Over at Townhall's C-Log, Jennifer Roback Morse, directs readers to a portion of the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea regarding forced abortions and infanticide in North Korea.
HRNK Report- The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea’s Prison CampsPrisoners’ Testimonies and Satellite Photographs
II. Ethnic Infanticide Summary
There are sporadic reports of forced abortions and baby killings at the kwan-li-so, where, except for a very few privileged couples, the prisoners were not allowed to have sex or children. There are also sporadic reports of forced abortion and baby killings at the kwan-li-so, where sex between prisoners is prohibited. And there are sporadic reports of killings of pregnant women who were raped or coerced into sex by prison guards. However, this report focuses on the forced abortions and baby killings directed against and inflicted on women forcibly repatriated from China, because of the ethnic and policy components of those atrocities.CHOI Yong Hwa assisted in the delivery of babies, three of whom were promptly killed, at the Sinuiju do-jip-kyul-so (provincial detention center) in mid-2000.
Former Detainee #8 witnessed six forced abortions at Chongjin do-jip-kyul-so in mid-2000.
Former Detainee #9 witnessed ten forced abortions at Onsong ro-dong-dan-ryeon-dae (labor-training camp) in mid-2000. YOU Chun Sik reported that four pregnant women at the bo-wi-bu (National Security Agency) police station in Sinuiju were subjected to forced abortions in mid-2000.
Former Detainee #21 reported two baby killings at the Onsong In-min-bo-an-seong (People’s Safety Agency) police station in late 1999.
Former Detainee #24 helped deliver seven babies who were killed at the Backtori, South Sinuiju In-min-bo-an-seong police detention center in January 2000.
Former Detainee #25 witnessed four babies killed at
Nongpo In-min-bo-an-seong police detention center in Chongjin in late 1999, and
another six pregnant women subjected to forced abortion.
Former Detainee #26
witnessed three forced abortions and seven babies killed at the Nongpo
jip-kyul-so (detention center), Chongjin City, in May 2000.
Upon reading this summary, and with some extended reflection, one might be reminded of the recent uproar regarding the revelations that a Hospital in Holland was practicing Euthanasia according to policy regarding terminal patients both young and old. (See the Groningen Corollary). When Death by Committee becomes an excepted policy, the Moral argument is surrendered to a Social imperative. The only decision left then is... who will make the decision? Coupled with that revelation, is the diktat establishing whose interests are served and how? Clearly Kim Jong-Il can answer that question. The Dutch can too, but are reluctant to admit the truth.
Reader Ray from the Netherlands commented then that...
"Youthanasia, drugs and prositution are difficult subjects. Our country has taken some difficult steps to try and solve some of the problems, by legalising prositution and soft drugs for example. Some solutions work, some don't. There is a lot of discussion about what road to take, and each step is carefully taken. Offcourse you can close your eyes for these kinds of problems. It's easier. But with the medical techniques we have now, some problems have to be taken care of. Some choices have to be made."
My eyes are wide open. And they see the inevitable ramifications of deteriorating principles.
What's wrong with the protocols practiced at Groningen? This! This is what happens when individual life is incrementally devalued by means of the primacy of collective identity. The choices are no longer a facet of volition and are therefore irrelevent. What is significant is the nature of decisions that are established regarding humans as they relate to the concept of Justice. Eventually, the role of individuals in manifesting such decisions is subdued entirely by process. Conform to the process and thrive at its mercy. When your interests defy consensus, however, you become society's liabity or it's criminal and your children become its leverage or its burden. Inevitably what is good for Ray and his family, might be determined detrimental to the local community ( or its particular despot du jour ) - especially if vaccines are required and in short supply, and Ray has proven to be most uncooperative in the past regarding his level of personal sacrifice or contribution. When that day comes, perhaps he will appreciate the virtue of a Constitutional recognition of his existence (his right to exist) and choose to leave... If he can.
Who makes the choices is an inalienable condition... but, is a fundamentally delicate conclusion not to piddled away for the mere comfort of momentary release from moral continence.