Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    RE: .0
    
    	I recently read an article in the Readers Digest (I am very
    intellectual, aren't I?) about this very subject. It seems that
    the story took place in China. Anyway, to summarize; China (as 
    everyone might be aware of) is experiencing the after-effects and pain 
    of a population boom. It wasnt too long ago that they decided to set 
    up a child quota system for families - 1 new child per family.
    
    	A writer (the author of this story) stayed in China for a while
    and experienced something quite painful with regards to this child
    quota issue. It seems that he befriended a family during his stay
    - mother, father and little daughter. 
    
    	In China, as in other countries, the people put a high value on
    having a male offspring. So, needless to say, the mother tried a
    second time to have a baby boy, and quickly became pregnant.
    
    	She immediately went into hiding, waiting until she was 8 months
    along. Finally the authorities caught up with her, and forced her
    to go to a special place - where all mothers go when they are caught
    trying to bring a new life into the world, just 1 over quota. 
    
   	The writer describes how she was forced to drink a medicine
    that killed the fetus inside her....needless to say, she had to.
    She had no choice in the matter.
    

    
    
       	Its this kind of "abortion" that makes me sick to the stomach.
    How can one call this "abortion"? This is insanity, and is really
    feticide.....especially when the pregnancy is terminated in such
    an inhuman, totally abhorrent way! Certainly something different 
    could have been done in the situation. That fully formed little boy 
    (oh yes, it was male) could have lived, had he been delivered in a 
    hospital. And if they didnt want him, send him over to us here in
    the United States, where the waiting lists for adopting infants
    are so long, some poor couples have to wait years before they are
    given the chance to love and nurture a newborn baby.
    
    
    
    Linda
    
    	

In some countries, parents are afraid to have more than four kids.  They've
heard that about every fifth child born in the world is Chinese :)

    .2 reminds me of the population explosion.  Something like every
    17 seconds, a woman gives birth to a baby.  We just need to find
    that woman and stop her!
    
    	Penelope

    
    	Certain animal species, most notably Bears and Lions, will kill
    their own offspring. So the practice occurrs in Nature. 'Been watching
    "wild world of animals" too much. I dont know what this has to do
    with the *human* species, though.
    
    	JJJ
    

     .12 reminds me of an article i read several years ago.
    The chinese had found a method of predicting the sex of
    an unborn child (amniocentesis, maybe ? I forget.) The 
    method had about a 98% accuracy rate. They tested about
    100 women with this method. Thirty women chose to have
    abortions. 29 of the 30 were expecting girl children.
    
       In a recent article on deer population, biologists
    found that when deer populations reached or exceeded the
    carrying capacity of an area, more bucks than does were
    produced. in areas not fully populated to the limit of
    available feed/shelter, more does than bucks were born.
    I'm not certain but it seems that the Chinese are doing
    through brutality what nature does (genetically ?)

>>>    < Note 316.2 by VIDEO::OSMAN "type video::user$7:[osman]eric.six" >
>>>               -< probability of giving birth to a Chinese baby >-
>>>
>>>In some countries, parents are afraid to have more than four kids.  They've
>>>heard that about every fifth child born in the world is Chinese :)

    I believe that's "every fourth child"...:-)
    

    
    Who are we calling 'modern American society?'  Considering the rate
    of violent crime in this country, I'm not sure that American society
    places all that high a value on human life.  What we might call
    'the American ideal' places considereable value on being allowed
    to live one's life as one pleases -- with what Jefferson called
    our inalienable rights.
                   
    I don't think societies which place different values on human life
    are inherently bad or good.  'Human life' can be hard to define.
    And to judge such a society out of the context of the problems it
    is facing is a bad thing.  The Chinese have to find some way of
    controlling their population, or nature will control it for them.
    I don't think we can understand the pressures of that sort of problem.
    'Until we've walked a mile in their shoes' has to be part of the
    answer to that kind of question.
    
    I don't think there's an absolute answer to Nigel's third question.
    Philosphers have been trading counter-examples over it since the
    beginning of civilization.
    
    DFW

    In a  class I took in the early 70's on international nutrition (taught
    by former members of the Brookings Institution and USAID) it was flatly
    stated  that infanticide was the *leading* form of birth control in the
    world.  My  argument  is  that  even this act must be understood in the
    situation in which it occurs.

    To try  and  compare,  let  alone equate, the environments in which one
    makes  moral  decisions  is  fatuous at best coming from the privileged
    situations  most  of  us  find  ourselves  in.  The phenomenon known as
    demographic   shift  illustrates  the  difference  between  undeveloped
    countries  and others: 

    Child (<6  yrs.)  mortality  rates  have  historically  hovered  around
    60-70%;  in  many  societies,  children  were not even considered to be
    'persons'  until  they were six or seven. Most of this mortality can be
    attributed   to   a  diagnosis  of  'non-specific'  (including  amoebic
    dysentery,   staph,   salmonella,   shigella,   etc.)   gastroenteritis
    communicated  primarily  through  the  contaminated  water supply. When
    modern   sewage   treatment   facilities  (such  as  pit  toilets)  and
    antibiotics   are   introduced,  infant  mortality  rates  are  reduced
    drastically.  Since children are often quite necessary for the economic
    survival  of  the  nuclear family unit (or at least for the survival of
    the oldest generation) in agrarian or gathering societies, couples that
    previously had to have a dozen children in order to assure the survival
    of  one  or  two  now find themselves with a large family. In developed
    countries,  a  corresponding  drop  in the birth rate (the 'demographic
    shift')  will occur about twenty years later, as the society acclimates
    itself  to  the  new  situation.  In  developing  countries,  the rapid
    increase  in  population  produces severe social and economic problems,
    especially  when  it  coincides  with  natural  disasters and political
    upheavals. Moreover, the demographic shift may never occur, due to lack
    of education or social pressures.

    Scientific American published a special issue in September of 1976 that
    focused  on  international  nutrition. The figures given there may be a
    bit  old,  but  this  fact  remains the same: You can't judge others by
    moral  criteria  based on life in the US. It's a dangerous fantasy that
    leads to a ludicrous sense of moral superiority - ludicrous because the
    reality  is  that  it's  just  technological  and military superiority;
    dangerous  because  a sense of jingoistic self-righteousness is used to
    publicly  justify  most  of  the  US'  military adventures in the third
    world. One can understand feeling horror at the thought of infanticide,
    but  what  about  the  untold  suffering  and  death  that  result from
    overpopulation  and  starvation?  Whose  fault  is  it that millions of
    children  die at the breast from their mothers' malnutrition? No one's?
    What  about  those  in  this  country  who are directly responsible for
    driving  the  global  prices of food higher and higher? Or for the fact
    that  food  and  medical care remain *commodities*, rather than rights,
    even  in  our  enlightened(!)  culture.  The  concept  of evil isn't an
    absolute...

						JJRitz

    It seems to me that if a population sets itself up in some way such
    that there is a gross uneveness in the numbers of male and female
    children, that in the next generation, the currently unfavored sex
    will have to become the favored one, because the favored sex is
    generally unable to find mates.  For example, if 4 out of 5 Chinese
    women carrying a girl abort her, and 1 out of 5 of these women abort
    a boy, most of their sons will remain batchelors.  
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", has a
    tendency to subvert the individual's rights to a single right: the
    right to self-sacrifice for society. This leads not only to abortion,
    infanticide, but also to kamakazi solders, and euthenasia. 
                                                               
    In a "Free Market" it is believed that individuals making choices
    for their own best interest, are also ultimately acting in the best
    interests of the whole society. I do not believe that, because it
    has lead US people to have abortions for a selfish reason: money!
    
    Aren't the top three "aborting" nations in the world 
    Soviet Union, United States, and China in descending order?! It
    would seen that .0's concern about the "price on a life" is independent
    of ideology, and more dependent on the means or lack thereof.

    The chinese are using other forms of birth control so effectively
    that they are now concerned about raising a generaton of "only
    children" who have trouble cooperating with their peers! I read
    that France has SUCH a NEGATIVE birth-death rate that they give free natal
    care to mother and child. These are some of the practical consequences
    of a society's failure to value the life of the unborn sufficiently.
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill

        Aw, come on...
        
        You really don't have argue by slinging mud. Your one line
        description of utiltarianism is moderately off the mark, and the
        bald assertion that utilitarianism (or even the restricted view
        of it reflected in your summary) leads to infantacide and
        kamakazi soldiers is shear emotionalism. There's certainly
        no evidence that such a causal link is inevitable or unarguable.
        
        Similarly, the number of philosophical positions that fly thye
        banner of the "Free Market" are extremely wide, and such a
        hand-waving reference as you have made is a terrible way to
        start any sort of analysis or discussion.
        
        The only purpose sereved by this kind of argument is to excite
        someone's emotions. You offend utilitarians or free market
        advocates by making bald statements about them which they are
        sure to believe are completely false, and give no supporting
        reasoning, nor show any serious understanding of their position,
        and what have you acheived? You have raised the emotion
        temperature, and convinced them of nothing.
        
        JimB. 

    re .10 or perhaps we could be talking about making some real inroads
    towards controlling runaway population growth.

RE: .11,.12 RE: .10

I don't think it's really all that emotionalism...

I think that the principles mentioned in .10 carried to the extreme, and applied
to the topic, 'the value of life', have the conclusions mentioned.

This is not to say simply that if you believe in any of these principles, you
*must* believe the the conclusion is 'right'.  True, .10 has rather undeveloped
descriptions of the principles, but I follow the logic of it...

Jim.

    Extremely tough question.
    
    Although I do not have an answer, I have a question:
    
       Just what *is* China to do?
    
    
    
    jacki
    

    China has few options.
    1.Continue birth control programs including abortion and prevention.
    2. Find another million sq. miles to grow food and house the people.
    3. Die a slow painful death from lack of food,housing.
    
    For a better understanding of china i suggest reading 'Journey into
    China' from National geographic. This book gives a great deal of
    insight to the people,their ways and the problems they face.
    The population problem is discussed as well as the action being
    taken to solve the problem. It is indeed a very serious one with
    few easy solutions.
    
    -j
    

    RE: .15
    
    Invade and take over United States of America for the extra million
    sq miles of land.
    
    - Vikas

    re.16 You got the message.
    

    Just think:  if *every* society restricted its population growth such
    that there were functionally no "excess" people (as determined by un-
    or underemployment, homeless population, etc.) what might we have
    for a world?  
    
    						=maggie 

    Although misery, poverty and disease are difficult to understand
    they are the ways that we can express our love for our fellow humans.
    
    To try to manage the world and create the perfect atmosphere is
    a task to great for any mortal.  Perfection and an environment without
    problems will create something far worse than poverty.
    
    Ayn Rand described it better than I ever could in her book titled
    'Anthem'.  I wonder if it was coincidence that she wrote the book
    in 1938 the year the Social Security Act was enacted.