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

[twe.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm totally not following your arguments here. (Legal issue?)

First breathe of air is an arbitrary point to award a baby/fetus status as "anyone else" ("so long as it doesn't affect anyone else"), especially in a day and age when such a thing (birth) can be scheduled and preemies regularly live to adulthood.

Plus they're pretty dependent after they take that first breathe too.

[dcltdw]

Yeah, I'm totally not following your arguments here. (Legal issue?)

From the original post:

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?"

The legal issue is: what degree of self-determination does a person have over their own body?

You're bringing up interesting biological questions, but I don't see how they relate to the legal issue. They are quite interesting from a philosophical standpoint, or a biological standpoint, or a moral standpoint.

[twe.livejournal.com]

I see, so you're saying (in answer to rif's question of why you _feel_ there should be a bright sharp line between person and un-person at the moment of birth) if because legally that's the way it is.

I wasn't actually debating the legal issue, though I do think that things are complicated enough that boiling it down do a bright line and a one sentence slogan misses a lot of important stuff.

As to what degree of self-determination *does* a person have over their own body, my guess is that legally the answer is currently quite a lot, but less than 100%. (Though I think Cael was pondering replacing "does" with "should.")

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

I think it's more that legally, bright lines are needed; legal grey areas tend to get abused by whoever has more power.

By the way, there are also substantial biological changes that happen in a short period at birth, particularly with vaginal births. Those changes may or may not define what is or isn't human, but it's far from a smooth, continuous change.