NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think, was the one child policy in china a good way to control the population explosion that would have occured if the maturing 1970's baby boom generation had been allowed to have many children?
Or, do you think it was a horrible breach of human rights thats causing an entire generation of spoilt brats, and encourages dangerous practices such as abortions at up to 7 months?

If it was the result of a policy determined by a Communist government in a Communist state, how could it possibly be wrong?

Are you questioning the Party? Having irresponsible pregnancies without the authorization of the Party is bourgeois thinking!

I say it had to be done

edit: and how is abortion at 7 months dangerous?

It not a breach of human rights, its population control. It would be much worse to have more children than the land could support.

It not a breach of human rights, its population control. It would be much worse to have more children than the land could support.

So I would be justified in cutting out your reproductive organs if a law was passed authorizing that?

Fewer children == better.

How'sabout a 0 child policy? You could get all your new humans through immigration, and not let anyone under, say, 18 into the country? That way some other bugger's paid to have them fed, watered and educated until they're actually useful for something, and you get the benefit of it :)
You also don't have to put up with children in the supermarket or anything!

it was an egregious violation of human rights that needed to be done.

As horrible as China's one child policy is, it really does seem to be the lesser of two evils. The effects of a population explosion in China would have a huge financial, human and environmental cost, which would have had a terrible effect for the entire Chinese population - the government has a difficult time as it is feeding the population without it out of control.

I say it had to be done

edit: and how is abortion at 7 months dangerous?

No idea, its just what my geography teacher said.

Wow, this is odd. Usually when you bring up the one child policy there are a load of people who say how horrid and evil it was cause abortion is evil, and god wanted them to have children, and it is peoples right to have lots of babies etc.

Restricting the number of children a family could have was vital for China.....would you rather that China had an extra 500 million people living in poverty due to unrestricted birth rates?

So I would be justified in cutting out your reproductive organs if a law was passed authorizing that?

no if such a law was passed in China he would get a hefty fine for having a Wang

The alternatives, for population control, would be to go to war or let the populace starve. I think the one child policy is much better.

They're not saying no kids just one kid. Human expansion is out of control right now.

I think a better alternative would be to let people have as many children as they like, and for any that reach the age of 18, the state lets one live, and turns the rest into soylent green.

I think a better alternative would be to let people have as many children as they like, and for any that reach the age of 18, the state lets one live, and turns the rest into soylent green.

:eek:

No idea, its just what my geography teacher said.

ah from experience I can say all Geography teachers are mad

But does no-one think that there was a better way to do it, like educationg people about contraception and family planning?
Any many people in china chose to kill there one child if it was female to give them another chance at a male child.

a bit extreme but Okay.

ah from experience I can say all Geography teachers are mad

I agree completely.

I think a better alternative would be to let people have as many children as they like, and for any that reach the age of 18, the state lets one live, and turns the rest into soylent green.

I support cannibalism myself :) (though lets not waste money educating cattle)

Or, do you think it was a horrible breach of human rights...

Humans don't really have rights. They have privaleges given to them by God which He requires them to respect in their treatment of one another.

But I agree that they are a breach of those privelages.

...thats causing an entire generation of spoilt brats...

Yes.

...and encourages dangerous practices such as abortions at up to 7 months?

Yes.

I support cannibalism myself :) (though lets not waste money educating cattle)

Brains are a specialty of mine...

But does no-one think that there was a better way to do it, like educationg people about contraception and family planning?
Any many people in china chose to kill there one child if it was female to give them another chance at a male child.

Having lots of children was family planning. There was no such thing as retirement pensions and social security back then. The elderly depended on their children for support once they were past the working age. Therefore, many people chose to have lots of children to increase the chances that some of them would survive and make enough money to support them. Also, farmers have lots of children so they can help out with the work. My dad grew up in the countryside of southeast China and this was the case for his family.

Brains are a specialty of mine...

isn't that a suspected cause of mad cow disease...

Having lots of children was family planning. There was no such thing as retirement pensions and social security back then. The elderly depended on their children for support once they were past the working age. Therefore, many people chose to have lots of children to increase the chances that some of them would survive and make enough money to support them. Also, farmers have lots of children so they can help out with the work. My dad grew up in the countryside of southeast China and this was the case for his family.

I suppose with a population of 1.7 billion, putting in pensions isnt really feasable is it? I see your point.

Hey, one day when you get into a group of people who all think its a complete atrocity, just suggest canibalism in a very serious voice. It was helariuous!! They all took me seriously and thought i was evil and perverted! ROFL

isn't that a suspected cause of mad cow disease...

Cow and sheep brains, and deer brains.

I'm talking about pork brains...

As a policy it certainly saved Santa a lot of time.

But does no-one think that there was a better way to do it, like educationg people about contraception and family planning?
Any many people in china chose to kill there one child if it was female to give them another chance at a male child.

that can be done NOW.

the communist party had to break the power of tradition before people would be willing to consider limiting their families to one child. with the rise in prosperity, education and health care people can more safely trust that their one child will live to be an adult. with years of aggressive education the value of female children has risen.

Hey, one day when you get into a group of people who all think its a complete atrocity, just suggest canibalism in a very serious voice. It was helariuous!! They all took me seriously and thought i was evil and perverted! ROFL
Wait, you're not?

Pffft! BOOO-RIIING!

that can be done NOW.

the communist party had to break the power of tradition before people would be willing to consider limiting their families to one child. with the rise in prosperity, education and health care people can more safely trust that their one child will live to be an adult. with years of aggressive education the value of female children has risen.

Yes, it is being done right now. In fact, educated city folk tend not to want to have many children and tend to have children later. Parents are now thinking ahead about how much money they will need to set aside to send their children to school and how much less freedom they will have. With most employers providing retirement plans, children are now more of a burden than anything else.

The one child policy is a horrible option. Clearly the answer to overpopulation is Battle Royale international style.

What do you think, was the one child policy in china a good way to control the population explosion that would have occured if the maturing 1970's baby boom generation had been allowed to have many children?
Or, do you think it was a horrible breach of human rights thats causing an entire generation of spoilt brats, and encourages dangerous practices such as abortions at up to 7 months?

it was harsh but necessary...the Chinese did a population projection that showed if they continued reproducing at the same rate, that they would be faced with mass starvation of 10's of millions by mid century......the Chinese have a lots of faults but they at least realize the planet cannot support a infinite population...6.5 billion we have now is straining the planets resources to the point of collapse-9 billion projected for the end of the century.....

As I said in a previous thread. The one child policy only applies in urban areas to prevent over crowding.

I think the Shanghai conurbation is now home to 18 million people in a miniscule area of 6,340.5 square kilometres. Shanghai has a higher population density that NYC. Now consider that between 1950 and 1975 the population Shanghai more than doubled. from 5 million to 11 million. Can you imagine having to be a city planner for Shanghai? The amount of houses and infrastructure that would need to be developed each year. It's just a phenominal task. Just think about it -

gas infrastructure, water infrastructure and production, electricity infrastructure and production, the road network, public transport, schools, hospitals, waste collection and disposal, libraries, universities and colleges, police services, fire services, cemetaries and crematoriams, parks and leisure facilities, the industry and commerical services which need to have planning permission approved and finally the houses themselves, AND plus the planning of how to make the most effeicent use of resources and services.

City growth HAD to slow down otherwise the urban areas would collapse due to lack of services and gridlock.

Even though Shanghai has faced population decline for the past 8 years it still faces a huge housing crisis. There just aren't enough homes.

If you look at the context you can see why the one child policy was introduced. It was by far the most humane thing to do in the long run.

source for population growth stats (page 7) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2001/WUP2001_CH6.pdf

The idea of strongly encouraging only one child is fine, but in practice the atrocities and removal of rights of women to their bodies is sickening

The idea of strongly encouraging only one child is fine, but in practice the atrocities and removal of rights of women to their bodies is sickening

How about we force people to be homosexuals?

How about we force people to be homosexuals?

You cant force strait people to be homosexual any more then you can force homosexuals to be strait

You cant force strait people to be homosexual any more then you can force homosexuals to be strait

Now, now, you and I know that. But governments are never concerned with the truth - only with policies and outcomes.

I'm sure a lot of people would try very hard to comply if you shot a few of them.

Isn't that the method of execution in China (and they execute quite a few people).

one of the reasons why i regard china as an evil place. the anti-ireland.

Now, now, you and I know that. But governments are never concerned with the truth - only with policies and outcomes.

I'm sure a lot of people would try very hard to comply if you shot a few of them.

Isn't that the method of execution in China (and they execute quite a few people).

True some idiotic legislation has been put in place throughout the years

Abortion should be permitted up through the 57th trimester or when the fetus or ex-fetus is working at least 40 hours/week.

Life begins at employment

You cant force strait people to be homosexual any more then you can force homosexuals to be strait

You obviously haven't been reading your homosexual agenda.

As I said in a previous thread. The one child policy only applies in urban areas to prevent over crowding.

I think the Shanghai conurbation is now home to 18 million people in a miniscule area of 6,340.5 square kilometres. Shanghai has a higher population density that NYC. Now consider that between 1950 and 1975 the population Shanghai more than doubled. from 5 million to 11 million. Can you imagine having to be a city planner for Shanghai? The amount of houses and infrastructure that would need to be developed each year. It's just a phenominal task. Just think about it -

gas infrastructure, water infrastructure and production, electricity infrastructure and production, the road network, public transport, schools, hospitals, waste collection and disposal, libraries, universities and colleges, police services, fire services, cemetaries and crematoriams, parks and leisure facilities, the industry and commerical services which need to have planning permission approved and finally the houses themselves, AND plus the planning of how to make the most effeicent use of resources and services.

City growth HAD to slow down otherwise the urban areas would collapse due to lack of services and gridlock.

Even though Shanghai has faced population decline for the past 8 years it still faces a huge housing crisis. There just aren't enough homes.

If you look at the context you can see why the one child policy was introduced. It was by far the most humane thing to do in the long run.

source for population growth stats (page 7) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2001/WUP2001_CH6.pdf

Of course your view is based on the premise that people are born and grow up helpless and must have a "city planner" work out their food, shelter and employment needs.

There are individuals who would move or maybe even come up with innovative solutions on their own rather than sit in one place and starve to death waiting for a bureaucrat to come save them.

I know in the minds of the left the people I speak of are mythical creatures, but they really do exist.

Of course your view is based on the premise that people are born and grow up helpless and must have a "city planner" work out their food, shelter and employment needs.

There are individuals who would move or maybe even come up with innovative solutions on their own rather than sit in one place and starve to death waiting for a bureaucrat to come save them.

I know in the minds of the left the people I speak of are mythical creatures, but they really do exist.Actually I didn't. I trying to just include the what is normally administered by western liberal governments. At least in the UK all the items I listed are either directly administered by government or must receive planning permission. I doubt you'll find a major city in the world that doesn't rely on city planners.

... Life begins at employment? Now that just sound trollish.

edit: and how is abortion at 7 months dangerous?

Late term abortion is quite a bit more dangerous than early term abortion. Certain procedures are just as, if not more, dangerous than natural childbirth - especially in a country without great healthcare.

Although, to be fair, my biggest issue with the abortions in China are how often they were (and still are, at least in rural areas) forcing abortions. It would be one thing if China had said, "You can only have one child if you want certain government aid. Anything beyond that and you're cut off." It is quite another to force abortions on women, arresting them or their husbands if they spoke out about it.

No government has any right to tell a person how many children they can or cannot have. If China wanted to limit the population, they should have instituted incentives for limiting reproduction, not laws, punishments, and forced abortions.

Its a tough one... But I think the Chinese could have coped without the policy by opening up their borders completely and (perish the thought) conducted alot of trade with the Capitalist Countries. They also would have needed to have made massive reforms in their government.

But they were never going to do that.

The Chinese government decided what rights their people had. They reacted to the problem with which they were faced in the manner they ultimately thought was best. Although it may have been distasteful in some ways, the problem was countered by their measures and the country has prospered, although to what extent the population control was responsible is questionable.

I'm something of a Sinophile, and I have friends who live in the PRC. So I'd

The one-child policy isn't really that effective since it doesn't allow for the termination of unwanted tissues post-partum.

In the countryside, its a small matter of a bribe for an extra child to be given a birth certificate.

In the bigger cities, if a pregnant woman could hide and deliver for 6 months she'll make it.

If they don't control their overpopulation, you bitch "Oh noes Da Chinks R Swarm'in Us".

If they do, you bitch "Oh noes, Godless Commie baby killas!"

i have an answer to thier overpopulation problem, promote extreme sports.

What do you think, was the one child policy in china a good way to control the population explosion that would have occured if the maturing 1970's baby boom generation had been allowed to have many children?
If by 'good' you mean effective, then I expect it has resulted in a smaller current population than would have been the case without the law.

Or, do you think it was a horrible breach of human rights
Yes.

thats causing an entire generation of spoilt brats,
A probable factor (as opposed to a sole cause).

and encourages dangerous practices such as abortions at up to 7 months?
I suspect as much.

It's very clear that something had to be done. However, there are problems not noted in the OP.

Significantly, Chinese culture preferences boys. Girls have been disporportionately aborted and abandoned and/or otherwise 'done away with'. Of course this is undesirable on humanitarian grounds, but putting such concerns aside, it's also likely to be a big social problem.

The usual balance between the genders very marginally favours males in finding a mate (there are usually slightly more females than males). This usual scenario has been reversed by a collision between the one child policy and Chinese cultural preference for male off-spring. Social research strongly indicates that 'investing' in a family makes a male a more amenable and productive member of society. They are less likely to cause trouble and more likely to contribute to the economy and to the community. The lack of potential wives doesnt bode well for social stability in China.

Another concern is that the policy doesnt remove older people, it merely prevents younger people. But older people become less productive in their latter years. Most societies support their elderly through the productivity of their younger members (this can occur through families taking care of their elderly kin in the home for instance, or through the provision of income and services provided from redistributed resources -aka taxes). However, such arrangments rely on the ratio of young (and productive) to elderly being skewed towards the young and productive, so that a young person contributes to a fraction of the care of an elderly person (rather than contributing the entire cost of one or more elderly persons). The results of the change in this ratio could be very socially disruptive as well.

Either of these two problems could be very disruptive for China, both together - only time will tell.

So there certainly are problems, humanitarian and social and economic to the one child policy, but we can fairly safely conclude that there would have been humanitarian, social and economic problems without it. It's a truly awful policy designed to address a truly awful problem. I have strong feelings against it, but I cant say with certainty that I'd have had less strong feelings against the result of not having enacted it.:(

I will fight to the death for my reproductive rights, if I can support them I should be allowed to pop out as many kids as I want.

Although I am probably biased being in a family with my uncle with 17 kids, and the fact that I am the only one of my friends with less than 5 kids. (most of them hovering between 5 and 9)

I'm going to shut myself off from emotions so kids aren't really an option.

What do you think, was the one child policy in china a good way to control the population explosion that would have occured if the maturing 1970's baby boom generation had been allowed to have many children?
Or, do you think it was a horrible breach of human rights thats causing an entire generation of spoilt brats, and encourages dangerous practices such as abortions at up to 7 months?

It was great. We need more governments to recognize what the roots of all of our problems are and deal with it.