Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Channel 13 documentary on China
Message-ID: <5199@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 22:27:30 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5199
Posted: Wed Apr 24 22:27:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 04:37:53 EST
References: <748@mhuxt.UUCP> <5176@cbscc.UUCP>, <802@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 120

A reply to Jeff Sonntag's reply to me:

}> I'm sure there is no easy solution to the problem the Chinese
}> face.  But it bothers me to see present the alternative (as if
}> it were the only one) as "Malthus' solution", as if we had to
}> choose between these two.
}
}     Of course there are other solutions.  Separating men and women
}into separate concentration camps would be one.  Having a major war
}would probably help too.  I'm sure you could think of others, but I
}haven't been able to think of any *superior* to what they are doing.
}Can you?

Yes, I think I could think of a better solution.  I think you could
too.  Tell me, how long did it take you to exhaust all of the
possibilities?  The main point of my last article, however, is that
I don't think you really care too much about finding a superior solution.
This impression seems to be borne out by your off-the-cuff remarks
here.  You pull the above quote out of the context of my article
and answer it as if I implied that one of these "other solutions" you
mention here should be considered or that you are overlooking them.
Don't waste your time, Jeff.  You know that the thrust of my article
was that we should give ourselves a little more impetus for thinking
out solutions that are "not disgusting".

}> Did the documentary bring out the fact that infanticide against
}> female babies has risen dramatically because families are forced
}> to have one child and most of them want that one to be a boy?
}> Did it say what happens if the "8 months pregnant woman" can't
}> be "convinced" to have an abortion?  Did it mention the economic
}> sanctions imposed as penalties on families that have more than
}> one child?  What really justifies the state in forcing parents
}> not to have children they want?  
}
}     Yes, no, I'm not sure.  The state's justification is that they
}don't have a better way to avoid mass starvation.  What would justify the
}state in pursuing a course of action which demonstratably leads to 
}mass starvation?

So many things that you aren't sure about, yet you so easily accept
the Chinese solution to the problem.  You accept the state's justification,
for their actions, and imply that any other solution will indeed lead
to "mass starvation".  Are you as uncritical of our own government as
you are of totalitarian regimes?  What course are you speaking of that
would demonstratably lead to starvation?  How has it been demonstrated?

Do you think the Chinese government would accept a solution that would
require a decentralization of the government and economy?  Suppose that
were part of a solution.  Is it an inferior solution to forced abortions
and birth control?  Do you think the government has seriously considered
it?  Have you?  If the government excludes solutions that don't infringe
so much on basic human rights, then are they really as justified as you
imply in violating those rights.  I think you would agree that they are
not.

With the population density of Hong Kong, how much farmable land do you
think they have there?  Has mass starvation ensued?  Hong Kong has the
highest population density of any part of China.  If too many people
"demonstrably" lead to mass starvation, how has Hong Kong supported
so many for so long?  These questions should open the door for consideration
of a solution.

Some other things that ought to open the door wider:

1) What constitutes "farmable land" for the Chinese and what can be
done about the land that is not farmable?  If the farmers could own
their own land would there be more incentive for them to develop it
and produce more?  

2) Families in economically developed countries tend to voluntarily limit
their size.  What can be done to stimulate such economic growth in China?
As it is, China is aborting nearly as many future food producers as
they are food consumers.  They depend on a much larger segment of their
population for food production than do the more developed countries.

3) In the event that China does experience problems with starvation while
it is doing all it can to develop sufficiently, would a solution that required
technological and financial aid, trade incentives and agricultural
training from the developed countries in the interim be acceptable?
(If not maybe those countries would gladly share in the blame for China's
human rights violations?)

}> Is this really a "pro-choice"
}> solution, Jeff?  
}
}No.  I never claimed it was.
}
}> I would hope a solution could be found that doesn't impose so
}> much on human rights.  I would also hope that the blame for the
}> problems of a large population would not be placed so easily
}> on the backs of the poor families that want to have children.
}
}     I wish there was one too.  I won't condemn the Chinese government
}for their solution unless I can think of a better one, though.

Good.  I hope you haven't stopped thinking, though.  Because if you do
and continue to withhold criticism then you are indeed accepting of their
solution to the problem.  Whether or not you claim it as the pro-choice
solution, it becomes so by default if you cease to critically examine
it and accept it.

In this article, I have pointed to what I think are some of the building
blocks to a better solution for the Chinese.  They could be spelled out
in more detail and added to, but I think it would be more constructive
to have the pro-choice folks do some of their own thinking.  Many of them
claim to be as concerned about the basic rights of individuals as the
pro-lifers (or even more so).  You see, what really bothered me in this
whole thing is not so much the difficulty of the solution (I acknowledge
that it is difficult) but the apparent ease (demonstrated by one pro-choice
advocate) with which we acquiesce to "solutions" that trample over basic
human rights.  Much of the burden for thinking our solutions to the problems
like these is easily placed on the shoulders of the pro-life camp because
they detest abortion.  Pro-choice folks are accepting of abortion in various
degrees and have always seemed to value individual choice highly.  I'm beginning
to get the impression, however, that the pro-choice mentality lends itself
very easily to sympathy for *pro-abortion* (as pro-choicers themselves define
the term) practice.  I'm glad pro-life folks don't have that luxury.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd