Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Biden "Fully Undersands" China's One Child Policy
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
PICK3
New member
there is no mechanism for getting rid of a vice president who can’t function
Cheney: My book will have ?heads exploding? in D.C. - books - TODAY.com
Cheney: My book will have ?heads exploding? in D.C. - books - TODAY.com
How do figure it's immoral? It might quite be possibly moral considering they can barely feed all their people now.
IMO any govt attempt to control how many children you may or may not have is immoral. It is worse than govt trying to control your ability to not have children. You can't exactly hide children from the state.
DaBangEm
New member
Me an Cindy agree! That and it looks like TruBlood as well.
It's ridiculous in the whole frame. If you have one child and it sustains one person. Then having another sustains another and so on. The whole preponderance is absurd. Unless it's a nation full of rehtards.
Does that create dissidence? I don't understand how it's immoral to prevent people from living a lifetime of misery??? People in the US don't want to hide children from the state because they get a free ride.Ya know?
IDK? In my head forced anything is immoral especially less forced loss and sterilizations..adoptions..whatever. In a situation where abortion and birth control are available parents are free to consider the opportunity cost of bringing a child into the world. People who can't feed their children typically don't need the government to prevent them from having kids especially if there is no free ride.
You are right fettered politics always constitutes dissidence. Love the economic term, and the political overtone, and the moral order regarding natural rights.
Emmeline Pankhurst, Mother Theresa, and Alexsander Hamilton all in one.
You are right, you're smarter than me...
nimbus
New member
how is a one-child limit more "forced" than other laws? taking care of your kids is "forced" also (except in maryland
), and so is jury duty and pet vaccinationshow is a one-child limit more "forced" than other laws? taking care of your kids is "forced" also (except in maryland
This seems like a "Why is a raven different from a writing desk?" question. One is a tyrannical government violating human rights and the other is just jury duty/pet vaccinations...I'm not going to sit here and say "My god! Population control is JUST LIKE jury duty and pet vaccination laws so I need to be okay with both" lol
When I used the word forced, of course I make exceptions to that
... most people don't live without making some exceptions (except maybe the most extreme libertarian lol) though I don't think anyone needs to be forced by the government to get pet vaccinations either...idk in my head reproduction is a human right. Forced abortions, sterilizations, and that type of invasion of privacy is unethical. In an ideal world such a government shouldn't even be allowed to exist. Those thoughts tend to diminish the value of children and humans in general. This is why we see people caring more about trees, rocks, air and water than people. 
I don't see how he could "fully understand and not second-guess" that.
Last edited:
pfft, so? The whole world needs this policy. I think that and i'm the third born in my family. It's not a matter of if, but WHEN the population gets too big for our food and natural supplies.
Will I/we see overpopulation, most likely not. But who wants their offspring to grow up in a world where there isn't enough food, space, natural resources to sustain life?
On a side note, I agree it shouldn't be forced by the government. But if the public voted for it, then let it be. Even if it wasn't to take effect for 100+ years. Who knows, a huge meteor could hit Earth before then and wipe out most of the midwest. The whole food shortage problem would be today and we would be screwed.
Whiskey
Will I/we see overpopulation, most likely not. But who wants their offspring to grow up in a world where there isn't enough food, space, natural resources to sustain life?
On a side note, I agree it shouldn't be forced by the government. But if the public voted for it, then let it be. Even if it wasn't to take effect for 100+ years. Who knows, a huge meteor could hit Earth before then and wipe out most of the midwest. The whole food shortage problem would be today and we would be screwed.
Whiskey
How much compassion did you have when you typed that? Maybe it is because I am a woman. Even so, as more countries become developed the less children they have. The human race has never been so well off. The world's food baskets are full, poverty is why people still go hungry. Governmental population control is economically harmful actually, so it does not help hunger at all. There is plenty of space. Overall, I believe in people's right to not have someone above them make such a decision for them. The older I get the more I think it's best I just stick with my one kid. Not because I need someone to force me, but because I don't think time or technology is going to fix what is broken inside of people.
Plenty of space? Where, in the dessert? Or upwards in a skyscraper? Perhaps built on a junk pile like Manhatten, or whichever NY city it is. Every year in America alone we lose millions of acres due to home, businesses, and highways being built. And a lot of that is farmland. The farmlands of the world are shrinking each day while the population keeps going up. It's just a matter of time.
......Gawd, I sould like a hippie
And how can gov pop control be economically hurtful when there are still people that are hungry and jobless? For instance, take away 100million people spread across the earth. There would be no reason for anyone to be jobless unless due to injury or illness. OR, what if those 100M souls were the homeless, there would be no more spending on feeding them or for health care. Taxes and costs of most items would go down. Economically helpfull.
Whiskey
......Gawd, I sould like a hippie
And how can gov pop control be economically hurtful when there are still people that are hungry and jobless? For instance, take away 100million people spread across the earth. There would be no reason for anyone to be jobless unless due to injury or illness. OR, what if those 100M souls were the homeless, there would be no more spending on feeding them or for health care. Taxes and costs of most items would go down. Economically helpfull.
Whiskey
mrplunkey
New member
So let's rid ourselves of a few billion people. Who has to go first?
PICK3
New member
bottoms
mrplunkey
New member
^^^ Fred Phelps approved post.
In developing countries more people raises output and as a country becomes developed people have less children. Wealth isn't fixed. Those people are not jobless because of overpopulation...in an unregulated market anyone can open a business and create a job. Either way, I wasn't saying that there wasn't some level where population can't be above what is optimal... but that population control by the government is always economically harmful which does not help poverty which is why people go hungry. Go back up a few posts and read the family senario. Apply that to a bunch of families. Wow. I must be bored. lol
Who gets to determine who gets to exist? How do you get rid of certain parts of the population? You can not do it morally or ethically. You can't do it. What about education? What about technology? The earth has plenty of room and resources well into the future. We can't entertain these type of thoughts. We can't start allowing people to control us out of fear.
mrplunkey
New member
I say anyone who argues in favor of population control should be first in line.
I can't help but think I've heard about this population control concept at least a few times before.
lol, i've been on here for about 10 years now and yes, every so often it tends to pop up. I wouldn't doubt that for every 15-20 religous posts, there is probably one mentioning pop control
Whiskey
mrplunkey
New member
Some little German guy already tried the idea about 60+ years ago.
I thought you said you wanted two more kids. That reminds me is it your turn to fly to Pittsburgh this weekend or my turn to fly to KC? I lost track..
what? lol
no..I don't want two more kids
Yeah, that's right you said 3, that's too many...
PICK3
New member
Uncle Sugar has that covered!
- Housing Grant
- Education Grant
- Utility Grant
- Automobile Grant
Of course there's a catch:
Most grants will require that you are a U.S. citizen whose child is not currently enrolled in the foster care system
Read more: Grants for Single Parents With a Baby | eHow.com Grants for Single Parents With a Baby | eHow.com
Are you trying to imply that "understand" means "approve"?
We could house all of humanity within the state of Texas. Population density would be no worse than Tokyo.
nimbus
New member
This seems like a "Why is a raven different from a writing desk?" question. One is a tyrannical government violating human rights and the other is just jury duty/pet vaccinations...I'm not going to sit here and say "My god! Population control is JUST LIKE jury duty and pet vaccination laws so I need to be okay with both" lol
When I used the word forced, of course I make exceptions to that
You can call the question whatever you want, but I'm happy that it made you think a little harder than "because it's forced" and give a more genuine account of your feeling on the matter.
javaguru
Banned
Have you been to Texas...putting the population of the world in Texas would be the best way of controlling population...most would be dead in three to five days.
P.S. They have no water.
11 baby daddies?
mrplunkey
New member
So you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got a another man driving around in his car and fucking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand.
-- Chris Rock
lol @ most
It's all so hypocritical, if people in China have such an issue with having an abortion that why are sad shameful sex -selective abortions performed? it's not ok for the government to make me have an abortion, but it's ok for me to have an abortion if I'm carrying a girl instead of a boy? China Vows Crackdown On Sex-Selective Abortions
The one child policy has actually helped a lot of women in that country to do something with themselves other than pop out kids and make dinner, they have blooming architects, bilingual professionals, musicians, doctors, artists, etc
One-child policy a surprising boon for China girls - Yahoo! News
I'm not saying it's right... because it does suck, however it's what their population needs, control, if you have a 2' x 2' room full of hamsters and they kept breeding and breeding over and over again they will all be in danger, just because it sucks doesnt mean it doesnt make sense... I wouldnt second guess it either...
The one child policy has actually helped a lot of women in that country to do something with themselves other than pop out kids and make dinner, they have blooming architects, bilingual professionals, musicians, doctors, artists, etc
One-child policy a surprising boon for China girls - Yahoo! News
I'm not saying it's right... because it does suck, however it's what their population needs, control, if you have a 2' x 2' room full of hamsters and they kept breeding and breeding over and over again they will all be in danger, just because it sucks doesnt mean it doesnt make sense... I wouldnt second guess it either...
mrplunkey
New member
There was a brief window back in the early 2000's where China owned more of the super high-end GE 4D ultrasound units than the US did. That machine served a few clinical niches, but was primarily designed to force obstetricians to purchase the unit so parents to-be could see high-resolution, 3D, moving pictures of their babies (remember the GE ad set to the music "The First Time I Saw Your Face"?).
Turns out, the Chinese jumped all over these units and began using them to open dedicated-purpose gender determination / abortion clinics. It rained hell on us for a solid three months until we could get the dealers cut-off. I'm sure they just repurchased the machines through other channels, but at least it took us out of the line of fire.
But we are not talking about abortion being immoral
No, it's not okay for the government to make you have an abortion, but yes, it is okay for you to have an abortion for whatever reason you please...imho. You really honestly wouldn't second guess it? Honestly?
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
That doesn't mean shit in a communist state ( really: socialist/capitalist/totalitarian). If they tell you only have one kid, that's what you do.
lol! Yes, poor, starving people in African countries prove this over and over every day. They know better than to spawn off multitudes of children they can't feed!
mrplunkey
New member
A Chinese friend of mine (M.D. who is well to do) almost fell out of his chair the first time I told him I had three sons. He has a daughter, but really wants a son. He's going to have the kid in Hong Kong, then bring them back into the country. His wife has a very nice government job and would lose it instantly if she got caught.
i laughed out loud
Similar threads
