Do we know how the Chinese enforce the male sterility factor to ensure 1 child per couple ?

Or is it on the abortion required only on a woman ?

How is it done to include both genders fairly anywhere ? How can a male be prevented from sexual encounters without contraception, which is never 100% for sure anyhow.

The state restricts births, which occur in female bodies and on a "family" unit perhaps but how does it know who the father is to punish him for his not following the restrictions ? did they before use DNA testing, and at what costs can be done or what other proofs are required to enforce any restrictive laws ?

Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia article:

"...conservatives believe there is no right to reproductive autonomy, because reproductive choices gain their meaning and value from their communal context."

Comment: This position assumes that individuals are subservient to (determined by) their communal contexts, rather than participating with their peers in a dynamic, dialectical process that *creates* such community. It seems to me that what such conservatives are really talking about when they refer to such a "communal context" is a dominator hierarchy the sits upon, and saps the life out of, a true community. The obvious example would be a patriarchal family institution dominated by its senior male members (so to speak), or a patriarchal religious "community" that is dominated by an elite group of males. In this case, what is really meant by female subservience to "the community" is obedience to a male dominator class. So this is dishonest language that allows control systems to masquerade as, and assume the moral authority of, the communities that they are attempting to control through coercion.

Regarding the libertarian view that all means of reproductive intervention made available by science should be allowed: Reproductive services that might be harmful to people ought to be regulated, but other than such safety-related issues, should be allowed to individuals for their own private purposes (e.g., for creating children that they intend to raise themselves). However, enterprises that go beyond such personal use, such as the mass production of human beings of a certain kind for a specific purpose, should be outlawed because of the negative effect such practices would have upon diversity and democracy, and because of the disproportionate power that such practices could place in the hands of those who controlled such technology. And so, I would agree with O'Neill's position, as cited in the article, that "no act of reproduction constitutes an exercise of a right to procreate unless it is performed with an intention to rear the resulting child so as to give it a life that is at least normal for its society." This is consistent with the fact that human reproduction is more than mere biological reproduction - is constitutes a long interval of socialization and education which is as much a part of producing a human being as is the birth process. Most people would agree that a permit should only be issued to build a house to someone who intends to carry through on the entire process, so that we do not have open foundation holes pockmarking the landscape indefinitely; similarly, people who have children should be required to be responsible for ensuring, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through adoption), that they are socialized and educated. We already have such laws, of course. As for poor parents having fewer reproductive rights due to their reduced ability to support a family, the inequality is caused by poverty, not reproductive policy.

Regarding the feminist argument that technological innovations enable additional ways of exploiting those who are already at an economic disadvantage (e.g., by turning poor women into surrogate mothers): I agree. Speaking very generally, the fundamental problem is the inequality, rather than the technology. But to the extent that technology turns the birth process into a commodity, it is alienating an integral aspect of families and communities, placing a price upon it, and then selling it back to people. That does give power to the corporate and scientific hierarchy that controls such commodification, thereby reducing diversity and increasing control. This is true of many kinds of commodification, not just that pertaining to reproduction, but when people's own biological processes are commodified the effect is particularly disruptive to the social fabric (e.g., women birthing children for other people instead of raising their own). I do think that the fundamental solution, just as with prostitution, is to give individuals, and particularly women, increased economic and political power so that they are not coerced into such arrangements. But to the extent that such corporate institutions (or, in the case of prostitution, brothels, pimps and so on) constitute a mechanism for the oppression of women as a group, they may need to be actively dismantled through legislation and law enforcement as part of restoring the personal autonomy of those women who are being exploited by them. The important point is to aim such actions at the dominator hierarchies rather than at those who have been entrapped by them.

Regarding the section on morality, my overall comment would be that we need to distinguish between individual morality and public policy. People might be faced with individual decisions such as whether or not to have a child when there is a likelihood of a genetic defect, and we can comment on what such a person might choose to do in such a circumstance, but that does not mean that the best approach to dealing with such decisions is to coerce people into making the decision that we think is most moral for them, because coercion itself has negative consequences for diversity and democracy, and we also have to admit that we might be wrong in what we collectively prescribe for someone who is faced with such a decision. There are other, more positive, ways to have a socially beneficial impact upon such choices, such as making adoption a more available and desirable alternative.

In each case, we should ask ourselves why someone is making a socially undesirable choice, and then attempt to configure public policy so that additional, better choices are readily available to that person.