Posted on Nov 1, 2015
Horrors of one-child policy leave deep scars in Chinese society.
4.93K
15
30
4
4
0
Politics
China
Responses: 10
3
3
0
SrA Art Siatkowsky
I believe Sgt Kelli Mays may have started a similar discussion already. But I agree with the gist of it. Who the hell is a government to say how many children a couple can have?
I believe Sgt Kelli Mays may have started a similar discussion already. But I agree with the gist of it. Who the hell is a government to say how many children a couple can have?
(3)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
PO1 John Miller yep...I did start one....but my discussion was conveniently removed and made way for this one...and or another one similar. I remember when China first enacted this one child policy....In one way I could understand it. China is way over populated 100 fold...but in another way, I thought it was un fair.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Sgt Kelli Mays
Agreed. I understand the idea behind the one child policy but on the other hand I think that's way too much government involvement in a family's personal lives.
Agreed. I understand the idea behind the one child policy but on the other hand I think that's way too much government involvement in a family's personal lives.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
the part i couldnt get over was how the government thugs removed her by force and held her down to abort her child....absolutely barbaric.
How can anyone in this country possibly think communism is the way to go.
How can anyone in this country possibly think communism is the way to go.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SrA Art Siatkowsky thank goodness I am an American, the one-child policy sucks and its not humane in my opinion.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL - Sergeant; Using the 2013 figures, the average household size in the US is 3.12 people and the mean number of persons under the age of eighteen in each household is 0.91.
In short, the US could institute a "one child" policy and still have room for more children. [I wouldn't recommend the "Chinese solution" but it would work quite well if each person were issued a 0.5 child permit when born and they could do whatever they wanted with them - use them or sell them. Of course, there would have to be some mechanism for enforcement because you simply can't have people "breeding without a license" or running around "breeding without due care and attention" or "breeding too fast".
In short, the US could institute a "one child" policy and still have room for more children. [I wouldn't recommend the "Chinese solution" but it would work quite well if each person were issued a 0.5 child permit when born and they could do whatever they wanted with them - use them or sell them. Of course, there would have to be some mechanism for enforcement because you simply can't have people "breeding without a license" or running around "breeding without due care and attention" or "breeding too fast".
(1)
(0)
Horrors of one-child policy leave deep scars in Chinese society
His wife was seven months pregnant with their second child when the group of people barged into his home and took her away. He followed them to the local hospital, where - against medical advice and despite his pleadings - they jammed a needle into her belly.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Studying birth order I find there are benefits to a diverse society of first borns, middle children, last borns, and those who are an only-child. China is finding that out, to their regret.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
lol, they started to loosen it ... stupid communist ... lol Even their "not so communism" founding father warned about population control is equal to self elimination.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You have to give our government credit for creativity. Whereas the Chinese government controls its citizens by force, ours does it through guile. Our fearless leaders create crisis to imbue us with fear and stampede the herd in whatever direction them deem best. Global Climate Change is a classic example. However, both governments, in the end, desire the same thing: Control. We the People surrendered that long ago...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's a lot worse than just the one-child-per-family rule. In China, it has traditionally been far more honorable to have a son rather than a daughter, so if a family can only have one child, they usually want a son. Over time, that has really skewed the population.
Imagine, if you will, 100 million sexually frustrated army-age men.
Imagine, if you will, 100 million sexually frustrated army-age men.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SrA Art Siatkowsky Airman; The actual link follows.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-china-one-child-policy-20151031-story.html
At a rough count the number of aborted fetuses since the PRC instituted the policy is about the same as the population of the United States of America.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-china-one-child-policy-20151031-story.html
At a rough count the number of aborted fetuses since the PRC instituted the policy is about the same as the population of the United States of America.
Horrors of one-child policy leave deep scars in Chinese society
His wife was seven months pregnant with their second child when the group of people barged into his home and took her away. He followed them to the local hospital, where - against medical advice and despite his pleadings - they jammed a needle into her belly.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
But how many Americans where abducted by government thugs and ,while being held down ,had theirs babies forcefully aborted? Very huge distinction here.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; Different people have different problems and different solutions for them. Naturally no one would think of forcing anyone else to conform to their personal religious beliefs if the other person didn't happen to be a __[fill in the blank]__ - right?
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Agreed. But this Marxist method of controlling their population is OK by you? Apparently this is the style of government many of our Democrats think is best....along with eveyone who graduates from an American university with a liberal arts degree.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; Where did I ever say that it was OK by me? It isn't OK by me, but I don't live in China and don't face the same choices as the Chinese are facing.
I can see that restricting the birth rate is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if restricting the birth rate is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that eliminating the aged and/or non-productive is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if eliminating the aged and/or non-productive is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that having random lotteries with death as the "prize" is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if having random lotteries with death as the "prize" is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that conquering land held by another people and slaughtering them is ONE method of putting off how you are going to deal with controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if conquering land held by another people and slaughtering them is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I don't happen to feel OK with any of those, but I'm not faced with the problem.
As for this being "Marxist", Marx never gave it any thought at all and would most likely have been appalled by it. Of course Marx was from the Western Bourgeoisie and his weltgestalt was rather different than the Oriental one.
I'm not quite sure how you arrive at your "apparently this is the style of government many of our Democrats think is best" conclusion, but I suspect that there is more than a little bit of lack of knowledge that there are many more styles of "socialism" in the world today than that practiced in China.
I'll just toss in a comment that I read recently for you to ponder and leave it at that.
"Apparently the 'Pro-Life' people are only concerned about 'protecting' life when it is in the womb. Once there has been an actual birth, then they stop being concerned about it - until the person is dying in pain and then they want to prolong it as long as possible."
I can see that restricting the birth rate is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if restricting the birth rate is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that eliminating the aged and/or non-productive is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if eliminating the aged and/or non-productive is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that having random lotteries with death as the "prize" is ONE method of controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if having random lotteries with death as the "prize" is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I can also see that conquering land held by another people and slaughtering them is ONE method of putting off how you are going to deal with controlling a population growth that a country can't afford and if conquering land held by another people and slaughtering them is the method that is chosen then enforcing that method is a natural consequence.
I don't happen to feel OK with any of those, but I'm not faced with the problem.
As for this being "Marxist", Marx never gave it any thought at all and would most likely have been appalled by it. Of course Marx was from the Western Bourgeoisie and his weltgestalt was rather different than the Oriental one.
I'm not quite sure how you arrive at your "apparently this is the style of government many of our Democrats think is best" conclusion, but I suspect that there is more than a little bit of lack of knowledge that there are many more styles of "socialism" in the world today than that practiced in China.
I'll just toss in a comment that I read recently for you to ponder and leave it at that.
"Apparently the 'Pro-Life' people are only concerned about 'protecting' life when it is in the womb. Once there has been an actual birth, then they stop being concerned about it - until the person is dying in pain and then they want to prolong it as long as possible."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Actually it was a government did when faced with a massive over-population problem with insufficient resources to feed and educate that population. Now that China has the resources to support its population, the policy is being repealed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This article is as bad as the harvesting human organs from political prisoners article I posted a few weeks ago. That's the kind of government some liberals think is best?? ( I said 'some' so as not to get group thrashed by staunch liberals on this site )
Give me freedom or give me death cause the alternative is pretty dam messed up IMO.
Give me freedom or give me death cause the alternative is pretty dam messed up IMO.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’
Democratic Florida Rep. Joe Garcia -- fresh off being caught eating his own earwax on camera -- was caught red-handed (or is it yellow-fingered?) in another gaffe this week, claiming that low crime ra
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
LTC (Join to see) - in some cases you might be correct, Christians back the Republicans a lot of them back the Democrats. Abortion is and has been a very divided topic and to make your assertion that its needed is nonsense. It is murder, but the reason it is an enduring issue is because it is also a woman's body and if the federal government tried to tell me what to do with my body I'd tell them to go to hell too. Its divided along partisan lines but there are many republicans who back abortion and many democrats who don't. The issue with gay marriage is another enduring issue that is mostly due to Christian influence I would agree but there are many Democrats who disagree with gay marriage. I don't agree with it but I have no good argument against it so to me I can't endorse being against it.
I am more concerned with who is trying to defend the constitution and our basic human rights. Our freedoms. The democrats are in favor of a large intrusive government which in my opinion is trying to make people dependent upon it so it can continue to grow. If its difficult to get by that's a big plus for the democratic machine. The EPA is armed and out of control placing obscure turtle species over the rights of American farmers and attempting to regulate utilities to the point that everyone will need government assistance.
Political correctness is off the wall idiotic with this current administration and probably the reason Trump had such good poll numbers....the President supporting ridiculous movements that try to make people believe nonsensical ideas like cops are out to kill black people and common core is straight out of Orwell's 1984.
B.S. is running rampant with this current administration. Israel is the top abuser of women's rights??? While Iran stones women for their husbands infidelity? Iran will be the second terrorist nation to go nuclear due to democrats. The madness goes on and on...but underneath everything I have to ask what are the democrats motivations? If they are athiest, secular, as the liberal philosophy admits... What are their motivations? If people are simply randomly evolved apes...where do athiest philosophy's derive their notion of human rights? We have all seen the value athiestic philosophies have placed on human rights....Stalins Russia, Mao's China, what is different about these new democrat atheists that somehow makes them care about people. Nothing.
I am more concerned with who is trying to defend the constitution and our basic human rights. Our freedoms. The democrats are in favor of a large intrusive government which in my opinion is trying to make people dependent upon it so it can continue to grow. If its difficult to get by that's a big plus for the democratic machine. The EPA is armed and out of control placing obscure turtle species over the rights of American farmers and attempting to regulate utilities to the point that everyone will need government assistance.
Political correctness is off the wall idiotic with this current administration and probably the reason Trump had such good poll numbers....the President supporting ridiculous movements that try to make people believe nonsensical ideas like cops are out to kill black people and common core is straight out of Orwell's 1984.
B.S. is running rampant with this current administration. Israel is the top abuser of women's rights??? While Iran stones women for their husbands infidelity? Iran will be the second terrorist nation to go nuclear due to democrats. The madness goes on and on...but underneath everything I have to ask what are the democrats motivations? If they are athiest, secular, as the liberal philosophy admits... What are their motivations? If people are simply randomly evolved apes...where do athiest philosophy's derive their notion of human rights? We have all seen the value athiestic philosophies have placed on human rights....Stalins Russia, Mao's China, what is different about these new democrat atheists that somehow makes them care about people. Nothing.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SrA Art Siatkowsky - saying abortion is murder is an entirely religious view. Science says that an early term fetus (known as a zygote) is just a clump of cells with no sentience. It is religion that create the whole concept of a soul, not science or law.
So no, abortion is not "just murder" any more than swatting a mosquito is murder. Murder is the killing of a human being, and a zygote is not by any scientific definition a human being any more than a pebble is a mountain or a raindrop is an ocean.
Clearly your views expressed above come from the right wing, and are what we here constantly on Fox, which is anything but fair and balanced. MSNBC does the same thing for the left, making the extreme left think that the GOP wants to arm toddlers with automatic weapons.
Try watching, reading and listening to non right-wing sources and see what they have to say about the Iran deal (diplomacy better than bombs) and the other "issues" you raise. I don't see CNN, NPR or foreign sources like the BBC blasting the Iran treaty, as just one example.
I am a lot more afraid of the damage the religious right and the Tea Party crazies are doing to our secular republic than what the extreme left is doing. Extremism is an intolerable condition on either wing, but there is a lot more of it n the right these days, and it is better organized and more destructive for it.
So no, abortion is not "just murder" any more than swatting a mosquito is murder. Murder is the killing of a human being, and a zygote is not by any scientific definition a human being any more than a pebble is a mountain or a raindrop is an ocean.
Clearly your views expressed above come from the right wing, and are what we here constantly on Fox, which is anything but fair and balanced. MSNBC does the same thing for the left, making the extreme left think that the GOP wants to arm toddlers with automatic weapons.
Try watching, reading and listening to non right-wing sources and see what they have to say about the Iran deal (diplomacy better than bombs) and the other "issues" you raise. I don't see CNN, NPR or foreign sources like the BBC blasting the Iran treaty, as just one example.
I am a lot more afraid of the damage the religious right and the Tea Party crazies are doing to our secular republic than what the extreme left is doing. Extremism is an intolerable condition on either wing, but there is a lot more of it n the right these days, and it is better organized and more destructive for it.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
By the definition of science people are nothing more than a more developed zygote...a randomly evolved ape. By the same logic you use to say it is OK to kill a zygote it follows that it is OK to kill a more developed zygote...a fully developed human. This is exactly my point with the atheistic philosophy...humans have no soul according to athiest and are nothing but the end result of a comp!etely blind amoral evolutionary process...so tell me why do you think it is not OK to kill a fully developed human? In the atheistic philosophy they are nothing more than a big zygote. This is the same reasoning that Lenin and Mao and Stalin used when exterminating 100 million people....what difference does it make?
( who else said that? )
( who else said that? )
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google