An In-depth Exploration of the Protection of Childbearing Rights for Single Women in China

Wanling Gao

doi:10.54097/v76ej536

Authors

Wanling Gao

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/v76ej536

Keywords:

Single women, childbearing rights, legislative model.

Abstract

With social progress and evolving perceptions, the childbearing rights of single women have increasingly become a topic of concern. Traditionally, childbirth has been regarded as an inevitable outcome of marriage and family life. However, in modern society, an increasing number of single women choose to bear children independently, pursuing their own life values. Currently, China has developed human-assisted reproductive technologies to a high level, and the feasibility of single women's reproductive rights is no longer an issue. By granting single women childbearing rights at the regulatory level and imposing appropriate restrictions on related technologies, it is possible to actively address the difficulties and obstacles faced by single women in childbearing, thereby resolving disputes and safeguarding human rights more effectively. This paper explores the specific content of single women's childbearing rights, compares different legislative models abroad, analyzes the current status of single women's reproductive rights in China, and proposes corresponding improvements to provide a fairer, safer, and healthier reproductive environment for single women.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Guo, L., and Y. Dong. 2021. “Childcare Services for Infants and Toddlers 0–3 Years Old: International Comparison and Chinese Choice.” Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (Chinese Academy of Governance) 5: 109–118. [Chinese] https://doi.org/10.14119/j.cnki.zgxb.20210804.001.

[2] Hardee-Cleaveland, Karen, and Judith Banister. 1988. “Fertility Policy and Implementation in China, 1986–88.” Population and Development Review 14 (2): 245–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1973572.

[3] Dou, Guoqin, Guangxia Li, Yunyun Yuan, Bin Liu, and Lifeng Yang. 2022. “Structural Dimension Exploration and Measurement Scale Development of Employee Involution in China’s Workplace Field.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (21): 14454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114454.

[4] Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. “The Power and Politics of Genre.” World Englishes 16 (3): 359–371.

[5] An, Mi Young, and Ito Peng. 2016. “Diverging Paths? A Comparative Look at Childcare Policies in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.” Social Policy & Administration 50 (5): 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12128.

[6] Han, Yuting, Yao He, Jun Lyu, Canqing Yu, Mingze Bian, and Liming Lee. 2020. “Aging in China: Perspectives on Public Health.” Global Health Journal 4 (1): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2020.01.002.

[7] Black, Maureen M., Susan P. Walker, Lia C.H. Fernald, Christopher T. Andersen, Ann M. DiGirolamo, Chunling Lu, Dana C. McCoy, et al. 2017. “Early Childhood Development Coming of Age: Science Through the Life Course.” The Lancet 389 (10064): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7.

[8] Gray, Edith, Anna Reimondos, Ester Lazzari, Robert Breunig, Ralf Steinhauser, Jacquelyn Zhang, Nicholas Biddle, and Matthew Gray. 2022. Impacts on Policies on Fertility Rates. Commissioned report. Canberra: Australian National University. https://researchprofiles.anu.edu.au/en/publications/impacts-on-policies-on-fertility-rates.

[9] Bai, Chen, and Xiaoyan Lei. 2020. “New Trends in Population Aging and Challenges for China’s Sustainable Development.” China Economic Journal 13 (1): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2019.1700608.

[10] Nishioka, Susumu. 2018. “Privatization of Childcare Service in Japan: Analysing Gradual Policy Changes Since the 1990s.” Journal of Asian Public Policy 11 (3): 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2017.1334847.

[11] Aidukaite, Jolanta, Steven Saxonberg, Dorota Szelewa, and Dorottya Szikra. 2021. “Social Policy in the Face of a Global Pandemic: Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis in Central and Eastern Europe.” Social Policy & Administration 55 (2): 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12704.