Chinese advertisements

[kirisutogomen]

The answer is the tag, rot13'd, but to save you the trouble, I'll tell you. First, the original ad before I mucked with it. (Yes, it was left-right mirrored like most people guessed. I'm still curious as to why among people who are entirely illiterate in Han characters the mirroring was blatantly obvious to some and not at all to others.)




And another for the same service from a competing provider:



These are ads for abortion clinics. Chinese abortion clinics advertise on prime-time television. They offer student discounts. Not sure if they have special holiday sales, nor if you get abortion coupons with your newspaper.

Now, unless you take the position that a fetus at any stage has the moral standing of a lintball but that magically at the moment the head crowns it suddenly becomes a full human person endowed with a complete set of inalienable rights plus a stylish carrying case, there's got to be a point at which you say, "Hrm. My liberal sensibilities tell me that I should advocate fiercely for a woman's right to choose, but I don't actually want people to treat abortion like a trip to the hair salon. What does my victory condition actually look like?"

And then there's the issue of sex selection, which really kicks over a Pandora's hornets' nest of other issues.

Comments

[dcltdw]

Well, what are the tradeoffs?

1. Mother aborts nearly-born baby.
2. Someone other than a person gets a say in what that person does with their body.
3. Something I'm not imagining.

I'll take #1 over #2. I don't know what #3 (or #4) would be; do you? That's not a trap; rather, I'm suspicious when complicated situations get reduced into binary decisions, and thus, I'm suspicious of my own reduction here.

Also, I think your "on a whim" clause is derailing. I realize analogies are suspect, but you've basically said "Wow, you think breaking someone's arm on a whim is okay?", whereas I'm saying "I think there are times when it's okay to break someone's arm."

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

I think maybe we agree. I wasn't fully awake either.

Thinking about it more kirisutogomen has implied [while not quite setting up] a false dichotomy. I think unborn fetuses have more moral standings than lintballs, and the closer they are to viability, the more moral standing they have. I think it is sad when a fetus is aborted, and the longer the fetus has been gestating, the sadder it is. I would even say it was usually morally wrong to abort a late-term fetus. But that doesn't imply I want to use force to do anything about it. So legally, I think my "victory condition" is the government stays out of making rules about abortion.

Morally, I'd prefer to live in a world where abortion wasn't treated like a trip to the hair salon, but who I am to judge that that's really what's happening in China with these advertisements? I find them surprising, but I don't think they should be illegal.

All that said, I could imagine supporting a law against very late-term abortions. The real reason I don't is that it's not necessary --- basically nobody is aborting their perfectly healthy 8 1/2 month fetus --- and it's a slippery slope. But on the other hand, I don't blanket agree with your "what a person does with their body" approach either. What's the wedge that lets you accept quarantining people with infectious diseases but not accept preventing very late-term abortions? They are both instances of someone other than X having a say with what X does to their body with the purported goal of protecting Y.

[dcltdw]

What's the wedge that lets you accept quarantining people with infectious diseases but not accept preventing very late-term abortions? They are both instances of someone other than X having a say with what X does to their body with the purported goal of protecting Y.

Wow, great question! Well, let me work it through. My starting point is normally some variant of "what is good for society?". (Related tangent: I think a somewhat-confusing-the-issue #3 in my reply above is: the woman in the West Coast who had sextuplets via public healthcare. It's bad for society for a woman to have 6 kids when she has arguably limited means to support them, but I think it's better for society to accept that cost if everyone else gets better* healthcare. The devil is in the details of the asterisked "better", of course.) So quarantining someone isn't done for their benefit, it's done for the benefit of the people around them.

Nrgh, I'm going to be lazy and go into Analogy Land. (I consider analogies to be sloppy thinking; apologies for resorting to such, but I can't take too much time this morning.) I think it's okay for me to play my music at whatever volume I want; I think it's also okay to have noise nuisance statutes. I think it's okay to ingest a bottle of Instant Plague, so long as I quarantine myself beforehand. Cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Aha, okay: so yes, the cost to me (and the rest of society) of someone having a baby who I (and miraculously, the rest of society agrees with me) think shouldn't have a baby is that now we have to bear the cost of raising that child. I'd rather have that cost, then open the possibility that I (or anyone else) gets to say whether or not she can elect to not have the child.

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

I don't understand your response at all.

In the last paragraph, it seems as if you're arguing against mythical eugenicist opponents who want to force abortions on young women to avoiding burdening society with the costs of their children? Most of the debate in the US today is over allowing abortions, not over whether to force abortions.

To rephrase a sentence from your first paragraph: "Preventing a woman from having a late-term abortion isn't done for her benefit, it's done for the benefit of the unborn baby." So no wedge there.

So I guess I don't understand your point. I think you could construct a coherent argument, but it will involve being more careful and probably accepting additional premises beyond "X always gets to decide what to do with X's body."

[dcltdw]

Lemme try this again. I missed something earlier that's key:

What's the wedge that lets you accept quarantining people with infectious diseases but not accept preventing very late-term abortions? They are both instances of someone other than X having a say with what X does to their body with the purported goal of protecting Y.

I'm confused on a few things, so let me resort to bullet points.

1. Stupid question #1: what do you mean by "wedge"? :)

2. I think quarantines are necessary, are fine, are legal, are a good thing. (Okay, devil in the detail with regards to implementation, but I'll gloss over that.)

3. I think late-term abortion should be legal. I may disagree with the reasons a woman chooses to have one; I might shun her because of that decision. But I think it should be legal. (Actually, I'm pretty certain I have absolutely no idea why a woman would choose to have a late-term abortion, so mostly I think I should first discreetly learn why this option was taken and try to understand that.)

---

I think earlier this morning, I thought you were asking a different question, which is why you got a response that doesn't really make sense to either of us now. :)

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

1. The word "wedge" is just my fancy way of saying "It seems like under your principle, A and B are equivalent. Tell me why they're actually different."

2. A quarantine is a situation where someone other than person X gets a say over what happens to their body.

3. A rule against late-term abortions would also be a situation where someone other than person X gets a say over what happens to their body.

What makes 2 (quarantines) morally acceptable while keeping 3 (rules against late-term abortions) morally unacceptable?

[dcltdw]

Got it, thanks.

First, I see what you did there:
What makes 2 (quarantines) morally acceptable while keeping 3 (rules against late-term abortions) morally unacceptable?

I'm not talking about what I think should or shouldn't be morally acceptable; I'm talking about what should/shouldn't be legally acceptable.

The quarantine is to protect other people; the abortion (to me) is only about the pregnant woman. I don't subscribe to "the unborn baby has rights the same as people", which I think many others do. And to anticipate a question, I draw a sharp bright line at "birth", which I realize gets fuzzy as late-term babies are viable outside the womb in the ICU.

I'll have to think about this a bit more, but I don't see a problem with "we had a medical operation, and now the fetus is aborted" and "we had a medical operation, and now the pre-term baby is in the ICU". Mostly because what I'm really comparing that to is "did we preserve the self-determination agency of a person?", to which the answer in both cases is Yes, and that Yes trumps the earlier questions.

---

I feel like I have a quibble here as well with your quarantine analogy. A quarantine limits where I can go, but not what I can do with my body. I don't think it makes your analogy invalid, but I think it limits how far the analogy can be taken.

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

So what's the basis for the sharp bright line? Why is the baby ten minutes before birth an unperson, and ten minutes after has full rights? I find the sharp bright line extremely puzzling --- you yourself "realize it gets fuzzy" --- and it seems like that's the fundamental difference between our positions. You seem to be saying, "You don't think any unborn baby, no matter how close to term, has any rights at all." I'm curious why you feel that way.

[astra-nomer.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm pretty certain I have absolutely no idea why a woman would choose to have a late-term abortion

The vast majority of late-term abortions happen when either
1) a horrible defect is discovered in the fetus
2) the health and/or life of the mother becomes at risk

This is why I am opposed to any bans on late-term abortion.

[dcltdw]

Thanks for the info! Yay, learned something today.

[twe.livejournal.com]

Okay, I really don't get why anyone opposes abortions when the mother's life is at risk. I feel that ought to fall under "self-defense."

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I think that involuntary quarantine of people solely for having infectious diseases is a bad idea and violates constitutional due process to boot. We haven't done it for decades and that doesn't seem to have caused a problem. I do view holding people responsible for damages caused by not voluntarily quarantining themselves as perhaps ethically acceptable.

Quarantining of people at immigration is legally supportable, of course, just as customs inspections are.

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

2. Someone other than a person gets a say in what that person does with their body.

So, I think this rule breaks down when you consider, say, teratogens. While I'm somewhat close to the "women should have a right to have an abortion on a whim" end of the spectrum (doesn't mean I approve of the choice, but I think they should have the right), I strongly disagree with "women should have a right to ingest teratogens while carrying a baby".

Generally, my theory is that humans are mainly valued above animals for the complexity of their thinkings, feelings, and connections to other humans*. I think it is fairly clear that for thinkings and feelings, an 8 month fetus is not superior to animals that we are willing to butcher for food. So, to the extent that an 8 month fetus should have rights under my philosophy, its rights derive from the attachment that others have to it. The mother is pretty clearly the most important person here... other family members have a lesser attachment, and society at large may also have weak attachments. So, for abortions, I weigh the "women should have control over their own body" against these secondary attachments, and find that it would be hard for me to see a case where it would be clear that the mother's rights to control her body should be over-ridden because someone else thinks she should be required to keep nurturing the fetus inside of her.**

However, if the woman is planning on carrying the baby to term, then we have to consider a future being with its own set of thinking, feeling, and societal attachments, and that being, in my thought system, should have some rights, and I think that it should have a right not to be born deformed which can, in some circumstances, be weighed against the woman's right to control her body. So I would argue that taking thalidomide for a sleeping problem (or other strongly teratogenic agents) should not be allowed for a pregnant woman.

*This can explain why smarter animals - dolphins and chimps - should have more rights than dumber animals, and why animals with more attachments to humans - eg, pets and charismatic megafauna - should have more rights than animals without those attachments...

**There is some room here to think that "a whim" shouldn't outweigh, say, the father's wishes: but, I don't see a practical way to test whether the woman's desire to abort is a "whim" or a "strongly felt desire", and so I would err on the side of a stronger right to abort.

(this philosophy can also be applied to cases like Terri Schiavo or assisted suicides... in the former, brain death means that the person's value rests in their attachments, in the latter, one is weighing the person's right to do what they want with their body against, again, the attachments to other humans)

[dcltdw]

*googles "teratogen"* Ah, wikipedia. Aha.

I don't think "drinking alcohol while pregnant" should be a criminal offense. Shunned, taboo? Sure. Criminal? No. ... Nrrr, I'm using "criminal" in the sense that there's a law against that; I may be using legal terminology incorrectly here.

See above reply to rif about "what is good for society". In that vein: I think smoking in the presence of non-smokers should be taboo, because second-hand smoking is a valid danger. I think no-smoking regs get it right: it's not that you can't smoke, it's that your smoking cannot impede others in certain areas.

So I would argue that taking thalidomide for a sleeping problem (or other strongly teratogenic agents) should not be allowed for a pregnant woman.

So I'll ask you to divide the question. There's a lot of perspectives here: should it be criminal for the doctor to prescribe thalidomide for a pregnant woman? Should it be illegal for a pregnant woman to ask for such? Or only if she ingests it? (My answers are Neglect, No, and No. The "neglect" answer is that if there's willful and repeated neglect, that's criminal behaviour, but if there's a lack of evidence to support that, then I think it's not criminal behaviour -- but the doc should probably lose their certification, which is a civil matter.)

Hmm. I wonder if I'm leaning too heavily on my smokers/second-hand smoke analogy too much.

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

Ah, but I specified "strongly" for a reason - the chances that a drink of wine will cause problems for a fetus (and therefore, future person) are so small as to be possibly non-existent. A strong teratogen is a different issue. So I do think ingesting a strong teratogen while pregnant should be illegal (as in the state should have a right to step in and stop it), whereas a very weak one should be a taboo. (and with alcohol, I feel like the evidence suggests that the taboo is already stronger than it really needs to be).

Smoking the presence of others should be discouraged, but secondhand smoke is a weak carcinogen. Smoking anthrax-spore sticks, on the other hand, should be very much illegal.

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

Do you think it should be illegal for a woman to get pregnant after age 40? Do you think it should be illegal to carry to term a baby you know to have Down's syndrome?

[astra-nomer.livejournal.com]

I just want to say that I am fascinated that this vigorous debate is taking place between a bunch of men, most of whom do not have children.

Carry on.

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

What about that fascinates you?

[twe.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was kind of amusing.

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

The latter is easy: no. I'd object to using a magic Down's syndrome wand to intentionally create a Down's syndrome fetus, but if the fetus already has the syndrome, then that's a pre-existing condition.

The former is, in that specific case, also easy - no, it shouldn't be illegal either - the risk isn't that large. (my own mom had me after age 40). However, see my answer to firstfrost below about there not being a clear bright line - as the probability of a behavior causes defects increases, and the severity of the defect increases, the justification for intervention becomes higher. I realize that some might argue that even behavior with 100% of causing a severe defect should be allowed, either because of right over your own body arguments or libertarian arguments, but my opinion differs...

[dcltdw]

Lemme see if I can create a hypothetical situation to highlight our differences.

A woman has condition X for which she takes Y, which treats her condition very well. Y is well-known to cause severe birth defects. Should it be illegal for her to take Y during pregnancy?

My answer is No, It's Not A Legal Issue. Now, am I going to shun her? Quite probably, knowing me. (This makes me go off on a tangent: maybe I should have a helluva lot more compassion for her condition than to judge her so harshly.) But to me, it's not a legal issue, because if she is not competent to not take this action, then Pandora's Box is now open: clearly, if she's not competent enough to make proper decisions about her baby, then she can't be trusted to drive or vote.

Put bluntly, I'd rather most women have complete agency over their bodies if the cost is that there are a few preventable birth defects. I think this -- the chances that a drink of wine will cause problems for a fetus (and therefore, future person) are so small as to be possibly non-existent -- highlights it really well. Where does that line get drawn? Are you okay with a 0.001% risk? 1%? 40%? It's not for anyone to make that decision for you.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

I think that the question of "why would a pregnant woman frivolously and intentionally drink teratogens" is similar to the question of "why would a pregnant woman have a frivolous late-term abortion" or "why would a man expecting a child decide to bankrupt his family spending all his money on saffron". There isn't a lot of it happening.

And yeah, if there was a saffron epidemic among fathers-to-be, it would be worth investigating, because it would be a problem. But I don't think anyone *wants* to ingest teratogens, except in cases like dcltdw mentions, where there are further compelling reasons like medical necessity. (Actually, you do get this sort of thing with cancer - hey, wait, now chemotherapy doesn't cause problems for the fetus? I did not know that! I have derailed myself here.)

[marcusmarcusrc.livejournal.com]

Aha! I have an actual test case: Accutane!

http://www.drugs.com/accutane.html

Apparently there are pretty ridiculous restrictions on "women of childbearing potential" using Accutane - it seems unlikely that there is a punishment for certifying the use of birth control and then deliberately not using it, or for taking someone else's Accutane while pregnant, but here is a case of a well-known teratogen where hypothetically someone could decide to use it for prevention of acne, and where the state has at least made an attempt to limit its use by pregnant women.


Obviously, as laid out, my "rules" don't create a bright line: where is the line between alcohol and thalidomide/accutane where the state should intervene? Certainly, I could believe that medical treatments for the health of the mother outweigh any risk to the fetus... the question is, is there ever a case where the state can come in and say "no, stop doing X".

The other case might be illegal, addictive drugs with teratogenic effects: can/should the state put an expecting mother into custody if they are known to be taking crack?

This might be something like state intervention in child-raising, only with an even more onerous line: ie, the state generally defers to parents on how to raise a kid (feed it McDonald's food every day - fine. sit it in front of a TV for 14 hours a day - fine. Lock it in a closet while you go out to party - the state comes in and takes custody), and would similarly defer to a mother on how to treat her own body except in really extreme circumstances...

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

I think the reasoning with respect to teratogens is broken when you take abortions into account. Consider, for example, the woman whose abortions is scheduled for next tuesday going on an alcoholic binge the preceding weekend. No baby will exist to be harmed, so where is the justification for locking the woman up?

It seems to me that in principle, the more ethically sound solution is to accept that any baby subsequently born from the pregnancy may have a cause of action against its mother. The standards could be the same as for any normal civil suit.

[fredrickegerman.livejournal.com]

Just to muddy the waters even further here: I have the impression that if you're older than, say, 35 or so, there's a pretty good chance your mother smoked and/or consumed alcohol during pregnancy (assuming she did either of these things regularly beforehand).