Well, I honestly don't know my stand on the one-child rule. I do, however know what they do to women who get pregnant again, and I think it is barbaric. If the government finds out a women is pregnant w/ her 2nd child or more, they kidnap her, force an abortion, and sterilization (not tubal ligation, but complete hysterectomy).
"China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China's population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies."
Since 1979, and still overpopulated? Sounds like they need another "cure" for their overpopulation to me.
2006-07-07 11:03:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Personally, I think that China's attempt to decrease it population by restricting the number of children a couple has is a noble idea - in theory. However, I do not agree with the methods that China's government takes when enforcing this law. I have read a large number of printed materials - newspaper articles, essays, and books - that describe these methods in detail. And, they are inhumane. Instead of taking one year old children into rice fields and drowning them, they should be placed in orphanages and/or given to families without children (the world over) to raise.
I know that Chinese government believes that it is doing what is right for its people, but there are other methods and ways by which they can enforce this law.
2006-07-21 13:03:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by moonguardianluna 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Chinese goverment has never given a craap what the rest of the world thinks. Sometimes this is a bad thing, sometimes, like in this instance, I say it can be a good thing. I'm not for this, but I'm not against this either.
People who are against it most like just aren't very educated about the whole issue of rapid population growth and its effects on the world.
Without getting into too much detail because I don't have my sources here to quote directly, I will say that overpopulation plays a hand in war, famine, sickness, and even natural disasters. We are at the brink of a population explosion, and China is just one of the nations that is audacious enough to recognize it and do something about it, though admittedly probably not for the global good but for their own economic salvation, but regardless... it is necessary to have some sort of population control unless you want the whole world to end up in one big blistering fireball. Fun!
2006-07-07 10:53:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by ohpeatmoss 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe that the government should have that kind of control over people, but at the same time their country is way overpopulated. It becomes a matter of personal responsibility at that point. Data suggests that worldwide the population is too high. How do you fix that? Have fewer children. We as Americans don't take our responsibilities as global citizens seriously enough. We pollute when we don't need to, we don't recycle as much as we could, we don't do things to make the country or the WORLD a better place, and we are starting to see the effects played out in the loss of resources, the rise in pollution, and the rise in global poverty. Everyone, not only Americans, have a responsibility to control overpopulation, but it is not the government's job to do it. It is our job.
2006-07-17 02:58:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chuck 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are many Americans who candidly express a belief that childbearing should be regulated. Some express enthusiasm for a licensing process. After all, firearms are registered and you have to have a license to carry one in public. Drivers of automobiles are licensed. This, they reason, sets a precedent for licensing couples or individuals before they have a child. Children are an expensive responsibility that should not be entered into lightly or for frivolous reasons. Having a child is a permanent and often difficult decision.
But those who seek to adopt a child are put through a rigorous screening process to verify their suitability for parenting. Even foster parents are often screened, their backgrounds checked, their finances examined, etc. And they petition for mere temporary custodial rights over a child (usually of a family member of close associate who is unfit to raise the child). So licensing of potential parents does have a precedent in law and a practical application, especially in impoverished communities and particularly in the case of unwed teenagers.
2006-07-07 11:01:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by coolbreeze44105 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In due process this will destroy the Chinese people if it continues ..They are killing girl babies unlike when the Eygptians where the male first born were killed// Which will stop the reproduction of any children at all when the women are no longer able to bear children// I think no only is it stupid and will eventually destroy their country but its also MURDER anyway you look at it/// They are aborting in 8th and 9 months even though i believe its a human at the momement of conception and if its not a human you tell me what it is// Sadly millions in this country are aborted makes me wonder how many of them would have been a asset to us and the world/// We are worse than animals so that makes me know for sure we didn't come from monkeys that would be an insult to them///"The truth will set you free but 1st it will make you miserable"I hope that everyone who reads this will discourage abortion///
2006-07-07 11:08:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
China is just a messed up over crowded place. To some it may be right others wrong. I dont think any government should be allowed to tell any couple of any race how many children they are allowed to have.
2006-07-21 11:39:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
certain, that is authentic. that is completely verifiable in case you carry out slightly note search for interior the internet. i'm sorry i visit't do it for you at present. My classmate interior the college, a woman from a suburb of Shanghai, China, advised us in school that the coverage continues to be in pressure, and maximum stringently finished interior the cities and tremendous cities. for decades, the only-baby coverage become in simple terms as strictly utilized in rural aspects, even if agriculture has a tendency to be exertions-in intensity and inspite of the decrease inhabitants densities in those aspects. lacking moms, suspected of being pregnant, were hunted down, and if got here upon pregnant, compelled to have an abortion. as a effect, the inhabitants enhance price in line with year in China has dramatically plunged to slightly more advantageous than a million%. extra, the authorities has had to grapple with the sociological phenomenon of the "little emperors" interior the relations. imagine a baby, the purely one in all his or her father and mom, who would also be the lone grandchild of grandparents of both facet. that kid is at probability of be spoiled thoroughly, and develops personality issues. even if, there are projections that till China reverses the coverage, it would see its inhabitants decline markedly in 50 years. Social welfare and an getting old inhabitants will be issues too interior the forseeable destiny. that is what you get even as authorities interferes coercively interior the decision of couples what percentage little ones they need to have. How do you want that on your own united states?
2016-10-14 05:38:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's pretty damn disciminatory and inhumane, but in China I guess it's alright. It does help keep the world population down. Now if we can just get the Mexicans to impose such a law ...
2006-07-19 11:10:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Samba Queen 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Im in australia n what is going on over there doesnt really worry me if the ppl of china where really worried bout it they would move or find a way around it
2006-07-19 21:45:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋