Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Woman considers 8-month abortion to save husband's job

  1. #1

    Woman considers 8-month abortion to save husband's job

    The Mengele sickos at Planned Parenthood would be more than happy to oblige.

    A woman in Beijing is considering an illegal abortion at 8 months because having the baby would violate China's restrictive birth policy. As a result, the woman's husband would lose his job as a police officer.

    Members of the public have taken interest in the couple's situation and an online travel service has even reportedly offered the husband a job if he loses his government position. While the debate over whether employment in the public sector should be used to enforce the restrictive one-child birth policy has been relevant for quite some time, this case re-ignites it.

    The 41-year-old woman, referred to as "Chen," said in a telephone interview on Monday that she and her husband feel pressured to abort their second child in a desperate effort to save her husband's job. She said:
    "I'm fearful. If my husband believes I must abort the child, there's nothing I can do."
    In addition, Chen worries that her case is drawing so much public attention that her husband might lose his job regardless of the abortion. She said:
    "I am worried he would lose his job even after we lose the baby, if the situation gets messy."
    When Chen first became unexpectedly pregnant, she and her husband hoped for a policy change that would enable them to have a second child. However, the pregnancy is in violation of the current rule.

    Wen Xueping, a family planning official in Yunnan's Chuxiong prefecture, said that although the family will face repercussions for having the baby, they will not be forced to abort it. They face large fines and the loss of the husband's job. Wen said:

    "No way will we force them to have an abortion, but there also is the suspicion that the couple wants to avoid the punishment for breaking the rules by stirring up public interest."
    This case sheds light on critics' determination to end the one-child policy in China. Many say that taking away a family's livelihood, especially now that that they will have two children to raise, is simply immoral. Others, however, believe that the couple should have obeyed the one-child policy to start with.
    I don't see the word "adoption" mentioned anywhere.

    What a world...
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "I'm fearful. If my husband believes I must abort the child, there's nothing I can do."
    Nothing I can do, either.

    Except pray for a Hell.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts