Many articles believe that China’s one child policy is too restrictive of people’s rights but in Gwynne Dyer’s article “China's one-child policy has added benefits” she believes that although it does intrude on rights it is still a necessity to keep China’s fertility rate and population down to a reasonable level. The policy states that each family is allowed to have only one child, although exceptions are made for rural families were the first born is a girl or handicapped or people are of ethnic minorities. (Dyer, 2007) An alternative to this regulatory control could be an economic incentive by giving families more money for the fewer children they have.
The incentive would work by the government giving families with fewer children more money than ones with many children. It would also have to depend on income because a $1000 reimbursement is worth more to people of different incomes. The economic incentive method would clearly not intrude on people’s rights to have children. The option is still available to them; they just need to be well off financially so they can support the extra child without the given money. This is also a good basis for a sound economic society. It means that each child will be properly taken care of because of prosperous family settings. This hopefully insures that there only enough people in the country that can be provided for which is one of china’s biggest problems now.
But with a relaxation on the one child policy the birth rate will rise again and this economic incentive may not always work. In order for people to always choose the incentive instead of children it would have to be an incredibly large sum of money and with the number of births in china the government wouldn’t have enough funds to support it.
But what about the children of unplanned pregnancies or lower class families that need the children to work? These women will probably have their children despite the incentives for not having them. It is unknown how many women would be in these situations, but it could have the effect of rising the birth rate again, thus destroying the positive effect of the policy of the past 30 years. Or because all these families have been suppressed by the government for the past three decades there could be a population boom. With such a rapid number of births the country would again not be able to support them all.
The one child policy is an intrusion of human rights, but I along with Dyer believe that China had no other choice. In the article China is compared to India and in the 70’s they both had close fertility rates and China had a greater population. In 2020 it is predicted that China’s population will level off around 1.4 billion while India’s will continue to grow to 1.7. With the policy China’s population would be close to 2 billion, which is a significantly more than there is now. Crowded living conditions and poor air quality are already problems in China, so the country would not have been able to support 600 million more people because they can’t support every one as it is.
So in the case of China’s one child policy I and Dyer believe that regulatory control should remain implemented instead of an economic incentive because people will have the children anyways and China in a dire situation that calls for drastic action.
Dyer, G. (2007, October 27). China's one-child policy has added benefits. Retrieved from http://www.thespec.com/article/270536
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thirty Years Later and Still Standing
When you give them an inch, they think they can take a mile. China on the other hand does not believe in this policy. According to Tini Tran of the Associated Press, believes “China will not consider changing its one-child policy for at least a decade for fear that a population surge could spark social and economic instability” (Tran 2008). This policy was put in place 30 years ago in order to aid the overpopulation, economic and environmental issues facing the country. With the 30th anniversary approaching the country in contemplating uplifting the one child policy, causing debates worldwide. If the government decides to up lift the child policy and Tran’s prediction are correct then the Chinese society would be devastated, with an incredibly dense population. There are two ways to look at the situation, they can up lift the policy and offer economic to their people, or continue with regulatory control.
Regulatory control otherwise known as command and control is when the person or group in control, puts in place a rule/law that a person under that power must obey and follow. There are three type of command and control “mechanisms that regulators can choose to implement: ambient, emissions, or technology standards” (Anderson 2008). The one child policy would fall under the ambient category which revolves around the environment and pollution. As stated early the Chinese government put in effect the policy/law that each woman in china was only permitted to give birth to one child in their life time. The policy was put in place to combat the ridiculously high population, and its effects on the economy and the environment. The policy has been proven successful as the policy “has prevented an additional 400 million births. China's population currently stands at 1.3 billion, growing 16 to 17 million annually” (Tran 2008). The only down fall to a regulatory control policy is that it has expensive costs of enforcing the rules. There is no reason to uplift the policy if it is proven to be successful in Tran’s mind.
The other position that could be taken when approaching China’s fast growing population is to offer an economic incentive. Economic incentives are normally cash incentive given by the government or a company, to try and entice a person or persons to follow a given principle. A common example of economic incentives would be the government offering home owners, cash rebates to replace aspects of their home like lights, or toilets to be more energy efficient. In the situation of China’s population problem, the government could offer cash incentives to limiting the amount of children a family decides to have. The one problem that could arise with this way of action is that a family may decide they want two children instead of the past one, already the annual birth rate has doubled to 34 million babies annually and that is only one extra child per family, imagine the numbers if families start having 2-4 children the numbers would be unbelievable.
I personally agree with Tini Tran’s argument of keeping the one child policy. I think the one child policy should stay in effect for the sake of the environment, their country, as well as our country. The policy has been proven effective, with the numbers to back it up, why remove something that still works. The consequences to the environment would be terrible, our resources would be consumed much quicker, and the pollution being produced would be unthinkable. China is already the most densely populated country in the world; imagine if there were even more people living there, the country would become unlivable with so many people. Also if you think our highways and big cities are busy now, if the policy was dropped there could potentially be millions more people immigrating to Canada increasing our population, using our resources and destroying our environment. Regulatory control is doing its job in China, so why risk having to face the consequences if it is removed.
Anderson, D. (2008, July 29). Regulatory Policy vs Economic Incentives. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Environmental Literacy Council: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1329.html
Tran, T. (2008, March 28). China One-Child Policy to Stay in Place. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Mar10/0,4675,ChinaOneChildPolicy,00.html
Regulatory control otherwise known as command and control is when the person or group in control, puts in place a rule/law that a person under that power must obey and follow. There are three type of command and control “mechanisms that regulators can choose to implement: ambient, emissions, or technology standards” (Anderson 2008). The one child policy would fall under the ambient category which revolves around the environment and pollution. As stated early the Chinese government put in effect the policy/law that each woman in china was only permitted to give birth to one child in their life time. The policy was put in place to combat the ridiculously high population, and its effects on the economy and the environment. The policy has been proven successful as the policy “has prevented an additional 400 million births. China's population currently stands at 1.3 billion, growing 16 to 17 million annually” (Tran 2008). The only down fall to a regulatory control policy is that it has expensive costs of enforcing the rules. There is no reason to uplift the policy if it is proven to be successful in Tran’s mind.
The other position that could be taken when approaching China’s fast growing population is to offer an economic incentive. Economic incentives are normally cash incentive given by the government or a company, to try and entice a person or persons to follow a given principle. A common example of economic incentives would be the government offering home owners, cash rebates to replace aspects of their home like lights, or toilets to be more energy efficient. In the situation of China’s population problem, the government could offer cash incentives to limiting the amount of children a family decides to have. The one problem that could arise with this way of action is that a family may decide they want two children instead of the past one, already the annual birth rate has doubled to 34 million babies annually and that is only one extra child per family, imagine the numbers if families start having 2-4 children the numbers would be unbelievable.
I personally agree with Tini Tran’s argument of keeping the one child policy. I think the one child policy should stay in effect for the sake of the environment, their country, as well as our country. The policy has been proven effective, with the numbers to back it up, why remove something that still works. The consequences to the environment would be terrible, our resources would be consumed much quicker, and the pollution being produced would be unthinkable. China is already the most densely populated country in the world; imagine if there were even more people living there, the country would become unlivable with so many people. Also if you think our highways and big cities are busy now, if the policy was dropped there could potentially be millions more people immigrating to Canada increasing our population, using our resources and destroying our environment. Regulatory control is doing its job in China, so why risk having to face the consequences if it is removed.
Anderson, D. (2008, July 29). Regulatory Policy vs Economic Incentives. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Environmental Literacy Council: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1329.html
Tran, T. (2008, March 28). China One-Child Policy to Stay in Place. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Mar10/0,4675,ChinaOneChildPolicy,00.html
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
No More One Child Policy China
China has claimed that it will continue the “One-Child-Policy” through another five-year planning period. The policy prevents an increase in the birthrate of China, however both moral and ethical issues arise when taking these measures. Conflicts between health and gender equality cause people to re-examine the ethical viewpoints of the one-child-policy. The article chosen states that the One-Child-Policy should not be implemented to slow population growth in China and is not crucial in maintaining a healthy population on our planet. This post will examine the moral/ethical issues behind China’s One-Child-Policy, and the authors statement will be analysed through a consequentialist and non-consequentalist point of view.
A consequentialist view is one of a utilitarian; one that would judge an issue by determining the moral worth of its actions based on the outcome. In the article “One Child Policy in China Designed to Limit Population Growth”, the author argues that the outcome of the One-Child-Policy is beneficial enough to account for its means. “The rule has been estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people over its first twenty years.” (Rosenberg, 2009) It is still being questioned if the One-Child-Policy is the sole reason for lowering China’s fertility rate; IUD’s, sterilization, and abortion are China’s most popular forms of birth control, and China has provided education and support for alternative birth control methods more so than many countries in the world. It is not certain, nor will there ever be an end to justify the means of what exact method resulted in a lower fertility rate in women, and a decrease in the Chinese population, however statistically, after the One-Child-Policy was implemented, the population of China decreased by some 300 million people in the first twenty years.
Going along with a non-consequentialist view now, and analysing the One-Child-Policy, we would look at the matter not in terms of the result, but rather by the practice. A deontologist must abide by the rules that are put in place by the government or authority when making decisions. “China has proclaimed that it will continue its one child policy, which limits couples to having one child” (Rosenberg, 2009) The policy is made to limit the number of children allowed per family, however in doing so there is in an excess of boys now in China. Most families are keen on having a boy to carry on the family name, and to aid in financial support. As a result, the one-child-per-family policy has been linked to female infanticide, forced abortions, and selective abortion of female fetuses. Not only are these practices un-safe, they also demonstrate great gender inequality in the population of China. If there is not a mutual respect and desire for both male and female children, China will have an unstable population in the future, and male chauvinist population in the present. Here there is a connection made between the rights of male and female parties. We are to treat both parties with equal respect and equal rights, and by law it is wrong to abort a child based on its sex. The One-Child-Policy may be a way to decrease the population in China, however the actions in doing so may be seen as felonious, therefore not acceptable to a deontologist.
It has been established through the perspective of a consequentialist and non-consequentialist’s that the One-Child-Policy is wrong morally and ethically. The utilitarian’s arguments were based on results gained from studies done on different methods of birth control, which stated that above many countries, China educates their population on birth control methods that causes a decrease in the population without practicing any illicit actions, such as infant abandonment and sex-selective abortions, or favoring a male or female side. The deontologist’s views explained how certain actions, such as the ones listed above which are rooted by the policy, would be viewed as unlawful and thus un-acceptable in society. In conclusion this article uses both viewpoints from a utilitarian and a deontologist to prove the China’s One-Child-Policy is ethically and morally wrong.
References:
Rosenberg M., About.Com:Geography. (2009) “China's One Child Policy
One Child Policy in China Designed to Limit Population Growth” April 12, 2009. http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm Accessed November 3, 2009.
An American 'One Child Policy?'
In previous blogs there has been talk about the “One Child Policy” in
Morally, the message is to help control the human overcrowding in areas that have less. In these areas birth control and other contraceptives are very expensive and not used as commonly as first world countries. The carbon credit is almost like a bribe to help these unfortunate people prosper and be able to enjoy their lives a little bit better as well as help regulate the number of people produced. People who count morally are the people receiving this carbon credit. Also, the tax payers who are going to be paying to fund this program also count morally.
From a consequentialist’s point of view, the goods that can come out of this action, sees this being a good opportunity for high fertility areas such as Africa to help reduce overpopulation as well as earn some money to help them move on in life. As well, if this action works, other countries may believe it can help them with overpopulation woes and implement this action. A negative consequence of this action is that the amount of money given out may not be justified by only having one child. I mean, some families may want to have more than one child but I guess will have to be ‘bribed’ with more money than the government would want to give them. Depending on the family of course, this could be a problem or it could not.
A non-consequentialist point of view examines the goodness of the act itself. The act here, applying the carbon credit, can be seen as an ethically correct act that can benefit the world and environment. Although the consequences for this may be only slightly negative, they are not dwelled upon.
In conclusion, either view has different ethical aspects that are pointed out in the article. In the long term the effects of this policy could have a positive affect on the environment and that it would be supported by the areas that it would be applied.
Reference:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/25/an-american-one-child-policy
Blog #6
Britain’s got Torment
In this day and age it is difficult enough to find those who agree with China’s One Child Policy let alone wish to replicate it in their own country, but Alex Renton seems more than prepared to join this potential ethical dilemma. In the article “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” the author, Alex Renton, argues for the One Child Policy and claims that it would also be beneficial for Britain to implicate. Although Renton may believe such a strict policy is necessary, there are many ethical issues surrounding his argument. For instance, Renton must consider: who counts morally, if the policy would create the maximum amount of happiness for the majority of people, and if it is morally acceptable to deny any human being the right to have children. China’s One Child Policy raises many questions related to ethics and If Alex Renton is arguing for the policy there are many moral issues to be discussed.
The first ethical dimension to be explored will be the demarcation problem. In the article it seems like Renton does not believe that children count morally. When Renton states: “Could children perhaps become part of an adult's personal carbon allowance?”(Renton, 2009) it may cause some to believe that he is not concerned about the moral value of children, and may simply see them as property of their parents. Some people believe that children count morally, and the fact that Renton does not seem to agree with this causes ethical issues. Who counts morally is not the only issue in this article, the total happiness of the world must also be evaluated.
The consequentialist’s view is another aspect of ethics that shouldn’t be ignored. From a consequentialist’s viewpoint, such as utilitarianism, China’s One Child Policy is a very good way of lowering the world’s population. Although the policy causes some people in China to be upset because they cannot have as large of families as they want, it brings much more happiness to the rest of the world because the population of China is becoming less overpopulated. In the article, Alex Renton Claims: “Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far.”(Renton, 2009) This proves that the population is going down and therefore preserving the world’s resources which will increase happiness.
The last portion of ethics to investigate is the non-consequentialist’s view of the One Child Policy. A non-consequentialist would believe that every life is important, and that everyone’s happiness should be considered equally. In relation to the One Child Policy, a non-consequentialist would disagree with causing anyone to be unhappy by limiting the number of children they can have, even if it would cause many others to be happy. Therefore Renton’s statement: “After all, based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.”(Renton, 2009) would cause ethical issues because the would-be parents of the British child would be unhappy because they were not allowed to have the child.
In Conclusion, there are many different ethical dimensions in the article, “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” by Alex Renton. The demarcation problem is one area of ethical issues that Renton must consider when arguing for China’s One Child Policy, but from a consequentialist’s viewpoint Renton is making the right decision already. However, for a non-consequentialist, the One Child Policy is not right, and limiting anyone’s family size is not justified by other people’s happiness. I believe that it is not right to force families to stop having children, and that instead there should be initiatives to have fewer children. It is instinctive for humans to want to have children and to take the most basic right of any creature away from someone is very extreme. I do believe that overpopulation is an important issue, but there are other ways of controlling population size that are less anti-instinctive.
References:
Renton, Alex. “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” The Observer October 25, 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/alex-renton-population-control-climate-change Accessed: November 2, 2009.
In this day and age it is difficult enough to find those who agree with China’s One Child Policy let alone wish to replicate it in their own country, but Alex Renton seems more than prepared to join this potential ethical dilemma. In the article “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” the author, Alex Renton, argues for the One Child Policy and claims that it would also be beneficial for Britain to implicate. Although Renton may believe such a strict policy is necessary, there are many ethical issues surrounding his argument. For instance, Renton must consider: who counts morally, if the policy would create the maximum amount of happiness for the majority of people, and if it is morally acceptable to deny any human being the right to have children. China’s One Child Policy raises many questions related to ethics and If Alex Renton is arguing for the policy there are many moral issues to be discussed.
The first ethical dimension to be explored will be the demarcation problem. In the article it seems like Renton does not believe that children count morally. When Renton states: “Could children perhaps become part of an adult's personal carbon allowance?”(Renton, 2009) it may cause some to believe that he is not concerned about the moral value of children, and may simply see them as property of their parents. Some people believe that children count morally, and the fact that Renton does not seem to agree with this causes ethical issues. Who counts morally is not the only issue in this article, the total happiness of the world must also be evaluated.
The consequentialist’s view is another aspect of ethics that shouldn’t be ignored. From a consequentialist’s viewpoint, such as utilitarianism, China’s One Child Policy is a very good way of lowering the world’s population. Although the policy causes some people in China to be upset because they cannot have as large of families as they want, it brings much more happiness to the rest of the world because the population of China is becoming less overpopulated. In the article, Alex Renton Claims: “Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far.”(Renton, 2009) This proves that the population is going down and therefore preserving the world’s resources which will increase happiness.
The last portion of ethics to investigate is the non-consequentialist’s view of the One Child Policy. A non-consequentialist would believe that every life is important, and that everyone’s happiness should be considered equally. In relation to the One Child Policy, a non-consequentialist would disagree with causing anyone to be unhappy by limiting the number of children they can have, even if it would cause many others to be happy. Therefore Renton’s statement: “After all, based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.”(Renton, 2009) would cause ethical issues because the would-be parents of the British child would be unhappy because they were not allowed to have the child.
In Conclusion, there are many different ethical dimensions in the article, “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” by Alex Renton. The demarcation problem is one area of ethical issues that Renton must consider when arguing for China’s One Child Policy, but from a consequentialist’s viewpoint Renton is making the right decision already. However, for a non-consequentialist, the One Child Policy is not right, and limiting anyone’s family size is not justified by other people’s happiness. I believe that it is not right to force families to stop having children, and that instead there should be initiatives to have fewer children. It is instinctive for humans to want to have children and to take the most basic right of any creature away from someone is very extreme. I do believe that overpopulation is an important issue, but there are other ways of controlling population size that are less anti-instinctive.
References:
Renton, Alex. “Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet” The Observer October 25, 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/alex-renton-population-control-climate-change Accessed: November 2, 2009.
Has China's One-Child Policy Worked?
The ethical debate of the one child policy in China has been going on since the policy was created about 30 years ago. In Michael Bristow’s article “Has China's one-child policy worked?” he describes the situation surrounding the problem and states that China is going to run into problems in the future if they continue with their one child policy.
With regards to demarcation in this instance it is clear that human lives are valued, but do the unborn children of the woman that are forced to abort count morally? Different ethical theories differ on this topic but most believe that they do count morally, thus agreeing with the author that the one child policy needs to be ended. But some believe that children and fetus’s do not count morally because they are not self aware, these people would not have a problem with abortions and contrast the author claim.
From a utilitarian’s point of view the way to get the most aggregate happiness is from having the one child policy, thus lowing overpopulation and leaving a healthier earth for the rest of us to live in. So although the overall happiness has increased the average happiness in China is considerably lower. The hedonistic happiness is lowered if you believe that fetus’s feel pain, and the happiness of the would be parents is lowed because they can’t have as many children as they would like. There is a considerable decrease in the preference happiness because about 400 million births have been prevented (Bristow 2007) with the policy and all these children would have had a potential to achieve their desires and goals. In Bristow’s argument he does not seem to address the issue from a utilitarian point of view because his conclusion differs from its solution.
Non consequentialist believe issues should be debated by considering the moral right and wrongs of a situation instead of about the positive or negative consequences like the utilitarian point of view. In this case it is against people’s rights to dictate how many children they can have. People should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lifestyles and family even if it is aiding the planet and their country as a whole. This is not a given right but an implied one. Forced abortions can also be seen as morally unacceptable for many people and religions making this aspect a very controversial issue. So from a noncosequentialist point of view the one child policy should be rejected.
There are many different sides to problems surrounding overpopulation and the one child policy in China can be examined from the point of view of various theories. From a demarcation and consequentalists point of view it is the right thing to enforce and from a nonconsequentialist point of view it is the wrong choice. I believe that strictly from an ethics, not economical point of view, that the one child policy is necessary. The population in china was growing at an alarming rate and something needed to be done to decrease the birth rate even though it interferes with the individuals rights.
Bristow, M. (2007, September 20). Has China's one-child policy worked?. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7000931.stm
With regards to demarcation in this instance it is clear that human lives are valued, but do the unborn children of the woman that are forced to abort count morally? Different ethical theories differ on this topic but most believe that they do count morally, thus agreeing with the author that the one child policy needs to be ended. But some believe that children and fetus’s do not count morally because they are not self aware, these people would not have a problem with abortions and contrast the author claim.
From a utilitarian’s point of view the way to get the most aggregate happiness is from having the one child policy, thus lowing overpopulation and leaving a healthier earth for the rest of us to live in. So although the overall happiness has increased the average happiness in China is considerably lower. The hedonistic happiness is lowered if you believe that fetus’s feel pain, and the happiness of the would be parents is lowed because they can’t have as many children as they would like. There is a considerable decrease in the preference happiness because about 400 million births have been prevented (Bristow 2007) with the policy and all these children would have had a potential to achieve their desires and goals. In Bristow’s argument he does not seem to address the issue from a utilitarian point of view because his conclusion differs from its solution.
Non consequentialist believe issues should be debated by considering the moral right and wrongs of a situation instead of about the positive or negative consequences like the utilitarian point of view. In this case it is against people’s rights to dictate how many children they can have. People should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lifestyles and family even if it is aiding the planet and their country as a whole. This is not a given right but an implied one. Forced abortions can also be seen as morally unacceptable for many people and religions making this aspect a very controversial issue. So from a noncosequentialist point of view the one child policy should be rejected.
There are many different sides to problems surrounding overpopulation and the one child policy in China can be examined from the point of view of various theories. From a demarcation and consequentalists point of view it is the right thing to enforce and from a nonconsequentialist point of view it is the wrong choice. I believe that strictly from an ethics, not economical point of view, that the one child policy is necessary. The population in china was growing at an alarming rate and something needed to be done to decrease the birth rate even though it interferes with the individuals rights.
Bristow, M. (2007, September 20). Has China's one-child policy worked?. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7000931.stm
China Not So Sensitive
In an overpopulated nation that has 1.6 billion people living in it, an advertisement for a quick and painless abortion is far from uncommon. China has a much higher population than any other country in the world. Abortion is widely accepted there, as it is seen as a way to reduce the strain of such a high population. However, there are many ethical issues surrounding the morality of unborn fetuses and abortion. In the article “Combating overpopulation…with Korea Style No Hurt 3-Minute Abortion” the author, Ben Ross, states that abortion in China “is not nearly as sensitive as it is in the Bible Belt of North America” (2007). Ross believes that we make abortion a bigger deal then it really is. The main issue is a demarcation problem to determine at what point does a fetus gains moral value rather then just being a ball of growing cells. The true conflict between different ethical views can be seen when the problem is examined through a consequentialist (utilitarian) and a non-consequentialist (deontologist) perspective. After close examination it is easily seen where Chinese society stands in regards to abortion.
The demarcation point is where you draw the line between science and morals. This is extremely complicated in regards to abortion. This is because different people have different definitions of when a fetus becomes a being, with rights of life. Some consider the point when the baby is conceived, while other believe it receives the right of life when it takes its first breathe. No matter which point in time a person believes it is morally wrong to kill an unborn fetus, there is always a strong argument against them: However in China they for the most part they accept that “Abortion…is not a controversial issue, nor is it a highly debated topic” (2007). They believe that abortion is morally ok, in order for their society to prosper; to the point that they advertise abortion on billboards.
A consequentialist is a person who looks at the consequences of their action rather than the action itself. An action could be frowned upon, but as long as the action leads you to the betterment of society then action is worth doing. This can be seen on Chinese society’s views on contraception:
“China just may be the most “pro-choice” country in the world, as abortion is not only 100% legal and unrestricted, but based on these advertisements, I’m assuming it’s not too difficult to get one either. Contraception is easily attainable as well. Condoms are sold at convenience stores, sex shops, and random dispensers in public places and birth control pills can be purchased for around 20 RMB (approx $1.60 USD) per month at any pharmacy, without a prescription.” (2007)
The society as a whole takes a consequentialist view; they see that the consequences of their actions will help them keep their population from growing further, and having even worse repercussions on the environment. Another view related to consequentialist is utilitarianism. A utilitarian believes people’s happiness is the most important thing to consider when planning your actions. An action is considered ethically correct if it benefits the majority of people. There are many benefits provided by safe and legal abortions. They allow women the freedom to live without the burden of a child they are not ready for, and they prevent children from being put up for adoption. “One reason behind the government’s stance on contraception and abortion is that China simply has too many people. Restricting abortions would make the problem even worse. While official estimates set the population at just over 1.3 billion, it is widely accepted that the actual population may be as high as 1.6 billion” (2007). The government believes that their people will be happier with this method of keeping the population at bay. Countries with dense populations are more susceptible to infectious diseases due to close living quarters, and also require an extremely large amount of effort to provide food, water and other necessities to everybody. If the strained large populations are reduced, many people will benefit and be happy because these negative effects will also be reduced. Therefore from a utilitarian perspective, on abortion is justified.
The opposing view to consequentialist is non-consequentialist; they believe is examining the action rather than only looking at the outcome. A non-consequentialist would view abortion as a terrible act because they look at the action of killing the unborn baby as a bad thing, even though the benefits outweigh the negatives. Here in North America “most public advertisements for abortion usually involved a yard full of crosses each representing a child who had been “murdered,” as a result of abortion” (2007). This is because in North America majority of people see abortion as murder, they look at the action rather than the outcome. The reason for this is because, the population crisis is virtually non-existent to an extent, and we have plenty of room, which is why our immigration rate is so high. Connected to non-consequentialism are deontologists who determine goodness and righteousness through a person’s actions. Abortion would never be accepted by a deontologist. They see the action of killing and reject the action immediately.
Unlike China, North Americans would not see the benefits, and would take a non-consequentialist view on abortion.It can be seen that different people will interpret situations differently, around the world. In China views on abortion are accepted, because of the extremely high population, while in North America it is highly frowned upon. Abortion can be looked at from many angles, and it can be debated a number of ways. At one side you look at the action of killing an unborn baby, while on the other hand you are aiding, in keeping an already exploding population under control. The question for the reader is: Do you look at the initial actions or the benefits at the end?
Reference:
Ross, B. (2007, March 06). Combating overpopulation…with korea style no hurt 3-minute abortion. Retrieved from http://benross.net/wordpress/combating-overpopulation%e2%80%a6with-korea-style-no-hurt-3-minute-abortion/2007/03/06/
The demarcation point is where you draw the line between science and morals. This is extremely complicated in regards to abortion. This is because different people have different definitions of when a fetus becomes a being, with rights of life. Some consider the point when the baby is conceived, while other believe it receives the right of life when it takes its first breathe. No matter which point in time a person believes it is morally wrong to kill an unborn fetus, there is always a strong argument against them: However in China they for the most part they accept that “Abortion…is not a controversial issue, nor is it a highly debated topic” (2007). They believe that abortion is morally ok, in order for their society to prosper; to the point that they advertise abortion on billboards.
A consequentialist is a person who looks at the consequences of their action rather than the action itself. An action could be frowned upon, but as long as the action leads you to the betterment of society then action is worth doing. This can be seen on Chinese society’s views on contraception:
“China just may be the most “pro-choice” country in the world, as abortion is not only 100% legal and unrestricted, but based on these advertisements, I’m assuming it’s not too difficult to get one either. Contraception is easily attainable as well. Condoms are sold at convenience stores, sex shops, and random dispensers in public places and birth control pills can be purchased for around 20 RMB (approx $1.60 USD) per month at any pharmacy, without a prescription.” (2007)
The society as a whole takes a consequentialist view; they see that the consequences of their actions will help them keep their population from growing further, and having even worse repercussions on the environment. Another view related to consequentialist is utilitarianism. A utilitarian believes people’s happiness is the most important thing to consider when planning your actions. An action is considered ethically correct if it benefits the majority of people. There are many benefits provided by safe and legal abortions. They allow women the freedom to live without the burden of a child they are not ready for, and they prevent children from being put up for adoption. “One reason behind the government’s stance on contraception and abortion is that China simply has too many people. Restricting abortions would make the problem even worse. While official estimates set the population at just over 1.3 billion, it is widely accepted that the actual population may be as high as 1.6 billion” (2007). The government believes that their people will be happier with this method of keeping the population at bay. Countries with dense populations are more susceptible to infectious diseases due to close living quarters, and also require an extremely large amount of effort to provide food, water and other necessities to everybody. If the strained large populations are reduced, many people will benefit and be happy because these negative effects will also be reduced. Therefore from a utilitarian perspective, on abortion is justified.
The opposing view to consequentialist is non-consequentialist; they believe is examining the action rather than only looking at the outcome. A non-consequentialist would view abortion as a terrible act because they look at the action of killing the unborn baby as a bad thing, even though the benefits outweigh the negatives. Here in North America “most public advertisements for abortion usually involved a yard full of crosses each representing a child who had been “murdered,” as a result of abortion” (2007). This is because in North America majority of people see abortion as murder, they look at the action rather than the outcome. The reason for this is because, the population crisis is virtually non-existent to an extent, and we have plenty of room, which is why our immigration rate is so high. Connected to non-consequentialism are deontologists who determine goodness and righteousness through a person’s actions. Abortion would never be accepted by a deontologist. They see the action of killing and reject the action immediately.
Unlike China, North Americans would not see the benefits, and would take a non-consequentialist view on abortion.It can be seen that different people will interpret situations differently, around the world. In China views on abortion are accepted, because of the extremely high population, while in North America it is highly frowned upon. Abortion can be looked at from many angles, and it can be debated a number of ways. At one side you look at the action of killing an unborn baby, while on the other hand you are aiding, in keeping an already exploding population under control. The question for the reader is: Do you look at the initial actions or the benefits at the end?
Reference:
Ross, B. (2007, March 06). Combating overpopulation…with korea style no hurt 3-minute abortion. Retrieved from http://benross.net/wordpress/combating-overpopulation%e2%80%a6with-korea-style-no-hurt-3-minute-abortion/2007/03/06/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
