Earth needs to adopt China's one child policy

I have thought that for years but then again I think most humans should be 'fixed"

Thanks for telling my little brother he shouldn't be alive. Oh wait, I'm half-Chinese. Thanks for telling me that I shouldn't be alive.

They are right. Overpopulation is the real problem. It was a big issue back in the 70s. When the right wing came back in the 80s they swept in under the rug becuase it doesn't agree with their ideology.

While I applaud China for focusing on the issue I can't help feeling their tactics are a little heavy-handed. Forced late-term abortions. And add that to a culture where boys were traditionally favored makes for a lot of abandoned girls.

There should be positive incentives for people to focus their attention on having and investing themselves fully in the raising of fewer children. Not tax breaks and welfare handouts the more kids you pop out. Also, the conservative trend against any sort of sex or contraceptive education in schools is counter-productive.

Many countries have zero or negative birth rates; in Japan and Europe this is true. The US is positive largely because of imigration. New imigrants and the less well off tend to reproduce more. In many poorer countries people still see having kids as addign an extra field hand or a substitute for the lack of a social insurance system for their old age.

Population growth is primarily in the underdeveloped countries. Education and accessible free birth control in these countries is the only way to start IMO. Controlling and policing is expensive and doesn't work, people always find a way around these kinds of "laws."

China's one-child policy has not worked out so well (scary stuff bolded by me):

As China's President Hu Jintao makes his first official visit to the United States this week, his nation faces a demographic time bomb that could affect its stability.

With more than a billion people, China has too many men. According to the latest census, an average of 120 boys are born for every 100 girls, the greatest imbalance in the world.

The gender imbalance grew out of communist China's draconian social engineering policies, where a woman, after having one child, was forced to make a choice: sterilization or insertion of an IUD (intrauterine device).

To make sure the women kept their birth control devices in, the government — starting in 1982 — sent portable ultrasound machines all over the country. They are compact and lightweight and even some small villages got as many as two or three. But in a classic case of unintended consequences, pregnant women realized that the machines could also identify whether they were having a boy or a girl. And, as a result, by conservative estimates, more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.

The government has tried to discourage these abortions. Zhao Baige, vice minister of the Family Planning Commission, says it is now illegal to get an ultrasound in order to identify the sex of a baby.

A pregnant woman can still get an ultrasound, but only if it’s medically necessary. To make sure the sex of the fetus is not revealed, two doctors are present and the exam is recorded on closed-circuit TV.

But Chinese couples determined to have a boy can get around the restrictions on ultrasounds by going underground, in back alleys, where illegal storefronts have sprung up to meet the demand. Ultrasound machines are inexpensive in China; they cost about $360 and, as 60 Minutes saw, they are small enough to be hidden in a closet or even in the trunk of a car to do scans on the run. And that's made it difficult to crack down.

We showed the minister some Chinese newspaper photos of a van parked in a Beijing suburb doing ultrasounds in the back.

"We need more enforcement," Zhao said.

"Well, one of the ways that this imbalance came about is through abortion. Millions and millions and millions of abortions. Why didn't the government clamp down on that?" Stahl asked.

"Let me go to another point," the vice minister replied.

Her "other point" was that China’s abortion rate is going down, but she didn't explain why abortions are still free and legal right up to the ninth month, even as the boy-girl imbalance grows.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1496589.shtml

As a Canadian I am horrified to hear this. I keep wondering who those little Chinese boys are going to marry when the grow up. Particularly if their parents want them to marry within their own culture.

Agreed. And not to hijack- but that very thinking also seems counterproductive to the ultra-conservative platform itself! , i.e., it inadvertently increases the voting bloc of non-conservatives! It's something I never understood and I'll never understand it unless someone explains it to me (Edit to say: I'm not anti-conservative. In fact, many of my beliefs are rather conservative)

But back to the OP, I agree flat out - we need fewer people, not more

The Catholic Church is a huge obstacle to getting our population growth under control. In developed nations, most Catholics tend to take the Vatican's condemnation on birth control and contraception with a grain of salt, but in the undeveloped ones, they take them very seriously. They've helped make the AIDS epidemic worse and keep the exponential population growth going.

As for enforcing China's birth policies on a global scale, I think that's way too Orwellian for me. The nations that need it the most don't really have the medical infrastructure to support it anyway. The only way a poor African nation could enforce it would be to walk around and shoot the 2nd, 3rd, ... kids in every family since the families are lucky if they even see a doctor in the first place. Education and birth control are the only (non-murderous) solutions that are possible with their current infrastructure.

In the US, I would be completely in favor of doing away with tax breaks for multiple children and perhaps even a "resource tax" on families that have a large number.

I think at least the government should subsidize vasectomies and tubal ligations...or give huge incentives for people who do that.
And come up with a good way to encourage people to adopt rather than have children of their own.

Of course, this is why Planned Parenthood was invented. (Look it up--it's not pretty.)

But the U.S. is not the country where this is needed. The U.S. and most of Europe has negative population growth amongst their citizens. Virtually all the population growth in the U.S. is in immigration, both legal and illegal, and children born to those immigrants.

All we need to do is stop paying people to have children and I think that would be a big first step in lowering the population.

Though I do think that there should be a 2 kid max so that way people have the oportunity to try for both a boy and a girl, as I myself want one of each and I do not wish to adopt.

The big problem is people living on welfare and when it goes to expire at the five year mark, they just pop out another baby and keep on eating up our tax dollars going towards virtually unwanted babies. It is cruel and heartless to have children simply to live off of welfare.

And then you have people like the "Duggars" who are pretty much just having kids now as publicity stunts.




And no one here is saying that anyone shouldn't be alive right now. All that is being said is that a law should be passed limiting the number of children an individual should be allowed to have, which means that starting from this moment on, not going into the past and killing off the younger siblings. That is a ridiculous assumption.

I have two little sisters and a little brother, I am the oldest and I still think that people should be limited in reproduction and automatically sterilized after two, but that in no way means I would ever say that I don't think my sisters or brother should have been born.

I know it is dumb to be paying people to have children, but in the end no one wants to live off of welfare. It just isn't enough to support yourself and a lot of people living on welfare end up selling drugs or doing some kind of illegal business on the side..

If you look at countries that are far poorer and have no welfare programs, overpopulation is still a big problem. I definitely don't think people just decide to have kids for the welfare checks...It is mostly ignorance IMO.
I know a girl who had 3 abortions in high school, senior year she finally met someone she really liked and got pregnant by him and automatically decided this baby she has to keep because it's meant to be, the guy is perfect so on her fourth pregnancy she had a kid. She actually went into labor in school but thats besides the point. Then we worked together at a part time job, we both worked 15 hours but I was in college while for her this was the only source of income for her and her daughter (of course her parents helped) I think stupid people (which is the majority of the population sadly) just don't think twice about it, they don't make plans for the future, just like they don't envision the consequences of buying so many things to where they spend every bit of their paycheck every month and having no $$ in the bank for an emergency.

It's not out of date, just unrealistic. While I agree it should be that way, most of the women who have unwanted pregnancies come from poor homes with poorly educated parents who don't have a clue themselves. The school system is really the only place where all children have a realistic chance to be educated on these topics and break the cycle.


The problem is that young women won't stop getting pregnant just because you get rid of welfare. They often don't have family support, so they'll have to either abort the child, put it up for adoption, or raise it in squalid conditions. There are no free lunches here - all of those things have a cost to society. Welfare, at least in principle, offers a chance that the child will be raised in a decent home by a mother who loves him or her.

As for serial welfare mothers, I pretty much agree that needs to be ended. Make it a one time thing. Once is an accident, twice or more is abusing the system. Free birth control definitely needs to be part of the program to make that fair/realistic, which I imagine would really get the religious right's knickers in a twist.

Nature always wins. When there are too many people for the planet to support, it will cull the herd. Or, just get itself entirely out of the humanity business.

It already does get their knickers in a twist, I assume you have never seen any planned parenthood protestors? They drive me nuts with their disgusting signs, but hey..I love freedom of speech as much as the next person.


The sad thing is that in the states, most (if not all) planned parenthood offer SOME type of free contraceptives, but a lot of people refuse to go there. I'm not sure if they are just embarrassed or what... But that is where I get my pills and they give me at least 50 free condoms when I go there.

I also get the MAP for free, as well as having may other BC services offered such as implanon, mirena, depro, and many many non-hormonal options. Free.

So in my opinion, no matter your circumstances, there is no reason to be getting pregnant if you cannot afford a baby if you live in the US.


Even an abortion is cheap if you look at the cost of having/raising a child. 450$ (relatively) compared to hundreds of thousands over the course of 18 years?

I hate to say it but some people do enjoy living off of welfare. I hate to say it but somebody very close to me has been living off of welfare for more than 20 years now, only because they were on it before the five year cut off started. You cannot tell me that in 20 years this person hasn't been able to find stable/steady work, or invest time into continuing their education in order to find a better job to provide for their family.

I agree that other countries do have overpopulation problems and no government assistance so perhaps you're right and I'm wrong about welfare being a big problem, but it is still a problem that should be dealt with in a better way. I love the idea that Grogs has that says welfare will only help you with your first child.

I know it's cruel and heartless to let people go without and to even think that people should have to suffer, but honnestly..how else are they going to learn to pick themselves up?

Believe me, I know about the PP protesters. That's why I said it. The government recently cut federal funding for planned parenthood. In order to really integrate BC and other options into welfare, Planned Parenthood or a similar organization would have to be integrated into the program and receive federal funding, which the religious right would vehemently oppose.

As for abortion, I agree that's much cheaper in the long run, but I think that being forced to have an abortion is just as bad (probably worse) than being forced to carry a child you don't want. And of course the religious right would like to see abortions done away with as well.

I find that there's a really odd correlation between people who oppose abortion, oppose contraception / sex education, and oppose welfare. As far as I can tell, the "logic" seems to be that the woman was a dirty little sinner for having sex before she got married and should be forced to suffer for her indiscretions.

I do agree with a child limit per family. And like you, I do believe that there are some people out there that are "breeding" that shouldn't be, so I do support forced sterilization.

When I was working at my old job I lost count as to the number of pregnant women that I looked after who for various reasons had each of their other children apprehended by Child and Family Services and were not in the woman's care. Most of these women had birth alerts against them and if they gave birth again, the child was immediately taken away from them and put into foster care. Some of these women had 9 or more children all sitting in foster care because they couldn't or wouldn't look after their children and just kept right on spreading their legs and getting pregnant again and again.

I think a child limit of 2 children per family is an acceptable number. One child tends to get spoiled when they are children, but it usually leads to a very lonely adulthood especially when their parents get sick and/or die.

Population control is why I want to explode when I hear about people undergoing fertility treatments to have children that nature and fate didn't intend for them to have. I firmly believe that a person's inability to have children either due to their own infertility or the fact that they life partnered with someone with infertility issues is a meant fate indicating that that person and/or couple are not meant to have children.

People can debate that issue with me until the cows come home, but I'll never change my stance on that belief.

This world can't support the people it has on it now, yet there are countries where people are starving and dying because their climate can't support them and yet they just keep on having kids even when their existing kids don't have enough food.

I don't think anyone is really blaming religion, but moreso pointing out that a majority of those who protest contraception are in fact of some sort of religion.



Natalie - I often worry about my ability to concieve, frankly it's a miracle that it hasn't happened by accident yet, and I think that if I were to find out if I or my fiance were unable to reproduce, then I would consider some sort of radical fertility treatment.

Octomom and Jon and Kate are the types that really 'P' me off because they give fertility treatments a bad bad bad name. Something that could be used to help improve someones life has been turned into a spectacle and means for making loads of money.

So, let me make sure this is clear. Do you believe that abortion is a woman's right? "My body, my decision?" So if killing a (potential) child is an acceptable choice, why would giving birth to that child not be an acceptable choice, and in fact a right?

Morality can sometimes be so confusing!

To adopt a child limit per family would require a law where immediately after the 2nd birth, a mandatory tubiligation would be formed, so that wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think a forced limit is really the answer, because most people with tooooo many kids (or kids too early) don't have them intentionally--it "just happens." If we could prevent accidental spawning, that would probably cut population growth enough for all the genuinely wanted kids.

I've thought several times that what we need is a reliable, reversible sterilization procedure that everyone gets for free at about age 10, and can get reversed, also for free, when they're an adult; it would get re-done after each kid but they could get it reversed again after some reasonable waiting period based on giving the mom's body enough time to recover that she and the next kid wouldn't be at higher risk. That way, no one would have a kid except intentionally (which also eliminates the have-a-baby-to-keep-the-guy strategy).

That plus welfare reform to eliminate the respawn reward system would probably cut population growth enough that the occasional family choosing to have a third kid, or a very small number of families having as many as they can, would be balanced out by those who chose to have one or none.

And what about the possible side effects from all of this surgery, no way I would allow my 10 year old to undergo surgery to sterilize them, reversable or not - its elective surgery and should stay that way

I don't understand. What does a 10 year old have to do with this topic?

I was replying to the post above me:

Do you know of any other mandatory medical procedure that is in force and actually accepted? Even vaccinations are heavily resisted. I can't imagine what would happen if you made sterilization mandatory.

No, in fact it is wealth that actually reduces the birth rate. I mentioned earlier that the U.S. actually has negative population growth. The exception are our immigrants and our lowest income levels. This is a serious concern; we need those kids to pay my social security, when I retire!

I have to agree with you - eventually the planet won't be able to support the population & something will happen.

I have no religion - I don't believe in God or a higher power. I'm (relatively speaking) OK with abortion - whether or not I think it right or wrong isn't the debate here, but rather that I think people should be free to make their own choice.

I don't think China's 1 child law would work. I wouldn't want to limit the number of kids people can have (within reason), if they are able to support them. The question is - what is within reason? I live in a farming area - the kids still often stick around "home" to help the parents with the farm when they're grown. I am one of four - my dad is one of 9. I know of people with 3 or 4 kids - they kept having kids of one sex, so kept trying for just one child of the opposite sex.

That said - there are some people who simply shouldn't have children. I am one of them. Combine my genetics & personality - and man I'd hate to see my children. I won't have any children - plain & simple. If I ever desire to have kids - there are how many thousands of children of all ages, races, sexes that need homes. I do firmly believe in adoption in humans the same as I do with animals.

As far as mandatory sterilization goes - I would be concerned over sterilizing younger people - the mental & physical health effects. Who would control who is sterilized & who isn't?

good point..apparently people forget that reproduction is one of our basic human rights. Forced sterilization means we no longer live in a democracy.

That's an unfair and untrue stereotype. It's the caregiver(s) and their style of parenting that leads to "spoiled" children - not the children themselves and certainly not how many are in the family!

And many siblings do not get along as adults at all; having a brother or sister in your birth family doesn't mean you will automatically have support. And what about aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins? Being an only child does not mean you don't have any other family!

There's loads of research that goes against the "only child=spoiled" stereotype. Here's a start:
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1224/Only-Children.html

Yet the question still remains, despite evidence to the contrary, why do negative only child stereotypes persist?

For one, centuries-old beliefs die hard. And for another, research findings that suggest a subject falls within “normal” boundaries isn’t necessarily titillating enough to shatter myths. Notes Falbo, “Conventional wisdom is wrong, and it seems that finding out kids are normal is not quite as exciting.”

http://parentingresources.suite101.c...ke_their_peers