Sat May 5, 2012, 07:52 AM

FreakinDJ (17,644 posts)

Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy

perhaps not the implementation or penalties associated with having more then 1 child but certainly the concept of social responsibility involved

I am worn out on seeing people bring 6 - 8 - even 10 children into the world with no means to support, educate, or even feed them.

Time after time a Crisis of epic proportion as starving masses of children are dying around the world because they live in a portion of the globe that can not sustain that many mouths to feed. Wars being fought as people fighting over diminishing resources ensues.

I can think of another 20 or 30 countries that could use such policies

flame away as you wish

217 replies, 31131 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

217 replies	Author	Time	Post
Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy (Original post)	FreakinDJ	May 2012	OP
Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do.	baldguy	May 2012	#1
Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#4
where do you see this "6,7, 10 children" being born with no means?	CreekDog	May 2012	#119
Either you are living an extremely sheltered life or .....	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#144
I'm asking you to say where you see it --I didn't post it in AN OP	CreekDog	May 2012	#150
Do you think that people should be required to vaccinate their children	JDPriestly	May 2012	#8
Do we levy fines against & imprison those who don't?	baldguy	May 2012	#21
Don't imprison them but certainly fine them.	GoneOffShore	May 2012	#136
What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#140
I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#2
As I said I don't agree with the implementation of the policy	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#5
I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#7
I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#11
Good for you	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#90
Just my mother wished to remain in her home	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#97
Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#99
Math lesson: if everyone has 4 kids -	bhikkhu	May 2012	#120
Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#143
Listen to God some time - he is telling you act responsibly	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#145
Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#149
Sad thing when people believe sex is only for procreation	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#157
I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29.	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#158
I don't know why "Lust" became so distorted	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#163
I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want.	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#166
You sound so ... so ... normal	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#174
Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#177
Your arguments are right in line with anti-choice rhetoric. Way to go!	Zalatix	May 2012	#171
I don't either. But its an authoritian government.	Left Coast2020	May 2012	#194
The reason why I recommended this OP	JonLP24	May 2012	#216
Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life.	southernyankeebelle	May 2012	#217
I'll flame. It'll burn hot so stand back:	cali	May 2012	#3
I'll stand right here and warm my hands	varelse	May 2012	#65
both parents go on record...	happerbolic	May 2012	#79
Absolutely not!	varelse	May 2012	#98
Oh fuk that. Way cheaper to just be a dictatorship and	elehhhhna	May 2012	#141
100% Free will is a novel idea...	happerbolic	May 2012	#153
Octomom and the Duggars	Ichingcarpenter	May 2012	#6
"People with no means to support them".	Nye Bevan	May 2012	#9
Not the parents. The planet.	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#16
And if they refuse?	hack89	May 2012	#181
there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich	MH1	May 2012	#38
Providing freedom, education and healthcare to woman ....	etherealtruth	May 2012	#10
7 billion people on the planet.	randome	May 2012	#12
Finally - some one who gets it	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#15
Frankly, their post was very much the opposite of yours.	noamnety	May 2012	#22
+1	etherealtruth	May 2012	#24
see post No. 14	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#28
I don't think that really refutes the assertion	etherealtruth	May 2012	#87
You've made quite a lot of assumptions on my behalf	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#25
Are you suggesting a policy with no means of enforcement?	noamnety	May 2012	#36
You are the only one distinguishing between "White and Nonwhite"	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#39
I'm just the only one stating the obvious:	noamnety	May 2012	#45
It doesn't have to be about 'poor versus rich'.	randome	May 2012	#49
I completely agree with that.	noamnety	May 2012	#56
I made no such reference	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#52
Who do you think is to blame more?	noamnety	May 2012	#58
Mr Ignorance	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#64
Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t	hughee99	May 2012	#27
No, I meant our entertainment demands.	randome	May 2012	#116
You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t	Logical	May 2012	#29
People will die regardless. How do you implement such a policy	cali	May 2012	#31
Maybe it depends on how it's framed.	randome	May 2012	#42
Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t	cynatnite	May 2012	#44
Not everything involving women has to do with taking away their rights.	randome	May 2012	#47
I think there would have to be a global consensus...	cynatnite	May 2012	#51
I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights	4th law of robotics	May 2012	#127
We have all sorts of limits on freedom now, of course.	randome	May 2012	#130
Access to BC, education, and a retirement system seem to do it	4th law of robotics	May 2012	#131
If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival.	Zalatix	May 2012	#169
I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the	coalition_unwilling	May 2012	#67
We could treat people like stray cats	4th law of robotics	May 2012	#126
Give more reproductive control to women, and also parents in general,	Quantess	May 2012	#13
Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up.	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#14
DU has certainly changed!	BlancheSplanchnik	May 2012	#80
145 replies so far telling me to Shut the Fuck Up about the obvious	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#146
like teabaggers.....same kind of willful misinterpretation	BlancheSplanchnik	May 2012	#156
Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society?	hack89	May 2012	#183
Actually, having children is a right	CreekDog	May 2012	#203
So you admit it's a Ponzi Scheme?	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#205
who are you talking to?	CreekDog	May 2012	#206
"...children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for (social security)..."	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#207
You called Social Security a Ponzi scheme?	CreekDog	May 2012	#208
No, you did. (nt)	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#210
But YOU called Medicare a ponzi scheme	CreekDog	May 2012	#211
I accept your apology.	NYC_SKP	May 2012	#212
Social Security has disability	CreekDog	May 2012	#213
by the way, if someone becomes disabled, did they fully fund their SS and Medicare?	CreekDog	May 2012	#209
Socially and ecologically responsible, but not economically responsible.	DCKit	May 2012	#17
Why is it economically responsible? Because we insist people retire at a young age?	MH1	May 2012	#41
I don't see how you would enforce it	quinnox	May 2012	#18
Trade and economic treaties are made all the time without a world government.	randome	May 2012	#26
No flame here. I agree with you 100 percent.	Glorfindel	May 2012	#19
American Representative to the UN Calls for Worldwide Depopulation	Ichingcarpenter	May 2012	#20
this is a tough one for me	fascisthunter	May 2012	#23
I'm with you, my friend.	LAGC	May 2012	#78
There is a way	Marrah_G	May 2012	#178
If you could separate the policy from it's implementation, it still involves more than live births	HereSince1628	May 2012	#30
The Governement has no business telling people what they should do with their bodies,	hughee99	May 2012	#32
Why focus just on the birth rate?	frazzled	May 2012	#33
China has deep cultural issues.	randome	May 2012	#35
I see no benefit in spiting out children so they can die in the streets	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#37
Oh my, you really are a dyed-in-the-wool eugenicist	frazzled	May 2012	#40
You certainly like to make assumptions on little or no fact	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#46
Now, now.	randome	May 2012	#53
Personally I believe "Unattended White Children" have just as many problems	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#55
Sure, but I don't think this needs to be framed in economic terms.	randome	May 2012	#63
Well, 4 out of 6 random DUers think it's a-ok to attack someone as being racist	MH1	May 2012	#60
Content of my alert * Jurors please note *	MH1	May 2012	#50
If they promote a policy	noamnety	May 2012	#59
How do you know which countries? Why not the U.S.?	MH1	May 2012	#62
I think you're being disingenuous	noamnety	May 2012	#69
Really? Do you actually think that the US can independently sustain its population?	MH1	May 2012	#73
I sure don't think that.	noamnety	May 2012	#82
In this case, I'll take a hidden post as a badge of honor	frazzled	May 2012	#61
The post you seem to be referring to, did not imply any racial component to me.	MH1	May 2012	#66
The OP is a eugenicist	AngryAmish	May 2012	#200
I must disagree with that awful accusation you made here	Zalatix	May 2012	#185
One child for some, death panels for others	Capt. Obvious	May 2012	#48
Hey, population growth has many mothers.	Igel	May 2012	#70
Picture of the earth and the amount of water as spheres	Ichingcarpenter	May 2012	#34
Another view	jberryhill	May 2012	#111
I remember reading that to my daughters.	randome	May 2012	#115
Five Chinese Brothers	jberryhill	May 2012	#118
So we vomit?	Ichingcarpenter	May 2012	#121
It's from a children's book which has been popular for decades	jberryhill	May 2012	#123
Personally, I find China's policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations horrific...	cynatnite	May 2012	#43
I suppose.	sendero	May 2012	#54
Ya - thanks Mom and Dad	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#57
There is a better way to achieve a very similar result	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#68
Hey you, common sense lady, scoot, get outta here!	Zalatix	May 2012	#104
Nothing shocks me anymore	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#107
This is the only thing that will ever work	LadyHawkAZ	May 2012	#114
yours is not a popular opinion, but I agree with it	tnvoter	May 2012	#71
Real world example of unintended results, is the 120male to 100 female ratio.	CK_John	May 2012	#72
The world is going to pay for over-population either way. nt	MH1	May 2012	#75
An old wive's tale was that when many boys were born there was war coming.	Mnemosyne	May 2012	#162
Not just an old wives' tale, it's pretty much historical fact.	Zalatix	May 2012	#170
Thank you for that, Zalatix. I still have much to learn. I'm not an old wife, but	Mnemosyne	May 2012	#173
The way to do it is to increase the education, rights, and economic well-being of women worldwide,	drm604	May 2012	#74
I agree with this whole heartedly.	MH1	May 2012	#76
Agree that this is the answer. n/t	kiranon	May 2012	#92
Key: Socially responsible	RobertEarl	May 2012	#77
Yeah. China: Where "The War On Women" starts at conception.	cherokeeprogressive	May 2012	#81
Let's play Jeopardy! I'll take population dynamics for a thousand.	Zalatix	May 2012	#135
Here on the other hand is some Actually Educated Information on the subject	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#187
Youth Bulge is actually quite correct and proven.	Zalatix	May 2012	#188
Your assuming Gender Selection would be legal or condoned under such drastic measures	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#191
Even China cannot control gendercide against girls, what makes you think you can?	Zalatix	May 2012	#192
I agree on all points.	magical thyme	May 2012	#83
A socially responsible policy in this case	Skelly	May 2012	#84
And thank you.	randome	May 2012	#85
Thats is biased against men	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#96
No more bias	Skelly	May 2012	#103
A sterilization lottery?	Nolimit	May 2012	#106
Oh...	Skelly	May 2012	#109
Has anyone read the short story "The Lottery"?	Quantess	May 2012	#134
We're gonna need some more stones.	randome	May 2012	#137
YES. Because what's more liberal than involuntary sterilization? (nt)	Nye Bevan	May 2012	#108
Or accepting the anti-choice position for the sake of population control?	Zalatix	May 2012	#110
There is always SOMEONE	Skelly	May 2012	#112
That's not a good solution	4th law of robotics	May 2012	#128
Edit. Didn't see your post downthread.	Union Scribe	May 2012	#161
Of course our top military and government men would be automatically exempt from the policy	slackmaster	May 2012	#196
Mother Nature will take care of us if we won't police our own numbers.	CrispyQ	May 2012	#86
Yes, yes, yes -- But does every single wild species of animal have to die first?	aint_no_life_nowhere	May 2012	#89
'7 Billion Miracles is Enough!'	randome	May 2012	#91
That's another interesting math problem:	bhikkhu	May 2012	#122
57 billion people. Thanks for the link.	randome	May 2012	#124
As a concept, yes, but its the implementation that causes problems.	prefunk	May 2012	#88
China holds 1.3 billion people.	Rex	May 2012	#93
If you see the human race as a 'herd', that may be part of your dilemma.	randome	May 2012	#95
No, Rex correctly sees humans being TREATED as a herd	Zalatix	May 2012	#100
Thank you	Rex	May 2012	#132
I strongly support the concept.	silverweb	May 2012	#94
I'm pro-choice not anti-choice but to each his/her own	cabot	May 2012	#101
Education, opportunity and access to birth control for women are what brings down birth rates.	Marrah_G	May 2012	#102
Trust women with their own fertility!	Quantess	May 2012	#129
Really	Old Codger	May 2012	#105
OR...	Skelly	May 2012	#113
Personal policy- maybe	loyalsister	May 2012	#117
I think it's awful. A more acceptable policy would be . . .	4th law of robotics	May 2012	#125
i dont. i am pro-choice	arely staircase	May 2012	#133
Eliminating all tax deductions for spawning would be a start.	Egalitarian Thug	May 2012	#138
I concur!!! nt	and-justice-for-all	May 2012	#155
You think forced abortion is "socially responsible policy"?	former9thward	May 2012	#139
I wouldn't worry about it too much.	roamer65	May 2012	#142
Or the Biblical Prophecies	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#147
I can't believe I see support for such an Authoritarian, misogynistic policy like forced abortion	chrisa	May 2012	#148
I don't see a need for a policy, just distribute birth control and teach people how to use it	Hippo_Tron	May 2012	#151
And how are you different than the anti-choice crowd?	Skidmore	May 2012	#152
Yeah, I find 19 kids and counting to be irresponsible	and-justice-for-all	May 2012	#154
How about	Skelly	May 2012	#160
unregulated human population growth	and-justice-for-all	May 2012	#214
Perhaps not	Skelly	May 2012	#215
It's worth a real discussion.	Skip Intro	May 2012	#159
thanks	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#164
Good post	aint_no_life_nowhere	May 2012	#167
Places with famine and starvation rarely have education or opportunity for women	Marrah_G	May 2012	#195
You can't have a one child policy.....	musical_soul	May 2012	#165
This is offensive	Fort Minor	May 2012	#168
Welcome to DU!	LAGC	May 2012	#172
And your answer to all that is totalitarianism?	Daniel537	May 2012	#175
Don't worry - Soon you won't have a choice	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#176
You are offering apologia for a horrible human rights abuse.	Warren DeMontague	May 2012	#179
Then you're not a Democrat	Ter	May 2012	#180
Between Global Warming and diminishing Oil Production	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#182
You are not a Democrat. Your views are anti-choice.	Zalatix	May 2012	#184
Don't worry - your children won't have a choice	FreakinDJ	May 2012	#186
Post removed	Post removed	May 2012	#189
Except for one slight problem -- there is no 1 child policy in China.	Major Hogwash	May 2012	#190
Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?	Son of Gob	May 2012	#193
Families deciding to limit themselves to 1-2 children would be socially responsible policy	slackmaster	May 2012	#197
In the US we have a $1000 per child tax credit	Bill McBlueState	May 2012	#198
Social responsibility? How about a country that has something like 5% of the world's population and	raccoon	May 2012	#199
The only problem China has with that	MissHoneychurch	May 2012	#201
Men who can afford to will import brides from other countries	slackmaster	May 2012	#202
Of course, actual achievement of your vision would ultimately require these enforcement mechanisms	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#204

Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)

Sat May 5, 2012, 07:54 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

1. Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do.

It's just another form of slavery.

Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy

1. Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do.

4. Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do

119. where do you see this "6,7, 10 children" being born with no means?

144. Either you are living an extremely sheltered life or .....

150. I'm asking you to say where you see it --I didn't post it in AN OP

8. Do you think that people should be required to vaccinate their children

21. Do we levy fines against & imprison those who don't?

136. Don't imprison them but certainly fine them.

140. What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt

2. I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly

5. As I said I don't agree with the implementation of the policy

7. I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only

11. I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death

90. Good for you

97. Just my mother wished to remain in her home

99. Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children

120. Math lesson: if everyone has 4 kids -

143. Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But

145. Listen to God some time - he is telling you act responsibly

149. Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't

157. Sad thing when people believe sex is only for procreation

158. I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29.

163. I don't know why "Lust" became so distorted

166. I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want.

174. You sound so ... so ... normal

177. Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers

171. Your arguments are right in line with anti-choice rhetoric. Way to go!

194. I don't either. But its an authoritian government.

216. The reason why I recommended this OP

217. Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life.

3. I'll flame. It'll burn hot so stand back:

65. I'll stand right here and warm my hands

79. both parents go on record...

98. Absolutely not!

141. Oh fuk that. Way cheaper to just be a dictatorship and

153. 100% Free will is a novel idea...

6. Octomom and the Duggars

9. "People with no means to support them".

16. Not the parents. The planet.

181. And if they refuse?

38. there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich

10. Providing freedom, education and healthcare to woman ....

12. 7 billion people on the planet.

15. Finally - some one who gets it

22. Frankly, their post was very much the opposite of yours.

24. +1

28. see post No. 14

87. I don't think that really refutes the assertion

25. You've made quite a lot of assumptions on my behalf

36. Are you suggesting a policy with no means of enforcement?

39. You are the only one distinguishing between "White and Nonwhite"

45. I'm just the only one stating the obvious:

49. It doesn't have to be about 'poor versus rich'.

56. I completely agree with that.

52. I made no such reference

58. Who do you think is to blame more?

64. Mr Ignorance

27. Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t

116. No, I meant our entertainment demands.

29. You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t

31. People will die regardless. How do you implement such a policy

42. Maybe it depends on how it's framed.

44. Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t

47. Not everything involving women has to do with taking away their rights.

51. I think there would have to be a global consensus...

127. I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights

130. We have all sorts of limits on freedom now, of course.

131. Access to BC, education, and a retirement system seem to do it

169. If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival.

67. I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the

126. We could treat people like stray cats

13. Give more reproductive control to women, and also parents in general,

14. Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up.

80. DU has certainly changed!

146. 145 replies so far telling me to Shut the Fuck Up about the obvious

156. like teabaggers.....same kind of willful misinterpretation

183. Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society?

203. Actually, having children *is* a right

205. So you admit it's a Ponzi Scheme?

203. Actually, having children is a right

50. Content of my alert * Jurors please note *