Samira Shackle

On the margins: a look at race, culture, and world affairs.

China's one-child policy puts a price on human life

A woman forced to undergo a late-term abortion receives 70,600 yuan in compensation.

By Samira Shackle Published 12 July 2012 8:29

A baby looks up at its mother on a street in Beijing. Photograph: Getty Images

How much is a human life worth? The Chinese authorities appear to have valued it at 70,600 yuan (£7,160). That is the amount they have agreed to pay to the family of Feng Jianmei, a woman forced to undergo a late-term abortion because she could not afford the fine for breaking China’s strict one-child policy.

The case, which I blogged about last month, caused outrage worldwide after a photograph of Feng with the dead seven month old foetus was distributed online.

The family – who suffered harassment and were labelled “traitors” for talking to foreign media – had planned to take legal action but have decided not to after the government announced the payout. Feng’s husband, Deng Jiyuan, told the Associated Press that his family wanted to return to normality.

While forced abortions are technically illegal in China, they are not unusual, given that the 300,000 officials employed to enforce the one-child policy receive financial incentives to meet quotas of abortions and sterilisations.

The sheer violence of what happened to Feng – who was hooded, bundled into a car and given an injection that induced a stillbirth – is difficult to comprehend. The emotive power of this incident has segued into a wider debate about the one-child policy, with prominent researchers both outside and within China urging authorities to ease the restrictions.

Chinese government researchers argued that the policy must be relaxed because of the drastically ageing population and an impending labour shortage. A group of Chinese scholars also signed a letter calling for a change to the law, reiterating the risk to economic sustainability – with the imminent crisis of a shortage of young workers – but also the human rights issue. James Liang, one of the signatories, said: "From an economic perspective, the one-child policy is irrational. From a human-rights perspective, it's even less rational."

So what are the chances of a change? If past example is anything to go by, they are slim – calls for a relaxation of the rules are nothing new. The regime still believes that there are too many people (an impression borne out by overcrowded urban centres) and besides, is risk-averse. The sheer size of China makes any central change slow.

While officials debate the economic and rational arguments for and against the one-child policy, women and families will continue to suffer. Last month, a former official with China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission made an astonishing tearful apology on television in Hong Kong. In an interview with Pheonix TV, Zhang Erli said: "I felt sorry for our Chinese women. I feel guilty. Chinese women have made huge sacrifices. A responsible government should repay them."

But "repayment" goes little way towards tackling the trauma of a forced abortion, or the invasiveness of vaginal checks and random pregnancy tests which are commonplace in some areas. Zhang Kai, a lawyer advising Feng and her family, dismissed the pay off: "70,000 for a person's life? It is too little."

The best repayment would be to end this policy, which is being used as a brutal tool against women and their rights over their own bodies.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Abortion

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Wed, 2012-10-17 03:24 — J Rowling (not verified)

Never try to educate leftists about population it is a waste of time. Mao, knew and did not care.

Wed, 2012-10-17 03:24 — J Rowling (not verified)

Never try to educate leftists about population it is a waste of time. Mao, knew and did not care.

Fri, 2012-09-21 23:03 — shanelle (not verified)

sad to see some pathetic comments by some racist senseless people. women should be allowed to have as many kids as they please as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their child

Mon, 2012-07-23 12:14 — AAMVN (not verified)

I am in favour of limiting births in all countries where there isn't already a declining population. Part of any real attempt to save the environment must include reducing the global population back to a manageble level.

This is a tragic case and some of those involved are guilty, including the Fengs who knew the law and the risks and went ahead with the pregnancy anyway. I'd rather they'd allowed the child to be born and then somehow dealt with the 'offence'.

I'm aware there is a problem with too many males - and female infanticide or the abortion of female babies. But that is a separate issue and common in countries like South Korea too. I'm sure there was a great deal of female infanticide before China had a one child policy.

Sat, 2012-07-21 21:48 — hugh markey (not verified)

Surely it's the Protestant Ethic at work here. A reduced birthrate makes the family more manageable and the worker more focused.
The Chinese government have been successful in keeping the number of births under control but the country will be short of 40 million females a few years hence.
A daughter is a daughter for life but a son is a son until he gets a wife. How do you say that in Mandarin?

Birthright

Sun, 2012-07-15 08:38 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

A proper article yet again, it's about time Samira Shackle replaced the self opinioned Mehdi Hasan

Sat, 2012-07-14 21:44 — lionel (not verified)

So is a foetus a life or not? You can't have your cake and eat it. Newstatesman is always going on about abortion rights.

The argument is simple.

If a foetus is a life, then abortion (forced or voluntary) is immoral and should be illegal. And that is the position taken in this article. That a foetus is a life.

Unfortunately for many pro-abortion (voluntary) advocates, one of the main arguments for abortion is that foetuses are not lives so its okay to remove them?

How can you switch positions when it suits you?

Fri, 2012-07-13 10:12 — Neil.M01 (not verified)

Controlled birth rate or mass starvation. Take your pick. If China had increased its population at the same rate as even Europe not even Africa it's doubtful it could feed its entire population. Instead it has a highly motivated, well-educated population and world-leading economy.

Thu, 2012-07-12 22:23 — tyrete (not verified)

=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com

Thu, 2012-07-12 21:22 — Uncle B (not verified)

Birth Control
Before Americans have anything to say about the practice of abstention and/or birth control for Chinese couples, they should educate themselves about the "Population Bomb" in the hands of the Chinese government!
They must also consider their own indiscriminant breeding of mongrels in America, for semi-slave working positions, 'under the counter" wages, operations, and the untold high profits from the exploitations of drug addicts and prostitutes of this mongrel population and their so called “Policing” through the turnstiles of privately owned prison systems (conflict of interests? Bet your ass!) where the owners rack up Federal paychecks, guaranteed fast cash up front, for every offender through there! Mongrels who are given laughable schools even rated 39th in the world, no health care, worst dietary practices of all humanity, and still “Free” to die on corporate crap-foods sold to them for high profits, high crime, drunken and dope infested neighborhoods without adequate (too expensive?) police control, prostitution even at ages 12 and up for the mongrel girls, no hope of ever attaining even a factory job for the mongrel boys. Even social “acceptance” of a jargon, a jingoistic patois for instant mongrel identification socially? Better their parents were restricted to fewer children, and could do better for each of them. America! Free! Free to ruin your life before you are even born, and nobody in control except the Mexican Drug Cartels - this is a better way? This logic escapes me.

Thu, 2012-07-12 15:29 — I am the only child (not verified)

Without the family planning, China would have had a 2 plus billion population 2 years ago, instead of 1.3 . More seriously, the upward trajectory of population increase from that 2 plus billion would be that much more sharper. How the Chinese feed themselves? Should they just let the natural cause, that is, starving to death, work its way? I guess that would be considered "humane" by this author.

A little FYI. In China, an "agricultural" family, i.e. a family whose incomes come from growing crops (this is just in theory, as many of them indeed go to cities and work in factories), can have 2 children without paying any penalty, if the first child is a girl. An "un-agricutural" family, i.e. those live in the cities, need to pay penalty for their 2nd child regardless the gender of the 1st one. Noted that these rules only apply to the Han Chinese. All the 55 ethnic minorities in China, Tibetan, Mongol, Manchurian, etc, are exempted from family planning, as a way to preserve their heritages.

As in Fengs' case, they are an "un-agricultural" family. When the wife got pregnant with their 2nd child, the local official made offer to them, repeatedly, that they can either pay the penalty, or switch their family type back to "agricultural" as they were before, because their first child is a girl. Their choice? Neither. The husband pretended to be considering the offers, but sent the wife into hiding until she's almost 7 months pregnant, since they know the Laws forbid abortion beyond 6 month pregnancy. The local officials got pissed and we know the rest of the story.

Were the local officials wrong? Of course. That's why they were striped from their positions and still under on-going internal investigation, even after the Fengs dropped their case. Were the Fengs innocent? Hardly. Their behavior and "tactics" didn't show much of love towards their unborn child, but rather their unyielding goal of financial benefits. Probably that's why they quickly dropped the case when offered 70K compensation. Is the family planning policy to be blamed? I say the rule is necessary, and law does protect women from forced or late abortion.

To draw a parallel, in every big city, there is parking enforcement. We all know that those "ticket officers' have a quota to meet, and they can get very sneaky in trying to put a ticket on your windshield, sometimes beyond what law permits. Does that mean the cities should just allow people park for free anywhere, anytime? I know you can't compare paying a 45 dollar ticket with killing fetus. But can you compare a traffic jammed city with millions of people starved to death?