World Wide... One Child Policy

[buckethead]

Your reasoning, carried to it's inevitable outcome, ends with euthenasia and mass murder.

Let's just hope the only people killed are those like the Duggars, and others you disapprove of.

We need less people? Why wait?

[chipwich]

Huh?  How would it end with euthanasia?  That is absurd.  Developing nations can throw out economic incentives such as healthcare and social safety-nets (like retirement accounts) to families that have less children.  Rich nations like ours could subsidize them with carbon taxes on any non-essential energy usage (like boating, planes, SUVs, fast cars, RVs, etc.)  Besides, as developing nations become richer, people will naturally have less children because it becomes an economic hardship.

I also don't believe anyone should harm the Duggar family or anyone like that.  At the same time, people like that should not be celebrated on television or even congratulated for their irresponsible  and selfish behavior.  Having 20 kids isn't exactly cute, it is just insane.


I definitely would not advocate an sort of forced euthanasia or murder. 

[chipwich]

The goal

Your reasoning, carried to it's inevitable outcome, ends with euthenasia and mass murder.

Let's just hope the only people killed are those like the Duggars, and others you disapprove of.

We need less people? Why wait?

The goal here is to eventually save lives, not place more value on life over another.  We need all people in every country to become aware of the dangers of overpopulation, over-consumption and resource scarcity.  if we all pitch in just a little bit, the entire world can gain a better standard of living and diminish the risk of famine, poverty and armed resource conflicts.

[buckethead]

The goal is to save lives? The response seems like spin. Perhaps it's my feeble mind failing to grasp the nuance.

Does that mean you are in favor of mandatory reproductive restrictions over reproductive rights?

Should declining populations have more leeway over burgeoning segments of the population?

Should restrictions be placed on any nation, race, culture or creed while not on others? Who enforces, and how?

If we could just get a couple really smart people to decide who should be allowed to breed and when they may be permitted to do so, things would be better! Any volunteers?

[BridgeTroll]

At least the Chinese have it right.

Do they?  Their policy has resulted in untold abortions of female fetus and murders of female children in an effort to have a male offspring.  Another unintended consequence of "getting it right" is a skewed ratio of males to females resulting in a lack of mates for males.  The Chinese population continues to grow and is projected to do so until around 2030.

Rich nations must cut down their carbon and consumption footprint.

This may very well be the eventual method used to force couples to comply with a one child policy.

Huh?  How would it end with euthanasia?  That is absurd.

Really?  The beginnings of this debate are already in progress.  Of course it is not called euthanasia... it is referred to as "high costs of medical care in life years gained".  Why spend x amount of health care dollars to extend the life who is at the "end of life"?

Be careful what you ask for... you just may get it...

[JagFan07]

Have we really come to a point where we are wishing for the nanny state? This reeks of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs". For years we have been told that a woman should have the right of choice and it is her body. Now we are willing to say she has the right of choice "Once". I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument but, what next? Do we cap the age at which citizens live? Do we have forced euthanasia of children with Down Syndrome? or children deemed unable to contribute to the common good?

[buckethead]

Have we really come to a point where we are wishing for the nanny state? This reeks of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs". For years we have been told that a woman should have the right of choice and it is her body. Now we are willing to say she has the right of choice "Once". I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument but, what next? Do we cap the age at which citizens live? Do we have forced euthanasia of children with Down Syndrome? or children deemed unable to contribute to the common good?

I wouldn't agree with your initial reference to Marxist theory, but the rest is on point.

The Holocaust started in such a manner: controlling population. They wanted Jews out of Germany, then europe, then existence. I doubt we would move towards another holocaust of any particular creed, but  who knows.

So far the overwhelming sentiment of those in favor of birth limits are anti-Christian.

I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.

Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!

[JagFan07]

Looks like this is not a bad policy after all.......if you are male.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/chinas-population-laws-th_n_185626.html

[BridgeTroll]

First two paragraphs says it all.  32 million  ... Even Reaper man will be unable to get a date...

China has 32 million more young men than young women _ a gender gap that could lead to increasing crime _ because parents facing strict birth limits abort female fetuses to have a son, a study released Friday said.

The imbalance is expected to steadily worsen among people of childbearing age over the next two decades and could trigger a slew of social problems, including a possible spike in crime by young men unable to find female partners, said an author of the report published in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal.

[sandyshoes]

I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.
Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!

Wow.  So this part of society that has so proudly hailed itself as "tolerant" is actually intolerant if you are anything but what it wants you to be.  Who knew shallow could be so deep...

[Dog Walker]

The proven method of reducing birth rates is to educate women and give them control of their own fertility.  Nothing more drastic needs to be done.  This has been demonstrated over and over again.  Few women are voluntary breeding machines.

[Captain Zissou]

My opinions on the subject will probably get me yelled at, so I'll tread lightly.

I think this whole issue is a thrift paradox type scenario. Everyone is advocating for this one child policy, but if it actually happens we'll be in dire straights.  I think we need to inform and provide the means to safely prevent massive growth in developing nations....

[jaxnative]

I have to wonder what it is about a segment of our society and our society as a whole that so many are willing to turn this type of power over to government.  Is it the fact that the public schools, media, and the organized propaganda machines are feeding a continuous agenda of gloom and doom crisis scenarios?  And be very careful about having the audacity to question the truth and actual magnitude of these "crises".  What happened to the confidence of the American people in facing and confronting challenges without handing over the power of force and coercion to a "benevolent" government?

Presently, with our current government, we have a great example of the intoxicating and detrimental effects of mostly unchecked power.  Turning over the most personal of choices to government would be even more detrimental.

[buckethead]

I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.
Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!

Wow.  So this part of society that has so proudly hailed itself as "tolerant" is actually intolerant if you are anything but what it wants you to be.  Who knew shallow could be so deep...

Methinks the sarchasm was not detected.

[Captain Zissou]

I say forcibly censor shows like 16 and Pregnant, or Teen Moms, or even John and Kate + 8.  We don't need to glamorize and celebrate those situations.