China: Forced Abortion For Violating One Child Policy

[u-Bob]

36-year-old Xiao Aiying was eight months pregnant when twelve government officials entered her house, brutally beating and kicking her in the stomach before dragging her kicking and screaming to a state hospital. Her crime? She had conceived a second child and failed to pay the mandatory $40,000 dollar fine for breaking China?s notorious one child policy.

[pornguy]

Its a law that has been around for some time and enforced.

Really quite sick.

[Emil]

Well.... If I were in China I would follow that law...

[_Richard_]

i thought the first child was paid for, the second would be the financial burden of the family?

[magicmike]

A couple I know adopted a girl from China that was dumped on the streets because of this policy.

[moeloubani]

Ok lets just let everyone who wants to have a baby have one.

Oh no now our popluation is 3 billion and we're ALL fucked.

What were they supposed to do? It should say woman murders baby because she knows she shouldn't be pregnant without the money to do so and KNOWS that they'll come for her baby.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Some years back when I was studying for my sociology degree, I had to do a paper on what 'reproductive rights' meant in different parts of the world. I read something in one of my research books that has stayed with me since. It was about how in many Western nations, the fight for reproductive rights is over the right not to have a child whereas in China it is over the right to be able to have one.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

What were they supposed to do? It should say woman murders baby because she knows she shouldn't be pregnant without the money to do so and KNOWS that they'll come for her baby.

So a Jewish woman living in Nazi Germany shouldn't get pregnant, because she knows they'll be coming for her and the baby?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by magicmike

A couple I know adopted a girl from China that was dumped on the streets because of this policy.

I have an aunt that adopted a child from china that was put abandoned because of this. The child has all sorts of medical problems now due to not having proper prenatal care

[Tom_PM]

China itself is like a pregnant woman who occupies the entire space within it's own borders. When the baby comes, it's GOING to occupy space somewhere.

If China did not have this policy, how many more of their neighbors lands would they spill into out of sheer desperation, and how fast would it have to happen?

[dyna mo]

i guess those 4chan script kiddies have it right, china does kick ass! yay china.

[Nautilus]

They have 1.5 billion population already, 1 child policy is pretty understandble - they cannot even grow enough grain to feed more than 1.5 billion because there's not enough land. And this policy should be enforced one way or the other, and it isn't going to be pretty.

If they let their fertility rate loose now, much worse things will start happening, like hunger, revolts etc. And it DID happen in China's history several times already, they just do not want it to happen again.

I wouldn't want to be in China's gov shoes now - they're doing what has to be done, since all alternatives are far worse, but that's not going to be popular.

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

So a Jewish woman living in Nazi Germany shouldn't get pregnant, because she knows they'll be coming for her and the baby?

Well if every Jewish woman went ahead and had a baby things would still be ok. If every Chinese woman goes and has as many babies as she wants things would NOT be ok, China would starve.

[Rochard]

I'm not getting into the debate over China's policy. But some of you should read about world population. Through out history, mankind's population grew and declined based on how much food mankind could produce. In today's world, we can produce more food than ever meaning our population is growing by leaps and bounds. The problem is where to house these people and the infrastructure to support them. Just the amount of garbage that we produce on a daily basis is staggering.

[u-Bob]

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

interesting point

[TheStout]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

Well said U-Bob

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

I understand but at some point you have to draw a line. It's not about space as much as it is about food. If everyone has as many babies as they want then people are going to starve, and die. Is it ok for one person to decide for an entire society?

It's easy to say 'oh no the babies' but what would YOU do? If your population was so big and there was only so much food, then all the people decided FUCK IT, these are babies we should be able to have them. Then started having tons of babies. Would you let it happen, so that those few families who just didn't want to follow the rules 'just because' now cause the rest of the families in the entire nation to starve? There is a limited amount of food.

What would you do? Create food from nothing? Use imaginary infinite resources to feed the children? It's easy to say that aggression is wrong but when you try setting clear guidelines and people do things anyways, aggression is sometimes the only way to keep order. It's tragic that a baby loses its life but if they would let those babies live, not set examples like that then millions would starve. Is it right for millions to starve because people can just have babies anyways and nothing would happen to them?

[The Heron]

We use 'population control' to justify hunting of pretty much every other animal on the planet, seems smart to use it on our own population as well. Overpopulation is an ugly thing.

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

Way to go idiot, you are part of why parents can't spank their kids, and dogs have more rights nowdays then the average white man.

[Slutboat]

Anti-abortions wackos are quite insane.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

How many of those people are destroying the Earth simply by throwing away their toilet paper after wiping their ass? Can the Earth support the population? Sure. How long will it last? Remains to be seen, but I know that 6 billion people throwing man-made products into the oceans, forests, etc., and destroying the natural habitats isn't good for the long term.

1 billion people throwing away their toilet paper is much better for longevity of our planet and species than 6 billion +

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)

* There's plenty of room left on this planet: If you'd move all people to Australia, Australia would still have a population density that's lower than that of present day Japan.

* Ethics anyone? What gives any one the right to determine who should live and who should die? What gives us the right to decide that an innocent baby (who has committed no crime) should die because his or her parents live in a certain geographical area and already had a child in the past? Is it because the baby might someday eat a portion of food that we want to eat, or that we think we have the right to eat? Maybe we should only let the productive members of society live and only kill those that don't contribute? maybe..... or maybe we should just think a second about what we are doing? A pregnant woman was attacked and her baby murdered and we are trying to decide under what circumstances that should be ok?

It's never OK to commit an act of aggression!

There is plenty of space if we spread everyone out. But no one in Japan wants to move to Africa. And people in Australia don't want to cough up their land for anyone.

You saying population in Europe is decreasing, but that's not true. People in Europe are living longer. World population has been in a steady rise since the 1400s, and and over half of the current world population is currently in Asia.

[2012]

[brassmonkey]

it's the law and they knew before having sex. if they don't like it they should have moved.

[PMdave]

Abortion? At 8 months its just plain murder.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

I understand but at some point you have to draw a line. It's not about space as much as it is about food. If everyone has as many babies as they want then people are going to starve, and die. Is it ok for one person to decide for an entire society?

It's easy to say 'oh no the babies' but what would YOU do? If your population was so big and there was only so much food, then all the people decided FUCK IT, these are babies we should be able to have them. Then started having tons of babies. Would you let it happen, so that those few families who just didn't want to follow the rules 'just because' now cause the rest of the families in the entire nation to starve? There is a limited amount of food.

What would you do? Create food from nothing? Use imaginary infinite resources to feed the children? It's easy to say that aggression is wrong but when you try setting clear guidelines and people do things anyways, aggression is sometimes the only way to keep order. It's tragic that a baby loses its life but if they would let those babies live, not set examples like that then millions would starve. Is it right for millions to starve because people can just have babies anyways and nothing would happen to them?

Ethics, that basic set of rules that determines what is right and what is wrong, don't change depending on the situation. If they did, than people wouldn't be responsible for their actions because they wouldn't be able to determine beforehand that their actions were right or wrong.

It is clear that a lot of people these days no longer understand the concept of justice. As the French philosopher and economist Federic Bastiat once said; 'Justice is a negative concept. It's the absence of injustice'.

Murder, theft, torture, rape,... are all acts of injustice. When someone tries to murder you, you have right to defend yourself (and even use violence to do so). If someone tries to rape you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone tries to steal your property, you have right to defend yourself and protect your property.

Why? because you are a human being, an individual. And every human being is master of his own body. His body is his property. (If you don't agree with that, than there are only 2 alternatives: either there are 2 classes: the owners and the owned, those that own other human beings and the human beings that are the property of the first class. This option represents a kind of slavery and I'm sure we all agree that slavery is a form of injustice. The other alternative is that every human being's body is property of the collective. An unworkable option because if everybody's body belongs to the collective, then how will the collective make decisions? by voting? but if the parts that make up the collective aren't allowed to use their own body (because it's property of the collective) then how can they vote (use part of their body to express their vote or use their brain to decide how to vote)...? so the only workable option is that every human being is master of his own body).

Every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't commit an act of injustice (aggression). every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or another human being's property. All the rights we think so highly of in the West (like for example the right of free speech) are nothing more than different ways to exercise the right to use your own body and property. Free speech = using your own brain to come up with an idea, using your own vocal cords to produce the words you want, using your own ink and paper to write what you want.

You as a human being have the right to grow your own food, work and buy food, build things, sell/trade/buy things,... but you don't have the right to steal from others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because their store sells more products than your store. You don't have the right to kill others because they just bought the that last green widget you were hoping to buy some day. ...

You are right, we have to draw the line somewhere. We draw the line between justice and injustice. You have rights because you are a human being, an individual. The second you no longer respect other human beings' rights, the second you no longer see people as individuals, that's the moment you lose your humanity, that's the moment you go back to the animal kingdom: survival of the fittest, survival of he who has the most power or the biggest gun, survival of he who can best come up with a way to convince others to join him in committing acts of injustice.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by KillerK

Way to go idiot, you are part of why parents can't spank their kids, and dogs have more rights nowdays then the average white man.

Nothing wrong with parents spanking their kids.

And ethically speaking dogs have no rights. Only humans beings have rights.
(before I piss off every doglover on this board (got 2 myself); just because animals don't have rights, doesn't mean humans don't have a moral obligation to treat their pets right. But that the whole difference between morality and ethics.... but that's for another day )

[Machete_]

I adopted a cat, once

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Slutboat

Anti-abortions wackos are quite insane.

This isn't about abortion. Every pregnant woman has to right to an abortion if she wants to. This is about people who commit acts of aggression, this is about people who attack pregnant women and murder their unborn children. This is about people who think it's ok to attack and kill others.

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Ethics, that basic set of rules that determines what is right and what is wrong, don't change depending on the situation. If they did, than people wouldn't be responsible for their actions because they wouldn't be able to determine beforehand that their actions were right or wrong.

It is clear that a lot of people these days no longer understand the concept of justice. As the French philosopher and economist Federic Bastiat once said; 'Justice is a negative concept. It's the absence of injustice'.

Murder, theft, torture, rape,... are all acts of injustice. When someone tries to murder you, you have right to defend yourself (and even use violence to do so). If someone tries to rape you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone tries to steal your property, you have right to defend yourself and protect your property.

Why? because you are a human being, an individual. And every human being is master of his own body. His body is his property. (If you don't agree with that, than there are only 2 alternatives: either there are 2 classes: the owners and the owned, those that own other human beings and the human beings that are the property of the first class. This option represents a kind of slavery and I'm sure we all agree that slavery is a form of injustice. The other alternative is that every human being's body is property of the collective. An unworkable option because if everybody's body belongs to the collective, then how will the collective make decisions? by voting? but if the parts that make up the collective aren't allowed to use their own body (because it's property of the collective) then how can they vote (use part of their body to express their vote or use their brain to decide how to vote)...? so the only workable option is that every human being is master of his own body).

Every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't commit an act of injustice (aggression). every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or another human being's property. All the rights we think so highly of in the West (like for example the right of free speech) are nothing more than different ways to exercise the right to use your own body and property. Free speech = using your own brain to come up with an idea, using your own vocal cords to produce the words you want, using your own ink and paper to write what you want.

You as a human being have the right to grow your own food, work and buy food, build things, sell/trade/buy things,... but you don't have the right to steal from others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because their store sells more products than your store. You don't have the right to kill others because they just bought the that last green widget you were hoping to buy some day. ...

You are right, we have to draw the line somewhere. We draw the line between justice and injustice. You have rights because you are a human being, an individual. The second you no longer respect other human beings' rights, the second you no longer see people as individuals, that's the moment you lose your humanity, that's the moment you go back to the animal kingdom: survival of the fittest, survival of he who has the most power or the biggest gun, survival of he who can best come up with a way to convince others to join him in committing acts of injustice.

Blah blah blah...so easy to say all that. And so stupid. Yayyy hug some trees. Now when your entire population is starving and you don't have the money to keep up with it what do you do?

Stop beating your stupid fucking I love Earth drum and look at the FACTS.

IF China didn't do that then MANY MORE CHINESE WOULD DIE. Is that ok for that many people to die??

Your choices are: don't limit the population and end up with millions starving or limit the population and the population flourishes.

There is no: Don't limit the population, make cookies for everyone, everyone lives and is happy, population grows, more cookies, more happiness, population keeps growing, more cookies, people hold hands and sing, cookies, babies, singing.

Life doesn't happen like that regardless of your thumping over and over on the 'oh it's so inhumane' drum. There are 2 choices. You have picked millions to die instead of 1. Good for you. That's why YOU aren't in charge of a country because if you were MILLIONS WOULD DIE.

Get your head out of your ass dude, fantasy hippy forest isn't real and you don't live there, so stop playing hippy and wake the fuck up and smell the real world.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by trevesty

How many of those people are destroying the Earth simply by throwing away their toilet paper after wiping their ass? Can the Earth support the population? Sure. How long will it last? Remains to be seen, but I know that 6 billion people throwing man-made products into the oceans, forests, etc., and destroying the natural habitats isn't good for the long term.

1 billion people throwing away their toilet paper is much better for longevity of our planet and species than 6 billion +

The 'Earth' doesn't have rights. People have rights. People have the right to use what they find in nature any way they see fit as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. If human beings didn't have that right than the human race would simply have died out millions of years ago because people wouldn't have had the right to pick berries and eat them or hunt animals and eat them or take stones and wood to make tools out of them.

Does that mean we can dump radioactive waste in the rivers? No, because that would cause damage to the property of the people who own land downstream.

Do 6 billion people produce more garbage than 1 billion people? Of course they do. But what do you see as an acceptable number of people to inhabit this planet? 1 billion? 3 billion? 7 billion? 200 million? How do you decide what's an acceptable number? How do you decide who gets to live and who doesn't?

Does that fact that we allow people to live and have babies mean that we encourage people to waste resources? Of course not. If the population grows, the demand for certain products and services also rises. If demand rises, the prices rise. if the price rises, certain people will no longer desire to buy that product or service and look for alternatives. Other people will look for alternatives, offer alternatives,... that's the great thing about human beings, we are creative. We come up with solutions to problems. We constantly come up with new and better ways to solve problems. We think, we create, we adapt,...

Seems to me a lot of people think we are currently at the pinnacle of human creativity, that we can't produce anything better than what we are producing now and that the only way to preserve what we've got is to prevent newcomers from entering the market.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Rochard

There is plenty of space if we spread everyone out. But no one in Japan wants to move to Africa. And people in Australia don't want to cough up their land for anyone.

Wasn't advocating that we'd moving everyone to Australia. I was simply using that to demonstrate the vastness of this planet we inhabit.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You saying population in Europe is decreasing, but that's not true. People in Europe are living longer.

1. people in Europe are living longer but they are also having less children.
2. there is and has been for the last 40 year an influx of (amongst others) North Africans into Europe. that slightly lessens the visual impact of the fact that people are having less children.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

it's the law and they knew before having sex.

?We must never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.? -- Martin Luther King Jr.

There's a difference between what certain people call 'the law' and justice.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Blah blah blah...so easy to say all that. And so stupid. Yayyy hug some trees. Now when your entire population is starving and you don't have the money to keep up with it what do you do?

My responsibilities are to myself and my family. By developing and offering products and services other people want and are willing to pay for I provide for my family. I, in turn, buy products and services from others. I do this in such a way that I don't cause damage to other people or their property. I don't commit murder, I don't steal. How other people live their lives, how much they eat, what they eat, what they do in their bedroom, how many children they have or how they name their children etc is none of my business, not my responsibility.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Stop beating your stupid fucking I love Earth drum and look at the FACTS.

funny since it's the whole "we have got to protect the planet at the expensive of human lives" idea that i'm against.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

IF China didn't do that then MANY MORE CHINESE WOULD DIE. Is that ok for that many people to die??

People die. It's a fact of life. People are born, people grow up, people decide how to live their lives. Some people are more creative than others, some have bad luck, some are lucky, some are born in NY, some are born in Soweto, some have an investment banker as a father, some have no father, some work hard, some party hard, some are the victims of aggression, some are extremely good at basketball, some have a huge cock, some have a tiny cock, some are sitting on a beach when a tsunami hits, some hit the jackpot in a casino, some come up with a great idea and do nothing with it, some come up with a mediocre idea and make lots of money, some invest wisely, some hide their money in a hole in the ground, some invest wisely and still lose everything,..... People are all different, situations are all different. That's the great thing about being human: the diversity.

Let people be people, let them live their lives, let them be creative,... instead of feeling all mighty and imposing your idea of what is good on to others.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Your choices are: don't limit the population and end up with millions starving or limit the population and the population flourishes.

Again, how do you decide what the correct number of people is so the population can flourish? How do you decide? Do you have a special scientific panel for that? A special computer model?

If history teaches us one thing it's that human creativity and cooperation can only flourish when there's freedom.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

There is no: Don't limit the population, make cookies for everyone, everyone lives and is happy, population grows, more cookies, more happiness, population keeps growing, more cookies, people hold hands and sing, cookies, babies, singing.

I never claimed that justice and freedom were a guarantee for happiness. Justice and freedom merely offer the best chance for everyone to be happy. After all, every individual decides for himself what makes him happy.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Life doesn't happen like that regardless of your thumping over and over on the 'oh it's so inhumane' drum. There are 2 choices. You have picked millions to die instead of 1. Good for you.

Again, how do you know people are going to die if 1 extra child lives?

As an individual, I'm responsible for my own actions. Like I said; I don't steal, I don't commit murder. If my neighbor grows potatoes and decides to sell them to me instead of shipping them to China and a child is hungry in China, does that make me or my neighbor responsible? No. If 2 people in japan decide to have a baby and they buy more milk than they used to because of the baby and that drives up the price of milk just a tiny bit, does that make them responsible for a milk shortage in Sudan?

Originally Posted by moeloubani

That's why YOU aren't in charge of a country because if you were MILLIONS WOULD DIE.

I'm not in charge of a country and wouldn't want to be. All I want in life is to give my family what it desires. And I'll accomplish that the way I have always done: create and sell products and services people want.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

They have 1.5 billion population already, 1 child policy is pretty understandble - they cannot even grow enough grain to feed more than 1.5 billion because there's not enough land. And this policy should be enforced one way or the other, and it isn't going to be pretty.

If they let their fertility rate loose now, much worse things will start happening, like hunger, revolts etc. And it DID happen in China's history several times already, they just do not want it to happen again.

I wouldn't want to be in China's gov shoes now - they're doing what has to be done, since all alternatives are far worse, but that's not going to be popular.

Exactly my point.

But I am never OK with this kind of aggression and murder. They should find other ways to enforce this.

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

My responsibilities are to myself and my family. By developing and offering products and services other people want and are willing to pay for I provide for my family. I, in turn, buy products and services from others. I do this in such a way that I don't cause damage to other people or their property. I don't commit murder, I don't steal. How other people live their lives, how much they eat, what they eat, what they do in their bedroom, how many children they have or how they name their children etc is none of my business, not my responsibility.

So what if now you can't afford your food because there's so little of it and the price is super high. What are you going to do when that happens, let your family die? Please enlighten us. What are you going to do when the food runs out? Live off of what?

In your uptopian fantasy land there's enough food for everyone. In reality there isn't. It's that simple. 1 child won't mean someone else dies but you can't put a law in for 1.5 billion people and then evaluate it on a case by case basis. Just like food, resources and time is limited. There has to be a rule that covers all. What don't you get?

YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.

You can't say no I don't want to choose any. YOU ONLY HAVE TWO. Let one baby live and millions die or let one baby die so that millions may flourish.

PICK ONE.

The numbers are decided by people who study that sort of thing, the law is put into place by scientists that study patterns and know how much food the country can output. Thank God it's not put into place by fucking hippies or China would be a fucking MESS.

It's that simple. Talk is fucking cheap and that's all you can seem to do, offer up a solution don't just say 'Oh no, killing people is wrong.'

People live people die? What the fuck kind of BS is that? You're either for individual rights in which case you wouldn't mind if I came in and robbed you and your family for food because who gives a fuck, it's my right. Or you're for some sort of order that works for everyone. You can't say the order should only work for YOU. It has to work for EVERYONE in the entire society.

China is flourishing. I think they know what they're doing.

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So what if now you can't afford your food because there's so little of it and the price is super high. What are you going to do when that happens, let your family die? Please enlighten us. What are you going to do when the food runs out? Live off of what?

In your uptopian fantasy land there's enough food for everyone. In reality there isn't. It's that simple. 1 child won't mean someone else dies but you can't put a law in for 1.5 billion people and then evaluate it on a case by case basis. Just like food, resources and time is limited. There has to be a rule that covers all. What don't you get?

YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.

You can't say no I don't want to choose any. YOU ONLY HAVE TWO. Let one baby live and millions die or let one baby die so that millions may flourish.

PICK ONE.

The numbers are decided by people who study that sort of thing, the law is put into place by scientists that study patterns and know how much food the country can output. Thank God it's not put into place by fucking hippies or China would be a fucking MESS.

It's that simple. Talk is fucking cheap and that's all you can seem to do, offer up a solution don't just say 'Oh no, killing people is wrong.'

People live people die? What the fuck kind of BS is that? You're either for individual rights in which case you wouldn't mind if I came in and robbed you and your family for food because who gives a fuck, it's my right. Or you're for some sort of order that works for everyone. You can't say the order should only work for YOU. It has to work for EVERYONE in the entire society.

China is flourishing. I think they know what they're doing.

Well said...

[IllTestYourGirls]

Thank god for Hitler think about how over populated the world would be now if it were not for him!

Anyone who believes they have the right to kill another humans baby in fear of global over population should first kill themselves.

[Slutboat]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

This isn't about abortion. Every pregnant woman has to right to an abortion if she wants to. This is about people who commit acts of aggression, this is about people who attack pregnant women and murder their unborn children. This is about people who think it's ok to attack and kill others.

Do you have any idea what it is like to live in a society where a short time ago an estimated 20 million people died of starvation?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So what if now you can't afford your food because there's so little of it and the price is super high. What are you going to do when that happens, let your family die? Please enlighten us. What are you going to do when the food runs out? Live off of what?

The only way I ever see the food running out is after a nuclear war or some cosmic disaster. I grow some of my own vegetables, my neighbor grows vegetables, I buy milk from a local farm,... People are still buying to products i sell, I invest, I save money for a rainy day,...

Originally Posted by moeloubani

In your uptopian fantasy land there's enough food for everyone.

In reality there are natural disasters, accidents, acts of aggression and a limited supply of raw materials (some supplies take millions of years to replenish like oil if we run out, others takes months (vegetables) or years (wood)). One thing that's unlimited: the supply of ideas. Human beings constantly come up with new ways to do things, new and more efficient solutions to old problems. i believe in human creativity and cooperation (aka the free market).

Looks like your lack of faith in humankind has you trapped in some kind of Malthusian nightmare

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Just like food, resources and time is limited. There has to be a rule that covers all.

I agree, and that rule is what Bastiat called "The Rule Of Law", what Jefferson and Franklin called "Divine Rights", what Spooner called "Natural Rights", what Rothbard described as the non-aggression principle, what some call "Rational Rights", what Hoppe refers to as the "Natural Order",.... All different names to describe the same thing, the same solution to the same problem. The problem you just described. And the answer is: every human being is free to do with his body and property what he wants as long as he doesn't cause damage to an other human being or his property.

Is that utopian? No, because we recognize that freedom and justice don't guarantee happiness, but merely offer the best chances for people to become (what they themselves consider to be) happy. We also recognize the fact that acts of aggression are committed and will continue to be committed as long as there are humans, so people also have the right to defend themselves against acts of aggression (and can of course use violence to do so)

Originally Posted by moeloubani

The numbers are decided by people who study that sort of thing, the law is put into place by scientists that study patterns and know how much food the country can output.

We used to have kings that knew what was best for us. We used to have priests that knew what was best for us. Thank God we now have scientists that know what is good for us.

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The only way I ever see the food running out is after a nuclear war or some cosmic disaster. I grow some of my own vegetables, my neighbor grows vegetables, I buy milk from a local farm,... People are still buying to products i sell, I invest, I save money for a rainy day,...

Ignorance is bliss.

It's great that you live where you live - but some places in the world people are starving. Because there is NO FOOD.

How can you be so blind to not see that?

Are you comparing kings and priests with scientists? You really think that decisions made based on nothing (kings and priests) are the same as decisions made based on science. Do you not understand science? It's based on facts, observable facts and repeatable results. Over the past 2000 years how much has religion progressed versus science?

Your idea of everyone can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else only works in an environment where everything is unlimited.

In the one we live in today, reality, our resources are limited. That means when one more human comes onto Earth everyone else has a little less they can use. By just being born another human is taking a piece of that pie. And it all works out as long as the pie isn't being eaten too fast. How do we know what's too fast? We look at past experiences and results and we apply that knowledge to future forecasts using science. Then we set guidelines so that while everyone has their freedom, no one person disturbs the equilibrium so much that the whole thing collapses.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

People have been spreading panic about population growth for over 150 years now. (Scroogle: "Thomas Robert Malthus") the whole idea has been used and abused by some of the biggest massmurderers in history to justify their crimes.

A couple of things to take into consideration:

*The current reproduction ratio / couple is on average between 1.7 and 1.8 in Europe. That means that for every couple (2 people), 1.7 people are born. So that means the population is actually declining in Europe. That's something very common in technologically more advanced societies. (more wealth = more choices. better medical technology = no need to get 12 children as a kind of insurance because 8 of them might die before they're 12 years old)!

So China is going to let people move to Australia and Australia is going to let them in? By the way while large 90% of Australia is desert. We've still got room in the US and Canada I doubt you'd be for having a couple hundred million Chinese in here.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

It's great that you live where you live - but some places in the world people are starving. Because there is NO FOOD.

Not my responsibility. I didn't cause the famine in whatever country there is famine. I can chose to help (as I have done so in the past), but forcing me to help or deciding it's better that some people don't have babies or anything like that is simply an act of aggression.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Are you comparing kings and priests with scientists? You really think that decisions made based on nothing (kings and priests) are the same as decisions made based on science. Do you not understand science? It's based on facts, observable facts and repeatable results. Over the past 2000 years how much has religion progressed versus science?

Thousands of years of history are filled with people who claimed to know what was best for the people... From faro's to emperors to high chancellors to presidents...

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Your idea of everyone can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else only works in an environment where everything is unlimited.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by moeloubani

In the one we live in today, reality, our resources are limited.

correct. see above.

Originally Posted by moeloubani

That means when one more human comes onto Earth everyone else has a little less they can use. By just being born another human is taking a piece of that pie. And it all works out as long as the pie isn't being eaten too fast.

You're assuming that just because you're being born, you have the right to a piece of the pie. So if I want a Ferrari, they should give me one, right?

As an individual you have the right to use your own body as you see fit. That means you can use your body (your property) to acquire property. You provide services to people and get property in return (selling your time and labor), you can gather wood, fruit,... you can mine metals and minerals (unclaimed resources),....

Being born does not give you a right to a piece of the pie. Being born gives you the right to use your body. If you want a piece of the pie, you need to work for it. If you want a bigger piece of the pie, you can accomplish that by contributing to the community: by offering a product or service people are willing to pay for. It's called the free market.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by GatorB

So China is going to let people move to Australia and Australia is going to let them in? By the way while large 90% of Australia is desert. We've still got room in the US and Canada I doubt you'd be for having a couple hundred million Chinese in here.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...7&postcount=33

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...7&postcount=33

You post still doesn't adress how China should adress it's overpopulation problem. While the EARTH may not have too many people CHINA and India certainly do.

[bronco67]

This is why we should be scared of China becoming a superpower, if they aren't already.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by GatorB

You post still doesn't adress how China should adress it's overpopulation problem. While the EARTH may not have too many people CHINA and India certainly do.

I think I addressed that: People are free to use their body and property in any way they see fit as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. It's called the free market. 6 billion people are better at coming up with new ideas than a couple of thousand government officials that have no incentive to improve the situation.

Containing people between artificial borders, restricting the flow of information, restricting free speech, restricting property rights, selling the privilege to make money to those that pay the biggest bribes,... might have something to do with the current situation in China.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I think I addressed that: People are free to use their body and property in any way they see fit as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. It's called the free market.

last time I checked China doesn't have a free market ANYTHING.

Containing people between artificial borders, restricting the flow of information, restricting free speech, restricting property rights, selling the privilege to make money to those that pay the biggest bribes,... might have something to do with the current situation in China.

The problem with people like you is that you recognized problem but you have pie in the sky answers that end up solving nothing. If you think the current system the way the world works is going to change anytime soon you will be disappointed. I prefer to come up with answers that are actually viable.

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

I understand but at some point you have to draw a line. It's not about space as much as it is about food. If everyone has as many babies as they want then people are going to starve, and die. Is it ok for one person to decide for an entire society?

It's easy to say 'oh no the babies' but what would YOU do? If your population was so big and there was only so much food, then all the people decided FUCK IT, these are babies we should be able to have them. Then started having tons of babies. Would you let it happen, so that those few families who just didn't want to follow the rules 'just because' now cause the rest of the families in the entire nation to starve? There is a limited amount of food.

What would you do? Create food from nothing? Use imaginary infinite resources to feed the children? It's easy to say that aggression is wrong but when you try setting clear guidelines and people do things anyways, aggression is sometimes the only way to keep order. It's tragic that a baby loses its life but if they would let those babies live, not set examples like that then millions would starve. Is it right for millions to starve because people can just have babies anyways and nothing would happen to them?

Seriously?

It's a damn shame you weren't one of these forced abortions. Please do humanity a favor and abort yourself so we can save the food, k?