Under the Genetic Health Law (
The Department of Health is reportedly planning to amend the law to allow impartial social organizations to assist pregnant teens with problems related to pregnancy. The Taipei Association for the Promotion of Wo-men's Rights (TAPWR,
The Genetic Health Law, enacted in 1984, is a product of the population control policy of the time. The law not only aimed to control a growing population, but to promote eugenics as well. The promotion of eugenics, however, involves discrimination among human beings and is an idea that has long been rejected in the developed world.
Under the law, the termination of pregnancies is legal in cases of persons with genetic defects -- such as hereditary, infectious and psychological diseases -- in order to promote genetic health and improve the quality of the nation's population. This implies that the existence of certain people in society is inappropriate and clearly amounts to a form of oppression.
Moreover, the law tries to control women's bodies by adopting a patriarchal ideology, as it stipulates that married women must have the consent of their husbands before having abortions.
The purpose of the Genetic Health Law is to regulate birth control. It should therefore be based on the best interests of mothers and their children, not on an ideology for improving the nation's population.
The TAPWR and the Taiwan Women's League (
For its part, the government should perform the function of assisting the public, instead of interfering in -- or taking control of -- childbirth plans.
People have the right, for example, to demand that the government provide health check-ups for pregnant women, rather than to have a system where the government can force women to undergo such exams.
Instead of practicing a form of selective breeding, a government that claims to support human rights should provide sufficient information for parents so that they can have a clear understanding of the possible consequences of their actions -- such as proceeding with the delivery of a baby with congenital defects -- as well as the support resources available to them. Only with sufficient information can people possibly make their own informed decisions.
As for abortions, the proposed "mother and child health law"calls for the right to decide whether to have an abortion to be vested in the pregnant woman. Whether to give birth is certainly an issue that needs to be discussed by both parents. But who should make the final decision when the parents disagree?
Women still take most of the responsibility for nursing children. When a woman becomes pregnant, she must consider whether her family's condition or her own physical and mental condition allow for such a great responsibility. She must also consider whether she has enough resources to support the baby.
It is never easy for a woman to decide whether or not to give birth. Legalizing abortion does not mean we do not respect human life. Rather, it shows that we are trying to ensure the quality of life of each and every human being so that everyone can be well looked after.
If the Department of Health decides to amend the law it will have made a worthy decision. But it must clearly understand the changes in our society and it must show foresight in the policy it adopts. Parts of the Genetic Health Law, including the promotion of eugenics and population control, are outdated.
Facing such a serious issue, we should not focus on questions such as what kinds of people should or should not be born. Rather, we should provide people with sufficient information about the resources available to them once their children are born, helping them to understand whether their children will grow up in an environment that is suitable for them. That's how a human life is truly respected.
Hsu Chia-ching is the secretary-general of the Taiwan Women's League. Chen I-lin is the vice secretary-general of the Taipei Association for the Promotion of Women's Rights.
Translated by Eddy Chang
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
RSS