One-Child policy, do you agree with it?

One-Child policy, do you agree with it?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 5 4.6%
  • No!

    Votes: 50 46.3%
  • Why would we need that?

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • It would solve a lot of probems!

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • We should have enacted it a long time ago!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO, I love the idea of having big families

    Votes: 6 5.6%
  • Hate to say it, but China has it right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Green movement is Evil!!

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • That would do nothing but limit your own bloodline!

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • What gives the goverment the right to do that?

    Votes: 26 24.1%
  • What gives people the right to have as many kids they want?

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • I like Pie!!

    Votes: 7 6.5%

  • Total voters
    108
Hmmm, I seem to remember a Pharoah who tried once to institute a policy of limiting the amount of children a certain nation of people could have, only to have it backfire on him by an even greater increase of children by the hand of God. It even led to ten horrible plagues placed upon that Pharoah and his kingdom in judgment of his sinfulness and affliction of God's people. ;)

Yeah, I remember that story. It always seemed just a tad harsh to me for just one lousy goober Pharaoh.<IMHO> Why not just "ZAP" him and change his heart and mind? Who was the follow on Pharaoh? ;)
 
The Sovereignty of God

Yeah, I remember that story. It always seemed just a tad harsh to me for just one lousy goober Pharaoh.<IMHO> Why not just "ZAP" him and change his heart and mind? Who was the follow on Pharaoh? ;)

That is an excellent question, my friend. Perhaps Romans 9 can shed some light for you about that historical account and God's purposes behind it. :)
 
That's all fine and dandy, except for the collective strain all of these fruitful families put on the environment. That's where humanity stops being glorious and just becomes cancer.

And if you truly didn't see human beings as cancerous, on some sort of level, you wouldn't feel the need to enslave them under theocracy.

The beauty of nature is meaningless in and of itself. It only has value because sentient beings such as ourselves exist to recognize and admire it...and since we are at the moment the only species we know of that is sentient enough to really appreciate it (capable of art, music, etc.), we are anything but a cancer. On the contrary, until we find evidence of other intelligent life (which I'm sure has to be out there somewhere), it seems that our existence is the single greatest thing that has ever happened. Looking out at the apparently desolate and barren universe, the gift of life and intelligence seems rare enough to consider pretty profound and special. I think anyone who considers us a cancer, a virus, a disease, or anything of the sort is undervaluing our own significance and beauty and missing the whole point that Earth is only special because of the life and intelligence it harbors, which we are currently the greatest known expression of. In any case, no matter what we do, the Earth will survive. We are no threat to this planet, and we are not even a threat to continued life on it. Even if we were to blow ourselves all up in a nuclear war and go extinct, the planet itself would go on oblivious to our disappearance, since the planet itself is not sentient. Furthermore, life on this planet in general has survived far worse catastrophes, such as a gigantic asteroid hitting us millions of years ago. We may threaten other particular species, but we do not threaten the planet or life on it in general.

Ironically, the single most important thing that humanity threatens is itself. We're a threat to ourselves for several reasons, the biggest being the existence of weapons of mass destruction...and a very remote threat being "overpopulation," which I must reiterate for the third time is an economic problem that is pretty much confined to the third world. In America, we reproduce at approximately replacement rate (immigration aside)...and because of that, our population growth in America is not cancerous, it's not rampant, and it's not even troubling: It's almost nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
Edit... nvm... :) I'll let it be.

That was a close call, Godwin! ;) (Actually, sailor Godwin'ed the thread earlier anyway when he posted that excellent article lambasting extremist environmentalists, and especially deep ecologists. :))
 
Last edited:
That's what I was going to get at.... Hitler's favorite verse, Romans 13... :o

But let's not go there... :p

On topic: One Child Policy = NWO child policy... :)
Loved by Christian statist "shepherds" of their "flocks" also, for millenia now, probably. :rolleyes:

NWO? Probably. :eek: :p
 
No. I have 10 siblings, and I plan on creating many little babies.

I need to get started soon as well.
 
No.

If the government knows you have a high risk of cancer, or high blood pressure, or diabetes, who is to say they will even allow you to have children? I fear in the future many people are going to be forcefully castrated.

This issue makes me lean more to a pro-life stance than anything else I've read. You don't have to dig too far to see that pro-choice tends to mean government choice, not individual choice.
 
That's all fine and dandy, except for the collective strain all of these fruitful families put on the environment. That's where humanity stops being glorious and just becomes cancer.

And if you truly didn't see human beings as cancerous, on some sort of level, you wouldn't feel the need to enslave them under theocracy.


Yawn. Trying to control nature, human or otherwise, is as nonsensical as trying to control the economy, if not even more so.
 
Have as many kids as you want as long as you can afford to have them. You have no right to impose the financial burdens of raising children upon society (i.e. welfare etc...) but if you can afford it out of your pocket with your own money have half a dozen. Personally I think in the future the givernment the require that in order to receive welfare you must first be "voluntarily" sterilized in order to get the food stamps or check or whatever. It will eventually come to that as resources dwindle. No, the government has no right to infringe upon civil liberties like this. However, if you accept thier terms and conditions for "services" such as welfare then I see where they would as a requirement.

agreed, also no tax deductions
 
And here I thought the Democrats wanted to keep the government OUT of our bedrooms?

So what are we going to do with the inevitable 2nd and 3rd children that pop up? Kill them? Make them wards of the state? Castrate them? Enslave them?

What effect do these idiots think this will have on Social Security and other entitlements (that are oh so precious to them) that are funded by current taxpayers? What happens when retirees outnumber workers by 5 to 1?

Utter stupidity.
 
If you want population control, a 'one child' policy is NOT the way to do it. Depriving children of families i.e. aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters is not a direction that humanity should take.

One way to do it is to let people die instead of keeping them alive until they're ninety-five all pumped up with drugs and housed in convalescent homes. Give them their dignity for Christ's sake.

When people abuse their bodies with addictive substances, or poor eating habits, unhealthy lifestyles, and then need constant surgeries and treatments in order to stay alive, all while draining their families and friends - I'm sorry - they should make the choice to release their family members of the burden they've become.

If some idiot decides to ride his motorcycle without a helmet - recklessly - and ends up needing care from others (the state, his family) for the rest of his life, I mean, come on! There are many more examples I can think of.

I'm not recommending the gov't get involved in this line of thinking. And I'm not putting an age limit on life-saving treatments, per say. I just think society needs to have a change of heart when it comes to prolonging or saving the lives everyone - no matter what the circumstance. I would NEVER apply this concept to the handicapped or those who are suffering through no fault of their own. Such people are objects of love, to me. I'm just saying, we all need to start thinking in terms of the burden we place on our families and society.

I know it sounds harsh, but it makes more sense to me than does abortion and the 'one child' policy. For me, I don't want to be kept alive by drugs and surgery until I'm ninety. If I can do it on my own, and still bring joy to my family, then great. If not, it would be my hope that I could go when my body no longer works on its own.
 
Wife is expecting her 3rd now.

If you want population control, try enacting this policy. I'll die to defy it.
 
America doesn't need a one child policy, the average American woman has about 2 children each, meaning that the US population isn't growing naturally. What we really need to do is close our borders so that we are not enabling Latin America's irresponsible population growth.
 
China had a choice. They could either institute draconian birth control laws, or they could let their country disintegrate due to famine, and let the survivors sort it out. Nature will impose population limits, but the method nature uses is frequently less pleasant than the methods used by man.
 
Back
Top