[SUBMITTED] Baby Blues

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

This is a reversal issue for the one-child policy. I know this is currently not tracked as a policy, but there are issues that implement it, and I think a reversal issue may be needed.

Draft 3

[description]The latest census report has shown that 75% of the babies born in @@NAME@@ last year have been male. The @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Obstetricians' Union clarified this surprising trend by saying that many couples who come from a patriarchal family background favor boys over girls, and therefore expectant mothers overwhelmingly opt for an abortion when they find out that their child is going to be female.

[validity]nation took Option 4 for #136, or Option 4 for #638, or (possibly) Option 4 for #96 + for adults // ABORTION IS LEGAL, possibly low inclusiveness

1. [option]"This only shows that the one-child policy was a big mistake!" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a famous feminist author. "You see, our country is full of male supremacists and they can ruthlessly abort a child once they find out it is a girl! We should abolish all restrictions on the number of kids people can have, if we don't want to see such atrocious femicides in the future."

[effect]sibling rivalry has become a favorite topic of study for developmental psychologists again

2. [option]"What are you talking about? Prenatal screening is the problem!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a notorious Luddite, replacing your desk lamp with a gas lantern. "Mother Nature did not intend us to know the sex of our children before they were born. It was meant to be a pleasant surprise. @@LEADER@@, just ban prenatal ultrasound screenings, and then nobody will dare abort a child because of their gender."

[effect]many children are born with disabilities that could have easily been prevented with timely intervention

3. [option]"You're all a bunch of subversive crybabies!" yells @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your Minister of Status Quo, who has recently given up one of her twins for adoption to not violate the one-child policy. "If a woman is pregnant with a girl but doesn't want her, she should just suck it up and give birth to her. Then she can put her up for adoption and try her luck again. Besides, I am sure there are also some people who like girls more than boys, but get pregnant with a male child. Our government could easily found an agency to act as an intermediary between these mothers and to help them swap their babies."

[effect]doctors in @@NAME@@ are having a hard time advising their patients about hereditary health conditions

4. [option]"I can't believe my ears!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-life activist, who has had a disturbing image of an aborted fetus printed on @@HIS@@ t-shirt. "Why does nobody focus on the real issue here? Don't you see people are having abortions for frivolous reasons? Today they abort the kids because they don't like their gender, tomorrow they will do what? Abort them on a whim just because they don't look photogenic in ultrasound pictures? @@LEADER@@, we should criminalize all abortions unless there is a medical reason for having them!"

[effect]families who insist on having a male child desperately try to convince doctors that not having a penis is a medical problem

5. [option]"Once again, science has the answer!" ejaculates Dr. @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@ Ericsson, a fertility specialist, pointing to a flowchart he brought with him. "With our current technology we can centrifuge human semen and separate the sperm cells that carry X chromosomes and Y chromosomes by exploiting the difference in mass between the two, and give parents a baby of their preferred gender via IVF with a 70% success rate. If you subsidized my fertility clinic these abortions would be a thing of the past. Well, at least in 70% of the cases. But that's something, right?"

[effect]fertility clinics in @@NAME@@ has the lowest scores in the Consumer Happiness Index

DRAFT 2

[description]@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of a police raid carried out on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Following a tip-off, the police have arrested the doctors who provided abortions to women who did not like the gender of their baby and did not want to waste their one-child right with it.

[validity]nation took Option 4 for #136, or Option 4 for #638, or (possibly) Option 4 for #96 + for adults // abortion is banned

1. [option]"This only shows that the one-child policy was a big mistake!" grumbles @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ tycoon who is known to resent not having a male heir for his business. "You see, some smart people want to have a little crown prince, some romantic ones wish to have a little girl; and they can ruthlessly abort a child once they find out it is of the opposite sex. We should abolish all restrictions on the number of kids people can have, if we don't want to see such atrocities in the future."

[effect]sibling rivalry has become a favorite topic of study for developmental psychologists again

2. [option]"What are you talking about? Prenatal screening is the problem!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a notorious Luddite, replacing your desk lamp with a gas lantern. "Mother Nature did not intend us to know the sex of our children before they were born. It was meant to be a pleasant surprise. @@LEADER@@, just ban prenatal ultrasound screenings, and then nobody will dare abort a child because of their gender."

[effect]many children are born with disabilities that could have easily been prevented with timely intervention

3. [option]"You're all a bunch of subversive crybabies!" yells @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your Minister of Status Quo, who has recently given up one of her twins for adoption to not violate the one-child policy. "If a woman is pregnant with a baby whose gender she doesn't like, she should just suck it up and give birth to it. Then she can put it up for adoption and try her luck again. Better yet, our government can found an agency to act as an intermediary between women who would like a baby of the opposite gender and help them swap the babies."

[effect]doctors in @@NAME@@ are having a hard time advising their patients about hereditary health conditions

4. [option]"I can't believe my ears!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-life activist, who has had a disturbing image of an aborted fetus printed on @@HIS@@ t-shirt. "Why does nobody focus on the real issue here? There are illegal abortions being performed in this country! We should immediately authorize our police with extraordinary powers to crack down on all back-alley abortion clinics and put these baby murderers in jail!"

[effect]gynaecologists are perpetually apprehensive of an imminent police raid

5. [option]"I can't believe my ears!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-choice activist, who is carrying a sign that reads 'My body, my choice!' "Why does nobody focus on the real issue here? Women in this country put their lives at risk on a daily basis, just to free themselves from a whimsical imposition on their bodily integrity! This is precisely what we predicted would happen if abortion were to be banned. We should immediately legalize abortion without any restrictions, and make sure women have access to quality healthcare!"

[effect]abortion is seen as a contraceptive method

[description]@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of a police raid carried out on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Following a tip-off, the police have arrested the doctors who provided abortions to women who found out that their baby was not of the gender they desired and wanted to get rid of it so as not to spoil their only chance to have a child, due to the one-child policy.

[validity]nation took Option 4 for #136, or Option 4 for #638, or (possibly) Option 4 for #96 + for adults

1. [option]"This only shows that the one-child policy was a big mistake!" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Family Minister, looking daggers at you. "Some people crave a male heir for their business, some wish to have an adorable little girl; and they can ruthlessly abort a child once they find out it is of the opposite sex. We should abolish all restrictions on the number of kids people can have, if we don't want to see such atrocities in the future."

[effect]sibling rivalry has become a favorite topic of study for developmental psychologists again

2. [option]"What are you talking about? Prenatal screening is the problem!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a notorious Luddite, replacing your desk lamp with a gas lantern. "Mother Nature did not intend us to know the sex of our children before they were born. It was meant to be a pleasant surprise. @@LEADER@@, just ban prenatal ultrasound screenings, and then nobody will dare abort a child because of their gender."

[effect]many children are born with disabilities that could have easily been prevented with timely intervention

3. [option]"You're all a bunch of subversive crybabies!" yells @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, your Minister of Status Quo, who has recently given up one of her twins for adoption to not violate the one-child policy. "If a woman is pregnant with a baby whose gender she doesn't like, she should just suck it up and give birth to it. Then she can put it up for adoption and try her luck again. Better yet, our government can found an agency to act as an intermediary between women who would like a baby of the opposite gender and help them swap the babies."

[effect]doctors in @@NAME@@ are having a hard time advising their patients about hereditary health conditions

[for nations where abortion is legal]

4. [option]"I can't believe my ears!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-life activist, who has had a disturbing image of an aborted fetus printed on @@HIS@@ t-shirt. "Why does nobody focus on the real issue here? You have legalized abortion in this country, and allowed these women to kill their babies with impunity! Do you only appreciate the cruelty of abortion when it is performed for a whimsical reason? We should ban abortion immediately, and put these baby murderers in jail!"

[effect]gynaecologists are perpetually apprehensive of an imminent police raid

[for nations where abortion is illegal]

5. [option]"I can't believe my ears!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-choice activist, who is carrying a sign that reads 'My body, my choice!' "Why does nobody focus on the real issue here? There are back-alley clinics in @@NAME@@ that perform illegal abortions, where women put their lives at risk on a daily basis, just to free themselves from a whimsical imposition on their bodily integrity! This is precisely what we predicted would happen if abortion were to be banned. We should immediately legalize abortion without any restrictions, and make sure women have access to quality healthcare!"

[effect]abortion is seen as a contraceptive method

All comments are welcome and very much appreciated

[Trotterdam]

[description]@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of a police raid carried out on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Following a tip-off, the police have arrested the doctors who provided abortions to women who found out that their baby was not of the gender they desired and wanted to get rid of it so as not to spoil their only chance to have a child, due to the recently-implemented one-child policy.

[1. The abortions quite likely would be above-board. #136 4 is, in fact, explicitly pro-abortion. In a nation where abortion is not only legal but encouraged, you would need a significantly better justification why these abortions are an actual problem - and even if they are, people would prefer doing them through legal channels if they're available. (#638 4 does allow instituting a one-child policy in nations where abortion is banned, or it would be possible to later ban abortion without automatically losing the one-child policy, so I can understand you wanting a narrative that's plausible irrespective of the legality of abortion in a nation, but I don't think that's a good idea because what looks like a valid dilemma to one side would be an obvious answer to the other side. Besides, even if gender-biased abortions still happen in nations where abortion as a whole is illegal, they'd probably be a lot less common, so you would be more concerned with the simple fact that people are illegally having abortions than in the demographic consequences.) Though I do like option 4 actually pointing out the absurdity.

2. Don't describe policies as recently-implemented. This issue would still come up even in nations that have had a one-child policy for a long time. (I realize that it currently isn't a tracked flag and so you may be thinking of chain issues, but I think this is a significant enough policy to warrant creating a flag for if a followup is accepted into the game.)

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

[description]@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of a police raid carried out on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Following a tip-off, the police have arrested the doctors who provided abortions to women who found out that their baby was not of the gender they desired and wanted to get rid of it so as not to spoil their only chance to have a child, due to the recently-implemented one-child policy.

[1. The abortions quite likely would be above-board. #136 4 is, in fact, explicitly pro-abortion. In a nation where abortion is not only legal but encouraged, you would need a significantly better justification why these abortions are an actual problem - and even if they are, people would prefer doing them through legal channels if they're available.

Yeah, that's why I emphasized that the clinics were clandestine, but I might still need an explanation for why women choose these clinics over legal ones. Maybe a fear of social backlash could be a concern? Like, people can be tolerant of abortions in many cases, but many people (even those who are staunchly pro-choice) may frown upon a woman who aborts a child over a petty issue like "I wanted a girl and my child isn't a girl."

[Palos Heights]

Hey FuF.

Your description gets into run-on territory in the second sentence. Try to break it up a little or streamline what you're trying to say.

I'd also consider that this issue might need to be for adults only. Personally I don't think so, but the nature of the material might fall under 18+.

Option one I think could use a rework. The argument being made has merit, but I think that you're missing out by not having the person making that argument not have a horse in the race. Have the person making the case be some kind of national war hero or industrial tycoon who has issues with their heir. Bonus points if you flip the switch on gender roles.

That's all I've got for right now FuF! Sorry I can't be of more help :/

[HPLUS]

Maybe a fear of social backlash could be a concern?

I think the best way to incorporate this would be through the description of the issue itself. I've made some adjustments:

@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of police who following a tip-off, carried out a raid on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Instead of using one of the many conventional clinics around @@NAME@@, this particular one proved popular with mothers wanting to avoid social backlash for aborting their baby based on gender rather than other more accepted reasons. The reason being? The existence of the one-child policy.

As opposed to:

@@NAME@@ was shocked with the news of a police raid carried out on a clandestine abortion clinic last week. Following a tip-off, the police have arrested the doctors who provided abortions to women who found out that their baby was not of the gender they desired and wanted to get rid of it so as not to spoil their only chance to have a child, due to the one-child policy.

Also, I think a fun outcome line for Option 3 could go something like:
The newly rebooted 'Who's The Father?' series is seeing a huge surge in popularity within @@NAME@@.

I'll be chipping in more.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Can Option 3 of #68 be thought to be unlocking a one-child policy as well?

It doesn't say one child, but still...

[Australian rePublic]

If you want to have a one child policy, abortions are inevitable- twins, accidental pregnancy, etc. The problem is if everyone wants boys OR if everyone wants girls (probably worse if you want just boys, because if you remove monogamy, fewer men are required than women for reproduction). If 50% of couples want boys and 50% want, you don't have a problem

[HPLUS]

Can Option 3 of #68 be thought to be unlocking a one-child policy as well?

It doesn't say one child, but still...

You're right, it doesn't explicitly mention the actual number it will be restricted to, although the way the option is written makes it more awkward to do so. However, I did think the outcome line was quite funny in that regard:

The number of children one can have is restricted by law.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

If 50% of couples want boys and 50% want, you don't have a problem

This is not necessarily an issue of demographics. (I agree that the one-child policy resulted in a gender disparity in China, because Chinese people preferred boys. But I can't work a specific gender preference into my narrative. That would be assuming too much.)

But isn't it still concerning that people are arbitrarily aborting their babies, just because they don't like the gender? (I'm pro-choice, and I find this concerning.)

In fact, the same thing also happens in India quite frequently. India does not have a one-child policy, of course, but there is the issue of "dowry." Poor families do not want to have girls, as they'll have to have a dowry for them when they get married. So many girls are aborted. I had heard that India considered criminalizing prenatal screenings for the purpose of gender detection for that reason. I don't know if this has been implemented, though.

[Australian rePublic]

Maybe you should make this about gender screening then

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Maybe you should make this about gender screening then

Maybe. But I'm afraid that would be a different issue. The goal I had set for myself was to write an issue that would cancel the one-child policy.

[Trotterdam]

Can Option 3 of #68 be thought to be unlocking a one-child policy as well?

It doesn't say one child, but still...

It's probably in the same boat as #96 4 - doesn't currently specify the exact number (and it's plausible for a nation to limit families' children to something greater than one), may or may not be worth amending to specifically being a one-child policy if we do start catering to that policy in issues.

While I'm at it, I just remembered #326 1, "families consisting of more than three people are forced to split up"... Probably not meant to be taken seriously.

If you want to have a one child policy, abortions are inevitable- twins, accidental pregnancy, etc.

Certainly a one-child policy would be a lot harder to enforce without abortion. However, NationStates code currently allows you to attempt this.

I think the issues facing a one-child policy with abortion being legal and illegal are sufficiently different that they might be worth making two separate issues about, rather than a one-size-fits-all. The editors have recently mentioned that they're willing to consider issues for more obscure validities now...

The problem is if everyone wants boys OR if everyone wants girls (probably worse if you want just boys, because if you remove monogamy, fewer men are required than women for reproduction).

That commonly-cited factoid is assuming that either gender's reproductive capacity is actually being pushed near its limit. If you have a one-child policy, then this is very much not the case.

If a woman is only allowed to have one child with each of her husbands, then even if she has two or three husbands (and in reality the gender disparities in China aren't actually that severe), she won't really be having more kids than many monogamous couples in nations without a one-child policy, so it's not a problem.

Of course, allowing polygamy (either polygyny or polyandry) would require figuring out exactly how to define a "couple" for the purpose of allowing only one child per couple (in the above example, the government could just as easily decide that the woman in question, despite having multiple husbands, is only allowed one child total, and the remaining husbands will have to remain childless), but that's more nitpicking for the bureaucrats, not a pressing political issue.

(And remember that the one-child policy exists to reverse population growth, so a government enacting it is unlikely to be upset if its policies end up leading to even less than one child per couple. That's just the maximum they're willing to tolerate as a compromise.)

If 50% of couples want boys and 50% want, you don't have a problem

Practically, even if some people prefer boys and some prefer girls, it's unlikely to be an exact 50%-50% split.

In fact, the same thing also happens in India quite frequently. India does not have a one-child policy, of course, but there is the issue of "dowry". Poor families do not want to have girls, as they'll have to have a dowry for them when they get married. So many girls are aborted. I had heard that India considered criminalizing prenatal screenings for the purpose of gender detection for that reason. I don't know if this has been implemented, though.

And of course, it doesn't occur to anyone to abolish the practice of dowry.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Should I make this valid for only nations that banned abortions?
----

Oh, and well, there is also the issue of contraception to consider, of course.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Updated the draft.

Thoughts?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Hello all! I wonder why it is so eerily quiet here.

Any comments on the final version of this draft? Now the issue is only valid for those nations that have both a one-child policy + have banned abortion.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think it'd work better as an issue for nations that have one child policies and where abortion is LEGAL, as this would be a better match for RL India and China in similar situations. It'd then open up the possibility of saying that it should be illegal to terminate on the basis of gender.

We can also validity screen for nations that have low inclusiveness or sexual freedoms, and its generally considered to be a reasonable assumption that gender biased nations are biased in favour of men over women. While some nations' fictions might not match that, it's a common enough real world trend that it's a reasonable thing to extrapolate and assume in issue writing.

As to the named issues not actually specifying one-child policy, I'd certainly be more than willing to do as Trotterdam suggests, and to edit those stories to make them specifically a one-child thing. It wouldn't even require many checks against other issues, as existing multi-child families could always be from before a ban, or could be rare exceptions, or immigrants, or whatever.

On a broader note, can I point out to the community that this is how reversal issues should be. This is excellent in presenting a sensible consequence of a decision, rather than just asking the player to reverse the decision, or just saying people are unhappy with the decision. Thanks for showing how it should be done, FuF.

[Trotterdam]

I think it'd work better as an issue for nations that have one child policies and where abortion is LEGAL, as this would be a better match for RL India and China in similar situations. It'd then open up the possibility of saying that it should be illegal to terminate on the basis of gender.

Right.

There could be a separate issue for the unlikely-but-possible one-child-policy-without-abortion combination, which doesn't use the gender angle and instead goes "okay, someone who already has a child got pregnant again, what do you do about it?". (Or even, twins.)

But the "people are aborting children of the undesired gender" narrative makes more sense in a nation where no-questions-asked abortion is normally acceptable, until the moralizing public starts catching wind of your actual reason.

We can also validity screen for nations that have low inclusiveness or sexual freedoms, and its generally considered to be a reasonable assumption that gender biased nations are biased in favour of men over women. While some nations' fictions might not match that, it's a common enough real world trend that it's a reasonable thing to extrapolate and assume in issue writing.

This one is partly my fault:

The problem is assuming that a particular gender is preferred. Even a patriarchy wouldn't invariably be anti-girl. Patriarchies throughout history have assigned various positive characteristics to girls: beauty, kindness, and so on.

It's anyone's guess, of course, what kind of gender imbalance any of those cultures might have ended up with if they tried to enforce a one-child policy. In real life, a one-child policy is very rare: only one nation in all of history has ever had one. However, that one nation just so happens to be a large and powerful one that is still practicing the policy today, making it politically relevant anyway.

Wait, "began to be formally phased out near the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016". Good thing I checked. Then again, "it was reported that the existing law would be changed to a two-child policy", so they're still placing family size limits.

But there does at least seem to be a general perception that while all children are cute that that's one of the bigger reasons for wanting them around, female children are cuter. This perception is still largely the result of patriarchal norms. So I'm reluctant to accept that the Chinese experience is predictive of every possible nation's culture.

At the same time, though, I recognize that being unwilling to make a stand on which way the gender skew is going is hampering the issue, because it places attention solely on the moment of abortion and not on the societal consequences of a gender imbalance, leaving off the possibility of "allow it and find a way to deal with the fallout" options.

Mind you, the gender imbalance in real-life China still isn't that serious: 117:100 male:female may be enough to warrant some worry, but it's not like there's a crowd of men with one woman lost in it.

EDIT: Wait what, the United Kingdom has a two-child policy!? Though on closer reading, the policy is just that children beyond the first two aren't eligible for government child support, not that you're not allowed to have them.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-be ... e-children

Yeah, it's basically a benefits cap for number of children, which is a nice right wing knee-jerk response to the myth that most people claiming benefits for 3+ kids had the kids to have the benefits.

Obviously, opinions vary, and it'd make a good issue. Which others have recognised, of course, which is why we have #995, I suspect.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Alright. Draft 3 is up with a new premise

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Bump.

Any comments on the new draft?

[Trotterdam]

Seems like there should be someone in the issue who is in favor of the practice, or at least parents' right to choose.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Seems like there should be someone in the issue who is in favor of the practice, or at least parents' right to choose.

OK, I added a 5th option. I will need a witty effect line for it, though.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Well, OK, I came up with an effect line for Option 5 as well.

Any comments before submission?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I know this almost goes directly counter to previous good advice, but I feel 5 options is too many for this issue. Which option is least narratively necessary, do we think?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I know this almost goes directly counter to previous good advice, but I feel 5 options is too many for this issue. Which option is least narratively necessary, do we think?

If I had to sacrifice one, I'd choose Option 3, because what it suggests is kinda complicated. (I mean it suggests adoption and baby-swapping agencies all at the same time). Would you agree with me on that?