread focused on you?

I'm done with you. You are a high-function troll, but a troll nonetheless. You should be treated like one, and I shall do so from now on.

[Central Slavia]

Okay, that's it. No more feeding you. Successful troll is successful, but now you've gone beyond any semblance of not being just 100% bullshit. It is clear you only post this idiotic stuff to annoy and provoke people, and that you toe a careful line to avoid a charge of flamebaiting. But frankly, that is what you are doing -- trying to bait people into getting angry, cursing you out, flaming you, etc. You apparently have a whole list of button-pushing things to say, guaranteed to get a rise out of someone, anyone. Fuck that. I'm not playing around with you anymore. You're not funny, you're not smart, you're not original, you add nothing to any serious topic. You're just mean-spirited, obnoxious, hostile and repetitive.

In just this thread alone, you have baited people with: grotesque insults against women's morals, character, and intelligence; over-the-top callousness about human suffering, sickness, injury, and deaths in the hundreds of thousands; childish personal insults against select posters; obvious logical fallacies and belligerence in posting; a long digression into fantasy land; and now an attempted threadjack with this "benevolent authoritarianism" bullshit.

Can anyone look over your posts herein and fail to see that you've just been jerking everybody around and post any BS you can think of to keep the thread focused on you?

I'm done with you. You are a high-function troll, but a troll nonetheless. You should be treated like one, and I shall do so from now on.

As if i am the first one who has started on human rights and how most countries would disagree with me when out of arguments Besides in the two a substantial part of population lives - almost quarter ....
But it is true i did not think as much when replying to some posters as it become clear they do not either.
You gave it away a few dozen posts ago , why you for example ignore valid mine and URS 's arguments - you post just to show those undecided that your stance is right and apparently for that you have chosen the tactic of ridiculing your opponent's arguments and making it seem like the consensus on them is they are wrong, so the person goes away with that impression despite it lacking much substance.

Therefore i have not much more intent to argue with you either and only kept responses to your blathering up so that it would not seem you have won.

Also in a sense debating about any deviation from what has happened even of what could happen is going into fantasyland.

[Dempublicents1]

There are plenty of supplies. Most people are eligible to give. They simply choose not to.

Oh some how I doubt everywhere there is enough supplies and just chose to die.

I didn't say anyone chooses to die. I said that other people choose not to help them. If every eligible person gave blood and signed up on the bone marrow registry, the chances that someone would die for lack of available tissue would be incredibly low. However, many healthy people choose not to do either. Many healthy people decide that they don't want to spend the time to donate or get tested. Many healthy people decide that they don't want to go through the low risk and relatively low pain procedures needed to donate. Because those people make said choices, people die.

I find this interesting. Personally, I think it's much worse to take life away from someone who has experienced life and cherishes it. That causes suffering. That is a loss. If an embryo is destroyed, it never experienced life. It has no concept of life, no consciousness, no experiences to lose. There is no suffering. There is no sense of loss, at least not for the embryo.

I think it’s a loss for anther to die because one whishes to experience pleasure, and will kill the life it created to do so. Not behavior I would go around encouraging, not at all. But I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

You missed the point entirely. What I meant is that the embryo does not suffer any losses. It never has consciousness or the capacity for experience, so it doesn't lose those things when its tissue dies. A person who has had the experience of living, however, is losing something when they die. They suffer because of the knowledge of what they will no longer have.

If she was currently relying on the machine for support, you would probably have to give notice that she was to cease using it, followed by a time period in which she could look for someone with a machine they were willing to let her buy or use. If she couldn't find another machine in that time period, she would be out of luck. If she could, she would be transferred to the new machine and, if you wanted to push it, you could require her to compensate you for the time she was on your machine without your permission.

Lets assume there are no machines other machines, as a closer example. You didn’t answer my main question though, was this right and should it be allowed?

That's not a single question. It's two different questions. Is it right? No. Should it be allowed? Probably. There could be an argument made that it shouldn't be allowed when the object being used is mere property, so I wouldn't say that it should definitely be allowed. However, that falls apart when it ceases to be an inanimate object that is being used and begins to be a human person. At that point, it absolutely should be allowed, regardless of whether or not you or I thinks it is right.

Now, let's take it to an example where your actual body was in use. Let's say that your mother needed periodic blood transfusions and you were a good match for her blood. Let's say that you periodically give blood for her use. Perhaps she has a very rare blood type, so losing the constant supply you provide would likely lead to her death. Guess what? You could stop giving at any time. No notice. No apologies. Nothing. It would be within your rights. It wouldn't matter why you wanted to stop giving. Maybe you just don't like getting stuck with the needle. Maybe you're worried that it's making you anemic. Either way, it's your body and your choice.

That’s acutely the first good point I have seen. However, I didn’t give life to her by my actions. She is not my responsibility, unlike the mother [and father] who gives life to their child, no your responsibility is to kill him or her, but to raise him or her to the best of your ability.

Does this mean that you would legally compel a parent to give blood or tissue to a born child, even if said parent did not wish to do so?

It’s a person’s choice now, at least her by laws, that doesn’t mean it’s not a stupid law.

Self-ownership and self-determination is not "as stupid law." Ownership of my body by the state, on the other hand, would be.

It is unethical for the mother to be allowed what she is doing,

It is far more unethical to use her as an incubator against her will, as if she were merely a machine.

There are many countries that understand benevolent authoritarianism is better than wild unregulated "freedom" which just becomes rule of the few powerful and rich and where people expend effort fighting each other with no use

"Benevolent authoritarianism" does not exist. Any form of authoritarianism becomes exactly what you describe here - rule of the few powerful and rich.

Ergo, do not be surprised if china overtakes the west soon.

Ah, a country that does have forced abortions. A country where abortions are carried out just because the child is female and thus less valuable. Yeah, that's your example of a great society, right there.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can't build a usable argument on a theory, since there's no hard science behind it yet.

Not a scientist, huh?

[Central Slavia]

First part - it is different - it takes no positive action from them and the people did not bring the others to existance as URS said

Does this mean that you would legally compel a parent to give blood or tissue to a born child, even if said parent did not wish to do so?

Yes, at least blood.

"Benevolent authoritarianism" does not exist. Any form of authoritarianism becomes exactly what you describe here - rule of the few powerful and rich.

It does -there are many places where quality of life is greater because of it than comparable places where there is no such thing.

Ah, a country that does have forced abortions. A country where abortions are carried out just because the child is female and thus less valuable. Yeah, that's your example of a great society, right there.

In places this makes sense as males have greater work capacity (manual) Also the state has been fighting against it, and making things like dowries which encourage this illegal. Besides for you it is a non-issue as the aborted fetus is nothing, right?

[Tekania]

I'd (in jest) propose the idea of saying women should be allowed to grab the first man they want and forcibly have sex with them whenever they (the woman) decides she wants a child... but I came to the quick realization that there are some people on here who may actually like that idea...

[Allbeama]

Applying Kantian universalism: If every woman had each of their fetus aborted, no further children would be born. Ergo, unethical.

By that logic, contraception would be unethical, too....
Or even just plain abstinence.

This is why the categorical imperative fails.

It fails the way GraySoap formulated it, yes. His statement of the imperative makes it seem as if women should be forced to have abortions. In other words, "We should force (or require) to have abortions when they become pregnant." Expanding that to a universal directive, you have GraySoap's statement.

No one is proposing women be required to have abortions. The proposal is that abortion be available. By that you have, "All women should be allowed to have abortions if they become pregnant." How is that unethical?

It's not. But the categorical imperative is all about taking it to that extreme, at least as I learned it. It is about a "universal law", not really about rights. Deontology and all that. From the stand point of reality though, not all women would abort given the option. In truth Kant would have us ignore reality and believe that a moral imperative exists independent of our reality.

[Grave_n_idle]

Here's another thing that is extremely unethical: using another person's body against her will.

It's hard to say it's unethical when one did action that created it. Shouldn't of had sex if so unwilling.

so you don't think rape is unethical if, for example, the woman is wearing a 'slutty' dress?

No, I would think it would be unethical, you wouldn't?

Look back at your own arguments.

"Shouldn't of (sic) had sex if so unwilling" and "It's hard to say it's unethical when one did action that created it".

You could argue that the woman in the 'slutty' dress did action that created the scenario that fostered rape (I think it would be a poor argument, but I've seen it made in this very thread) - so you must not think it unethical to rape someone. And they wouldn't let someone rape them if the were 'so unwilling'.

Your arguments about ethics are unconvincing because they are capricious and inconsistent.

[Muravyets]

First part - it is different - it takes no positive action from them and the people did not bring the others to existance as URS said

Does this mean that you would legally compel a parent to give blood or tissue to a born child, even if said parent did not wish to do so?

Yes, at least blood.

"Benevolent authoritarianism" does not exist. Any form of authoritarianism becomes exactly what you describe here - rule of the few powerful and rich.

It does -there are many places where quality of life is greater because of it than comparable places where there is no such thing.

Prove this.^^

Ah, a country that does have forced abortions. A country where abortions are carried out just because the child is female and thus less valuable. Yeah, that's your example of a great society, right there.

In places this makes sense as males have greater work capacity (manual) Also the state has been fighting against it, and making things like dowries which encourage this illegal. Besides for you it is a non-issue as the aborted fetus is nothing, right?

Prove the remark about China, too. Back up your claims, or have them dismissed.

[Allbeama]

Here's another thing that is extremely unethical: using another person's body against her will.

It's hard to say it's unethical when one did action that created it. Shouldn't of had sex if so unwilling.

so you don't think rape is unethical if, for example, the woman is wearing a 'slutty' dress?

No, I would think it would be unethical, you wouldn't?

Look back at your own arguments.

"Shouldn't of (sic) had sex if so unwilling" and "It's hard to say it's unethical when one did action that created it".

You could argue that the woman in the 'slutty' dress did action that created the scenario that fostered rape (I think it would be a poor argument, but I've seen it made in this very thread) - so you must not think it unethical to rape someone. And they wouldn't let someone rape them if the were 'so unwilling'.

Your arguments about ethics are unconvincing because they are capricious and inconsistent.

You forgot to include ignorant.

[Grave_n_idle]

ALL those who support abortion were not aborted themselves

Yes, and some of us wish we had been. Your point being?

Why don't you commit suicide, then?Why even bother joining NS if you wish to die so much?

There is a difference between to commit suicide and abortion cause the baby isn't really alive till it leaves the mother (in my eyes anyways so think before u type

What if it leaves the body before it has developed? Will it then be considered not alive, even when it really is alive?

Oy, you folk. The difference between suicide and abortion isn't as large as you're making it appear. It is YOUR opinion that the baby isn't alive (which if you thought was true, it would be called a fetus instead). Contrarily, others beg to differ, I being one of those others.

Here's a true story told to me & my friends by my old 4th grade teacher:

A friend of hers walked into the doc's office one day with her 4-year-old son. She waited about 10 minutes until he also entered.
"Why, it's good to see you again," he told her. "What can I do for you?" She hesitated slightly before asking him to abort her child. He smiled pleasantly, and replied, "How about we come to a compromise: how's about I save you the trouble and get rid of that kid on your lap." (pointing to her son).
She gasped in astonishment and said "I'd never let you."
"That's what you're asking me to do with your other son," he told her.
She looked down momentarily, then walked out of the room and thought about it.

In the end, she had 7 kids altogether.

That story IS true, actually. I was there - but you're telling it wrong. What really happened was that the doctor gave her the abortion because that's his job.

That's exactly how it happened.

[Dempublicents1]

First part - it is different - it takes no positive action from them and the people did not bring the others to existance as URS said

And I don't see how it matters. One's body doesn't cease being one's own because of the choice to have sex.

Does this mean that you would legally compel a parent to give blood or tissue to a born child, even if said parent did not wish to do so?

Yes, at least blood.

Why only blood? Bone marrow donation carries far less risk and involves less time and risk than pregnancy, yet you would compel that.

Besides for you it is a non-issue as the aborted fetus is nothing, right?

At what point did I say that?

Meanwhile, forced abortion is just as much an issue to me as forced pregnancy - as it relates to the woman who is being stripped of her rights to her own body in either case.

[Central Slavia]

First part - it is different - it takes no positive action from them and the people did not bring the others to existance as URS said

Does this mean that you would legally compel a parent to give blood or tissue to a born child, even if said parent did not wish to do so?

Yes, at least blood.

"Benevolent authoritarianism" does not exist. Any form of authoritarianism becomes exactly what you describe here - rule of the few powerful and rich.

It does -there are many places where quality of life is greater because of it than comparable places where there is no such thing.

Prove this.^^

Easy. as far as i know in the last 50 years there were not at all as many famines in China as in India.
Or just comparing Cuba and places like Columbia.
Or noting that Belarus is doing way better than Ukraine.

Ah, a country that does have forced abortions. A country where abortions are carried out just because the child is female and thus less valuable. Yeah, that's your example of a great society, right there.

In places this makes sense as males have greater work capacity (manual) Also the state has been fighting against it, and making things like dowries which encourage this illegal. Besides for you it is a non-issue as the aborted fetus is nothing, right?

Prove the remark about China, too. Back up your claims, or have them dismissed.[/quote]

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.' ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However, "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas."

In 1950, the new communist rulers introduced a new marriage law; it was the first law enacted in communist China, even before the constitution. By outlawing age-old practices like concubinage, bigamy, the bartering of brides and dowry, the new rulers signalled a break with the feudal marital system and redefined the relation between family and state.



Family life in China has undergone equally radical changes in the post-Maoist era. The first single parent's club in China was set up in Beijing, reproductive services have been made legal for single women, telephone advice lines for gays have been set up in Shanghai, and the Divorce Club of Shanghai was launched on Valentine's Day this year.



With the introduction of market reforms, increased urbanization, a rising level of prosperity and education, and growing private responsibility, Chinese family life is increasingly reflecting trends in the West.

[Dempublicents1]

Interesting. Let's look at some of this, shall we?

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.' ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However, "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas."

I....see. Unless this is worded oddly, they've completely banned the use of ultrasound machines. They've banned a medical practice typically used to help ensure that a fetus is developing properly because some people were using it to decide whether or not to abort their female babies. So what they've done is decrease access to proper prenatal care, when they could have just stopped forcing abortions on women who choose to get pregnant more than once. Nice.

In 1950, the new communist rulers introduced a new marriage law; it was the first law enacted in communist China, even before the constitution. By outlawing age-old practices like concubinage, bigamy, the bartering of brides and dowry, the new rulers signalled a break with the feudal marital system and redefined the relation between family and state.

Interesting. They stopped treating women like objects, began treating them like actual human beings, and this is considered an improvement! This isn't really backing up your argument.

Family life in China has undergone equally radical changes in the post-Maoist era. The first single parent's club in China was set up in Beijing, reproductive services have been made legal for single women, telephone advice lines for gays have been set up in Shanghai, and the Divorce Club of Shanghai was launched on Valentine's Day this year.

So Chinese society isn't pressuring people to stay in bad relationships anymore. And they've stopped making it illegal for women to actually have access to reproductive services. They've actually started treating homosexuals like human beings (at least in Shanghai).

All of these things are measures that increase individual freedom, not decrease it. So, once again, they don't really back up your argument.

With the introduction of market reforms, increased urbanization, a rising level of prosperity and education, and growing private responsibility, Chinese family life is increasingly reflecting trends in the West.

Chinese society is becoming more like the West - more like nations that tend to value freedom over state intervention. Again, your argument that authoritarianism is better isn't being backed up here.

[Central Slavia]

I am not saying absolute control everywhere is needed or good and what i post suggest they are going for the healthy level.
With the divorces for example - i bet it is like the policy in my country where every divorce must be approved by the court - it can deny it in grounds that there is insufficient reason (something like i propose with abortions, and it is done - just shows how my arguments are not fantasyland)
thus providing a good medium - allowing to solve problems while not having people act irresponsibly
Thus, this absolutely supports what i claim

As for the first part that was one of the first actions the communist government did.

[Unchecked Expansion]

With the divorces for example - i bet it is like the policy in my country where every divorce must be approved by the court - it can deny it in grounds that there is insufficient reason (something like i propose with abortions, and it is done - just shows how my arguments are not fantasyland)

Why would you deny the ability to break up an unhappy relationship? It seems to serve no real purpose for society, just punishes people for being 'irresponsible'

[Muravyets]

Prove this.^^

Easy. as far as i know in the last 50 years there were not at all as many famines in China as in India.
Or just comparing Cuba and places like Columbia.
Or noting that Belarus is doing way better than Ukraine.

"As far as you know" doesn't get you very far. You claim life is more valued in those countries, yet you offer not even any anecdotal comparisons to show this (let alone actual information), so as far as anyone else knows, you're just making this up, like you did with all your other arguments. I dismiss it.

Prove the remark about China, too. Back up your claims, or have them dismissed.

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.' ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However, "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas."

In 1950, the new communist rulers introduced a new marriage law; it was the first law enacted in communist China, even before the constitution. By outlawing age-old practices like concubinage, bigamy, the bartering of brides and dowry, the new rulers signalled a break with the feudal marital system and redefined the relation between family and state.



Family life in China has undergone equally radical changes in the post-Maoist era. The first single parent's club in China was set up in Beijing, reproductive services have been made legal for single women, telephone advice lines for gays have been set up in Shanghai, and the Divorce Club of Shanghai was launched on Valentine's Day this year.



With the introduction of market reforms, increased urbanization, a rising level of prosperity and education, and growing private responsibility, Chinese family life is increasingly reflecting trends in the West.

What's your source for that? Your diary?

[Muravyets]

Interesting. Let's look at some of this, shall we?

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.' ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However, "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas."

I....see. Unless this is worded oddly, they've completely banned the use of ultrasound machines. They've banned a medical practice typically used to help ensure that a fetus is developing properly because some people were using it to decide whether or not to abort their female babies. So what they've done is decrease access to proper prenatal care, when they could have just stopped forcing abortions on women who choose to get pregnant more than once. Nice.

In 1950, the new communist rulers introduced a new marriage law; it was the first law enacted in communist China, even before the constitution. By outlawing age-old practices like concubinage, bigamy, the bartering of brides and dowry, the new rulers signalled a break with the feudal marital system and redefined the relation between family and state.

Interesting. They stopped treating women like objects, began treating them like actual human beings, and this is considered an improvement! This isn't really backing up your argument.

Family life in China has undergone equally radical changes in the post-Maoist era. The first single parent's club in China was set up in Beijing, reproductive services have been made legal for single women, telephone advice lines for gays have been set up in Shanghai, and the Divorce Club of Shanghai was launched on Valentine's Day this year.

So Chinese society isn't pressuring people to stay in bad relationships anymore. And they've stopped making it illegal for women to actually have access to reproductive services. They've actually started treating homosexuals like human beings (at least in Shanghai).

All of these things are measures that increase individual freedom, not decrease it. So, once again, they don't really back up your argument.

With the introduction of market reforms, increased urbanization, a rising level of prosperity and education, and growing private responsibility, Chinese family life is increasingly reflecting trends in the West.

Chinese society is becoming more like the West - more like nations that tend to value freedom over state intervention. Again, your argument that authoritarianism is better isn't being backed up here.

It's funny, I've been wondering how long China will be able to keep copping it's dictatorial attitude, considering how rapidly it is giving up the power to dictate to its own people. If the only argument in defense of authoritarianism is a totally unsourced list of out-of-context quotes showing how China is abandoning authoritarianism in favor of human rights improvement, I guess we can conclude that China is not one of those countries that "understand the benefits of benevolent authoritarianism."

[Tekania]

Yes, let's exalt a country which drives armored tanks over unarmed freshmen as the beacon of humanity...

We can also start pointing out all the good Pol Pot had done, and pretend that Stalin's Siberian Gulag's were really merely Boy Scout camp-outs...

Sometimes I wonder how people honestly come up with their ideologies...

[Muravyets]

I am not saying absolute control everywhere is needed or good and what i post suggest they are going for the healthy level.

Right. According to you, authoritarian control over people's private lives is good, as long as it isn't a matter of an authority controlling people's private lives. Sure.

With the divorces for example - i bet it is like the policy in my country where every divorce must be approved by the court - it can deny it in grounds that there is insufficient reason (something like i propose with abortions, and it is done - just shows how my arguments are not fantasyland)
thus providing a good medium - allowing to solve problems while not having people act irresponsibly

The bolded and enlarged words show that you have no idea what the Chinese policy is and that your entire argument on this point is as much fantasy as everything else you've been trying to foist on this thread.

Thus, this absolutely supports what i claim

Another fantasy.

As for the first part that was one of the first actions the communist government did.

Cling to that straw.

[Muravyets]

Yes, let's exalt a country which drives armored tanks over unarmed freshmen as the beacon of humanity...

We can also start pointing out all the good Pol Pot had done, and pretend that Stalin's Siberian Gulag's were really merely Boy Scout camp-outs...

Sometimes I wonder how people honestly come up with their ideologies...

When Stalin or Pol Pot do it, it's an ideology. When Random Internet Guys post nonsense praising the names and labels of the ideology while simultaneously backpedaling from their statements as soon as they post them, that's not ideology. That's just acting out to get attention.