reply to post by Maslo
I consider the right of children to grow up in good conditions much more important than pleasing their parents with their presence.
So, in order to ensure the happiness of the unborn
children of a privileged few – children who do not yet exist – you would deprive
already-living people of a basic human right?
Children are not pets, and your emotional BS is just that, a BS.
Can you explain how regarding children as a source of meaning and satisfaction in life, or hoping that your children will look after you when you are
old and feeble, equates to treating them as pets?
Could you also explain what makes your life worth living, if you think emotional values are just BS?
And could you please explain exactly who
would benefit if poor people were prevented from reproducing?
I do indeed support the existence of extensive social safety nets as an alternative.
That is what I mean by ‘if we had some ham, then we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs.’ Where is the money to construct these social
safety-nets going to come from? The savings incurred by preventing people from having children? :shk:
You dont get it, do you? Its for the sake of the poor that I want it done, not the rich. The rich are better off without it. Their procreation
perpetuates and exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Good luck eradicating it without reproduction control.
Oh, I get it. You want to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people. It’s been tried before.
It doesn’t work.
It is not insane, stop with your unwarranted condescending attitude.
Believing one can cure the problems of humanity by eliminating most of humanity is not insane?
Yeah, maybe you should actually explain why it is evil, insane or unethical instead of insults.
I should have thought it was obvious. Your plan is evil because it is tyrannous, socially divisive and makes war upon the poor. It cannot be
implemented without the use of oppressive measures. Such measures are guaranteed to be resisted – as they were when they were tried in India during
the 1960s. The resulting social unrest would be far more destructive of life and property than any threat presented by Earth’s enormous, yet slowly
Your plan is insane because it attempts to increase the sum of human happiness through oppression and coercion. It is insane because it attempts to
solve human problems by removing human beings from the picture.
I take it that 1.3 billion Chinese are also all little Hitlers?
First, China is a despotism. 1.3 billion Chinese have only the rights and privileges the Communist Party allows them. They are obliged to conform to
Party policy; that doesn’t mean they approve of it. Many Chinese subvert the policy, having ‘unregistered’ children, sending surplus kids out to
the country be fostered, etc.
Second, it may have escaped your notice, but the one-child policy is creating a frightening future shortage of women.
This rule has caused a disdain for female infants; abortion, neglect, abandonment, and even infanticide have been known to occur to female
infants... Draconian family planning has resulted in the disparate ratio of 114 males for every 100 females among babies from birth through children
four years of age. Source
You may consider this a good thing (fewer women means fewer babies) but a large surplus of womanless males is a recipe for increased crime, social
unrest and militancy, heightened levels of violence against women, war with other states, etc. That is China’s real future.
Third, China’s one-child policy does target the underprivileged in Chinese society; it targets the privileged
Source as above
[The one-child policy] is not an all-encompassing rule because it has always been restricted to ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas. Citizens
living in rural areas and minorities living in China are not subject to the law.
Or maybe they actually care about sustainability and the future of their children instead of short-sighted and unwarranted demonisation of
responsible reproduction policies based in nothing more than knee-jerk reactions.
It may have escaped your notice, but China is a filthy, polluted pit. It has also clearly escaped your notice that 1.3bn Chinese placed relatively
little strain on world resources and the environment before one of them decided (for all the rest, of course) that is was ‘glorious to get
Quality over quantity.
That’s right, quality rich, first-world children over inferior poor, third-world ones! What a great idea.
edit on 11/11/11 by Astyanax because: I’m fussy.