NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a proposal to pay female heroine addicts in the UK a fixed amount every three months to receive a quarterly injection that will prevent them from becoming pregnant.
The logic being that this will save the taxpayer money in the longrun by preventing junkies from having kids that the state will have to support-
I would love to hear some thoughts on this idea(am thinking of basing an issue around it)

11 views and only one vote? c mon folks !!

11 views and only one vote? c mon folks !!

11 views and only one vote? c mon folks !!

Maybe you could post a link, people are generaly too lazy to find one for themselves (unless they're having a debate).

Lock em' up. Of course liberal drug policies don't work that way I guess :evil:

Edit : for some reason, really bad spelling.

Maybe you could post a link, people are generaly too lazy to find one for themselves (unless they're having a debate).
No link to post mate- I got it from Radio Scotland a few days back

Excellent idea! Darwinism is a GOOD thing :twisted:

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

Promise drug addicts money and lead them into death chambers.

good idea. in theory. but sumthing tells me that those junkies wont be spending that money on contraceptics.

good idea. in theory. but sumthing tells me that those junkies wont be spending that money on contraceptics.

The idea is: junkies show up at a clinic, get injected with a long-lasting contraceptive, THEN they get the $$.

ah. i got it now. in that case, good idea

doesnt sound like bs :?

It's stupid. If they want the injection, make them pay for it with the drug money they're spending, otherwise, let them rot in Hell.

Promise drug addicts money and lead them into death chambers.
although that would make a really funny set up type situation for candid camera I dont see it happening anytime soon.

How about we sterilize drug offenders ? Like 3 strikes and you are out of the gene pool ?

How about we sterilize drug offenders ? Like 3 strikes and you are out of the gene pool ?
If you do that you arent giving them any choice- also if it turns out they were framed//or took the fall for someone else there isnt a 100% chance of successfully reversing sterilisation.Also why just sterilise drug offenders- why not people that commit crimes of violence etc etc? When you switch from regular contraceptive injections to sterilisation it seems that much closer to eugenics.

How about we sterilize drug offenders ? Like 3 strikes and you are out of the gene pool ?
If you do that you arent giving them any choice- also if it turns out they were framed//or took the fall for someone else there isnt a 100% chance of successfully reversing sterilisation.Also why just sterilise drug offenders- why not people that commit crimes of violence etc etc? When you switch from regular contraceptive injections to sterilisation it seems that much closer to eugenics.

eugenics might not be a bad thing.......
As to the possibility of a mistake on the part of law enforcement, that is why you give them 3 chances.
I have no problem with the sterilization of repeat violent offenders .

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Yes, we should pay them because the cost of having the state raise an orphan or a foundling will be higher than the cost of a shot.
I'm not talking about money, but also effort, dedication, etc.

gee, I wonder what they're gonna use that extra money for after getting the shot. Someone didn't think this one through

I think it would be cheaper to just pull addicts off the street and "persuade" them to give us thier source. Once this has been confirmed, the dealer is dragged out of his house into the street and shot. Not only is a bullet alot cheaper than contraceptives, it also provides a poignant message for the kiddies.

There's already a lady that does it in the US. Although she doesn't pay that much.

Only $200 for long term birth control.... Not really worth it.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9910/23/no.crack.babies/

There has been a proposal to pay female heroine addicts in the UK a fixed amount every three months to receive a quarterly injection that will prevent them from becoming pregnant.
The logic being that this will save the taxpayer money in the longrun by preventing junkies from having kids that the state will have to support-
I would love to hear some thoughts on this idea(am thinking of basing an issue around it)

Several problems with this proposal:

1) The state is still paying addicts. Sure, its probably less than what is needed to support a child, but still, if they are concerned about spending taxpayer money on addicts, then perhaps they should stop spending taxpayer money on addicts, period. The fact that this proposal exists at all is enough proof that the welfare state is incapable of handling the job, anyway. Instead of just hanging on by a pinky to save political face, they should just quit wasting people's money all together.

2) The state is subsidizing addiction. Said addicts are probably only going to spend the money on more heroin anyway, and personally, I'd be very upset if my money was being taken and spent on subsidizing junkies.

3) It proposes state-sponsored birth control. As the proposal is presented here and now, it sounds voluntary. However, there is no guarantee that it will remain so in the future. These things simply build up over time and eventually state-sponsored birth control could be turned into state-mandated eugenics. If we just make sure that the <insert unpopular social group here> can't reproduce... :shock:

Several problems with this proposal:

1) The state is still paying addicts. Sure, its probably less than what is needed to support a child, but still, if they are concerned about spending taxpayer money on addicts, then perhaps they should stop spending taxpayer money on addicts, period. The fact that this proposal exists at all is enough proof that the welfare state is incapable of handling the job, anyway. Instead of just hanging on by a pinky to save political face, they should just quit wasting people's money all together.

I think a greater concern than the cost is the medical impact on the child. Drug and alcohol affected children do quite badly, and it's something of a deservice to these childern to let these things happen without so much as batting an eye. I'm not sure how this reflects on the welfare state, by the by, as I think reducing drug problems is something of a common good that a classical liberal state would not be particularly adept at handling anyways.

2) The state is subsidizing addiction. Said addicts are probably only going to spend the money on more heroine anyway, and personally, I'd be very upset if my money was being taken and spent on subsidizing junkies.

No, the state is ensuring the safety of future generations. Casting this policy in the light of 'subsidizing addiction' is inaccurate and deliberately misleading. The state is offering money to individuals effectively in exchange for a service; what is done with that money cannot possibly be portrayed as the state's problem. It's something like saying the state shouldn't give poor people tax returns because they'll spend it on beer, and the state shouldn't subsidize beer.

3) It proposes state-sponsored birth control. As the proposal is presented here and now, it sounds voluntary. However, there is no guarantee that it will remain so in the future. These things simply build up over time and eventually state-sponsored birth control could be turned into state-mandated eugenics. If we just make sure that the <insert unpopular social group here> can't reproduce... :shock:

Maybe, but I'd say that's quite the slippery slope. Moving from voluntary birth control to state coerced birth control is a much greater move than you portray it. I'd say forced eugenics is not a likely outcome of this policy.

I think a greater concern than the cost is the medical impact on the child. Drug and alcohol affected children do quite badly, and it's something of a deservice to these childern to let these things happen without so much as batting an eye.


The way the proposal was given suggested that the main concern was funding of state child support, so thats how I responded. At any rate, certainly the medical condition of the child is also important. That's why I believe that mothers who harm their unborn children with their addiction should find themselves in a jail cell for a very long time. Destroying one's own body is one thing, but causing another to suffer the same without permission is assault; murder if the child does not survive.

Don't worry, I'm not so libertarian that I enjoy looking upon deformed children without (EDIT: mercy). :wink:


Casting this policy in the light of 'subsidizing addiction' is inaccurate and deliberately misleading. The state is offering money to individuals effectively in exchange for a service; what is done with that money cannot possibly be portrayed as the state's problem.


Incorrect. The proposal would make it easier for addicts to function, and therefore encourages addiction. First, by providing birth control services for free, the state is removing the personal responsibility of the addict to support the concequences of their actions. Second, by the paying them to recieve such a service, the state not only encourages this abandonment of responsibility, but it also provides the funds by which an addiction can continue to be supported.

Direct funding and the free elimination of responsibility for one's own sexual behavior both reward drug use. Frankly, I would not be surprised in the least if drug use by disadvantaged women increased as a result of the enactment of this proposal.


It's something like saying the state shouldn't give poor people tax returns because they'll spend it on beer, and the state shouldn't subsidize beer.


Incorrect again. This proposal does not suggest returning taxes or not taxing the target social group at all. (EDIT: If anything), it proposes the support of addicts with general taxpayer funds via the mechanism of the welfare state.

The state shouldn't give addicts tax money because they'll spend it on heroin, and the state shouldn't subsidize heroin.


Maybe, but I'd say that's quite the slippery slope. Moving from voluntary birth control to state coerced birth control is a much greater move than you portray it. I'd say forced eugenics is not a likely outcome of this policy.

My tinfoil hat might be too tight, but allow me to posit a question: why doesn't the proposal target the disadvantaged in general? Why the focus on heroin users only?

The chief response is that "well, addicts can't afford to take care of the children." But isn't that true of all very poor people, reguardless of the reason for why they are poor? Another response could be "well, because they are addicts, they are dangerous." This is very true, however, the simple desperation of being poor can lead to behavior that is very dangerous to children, whether or not drugs are involved.

The focus on drug addicts, heroin users specifically, is suspect because it targets a specific undesirable social group. I don't think it is all that hard to see that someone could consider the reduced reproduction of such a group as an advantage. The idea that the proposal protects children is just a way to distract from the fact that it would also help eliminate a sector of society that no one especially enjoys looking at...

Too slippery of a slope? Maybe. But things have a way of changing very quickly, especially when a government senses an opportunity to grab power (or senses that power being lost). On December 6, 1941, it was probably crazy to think that concentration camps for Japanese-Americans would exist in America. On September 10, 2001, the ideas of a PATRIOT Act and similar concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay were probably considered crazy too. It should be our job to think a little crazy and be fantastically skeptical and pick things apart, no matter how slippery the slope is. That's how you stay free.

(EDIT: In fact, see the response to this very thread found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135397#2968309

That even one human being is capable of thinking like this is what makes me nervous.)

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Good point, but I think it's more appropriate for a place like India or China; currently they're screwing themselves over with a gender imbalance.

The way the proposal was given suggested that the main concern was funding of state child support, so thats how I responded. At any rate, certainly the medical condition of the child is also important. That's why I believe that mothers who harm their unborn children with their addiction should find themselves in a jail cell for a very long time. Destroying one's own body is one thing, but causing another to suffer the same without permission is assault; murder if the child does not survive.


I don't think that in any way helps the problem; if anything it increases the burden on society and the child in question. As a simple matter of cost/benefit analysis, from a financial perspective, I believe this proposal is sound. From a moral perspective, I also believe it is sound: it is certainly to the good of everyone involved, it implies no coericion (aside perhaps taxes but that's certainly a different argument) and it protects future generations. I don't see how thrusting drug addicted mothers in jail is beneficial from a financial or moral perspective.


Incorrect. The proposal would make it easier for addicts to function, and therefore encourages addiction. First, by providing birth control services for free, the state is removing the personal responsibility of the addict to support the concequences of their actions. Second, by the paying them to recieve such a service, the state not only encourages this abandonment of responsibility, but it also provides the funds by which an addiction can continue to be supported.

First, I'd say encouragement is a long way from outright subsidy. IMO, birth control should be free to everyone who so desires it, mostly because I don't believe in the total autonomy of individuals, particualrly those with mental illnesses, such as drug addicts. The state is not encouraging abandonment of responsibility in my view, but providing the means through which people can more easily take responsibility for themselves. Funding is an added incentive, true, but I think it's ridiculous to imply the state is responsible for the purchasing of drugs by provided funds to individuals; at best it's a tertiary affect.

Direct funding and the free elimination of responsibility for one's own sexual behavior both reward drug use. Frankly, I would not be surprised in the least if drug use by disadvantaged women increased as a result of the enactment of this proposal.

Perhaps, but we'd see a corresponding drop in unplanned pregnancies. On the balance, I think morally this a correct action. However, there is also the possibility that the quality of life for these women would increase, as some money perviously spent on drug use becomes free for other uses; I do not expect ALL this extra money to be reflected in increased use. It bears studying, at the very least.


Incorrect again. This proposal does not suggest returning taxes or not taxing the target social group at all. (EDIT: If anything), it proposes the support of addicts with general taxpayer funds via the mechanism of the welfare state.

The state shouldn't give addicts tax money because they'll spend it on heroin, and the state shouldn't subsidize heroin.

Again, I'm not sure this is a correct conclusion, and I also think it's somewhat beside the point. The aggregate damged caused by a slight increase in drug use would surely be dwarfed by the increase in general utility caused by a reduction in problematic, unplanned pregnancies. I also thing at some point it makes sense for the state to subsidize heroin (in the context of detox programs) but again, that's beside the point. Since society clearly has an obligation towards children born into appaling circumstance anyways, these seems like an ideal way to protect the present and the future, while violating no one's rights. Again, financially and morally (in my opinion) this is clearly in everyone's best interest, including the drug users and society in general.


The focus on drug addicts, heroin users specifically, is suspect because it targets a specific undesirable social group. I don't think it is all that hard to see that someone could consider the reduced reproduction of such a group as an advantage. The idea that the proposal protects children is just a way to distract from the fact that it would also help eliminate a sector of society that no one especially enjoys looking at...

If this were a program of sterilization I might be inclined to agree. However as a mid-level birth control program, I hardly think this constitutes any kind of class-based eugenics program. Addicts are (presumably) targeted because of the unique and grevious complications which emerge due to their condition. It would in no way 'eliminate' a sector of society unless you think that drug abuse is in some way genetic (which it may be partly, but to a very limited degree; drug abusers come from all walks of life). It would have no appreciable immediate affect on drug user populations, and very, very slight effects down the road. It's not like they're proposing carting these people away or something.

Too slippery of a slope? Maybe. But things have a way of changing very quickly, especially when a government senses an opportunity to grab power (or senses that power being lost). On December 6, 1941, it was probably crazy to think that concentration camps for Japanese-Americans would exist in America. On September 10, 2001, the ideas of a PATRIOT Act and similar concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay were probably considered crazy too. It should be our job to think a little crazy and be fantastically skeptical and pick things apart, no matter how slippery the slope is. That's how you stay free.

(EDIT: In fact, see the response to this very thread found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135397#2968309

That even one human being is capable of thinking like this is what makes me nervous.)

I'd say birth control for drug users has almost nothing to do with concetration camps in any way. Quite frankly, I don't see any connection at all. Volutary Birth Control is a long, long, long way from civil rights issues.

Too slippery of a slope? Maybe. But things have a way of changing very quickly, especially when a government senses an opportunity to grab power (or senses that power being lost). On December 6, 1941, it was probably crazy to think that concentration camps for Japanese-Americans would exist in America. On September 10, 2001, the ideas of a PATRIOT Act and similar concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay were probably considered crazy too. It should be our job to think a little crazy and be fantastically skeptical and pick things apart, no matter how slippery the slope is. That's how you stay free.

(EDIT: In fact, see the response to this very thread found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135397#2968309

That even one human being is capable of thinking like this is what makes me nervous.)

I'd say birth control for drug users has almost nothing to do with concetration camps in any way. Quite frankly, I don't see any connection at all. Volutary Birth Control is a long, long, long way from civil rights issues.

The purpose of that paragraph was to give examples of the insane things governments are capable of when unforseen events occur. It was not my intention to compare the given proposal to concentration camps. It was my intention to examine what power can do, and even how power can try to justify its actions: locking up Japanese-Americans or Muslims and passing PATRIOT for "safety."

Given the precident for governments to ignore the safety and well being of individuals or groups of people, as evidenced by history, I simply suggest that it is very dangerous to trust said governments with (EDIT: such powerful) things like human reproduction. Things can seem nice and happy now, but given any excuse, history shows that governments are more than willing to disreguard voluntary agreements and to do whatever they wish, no matter who it hurts.

Call me a paranoid nut, I simply think that history stands as adequate testimony that power cannot be trusted to restrain itself and to always respect voluntary agreements.

The purpose of that paragraph was to give examples of the insane things governments are capable of when unforseen events occur. It was not my intention to compare the given proposal to concentration camps. It was my intention to examine what power can do, and even how power can try to justify its actions: locking up Japanese-Americans or Muslims and passing PATRIOT for "safety."

Given the precident for governments to ignore the safety and well being of individuals or groups of people, as evidenced by history, I simply suggest that it is very dangerous to trust said governments with (EDIT: such powerful) things like human reproduction. Things can seem nice and happy now, but given any excuse, history shows that governments are more than willing to disreguard voluntary agreements and to do whatever they wish, no matter who it hurts.

Call me a paranoid nut, I simply think that history stands as adequate testimony that power cannot be trusted to restrain itself and to always respect voluntary agreements.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in principle and in general, but I honestly don't think this particular issue is in any sense civil rights related. We're not 'trusting' government with human production any more than sex-ed or free condoms in public institutions constitutes a serious trust. Power CAN justify it's own actions, but this is true in any policy debate, and I don't see why this particular case is more indicative of this problem than any other. There is absolutely, at present in regards to this policy, NO coercive apparatus here; if it WERE to be somehow involuntary, I'd agree with you. But it's not, nor do I expect it ever to be coerced.

There is absolutely, at present in regards to this policy, NO coercive apparatus here; if it WERE to be somehow involuntary, I'd agree with you. But it's not, nor do I expect it ever to be coerced.

Well, considering the state of the "war on drugs" (and its very existance at all), please forgive me if I remain way more skeptical. :D

(EDIT: Actually, I just thought of this, but could recieving payment for the treatment actually be a form of coercion? A person who has an addiction will be compelled to satisfy it, and the money that the addict is payed certainly makes possible and encourages this satisfaction.)

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Good point, but I think it's more appropriate for a place like India or China; currently they're screwing themselves over with a gender imbalance.
India yes. But China? They have a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman. The same as France and Ireland.

(EDIT: Actually, I just thought of this, but could recieving payment for the treatment actually be a form of coercion? A person who has an addiction will be compelled to satisfy it, and the money that the addict is payed certainly makes possible and encourages this satisfaction.)

Well, now you sound like your anarcho-commie critics: :lol:
"People must eat, therefore, are coerced into wage labour relationship with capitalist pig enterpreneurs."

(EDIT: Actually, I just thought of this, but could recieving payment for the treatment actually be a form of coercion? A person who has an addiction will be compelled to satisfy it, and the money that the addict is payed certainly makes possible and encourages this satisfaction.)

Well, now you sound like your anarcho-commie critics: :lol:
"People must eat, therefore, coerced into wage labour relationship with capitalist pig enterpreneurs."

I was planning for someone to say this, actually. :wink:

I won't so much deny that the need to eat, in and of itself, is a form of "coersion." What I will strongly deny is that this "coersion" is the fault of the "capitalist pig entrepeneurs."

Unlike addiction to a drug, I can walk away from a particular employer at any time I wish. The employer itself cannot force me against my will to labor for it, as to do so is slavery. Also, unlike the situation presented in this thread, the person being payed, the worker, provides a service, his labor, to the one paying. This is not coersion, it is a simple trade, and would continue in even an "anarcho"-communist society...unless an "anarcho"-communist is expected to grow all his own food, build his own house, perform his own surgery, etc.

If the fact that a human being must eat is "coersion," then the guilty party here is Mother Nature herself. It is not the fault of the supporters of Capitalism that my body requires sustinance. The elimination of Capitalism will not make it so I no longer have to eat, therefore, the compulsion to eat is not the fault of Capitalism. Capitalism, and the institutions contained therein, simply provide a manner in which this "coersion" can be handled, in which this sustinance can be provided.

In fact, this is the ultimate aim of all human social organization. Not the creation of natural coersion, but the defense against and the handling thereof. (EDIT: Although some types of organization handle this mission much better than others. :D )

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Good point, but I think it's more appropriate for a place like India or China; currently they're screwing themselves over with a gender imbalance.
India yes. But China? They have a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman. The same as France and Ireland.

Yes, but the way they're getting that; the one child policy, is ensuring many more males than females. scrapping the one child policy and paying peeps for the contraceptive shots would have the same effect on growth without the increased imbalance.

Well, considering the state of the "war on drugs" (and its very existance at all), please forgive me if I remain way more skeptical. :D

(EDIT: Actually, I just thought of this, but could recieving payment for the treatment actually be a form of coercion? A person who has an addiction will be compelled to satisfy it, and the money that the addict is payed certainly makes possible and encourages this satisfaction.)

You could make that argument, but it would be the anethema of the traditional libertarian views of atomized individuality. Besides, satisfaction of a preference is pretty difficult to cast as coercion under the best of times.

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Good point, but I think it's more appropriate for a place like India or China; currently they're screwing themselves over with a gender imbalance.
India yes. But China? They have a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman. The same as France and Ireland.

Yes, but the way they're getting that; the one child policy, is ensuring many more males than females. scrapping the one child policy and paying peeps for the contraceptive shots would have the same effect on growth without the increased imbalance.
And how is the one child policy ensuring they have more males then females?

Well, considering the state of the "war on drugs" (and its very existance at all), please forgive me if I remain way more skeptical. :D

(EDIT: Actually, I just thought of this, but could recieving payment for the treatment actually be a form of coercion? A person who has an addiction will be compelled to satisfy it, and the money that the addict is payed certainly makes possible and encourages this satisfaction.)

You could make that argument, but it would be the anethema of the traditional libertarian views of atomized individuality.


Not at all. When a person started taking drugs, that person made a free choice, as they were not addicted to begin with. This is perfectly libertarian. That the addiction itself can force a certain kind of behavior is not anti-libertarian anymore than the fact that a government can do the same. Libertarianism is simply the opposition of such coersion: a true libertarian would fight to end his addiction rather than accept subsidy by the state, just as he fights to end government control over his life.

If anything, the fact that drug addiction causes the loss of free will, to any degree, is an excellent libertarian anti-drug arguement. :D


Besides, satisfaction of a preference is pretty difficult to cast as coercion under the best of times.

Not when that preference is artificially created by a state which takes advantage of a person's addiction. :wink:

we should offer money to all women everywhere if they will get contraceptive shots like these, and tripple the pay for any women who already has children.

Hrm, why?

about half the children born in America each year are the product of an unplanned pregnancy. i say we cut that the hell out.

plus i think we should make every effort to encourage people to have smaller families, for the sake of the children they already have.

Good point, but I think it's more appropriate for a place like India or China; currently they're screwing themselves over with a gender imbalance.
India yes. But China? They have a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman. The same as France and Ireland.

Yes, but the way they're getting that; the one child policy, is ensuring many more males than females. scrapping the one child policy and paying peeps for the contraceptive shots would have the same effect on growth without the increased imbalance.
And how is the one child policy ensuring they have more males then females?

It's a cultural thing. On average, a male is wanted to carry on the name...so gender screening happens, or female babies tend to..vanish.

The one child policy is not necissarily the direct cause, but there is a very high positive correlation between the two factors.

China currently has the greatest gender imbalance in the world, currently ~1.3:1 (based on 2002 figures)

It's a cultural thing. On average, a male is wanted to carry on the name...so gender screening happens, or female babies tend to..vanish.

The one child policy is not necissarily the direct cause, but there is a very high positive correlation between the two factors.

China currently has the greatest gender imbalance in the world, currently ~1.3:1 (based on 2002 figures)
China also has the largests population in the world. They could do with a few hundred millions less.

It's a cultural thing. On average, a male is wanted to carry on the name...so gender screening happens, or female babies tend to..vanish.

The one child policy is not necissarily the direct cause, but there is a very high positive correlation between the two factors.

China currently has the greatest gender imbalance in the world, currently ~1.3:1 (based on 2002 figures)
China also has the largests population in the world. They could do with a few hundred millions less.

Agreed, but gender imbalance is a bad thing.