Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy [View all]FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)37. I see no benefit in spiting out children so they can die in the streets
"Western country like ours" with unattended children joining gangs and taking to the streets dealing drugs and committing murder or engaging in childhood prostitution - Oh yes we are so much better then those "Evolving Societies".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
217 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy [View all]
FreakinDJ
May 2012
OP
Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do
FreakinDJ
May 2012
#4
What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt
ZombieHorde
May 2012
#140
I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#2
I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#7
I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death
FreakinDJ
May 2012
#11
Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#99
Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#143
Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#149
I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29.
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#158
I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want.
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#166
Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#177
Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life.
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#217
there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich
MH1
May 2012
#38
Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t
hughee99
May 2012
#27
You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t
Logical
May 2012
#29
Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t
cynatnite
May 2012
#44
I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights
4th law of robotics
May 2012
#127
If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival.
Zalatix
May 2012
#169
I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#67
Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up.
NYC_SKP
May 2012
#14
Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society?
hack89
May 2012
#183
"...children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for (social security)..."
NYC_SKP
May 2012
#207
by the way, if someone becomes disabled, did they fully fund their SS and Medicare?
CreekDog
May 2012
#209
Why is it economically responsible? Because we insist people retire at a young age?
MH1
May 2012
#41
If you could separate the policy from it's implementation, it still involves more than live births
HereSince1628
May 2012
#30
The Governement has no business telling people what they should do with their bodies,
hughee99
May 2012
#32
Really? Do you actually think that the US can independently sustain its population?
MH1
May 2012
#73
Personally, I find China's policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations horrific...
cynatnite
May 2012
#43
Thank you for that, Zalatix. I still have much to learn. I'm not an old wife, but
Mnemosyne
May 2012
#173
The way to do it is to increase the education, rights, and economic well-being of women worldwide,
drm604
May 2012
#74
Your assuming Gender Selection would be legal or condoned under such drastic measures
FreakinDJ
May 2012
#191
Even China cannot control gendercide against girls, what makes you think you can?
Zalatix
May 2012
#192
Of course our top military and government men would be automatically exempt from the policy
slackmaster
May 2012
#196
Yes, yes, yes -- But does every single wild species of animal have to die first?
aint_no_life_nowhere
May 2012
#89
Education, opportunity and access to birth control for women are what brings down birth rates.
Marrah_G
May 2012
#102
I can't believe I see support for such an Authoritarian, misogynistic policy like forced abortion
chrisa
May 2012
#148
I don't see a need for a policy, just distribute birth control and teach people how to use it
Hippo_Tron
May 2012
#151
Places with famine and starvation rarely have education or opportunity for women
Marrah_G
May 2012
#195
Families deciding to limit themselves to 1-2 children would be socially responsible policy
slackmaster
May 2012
#197
Social responsibility? How about a country that has something like 5% of the world's population and
raccoon
May 2012
#199
Of course, actual achievement of your vision would ultimately require these enforcement mechanisms
apocalypsehow
May 2012
#204