Posted on 02/05/2013 2:54:57 PM PST by grundle
A photo showing a foetus whose mother was forced to have an abortion has shocked China web users. Feng Jiamei, from Shaanxi province, was made to undergo the procedure in the seventh month of pregnancy, local officials said after investigating. Ms Feng was forced into the abortion as she could not pay the fine for having a second child, US-based activists said.
Because she already had a child, said Feng, local birth-control authorities ordered her to pay a fine of £4,000. She didn't have the money, she said, so a team from the local family planning authority in Shannxi province came to collect her from her home and take her to hospital for the forced abortion. Recounting the horror, Feng said she told the family planning department she could not pay the fine because her mother-in-law needed money for cancer treatment. It was then, she claimed, the authorities began their action against her. She said no less than 20 staff from the family planning department came to her home and placed her under arrest. As they drove her to the hospital for a forced abortion, she began to resist - resulting in her being beaten.
Rights groups say China's one-child policy has meant women being coerced into abortions, which Beijing denies. "Feng Jianmei's story demonstrates how the One-Child Policy continues to sanction violence against women every day," said Chai Ling of the US-based activist group All Girls Allowed. The group says it spoke to Ms Feng and her husband Deng Jiyuan after the incident. Mr Deng said his wife had been forcibly taken to hospital and restrained before the procedure.
Correspondent Jon Sudworth in Shanghai says such allegations are nothing new in China, but what has made this one different is a widely circulated photo of the woman lying next to the baby's corpse. Media reports from China says Ms Feng has been traumatized by what has happened. Chinese law clearly prohibits abortions beyond six months.
Unnamed local officials in Zhenping county - where the incident took place - denied forcing Ms Feng to have the abortion, local media reports say. But a preliminary investigation by the Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission confirmed the forced abortion had taken place. Without naming Ms Feng, it said in a statement that the woman had been seven months pregnant. "Such practice has seriously violated the relevant policies set by national and provincial family planning commissions, which harmed the image of our family planning work, and caused extremely poor effects in society," said the statement. "Based on the findings, we have requested the local government to punish the relevant officers according to law," it said.
The photo circulated around the world via the internet has sparked outrage among world citizens and there is ample evidence of this on the internet today. Activist Chen Guangcheng, who was put under virtual house arrest for campaigning against forced abortions, fled China to the US last month. I don't blame him for going somewhere he can speak his mind freely without persecution. I hope he does not give up his cause.
bump
Not at all advocating what you’re imagining.
My point is the distinction between libertarianism and statism, and also the distinction between conservatism and leftism; the two couples each representing different components of our political system, enforcement and morality respectively.
I am arguing against the witch hunt on libertarianism. As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, have at it — it’s a party of asshats and Leftwingers.
BTW, do you castigate republicanism when you’ve had enough with the Republican Party?
I don’t have much good to say about the Republican Party
libertarianism is going to embrace pedophilia and incest and every other depravity when it comes up
>> I don’t have much good to say about the Republican Party
But what about republicanism?
>> libertarianism is going to embrace pedophilia and incest and every other depravity when it comes up
A spurious representation of an enforcement factor.
I am not referring to enforcement.
Government should not be celebrating and approving of this stuff, even if they don’t lift a finger to stop it... they should not be encouraging and openly accepting of it.
The libertarian party is perfectly libertarian, they aren’t flying under a false flag, or having stole the name, they are libertarianism in the flesh, there is no position that they put into English, that disagrees with libertarianism, they are the most true libertarians in America, because they actually support it, and fight for it, rather than troll as rino republicans.
There is a reason that libertarians don’t just call themselves conservatives, it is because they are not conservative, they are libertarian, and anti-conservative.
Abortion, gay marriage, drugs, porn, pedophilia, the homosexual agenda, polygamy, homo adoption, removing all restrictions and limits on immigration so that the entire globe can move in and out of America at will.
They are nutcases, and anti-conservative nutcases, allies of the left, a form of the left.
They already have, and the purpose of someone to promote libertarianism is to get more people to vote like libertarians, in each and every election, city, county, state, and federal, school boards, and committees, and to put their energies into promoting libertarian acceptance of those things, and rejection of conservatism.
The Puritan Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock were as socially conservative as they come, while also being socialists. So it's not true that being a social conservative automatically makes one anti-socialism. There's a lot in the Gospels that can be interpreted as advocating socialism.
Fantasies about that turning American voters into right wingers, is a bizarre illusion. Libertarians are liars of the first degree, for them it is ghetto living today, with a promise that the ghetto livers will vote to end welfare tomorrow.
I'm not saying that ghetto residents will vote to end welfare. They won't. It's the rest of us, the tax payers who are fed up, who can end welfare, and through that work to end the ghetto culture.
If the objective is to cripple the ability of the Dem Party to implement their agenda, the way to do it is via economic measures: ending the enforced-by-law power of the unions; cutting back on the welfare state; drastically reducing the number of government employees; etc.
Union members, for example, can be very socially conservative, but if their union gets them to vote Dem, it advances the whole Dem agenda.
Bump and bookmark
LOL typical lib stuff, social conservatives are right wingers, who vote conservative 75 and 80% of the time.
Social liberals are left wingers who vote left wing 70 and 80%.
Libertarians with all their leftist/anti-conservative/anti-God/anti-Christian goals, from partial birth abortion and gay marriage to polygamy and open borders, with plenty of drugs and hooker to fill the dull moments, breed leftist voters.
Libertarians see all of America becoming a third world ghetto, and then claim that in return all of them will vote against the social programs that broken people and broken lives, and third world immigrants want, and will for some BIZARRE reason, start voting like Evangelicals.
Social liberalism will only produce more voters who will vote to take what they want, not fewer.
Social liberalism, destroys families and communities, and morality, and breeds good liberal voters, in that battle, conservatives fight for conservatism, and libertarians fight for the left in an effort to destroy all the remnants of pre-1960s America.
Speaking for myself, I consider myself a (small-l) libertarian. I consider myself an economic conservative. I do not consider myself a social liberal -- it's more like I care much more about the economic side.
Case in point: If I was in the legislature, and I could vote to drastically curtail welfare, I would do so even if a likely side-effect was an increase in abortions among the underclass.
If you were in that position (voting on a bill that would greatly curtail welfare, and greatly reduce the number of future underclass, at the cost of a short-term increase in abortion), and your only choices were for, against, or abstain, how would you vote?
It not about hunting ... It's not even really about street crime.
It's about tyranny.
I have accurately describe libertarianism and you all along, you agree with conservatives on economics, and support the left on social issues.
That is why when a group of seemingly conservative people are talking, and one of the strangers corrects you and tells you that he is a libertarian, you know exactly what he is saying.
The left/libertarians will succeed in abortion and the homosexual agenda, homosexulizing the military and getting polygamy and open borders and drug pushers and pimps advertising, long before those broken Americans, communities, and families, and the endless floods of countless immigrants start voting like Evangelicals and other conservatives.
Cool. So if you were in a position to vote on a bill that would greatly curtail welfare, and greatly reduce the number of future underclass, at the cost of a short-term increase in abortion, and your only choices were for, against, or abstain, how would you vote?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.