China's one-child birth control policy is under criticism from the Bush Administration. Forced abortion and coercion are two of the accusations I heard on CSPAN this morning.


http://www.planetwire.org/details/4824

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/215/215p13b.htm


Here's the Debate:

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

If so, on what grounds:

If not, why not?

I forget what the estimated maximum capacity for the earth human population was supposed to be, but I know it's not that far off. Bad Religion wrote a song called "Ten in 2010" about the earths over-population problem. Obviously problems of populous are not a major concern in the US, but places like China have the right to worry. And after worrying they have created a legitimate way to stop over-population. It's crude, and Im sure there are horror-stories to pinpoint, but the bottom line is that there are too many people on this planet, and we HAVE to start thinking about such limitations. I don't think the US should have anything to do with trying to STOP China's one-child policy, we should be trying to improve on it, and implement such things here.

Sure it's not the "Good-christian thing to do." But since when has the "Good-Christian" thing to do been right?

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

You freaking bet.

If so, on what grounds:

How about the fact that, contrary to the "progress" made by the UNFPA, the organization which recently concluded a family planning pilot program, there is still an institution of coercion and intimidation fundamentaly riveted into the Chinese people.

Let's take a look at this "progress".



The infant mortality rates are probably the only silver lining in this hurricane. Sterlization, although down an astounding *please feel free to wipe off the sarcasm oozing from your screen* sixteen percent, many women are pressured into sterilization or abortions by local and state officals. The U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices on China had this to say...



The Report

As far as contraception, here's a method highlighted in the same report.



Notice that. the words "must", "ensure that it remains properly in place", and "aborted immediately" were used. Although there is a law that says a woman can choose her form of contraception, the law is often bent and broken, with few coming forward to exercise their right to sue officials who overstep. Whether they win or not, that is yet to be heard.

Some more "progress".



What they dont tell you, in the aformentioned stats, as well as these here, are the location of these counties. Rules are not enforced as much in rural areas, especially those populated predominatly with Tibetans or Uighar Muslims, where some are allowed to have more than two children, sometimes up to four, without incident.

However in the urban areas, the rules are stricly enforced, and people have to obtain permission to have children under certain conditions. If these rules are violated, the same intimidation tactics are applied and/or a "social compensation fee" is levied. Those who refuse to pay can have their property seized.

And the most telling sin of omission made on behalf of the UNFPA, although eight hundred counties removed the quota systems, there are still one thousand nine hundred that still impliment them. That's out of the two thousand eight hundred total number of counties nationwide.

So unless a fundamental change is started to eliminate these ghastly and oppressive policies and the pressure for that change is applied by the international community, we won't see any real positive change and the rights of men and women to have a family will be trampled on.



With all due respect, this is one of the most insane things I have ever heard here. Help China trample human rights? Improve on their system and implement it here?

Why don't we take a Sharpie and black out the parts of the Consitution that guarantee the freedoms to purse life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom from fear. While we're at it, let's tell the same thing to India (who has over a billion people), Russia, Indonesia, and Japan, all who are in the top ten for most populated countries.

Promoting these policies are the wrong way to go about dealing with over-population. The policies China has in place are, IMHO, abhorrent and barbaric and must stop.

What if you, become one of those horror stories?

If not, why not?

Ok, this is an easy one...flip the story around. Suppose China criticized us for failure to control our population, and put pressure on us to change our birth control policies. Would anyone here feel that was any of China's business? I doubt it. Which isn't to say we can't express our opinion as to things we would like to see changed. But, last I looked, we don't have a seat at all on their governing council...

There is, of course, a much larger issue to be dealt with here. The real question is this: Which is worse, forced abortion, or rampant overpopulation? Arguments can be made either way....and would also involve the classic 'does the good of the one outweigh the good of the many?'.

I cannot help but point out how absolutely outrageous it is that the USA feels obliged to juge the morality of a people who have been around as a people, and a soverign nation for thousands of years:
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/toc.html The History of China

It's absurd for this flegling country, who Declared Independance in 1776 to think that it has any reason to impose it's sense of morality (which is highly disputed even at home) on a soverign country with as much history and experience as China.

Here is a major concern that I have with the curent trends in American foreign policy, and indeed domestic policy as well. It is, in my belief, the imperative of Evangelical Christianity to impose it's will upon others.

We have seen lots of facts and figures to show "trends" in birth rates, infant mortality, etc...but what about the other side of that coin?

How many children would be starving if China was not implementing population control practices. How unhealthy would the population be? How overtaxed would their resources be? What right has America to condemn China for attempting to take care of it's own problem?

America should clean out it's own closet before trying to look into others'!

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

Sure. I see it as simple ethics. If you feel something is wrong, you should do what you can to make it right. This particular topic is something of a gray area when it comes to the morality of it because, as Hobbes pointed out, good arguments can be found from either side. However, does anyone argue that we should NOT pressure China in regard to their Tibet policy? Their Freedom of Speech (or more to the point the lack of it) policy? etc?

If so, on what grounds?

We should be promoting what we feel is right and condemning what we do not. And we should put our money where our mouth is in this regard, which we certainly do not. China has a long history of abuses. We can argue the right or wrong of population control, but what of forced sterilization? And what of all the other human rights abuses. Is it China's right to handle their country as they see fit. Yes. But that doesn't mean other countries have to be silent about it?

Where do we come off saying China should do this and should not do that and then ignore it all when it is time to paste that "Most Favored Trade Nation" Label on them?



Would we like it? Well many would not. Though I bet those within the US that agree with population control would appreciate it. Support is support. Conversely, those Chinese citizens who oppose this form of tyranny and all other forms of tyranny that have been prevalent in China over the years (not to mention the citizens of Tibet) would likely welcome whatever support they can get. Though our opposition to such practices is hollow at best when we ignore them when it comes to the issue of Trade.

Doesn't the international community have a right to condemn the US in regard to out policy on the death penalty? Would it be wrong if they chose to enact economic sactions because of it? I think not. They have a right to their opinion and a right to act of it just as we have the same right in regard to issues we disagree with.



OK, So, If we follow your position to the next logical level then should we not bat an eye in regard to the thousands of Buddist monks slaughtered in Tibet? Lets turn this around a bit. If age is what really matters then wouldn't it be in keeping with this concept if we decided to Ban anyone under the age of 25 from posting on AD?

Getting involved in another countries internal politics is about as safe a move as injecting yourself into a argument between your neighbor and their spouse. However, can our freedom and democracy really be taken seriously by the world if we turn a blind eye to oppression and tyranny in the rest of the world (as we do everyday in regard to China)? Don't we have a right to voice an opinion?

The founders of this country believed that EVERY man was born with certain inalienable rights. Of course they didn't see eye to eye on what that meant for anyone other then a white male. But 200+ years later we as a country still believe this and apply the concept to all human beings. Are we not being hypocritical if we ignore it when other countries ignore these rights? Are we not being hypocritical everyday we continue giving China "Most Favored Trade" status?

If we truly believe that Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy (at least in the form of a Representative Republic) is the best way, Shouldn't we promote it?

Perhaps we need an international multi-level marketing scheme.

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

If so, on what grounds:

If not, why not?

I am somewhat to the left of Titus and somewhat to the right of Hobbes. I view forced abortions, sterilizations and birth control as government intrusion into no man's land between a doctor and a woman. Government prescribed (or proscribed) medications and procedures and number of births on competent citizens is reprehensible. This is where I give a universal rights of the individual trumping the scepter of nation states spiel if it wasn't time for bed.

On the other hand...



...the guaranteed rights in the Constitution isn't meant to protect citizens of foreign countries, nor has China agreed to a treaty with us regarding human rights that I'm aware of. I think the most you can hold China accountable for is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, etc. Treaties belonging to a certain defunct body Bush won't so much as waste a perfunctory nod of relevance on.

Aside from being a manufacturing competitor and possibly the next economic power at the rate they're consuming natural resources, notably gasoline, what is it about China's invasive population control programs that requires U.S. condemnation over other up and coming civilized nations we deal with, like say... Pakistan? Considering one of Bush's first actions after taking office was reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which cut off U.S. international aid money from any family planning organization that provided abortion services, coerced or otherwise, the latest White House rebuke sounds like modus operandi to me.

I think you might of misuderstood teh context of that statement there, Les. I was refering to Hero's implying that we do the same here.



The problem with that argument is that morality differs from culture to culture. You can claim that we can say nothing just because China is millenia ahead of us as far as a civilization, but age does not automatically make it alright.

Feet Binding


Many Chinese women from the 9th century until only just after the 20th century were encouraged to bind their feet, the appearance of the small limbs thought to be erotic to men. Also, the practice was to ensure that women, seen as property, would not be able to go anywhere.


Legend has it that the Great Wall recieves it's bright grey-almost white color from the bones of the countless millions who died building it, giving a nickname to the structure... the "longest cemetary in the world".

The Emperor was known to have more than one woman with whom he sired children. Some had a few, other's...a hundred.

So before we go down that road, let's just not.

Either we all stink, or we all smell like roses.



And I think it's intersting that Hobbes bring up that scenario, because that's exactly what people in Europe and the rest of the world are doing. Except it's not our "one child policy" but our foreign policy that seems to give other countries a seat on our Senate Foreign Relations Comittee.

But speak out against China? We have no right. Please.

OS made many great points, and I agree with you completely brother! Sure, we're not the prettiest smelling flower in the garder, but what's wrong with putting the spotlight on something that is oppressive and barbaric and contrary to what most of humanity believes? And this goes both ways. If the international community sees fit to criticize our foreign and domestic policies, why is it wrong that we do the same? Especially with something as horrible as the human rights in China.

Look at who's in power in this country now. A vote for George W. Bush was a pro-life vote. Bush can do what he darn well pleases as far as what he tells China is right and wrong.
On the grounds that he was voted into office by "we the people," and as the President he represents the United States to the leaders of every other country of the world.

That's what we wanted, wasn't it? Didn't we say in the last election pretty clearly that we wanted George W. Bush with his traditional moral values to be our leader and guide for the next four years? Why should he shrink from telling China what they should be doing? Wouldn't that be a "wussie" thing to do, or flip-flopping?

Let the chips fall where they may. Our President has a statement to make--how others react is their choice, right? We're going to get what we deserve from this, one way or another.

----------------------------------------

But to look at it from another angle: Both China and India are countries where couples have had the woman abort the fetus if its gender was determined to be female. As a consequence, there will very soon be a shortage of females for the males who are coming of age to marry and reproduce. This problem is obviously one of their own making. It will be interesting to see how they set about solving the shortage of the gender commonly considered less desirable.

Paladin Elspeth

Well, one would assume that a shortage of females would lead to a decrease in birthrate, which would then lead to a decrease in population.

Which seems to be something China and India want to achieve.

Unfortunately economies that are predominantly agrarian based are going to prefer having sons to daughters, as men are generally stronger and much of the work is physical labour. Whilst in the long term this is no good, many of the rural poor in China and India are still stuck in trying to survive on a short term basis.

I may be slavishly adhering to free market policies here, but surely the best way to deal with a very high population rate is to do nothing. People have large families for a variety of reasons, however as economic conditions change, people willingly reduce the number of children they will have. Poorer countries have large families partly as a way of getting enough workers for the family farm. A large population should provide an abundance of cheap labour anyway. Knowing that it will be difficult to marry off a son, but easy to marry off a daughter should make daughters a more popular choice sooner or later.

As regards to Bush, he has the popular US mandate and can say what he likes. On a purely economic, long term level, his advice is probably good. There is probably enough dislike of the policy within the People's Party to make criticism by Bush worthwhile.

The whole thing is hypocritical for people on here to be criticising China.

Let me make it clear, I dont support forced sterilization or abortion (under any circumstances for that matter).

Having read some of the previous posts in some other topics .. I can tell that many of people would support the same ideas against black people (using some welfare based excuse of course) if they saw the black population increasing too rapidly.. why according to what I've read on some of these forums even THE NBA for godsakes has too many black people .. there was a forum about illegal alien babies .. and people wanted the babies to be deported .. never mind it would lead to abandonment of babies inside trash bins or in hospitals .. and then what are you going to do ? Skin pigmentation testing? .. and where do you ship the baby off to once you've done the skin color test and determined the baby might be foreign?

So what I'm saying is .. yeah forced sterilization is bad and evil .. but let's not criticize China for doing something many of the people right here would no doubt support if they were facing similar issues. China is facing a population crisis and are choosing to react in this way. It's wrong but it seems they are only being criticised out of "China hate" rather than actually any legitimate caring for the Chinese people.

And then you wonder why they ignore the criticism.

[quote=Paladin Elspeth,Dec 15 2004, 12:38 AM]
[quote]Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?[/quote]
Look at who's in power in this country now. A vote for George W. Bush was a pro-life vote. Bush can do what he darn well pleases as far as what he tells China is right and wrong.

This is part of the hipocracy that I can't support. Bush talks about a "culture of life" and yet he is perpetually at war, fabricating reasons to kill, and looking for a reason to do more.

[quote]If so, on what grounds:[/quote] On the grounds that he was voted into office by "we the people," and as the President he represents the United States to the leaders of every other country of the world.

That is still under debate. Election fraud is a very real possibility.

That's what we wanted, wasn't it? Didn't we say in the last election pretty clearly that we wanted George W. Bush with his traditional moral values to be our leader and guide for the next four years? Why should he shrink from telling China what they should be doing? Wouldn't that be a "wussie" thing to do, or flip-flopping?

It's one thing to address the USA, which he was elected as leader of. The "morality" of Bush isn't widely accepted here at home. 51% isn't a whopping majority. And it isn't quite clear that the election was legitimate.

----------------------------------------


[quote=CatchPhrase,Dec 15 2004, 08:49 AM]
The whole thing is hypocritical for people on here to be criticising China.

Let me make it clear, I dont support forced sterilization or abortion (under any circumstances for that matter).


[/quote]

Well, in a Machiavellian sort of way, I can see some circumstances where it might be the better alternative to overpopulation, starvation and hardship for the entire population: the greatest good for the greatest number.

Some on this forum are talking about China as if it's population control policy was the worst thing around, and Bush should take an active role in changing that. There are much more prevalent issues around. Bush is more concerned with supporting corporations who use child labour in sweat shops to assemble their products. That deserves a tax cut, right?

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoca92.html

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1651

There's hipocracy for ya. Let's make sure that all those children get born, so that our exceedingly wealthy corporations can employ them in their state of poverty to manufacture goods that our elite rich execs can get rich off of. Now I understand. It has nothing to do with "value of life" it has to do with Profit margins!

Somehow that serves as justification for horrific deeds, supported by this administration while the spin machine tries to convince the people that the Bush regime is "moral" in nature. Puhlease!

Well, China may have been there for a thousand years, but their history has been tumultuous, and their government has changed many times within that period of time. There are a large number of practices that I disagree with in China, and I don't feel that it is at all outrageous to point them out.



What point are you trying to make? The Republic of China was established in 1912, and the communist party has been in power for approximately 50 years. China and Chinese culture certainly existed prior to that, but things have changed significantly. It's absurd to represent China's morality under the communist party as being the same as it has been for thousands of years.



I will not deny that China's population problem is valid, but the methodology for dealing with it is not valid. We're talking about forced contraception, sterilization, and abortion, and I strongly believe that these are issues that should be left in the hands of women and their doctors as opposed to statesmen.

The one child policy, combined with a cultural tendency towards valuing male children more highly, has created a situation where female babies are killed or treated very poorly. The ratio between men and women is highly imbalanced, and the female suicide rate is higher than anywhere else in the world.

This is not the way to make progress. It's merely opening up another pandora's box.

I completely agree with overlandsailor.

Furthermore, as for the "what if China interfered with us" question. If we interfere with China, does that make is any more likely that they are going to interfere with us? No.

Don't assume that by saying it is OK to promote certain values, we are saying it is OK to promote any values. It is only OK to promote good values. Who decides what good values are? Each person. If I think that forced abortion is wrong, I am going to vote for someone who is going to prevent it in any way possible. I am not going to vote for someone who is going to force, say, completely free markets on China, because I don't think that is good.

The fact is, some interference with other countries is good, and some is bad. I don't think we have to say that "all interference is wrong" or "all interference is right". We can decide things on a case-by-case basis.

Do you realize that you oppose a woman's right to choose with these comments, that you would prefer the government to have the right to choose instead?


Moral relativism works to some degree, but with communist China? China's human rights record is dismal. Forcing people to have abortions is not morally good no matter how spin it. How does the USA maintain a conservative 1% population growth without such brutal laws? There is a better way to achieve results than oppressive-dictatorship-mandates.

U.S. population growth: http://www.demographia.com/db-usa20002003.htm
Human rights in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China

[quote=Antny,Dec 15 2004, 10:56 AM]
[quote=Paladin Elspeth,Dec 15 2004, 12:38 AM]
[quote]Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?[/quote]
Look at who's in power in this country now. A vote for George W. Bush was a pro-life vote. Bush can do what he darn well pleases as far as what he tells China is right and wrong.

This is part of the hipocracy that I can't support. Bush talks about a "culture of life" and yet he is perpetually at war, fabricating reasons to kill, and looking for a reason to do more.

[quote]If so, on what grounds:[/quote] On the grounds that he was voted into office by "we the people," and as the President he represents the United States to the leaders of every other country of the world.

That is still under debate. Election fraud is a very real possibility.

That's what we wanted, wasn't it? Didn't we say in the last election pretty clearly that we wanted George W. Bush with his traditional moral values to be our leader and guide for the next four years? Why should he shrink from telling China what they should be doing? Wouldn't that be a "wussie" thing to do, or flip-flopping?

It's one thing to address the USA, which he was elected as leader of. The "morality" of Bush isn't widely accepted here at home. 51% isn't a whopping majority. And it isn't quite clear that the election was legitimate.

----------------------------------------


[quote=CatchPhrase,Dec 15 2004, 08:49 AM]
The whole thing is hypocritical for people on here to be criticising China.

Let me make it clear, I dont support forced sterilization or abortion (under any circumstances for that matter).


[/quote]

Well, in a Machiavellian sort of way, I can see some circumstances where it might be the better alternative to overpopulation, starvation and hardship for the entire population: the greatest good for the greatest number.

Some on this forum are talking about China as if it's population control policy was the worst thing around, and Bush should take an active role in changing that. There are much more prevalent issues around. Bush is more concerned with supporting corporations who use child labour in sweat shops to assemble their products. That deserves a tax cut, right?

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoca92.html

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1651

There's hipocracy for ya. Let's make sure that all those children get born, so that our exceedingly wealthy corporations can employ them in their state of poverty to manufacture goods that our elite rich execs can get rich off of. Now I understand. It has nothing to do with "value of life" it has to do with Profit margins!

Somehow that serves as justification for horrific deeds, supported by this administration while the spin machine tries to convince the people that the Bush regime is "moral" in nature. Puhlease!

[/quote]

Hey, I didn't vote for him. But remember: the people have spoken. That's what Bush keeps saying. Majority rules. We haven't had all the votes counted, and the Electoral College hasn't convened yet. Nobody's saying, Dude, move out of the White House--nobody is powerful enough under the Constitution.

Bush was clear in his agenda, whether we like it or agree with it or not. Now, as the people of the United States, we will reap what has been sown and is being sown, particularly by the Chief Executive and his administration.

I was stationed in Korea in the late 60 and early 70 and they had a zero growth policy and families were limited to two children. Korea did not have a Social Security program and the traditional method of eldest son providing for elder care caused problems for families. Families with only daughters would sell or kill the female child in order to have a male child to provide them security in their old age. These sold children were often exported but many remained in Korea and became prostitutes and were in debt to the person who adopted them and raised them to an age where they could work. In youth these children work like slaves and then in adulthood it gets worse.

Without Social Security and a son to provide care it was quite normal for elders to commit suicide because they would starve before beg.

Western Europe government (Germany) pays families to have babies for the opposite reason their population is shrinking.

I would think a Social Security net is not available in China and a like situation, as Korea would prevail so I would support such a policy.

Human population growth is produceing a gradually larger population of people. This will at some point become more then what the earth, in terms of environment, ecology, or ecosystem will be able to support in terms of organic life in total. So birth control at some point will have to become mainstream now, and or later in thought. This becomes even worse when current materialism, or behavior, etc... is not green or environmentally sound. In relation to the topic, i think america should handle its own social issues as such before committing actions like this. We have like around 20000 gun related murders each year alone, and that is just one point.

I find no fact in any of this of course, just more relativity in thought and or perception, etc... along with the giant lump of ignorance humanity on a whole generally lives in. I practice safe sex, and i am sure to some group of people i am wrong for such Overall i feel this behavior is just a reflection of this administrations perception really. A one rooted in a fundamentalist religious type zeal basically, and i fear it will get worse in the years to come before it gets better. I fear coming home in some ways.

I hope the current leadership does not plan to play to part of the u.n in wake of its devastation, its hard for any single nation to stay impartial and or neutral or not act in self interest. In terms of globalization or so on i think this will just come to make situations worse then they need to be. On a scale of world issues, i also dent feel this one should draw such action when there is worse out there(iraq), depending on your perception of course.

Nileriver are you speaking to the topic subject and suggesting if we were more environmentally sound we could produce more babies or gun control should be removed so more gun related deaths would reduce population?

Birth control is practiced by every adult in America it is a conscious choice to produce another child, a choice for every woman if it isn’t rape. In America a woman has the right to “choose” to kill a baby up until the baby takes the first breath.

My parents came from families of 12 & 11 members (9 & 8 brothers and sisters each). My parents produced three children. The difference was caused by industrialization and social security program for elder age care. You say things will get worse while I pointed out in my first post above that in Germany most citizens choose to have one child so they can maintain a higher standard of living. I’m sure most people in America choose to have families they can support and maintain a desired lifestyle. I suggest you review your family tree and see if it is not true your grandparents and great grandparents came from very large families.

If in the great depression the US government had passed a law that people could have only one child (there was no SS at the time) would you not welcome a super power to ask them to reconsider? What if there was no Social Security and you were poor and needed the support of a son in your old age? Who would care for you and your wife? The point of my original post was to point out that most of the world with the exception of the US Western Europe has relied since time was recorded on a male child to care for elderly. I know that is hard for a young liberal to grasp! It is reality, and if there is no male child you will die or starve when you become too old to work if you do not possess wealth without a government social program for support. As I pointed out in Korea none existed and likewise none exist in China. The girl babies will be killed and only male children survive until the law changes, have you no heart?



So you are the intelligent speck in the giant lump of ignorance. I would think when speaking on the topic we are responding to you should speak of how successful your population control measures have been rather than the method, think success rate.

I fail to make the connection between religious zeal and disagreement with (a) government’s population one baby law imposed on citizens.

You seem to want to share many fears you possess “I fear it will get worse and I fear coming home in some ways?” What makes you so fearful?


The UN has no power to do anything but fleece countries of funds to maintain a lavish lifestyle. I suppose its inaction to the slaughter in Africa reduced world population. Turning a blind eye to the killing fields of Iraq under Sadam reduced world population significantly also. I will remind you of the UN’s latest World Hunger conference in South Africa where 500 new white Mercedes shuttled diplomats back and forth from the conference where the debating club consumed TONS of Prime Rib, Lobster, barrels of French wine and concluded they need more donors.

Boy, aren't we arrogant little Americans. "Our way or the highway, even in your own country"

I disagree with this poster. This mindset has got to stop. It's horrible. Arrogant people shoving their own personal beliefs down the throats of people half way around the world.

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

No the Bush administration needs to get its own house in order. He was elected President of the United States, not dictator to the world.

Let's talk about human rights issues. Americans KILL more human beings every year, both at home and abroad, then any other country in the world. And yet we judge others.

Maybe we can force Europe to relax their gun control laws.

Maybe we can get Canada to force Gay Marriage rights on the US, or is the US the only country that is allowed to have an opinion.

Hey, we can get Canada to force the legalization of marijuana in the US.

Amsterdam can force the US to permit prostituion and heroin use.

Be arrogant all that you want but admit it. Stand up and say what you really feel, that AMERICANS ARE RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND IF THEY DON"T CHANGE THEIR WAYS WE SHALL KILL THEM!!!!! HEIL! HEIL! HEIL!

US Nazis

Wow,

So then, we cannot choose to promote what we think is right and condemn what we think is wrong. Well then, no reason to try to get involved in the AIDS epidemic in Africa. And all those countries receiving financial Aid from America might as well start planning the cut backs because we should not get involved. One Country Invades another, to heck with them, no reason to try to preserve the violated nation.

This is absurd. You obviously think your are right and the other side is wrong. Does that make you a Nazi, because you choose to express it? Are all those who choose to use the GREAT service at Buy Blue also being fascists because they choose to put their money where their ideology is? Are all the countries that condemn the US for having the Death Penalty Nazis?

I choose to donate to AD, Cato, the New America Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste. I guess I must be a Nazi because I choose to support as well as advocate the causes I think are right and just.

IMHO this is a transparent tactic. Paint those with whom you disagree with the worst brush possible, in this case the Nazis. There are many legitimate arguments on both sides as to way supporting or not supporting these practices are wise. I just happen to think that Waving the Swastika around is not one of them.

Is there any reason why countries cannot advocate for what they feel is right, condemn those they feel are wrong and support those changes they feel are needed? If you truly believe this should not be allowed then why even have a UN?

If we are going to give our opinion then we had better listen to the opinion of others. You are paining a 1 way street here. That "my way or die" nazi mentality.

Should Bush be willing to listen to countries that try to ban our capital punishment?

Should Bush be willing to listen to Canada in regards to legal pot or gay weddings?

Should Bush listen to the rest of the world and tighten our gun control laws?

Should Bush bite the bullet and JOIN THE REST OF THE WORLD and sign the Kyoto treaty?

If we should be encouraging countries to DO THINGS THE WAY WE GREAT AMERICANS do them, then we should be listening to other countries and changing our methods to appease them. Like Not going to war against underarmed little countries that pose no threat to anyone. That would be a good start. If Americans would shut up for just one moment, we might be able to hear what other countries have to say.

What one way street? I suggested that everyone should advocate what they believe in and condemn what they don't. My previous posts asked why we, or the rest of the world should not.

Should we listen? We do, our representative at the UN listens to it all everyday. Not agreeing with something and choosing not to do it is different then not listening. Take the case of the Kyoto treaty, did we not discuss this issue with other countries and then decide we disagreed? I vaguely recall international meetings on this treaty where we had representation.

Your post said, "..I disagree with this poster. This mindset has got to stop. It's horrible. Arrogant people shoving their own personal beliefs down the throats of people half way around the world."

Doesn't sound like listening is even relevant. In the case of China, we choose to oppose their position on many issues, we do it in an empty way because we do not remove the most favored trade status, but we still do it. Do you feel we have no right to oppose their policy on Tibet? A country that once had over 3000 Buddist monasteries now has somewhere in the neighborhood of 7, is that not worth of condemnation?

As for the other issues, I didn't see any support for Gay marriage from the Democratic candidate, other then to support civil unions which the President also supports. Is he a Nazi too? Gun Control Laws? We have a history of them accomplishing nothing. Why continue a failed policy? Legalizing Pot? Hey, like Gay Marriage I am with you on that, but the majority of America is not and in a Representative Republic, the majority may not be all powerful, but they are darn close. The best way to convince them is to continue to reason with them. It could take years, but no social change in any country happened overnight.

China chooses not to listen to us, so should we then demand that they never speak on an issue again?

In America we have a right of Free Speech, but not a right to be heard. The world operates in a similar way. Any country can say anything the choose. It does not mean that other countries will listen, let alone act on it. But that doesn't mean you give up. None of the countries that tried and failed to convince us of any number of things have given up, why should we?

Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

I think that any nation (not just the US) has a right to promote their beliefs, withhold funds if they don’t conform to their beliefs and certainly apply pressure to change their ways. This isn’t saying it’s my way or the highway but it saying if you want my money change. It is up to the receiving nation and/or organization to decide if the price is worth it.

Now with that said, when I read the attached articles I see a very different issue then the question posed for debate. That is why is the Bush Administration withholding funding when its own investigation showed that UNFPA was not linked to any coercive programs?

Of course the first thing to pop into my mind is that they do promote family planning outside of abstinence. Perhaps that is the issue the Bush Adminstration has and they are using China as an excuse...

Dude, what part of Bush’s house is not in order? Having foreign policy is not a dictatorship.

We are largely responsible for China’s need to reduce its population growth. Perhaps you haven’t read we buy a lot of Chinese stuff, more stuff than they buy from us. Because China is industrializing quickly due to the US demand for slave labor manufacturing you could compare the situation to the early 1900’s in America on steroids. Imagine farm families of 12 to 15 members being told by the US government ‘no more’, one baby and that is it!

The US government was set up on two sets of laws, common law for the folks based on Judeo-Christian values and international trade law. Both sets of law have been raped.

Common law was established as a norm of “PUNISHMENT” for those who violate the norms verses what it is considered today. For example, a child molester would be deprived of all property, stoned in the public square and banished. This is quite a bit different from rehabilitation and return to the community to see if the rehabilitation worked. Common law has been morphed into rehabilitation placing the citizen violator of expected norms to be viewed as government property in a state of ill repair, kind of like a car thrown together before a three day holiday weekend. But, that is not the subject of the post is it? Is it your assertion America should have no foreign policy or trade policy? Does having an opinion turn the US into a Nazi nation?

Yes, let’s talk about human rights issues. We are in agreement that the flawed law in America has allowed the killing of millions of Americans through abortion. For the losses of life abroad I will assume you are speaking of those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dude, you are very misguided if you think American foreign policy in these two countries is invalid, but that topic should be discussed on a thread specifically speaking to the subject.

Likewise, guns, gays, drugs and prostitution have nothing to do with the subject of the post or question being debated. In my humble opinion your reply has no merit since you failed to identify specifically why America should have no standards with trading partners. Did you know we don’t openly trade with Cuba? Do you know why?

Do you think we should trade with China if instead of this law they just sent a military force into each neighborhood and killed all but one child per family? Would we be Nazi’s to disagree?

Speaking of Nazis I think your use of the word in conjunction with the majority elected administration would be a quite good alternative to war hero for the next opponent.

The article states that, but strangely, the State Department's own site indicates otherwise.

I don't think our tax dollars should go in any way towards the funding of forced abortion, so I'd say it's correct to withhold funding until reforms in UNFPA's China program are made, or there is sufficient evidence that our money is not going towards this coercive policy.

I find it funny to think some people still cannot see a religious perspective in americas current administration. i dont think you can escape such, but i can fear it being a very supportive mechanism in how the government comes to govern and interact with the world. I feel that this issue with china among other things is a reflection of such. You can find many christian groups that go to china and go about trying to confront what they feel is an issue with chinas government regulated birth control practices. So again this leads me to the pigs and sheep kind of thought of why this administration is dealing or taking action on this issue, and that is just one facet of why i think we are being governed by a heavy religious attitude anymore.

America has a vast landscape of its own social issues. I find it hard to believe that someone is doing the “right” thing if so many problems continue to exist. When you debate complex issues, like the fatality rate in america via guns, you cant find fact, just more rhetoric from that whole relativity in perception gig, and i dont care for that, and i fix that point along with this act about china.

The lack of fact and just philosophy really to me is nothing more then a signal to me of the ignorance humanity lives in overall. We are slowly laying waste to the environment, but you get nothing about that from this admin save rejection of the kyoto protocols, this coupled with a growing population of people will not come out to a fit end shall we say. Even in light of green thinking becoming mainstream in humanity we will at some point stress the environment to a breaking point via resource demands. This is evident today with species extinction and pollution in all its various forms becoming more and more.

I am left to deal with a relative philosophy that is devoid of fact of course dictating something that is just connected to something more complex then such. Overall i feel it makes no real difference to china how the u.s feels about its birth control. I mean what if china said i dont like how you let companies feed your people fast food that is very bad for their health. How do you think america would react to such a statement, after all its not like it helps and or aids in heart failure or anything.

I know that throwing insults around or what not is the best way to debate, but i dont care to be a pro in such actions, so i will sit and speak in my normal mode rather then play the game per say. I gave up debating the christian right in america, they dont care for anything related to fact in the first place and the only thing that is right to them is their perception of some ideology being emplaced in a dictatorship type format. So i wont take that step being it bears no point in the first place. Does the u.s have any kind of strategy to engage in helping china overcome what many feel is a negative issue, or are we just going to say bad things about them, i know its easy to do and would make you look good to voters you want to keep.

One could talk about why the u.s and such helps release flawed drugs to combat aids that kills kids and what not or is against the use of condoms to a variety of things, but that would just be more rhetoric perhaps and not get across the point. The u.n is not a solid body, and i dont know if i should feel bad about them funding a meeting in a lavish format when trying in the first place to get funds and or help to a nation. I dont know if the u.n also allows to have specific philosophy enforced when dealing out aid, but as a single nation alone, the u.s can act how it feels about such then. I think it was in south america that many infants were being born to starvation but the catholic church would not accept birth control being done in such an environment, i think this lead to a practice of mothers having to decide which child to feed and which one to let starve and overall i know that western theology has a glorious track record in regards to human rights and or equality, ecology but that would be a different thread.

I feel that with the ignorance humanity lives in we are truly incapable of dealing with such issues due to complexity, and more so being conservative on the aspect of such is not going to be the fit winner either if you want to view from such an angle, and overall its just more of the normal stagnant same i have come to expect anymore. My birth control is going to involve a common surgery, to make sure i never have such happen, i feel its one of the worse things i could do to a person really.

Again this makes no real sense to me, and is just more of the ignorance overall, that is all.

Critisizing Chinas one child policy and its physical meaning should be done by every First nation. The policy is HORRIFIC. Women are literally torn from their homes or workplaces and locked up until they consent to abortions. They have been sterilized against their will after delivery of a first child. Their menstrual cycles are clocked publicly at their workplace. They are continually spied on to be sure they are NOT pregnant. Many factories have their own abortion facilities. Abortions are performed up to 9 months, sometimes the child is alive when aborted and thrown in a trash can to die several hours later. Children born out of the policy have no identity and the parents suffer loss of work, home and all ability to care for themselves. Extended families are threatened in compliance tactics. It IS one of the most brutal human rights abuses on the planet today.

The United States is well within its rights not only to pressure but to outright condemn these practices.

That said, Bush is NOT pressuring the Chinese government. He is withholding money from UNFPA which teaches family planning. Its not the first time he has done it, it was in fact his first act in office with Planned Parenthood in the first 4 years. I believe it is a payoff the the religious right and get them out of his hair to move on with the process of government.

Its very bad policy for many reasons.

These organizations first desire to teach proper use of birth control and make it available to the poor, withholding money from them creates MORE abortions. I dont understand what the State department has said on this issue because the Chinese government needs no help funding coerced abortions. Its a State policy.

Any family planning organization which has seen first hand the Chinese one child policy at work would have to be extremely twisted or racist to help them at it. I can see them trying to educate the women so as not to have to go through that ordeal, as the only way to help. These organizations have done wonders in India, China, Africa and other parts of the world in reducing populations, educating on STD's and teaching that female children are equally valuable. They have implemented legislation which reduces the possibility of killing off only female children, in the womb or out. Cutting their funding does not do its desired purpose.

For those that believe the US has no right to tell others how to live, I usually agree with that premise, mostly when it comes to religious or cultural matters. Its been very sensitive for western women when it comes to opposing clitorectomies in stepping on cultural beliefs, but we are not talking about the people's choice here, nor a cultural issue. We are talking about an extremely abusive, one sided government policy that targets mostly women and innocent children.

If the rationale for some to condone this is because of Chinas population problem, think about this-- why is China not forcing all men with a first child to have vasectomies, a much simpler and more easily reversable option, other than putting women through all this hell? How would we react to that policy? To my knowledge men are not being thrown on a slab and cut in China, only women are.

Throughout the world women are subjugated to bizarre torturous behaviors on the part of male dominated religions and governments. We do nothing about it and claim its none of our business, unless we use it as a point of convenience, like the Burka, which suddenly came in really handy, although western women had been petitioning their governments to do something about womens abuses in Afghanistan for over 10 years.

Bush, especially with his supposed beliefs, actually SHOULD pressure the Chinese government strongly to Stop coersed abortion practices and KEEP funding organizations which educate the people in family planning and work with them on population issues. However, considering that much of our national debt has been funded by the Chinese, I doubt Bush is about to pressure them on anything of consequence at all.

What is being done is for show alone, possibly to save money but further hurts the women and children those funds are supposedly set aside to help. I suppose some of the saved funding will go to Christian missionaries in China teaching abstinance or some other such hogwash, if previous record is anything to go by.

That is what i mean, we dont have any strategy to aid in such an issue, we just throw up insults on how we are disgusted with such. unicef and many other u.n based organizations are being hurt by bush, whom is reported to base such actions from christian relations within his area. Unicef has long been in the business of trying to reform nations that put children up as soldiers in various parts of the world. When they go to work on something, they dent do it in a fashion of telling you that you have to be more american and or become someone that worships budda in a chan format, i have never found such in actions by u.n based humanitarian programs.

The u.s on the other hand as of late does seem to want to try to implement such along with any aid they hand out. Its like a missionary that will feed starving people if they read the bible and wear certain clothes and so on, i will never agree with such and why i did not go into the peace corps really.

Women are historically subjugated. In iraq with the whole democracy thing, we wont say much into making sure the constitution there will reflect women having equal rights, but will go more with religious segregation and socialization practices that are going on today. Its more of the same rearing its ugly head back in the states like we are going back in time.

To another issue, why do we say this is so bad. would it be bad if the people obeyed the government on such. i mean that is what we are to do right. If i thought the government was being fascist by supporting religion in such a process, what is the difference if i disagree or not or protest such or do not go along quietly. If we make it more of an option, and chinas population booms, whom is going to help when resources do not cover and you end up with an ethiopia of people starving to death.

again the complexity of the issue is large when compared to the empty insult like actions of this administration. Greenhouse gases in particular co2 is to boost around 75-150% in the next ten years, and of course how do you allow less developed nations get in gear of taking care of themselves, and the whole kyoto issue. I dont think it really matters you know, i find no logic in this action overall, it bears nothing of help and or aid in the ability to end such government practices, and more to the point, why dont we deal instead with making sure children in america with bad eyes get glasses or something, there is a million social issues at home. On one side of it you have the bush admin calling china a competitor, well why do nations do such, so that the people may survive i might think is one reason alone. If china just allows for its population to grow without having the resources needed for such, you will have more crime i might think, and a slow death of starvation among other things for people. I also doubt the u.s to fit the bill to this competitor and open up its arms to its growth and sharing things with it, not from a neo-con admin anyways. Like i said, this is nothing more then some empty insult set up for the most part to look good like he does all the time, its nothing more then that. Maybe he should try to calm the vietnam like jihad that is growing instead of such false actions with china, its just manure really.

Again, with rhetoric and no fact, i doubt such to resolve well, or any issue for that matter.

You might be right here.


If we were sending funds to a South African agency during the apartheid era of the lates 80s, for the purpose of improving the lives of the native African people, and found that some of those funds might be going towards their incarceration and torture in prison...should we keep sending those funds? Or, should we expect some assurance that our money isn't going towards any nefarious purpose? Afterall, the South African government would still incarcerate and torture without our money...

Personally, I don't think we should be funding this policy even if it cuts down on the total number of abortions...because it is a sick policy. We shouldn't fund forced abortion, and we should seek assurances that the money isn't being used to do that.

Edited to add:
I fail to see the relationship between elective surgery and gross government-enforced infanticide and misogyny. Is this supposed to be a stab at humor?

To mrs.P, my remark is personal, and i dont relate it to anything in particular with chinas policy as a nation. You may infer that if you wish, but i dont know what you get from it save if you are trying to make me look bad along with your infanticide word usage.

Bush wants to do better then china, and have more then china, and keep china less if i may. he then wants chinas population to grow and or "boom". something in all that does not make any sense to me, none at all. If america was to drop to the level of resource use china sits at, with china having double the population america has, quality of life in the u.s may seem to drop a bit i might think. I dont know how many americans would like this. So with that and his belief being against chinas practice in birth control, where do you go i may ask. It makes no sense and is an insult. Nothing more then that. China i think even got in line with the kyoto protocols even though it needs more in terms of resources. If giving the choice myself of having a child i made aborted and or starve to death, i dont know which one i would pick myself, i am not saying that is what would happen, but has anyone in this debate here speculated on why china has the policy in the first place. I think its crude and unusual, but whom am i to say how china should be, does china do such to other nations, or for the most part is the u.s always the one calling the shots and or names in the circumstance.

I support the environment, i think i have made such clear in my time here on AD. I would like to know what is going to happen when the environment becomes to the limit of breaking from use, what are we doing to do then, is this not like what china is facing or that other nations and or people have not faced before, or even other living things on a regular. i doubt really anyone to tackle this issue past anything of a relative emotional stance. heck the u.s drops 500 pound bombs and greater in residential areas in iraq, think any kids ever die in that. I wonder if kids died in the carpet bombing of germany or when we nuked to civilian cites in japan. I can also notice that children starve in the u.s and face another great amount of issues. If we are to mandate human rights, maybe we should make this mandate the norm first here in the states, which we dont seem to do if one can just look at the legacy ghettos of america alone.

Again, its just something for the camera by bush, whom is vary notorious for such behavior, just like the whole mission accomplished dazzle he did. To bad his past does not speak of such heroics and dying for the country really.

The world on a whole is plauged by a great amount of issues. I feel bad when groups that do make a difference are bashed for not being in line with the christian right in america and or some other philosophy to be in accord with. Its all rather ignorant and basically like above resorts to primal mudsling type activity that i am sure will end the problems, but hey we can just follow the leader bush and it should be fine

then again most people cannot accept that your ecology has an impact on your life or actions, i guess then no real difference exists in perception or life of a person from china or the u.s, or even in the genetics respectively, so its nothing to my suprise this move by the bush administration.

maybe if someone can come up with some kind of a plan to help china get rid of such a policy many may hate, it can end, but until then, i dont think it will happen, and if it does it will just be negative anyways, simply because china is already thin on the population it supports right now, and i dont think the current u.s will help really, save the babies bush, save the babies.

Maybe it doesn't make sense because it's far-fetched fancy loosely based on past actions? I don't delude myself into thinking the RNC doesn't want to run the DNC to the ground and solidify a majority for the next generation, but there's only so much The Crawford Gang can get accomplished. He probably is placating his base, but nations wanting to outdo other nations is a given no matter what standard flies over the capitol. Not wanting a nation to exploit women is not the same as wanting said nation to fall into poverty. It could be argued that limiting access to family planning will lead to poverty, but it doesn't look like China (we are still talking about China, right?) comes anywhere close to balancing the problems of overpopulation with individual rights.

As much as I dislike Republican leadership I think the two (forced abortions/sterilizations/birth control and withholding funding that may or may not go towards family planning for fear it will be misused) are mutually exclusive and can't singlehandedly point towards doublespeak in this case.

I looked over my post and to mrs.p again, i am sorry if i offended you, i try to do that "do unto others as you would like yourself" but i feel that behavior does not fair well in light of real life actually, but i am sorry anyways. As far as i can tell the only thing bush is really saying and or doing about china is asking to have a nation of starving humans(this also means baby), and i doubt really for china to rush into that. If he wants to bash u.n programs for not fitting some mold he wants, i am also sorry for that, i am sure other nations will just have to pick up the slack, something he probably wants also

I try to find when going around the posts in this debate much anything solid, and like my initial post i think all i found was relativity in perception and little to no fact at all. so i am sure with this brought to light, chinas issues will be gone by tomorrow. I am sure much to the same effect is all that will be found in the bush policy on such, and overall and i can only feel its an insult. I agree with hans blix on the kick off of the iraq quagmire that people should be more concerned with global warming, and how this issue is handled really, i think the energy would be better used on that one also.

I almost feel this is one of those snapshots in where you may find the reason for separation of church and state. Jerry fallwell or what not has a history or pathology that is close to a serial killer on how he manipulates the church for lack of better words, and the gop i feel may do the same basically with this one. Its a nice way to gain power i mean votes thought, to represent religious desire in american government and policy or what not. I would like to drudge up a long list of human rights violations from many things, like the u.s and israel for example to aid in my position, but what is the point again, its like debating a wall of mud, it just gets you messy for the most part. I think i will retire from this debate, i dont find much anything to merit my usually to long of posts anyways.

No problem Nileriver, I was probably being overdramatic anyway.

I think this all comes down to a personal moral dilemma. I do not agree with funding, or endorsing, the type of human rights violations that are going on in the name of population control in China. Even if that funding is also put to good use, and eliminates suffering in other ways. Others might feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, and I agree that this administration deserves the immediate skepticism.

Wow a lot was done here with my one reply! I first off wanted to thank Titus for pointing out my less than scholarly approach. I am not advocating the abuse of human rights, or promoting government control over sterility, my point was aimed toward the broad idea of population management. China has not made a ver admirable contribution to the idea. Certainly I think that China should have the MFN status revoked and that there should be a massive response for the "horror stories" mentioned above.


So China's approach to population management is barbaric? Does that mean that the topic is a barbaric one to discuss? Or is it possible to contemplate the problems of the future now before they overrun us?

America is a country based on Judeo-Christian “values.” I find it funny that you find it funny the America government would reflect its values in foreign policy? America doesn’t have to be secular to deal with the rest of the world. I fear you are confusing “values” with religion and I normally do not experience fear.

Are you implying that gun control in America should receive all of the government’s attention before considering a foreign policy? People kill and guns are just a method, I suppose if you lived in Africa you would want machetes under strict government control. Again, the debate is on foreign policy not domestic policy. How would you resolve the gun problem? Torture convicted gun violators? Stop using illegal drugs? Ban guns entirely except for police, what would the gangster rappers rap about?

You fear our government’s rejection to the Kyoto Treaty will exhaust the environment along with a growing world population. There isn’t a majority within either political party supporting the treaty since it discriminates on the US.

Globalization and industrialization will reduce world population. Machines replace manual labor, countries with thriving economies support social nets like Social Security allowing families to be less dependant on families in their later non-productive years. Check your family tree and see if the invention of the machines didn’t reduce the family size, people have large families for reasons other than sex.

Other countries do criticize America, perhaps not about fast food but the Iraq war for example. I’m sure many foreigners refuse to buy made in America items. Yet, our representative government should make clear statements on issues involving “values.” President Clinton didn’t cure gun problems and went to Bosnia and we are still there.

China’s population will shrink naturally when machines replace labor to support a family and social programs protect elders from starvation and lack of care.

Now let me burst your bubble, I’m not a Christian! I refused to reenter a church with my family when I was thirteen. A Southern Baptist preacher got in my face telling me to repent my sins and he scared me more than what he was threatening. I think Jesus lived but this guy by the name Martin Luther broke the religions apart into smaller groups and caused much of the wars and interpretation of what Jesus’ message was. I don’t trust any of the religious teams to tell the truth because their power comes from “mans interpretation” of history. I try to live by the stoic philosophy of Epitetus and recommend you read his brilliant writings, I think he was born in the year 0036 and his writings are recorded in the Enchurion(SP). I have very little success in following his rules of happiness however and sometime revert to beg on mercy of God, Jesus or any other higher being that will listen when I find myself in a helpless hopeless situation. So I guess I’m secular.

More breaking news, I’m a solar and alternative energy activist. I have invented several home hot water inventions and have had one published this last summer in a magazine in NC. I designed and tested several sun tracking devices for solar PV Panels. I think the Captain Planets with tears running down the cheeks are just fodder for the Democratic Party and were invented in public school to support the trial lawyer lobby. If you care for nature and wild animals demand house cats off leash be killed on sight as they destroy more species than big oil or the forest industry combined.

While Christians and other religions differences has been much the cause of war they and their values have been the ones to help in famine and despair.

The modern Secular verses the Secular of our nations founding has changed radically. Read George Washington’s farewell address, really, Google it and read it in entirety. Our nation was based on Judeo-Christian “values” not Christianity. Freedom of religion not freedom from it.

I have no reason to communicate with you other than to allow you to consider others do not follow the new Secular view as scientifically correct nor politically correct. Consider our government without Social Security and a one-child law and being poor when you are too old to work you must kill yourself unless a Christian or one believing in those “values” helps.

Killing all female children in China does not fit my values but apparently you have no problem with that. I think your values are based on biased college professors who earned their degrees while dodging the draft form Vietnam, they and Hollywood have the agenda to hate and blame America with any openly displayed values. These visions of America would replace the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery with brass plates the mowers could drive right over. Freedom doesn’t come free! Turn off South Park and open your mind to the origin of our nation “VALUES based on Judeo-Christian values”.

what if huh?
you prob won't expect me then...
Yes, I was born as 2nd child in China in 80s, of course, my birth was illegal!! so what, my parents was smart enough to fool the government around and hide me till early 90s

horror stories...I will rather call it advantures, my parents love to tell their friends in US about how I was born and raised.
BUT!! don't u know how much I hate about these stories, don't u know how guilty I am for being the second child? Do u really understand?
ah....so you won't, of course,'cause u are not me!
but u still believe the stories don't u? Actually I found out how STUPID US government is in the part involve human rights. Basically any illegal female chinese immigrant can get a PR card to stay in US as long as they can LIE, go to chinatown and find a lawyer, pay the $$$ and they wiill help u make up the stories, ridiculous stories that I won't believe at all . Anyway, who cares, Americans believes it, that's all they need, chinese ain't that honest u know. Huh? any doubt, take a little research on the corruption in China, everyyear there are hundreds of the government officals were convinced guilty for taking bribes in MILLIONS. we already get used to it...that's chinese u know...
stories are stories..a criminal can still tell ppl how "exciting" it is to hit ppl and take their money or how they steal the things from the store. but we should know it's NOT right.

so... let's get the point, after being or born to be the 'survivor' of birth control, I feel it's my responsibility to tell ppl how important it is to stop the population growth and preserve our nature. Yes it will be painful and bleeding when u take a shot(like a flu shot), but do u want to suffer the sickness or just the pain ?

And last, let's make sure. is abortion really considered ending life? How do we define the beginning of life? the day u were born or the time sperm meet the egg..or sometime else.. can I get a ID for my baby 1 month before it was born for being a life form in US? are there a universal standard? An international law? Oh, almost forget, US didn't even get it's permission from UN to attack IRAQ in which results death in thousands (yes, death of real ppl, not embyo)

hehe, well, things takes time,we prob won't get the worst for overpopulating earth. but I don't wish to see a overpopulated heavern u know. May god bless u all..(hold it ,aren't we talking about politics here? what about seperation of church and states...... )


can u give the exact date it happened..I won't be suprised that was a thirty year old 'new's u know..
plus, do u know that great famine happend in china in 1959-1961, so called "3yr natural disaster" resulted in death 30 ~ 80 million ppl. "all the grass that can be made into food was eaten!" that's how my parents describe it ...death rate in population with an average at least 2-3 % across the nation. my great uncle died too..
That's already a warning, a 30% drop in food production is one of the main cause. Can you image what happen if the population is double while the food production remain the same.. Have u been in the farm, a chinese acre(around 1500 square meter) of rice right now can produce about 1000KG per year maxium today compare to 200KG/acre is considered as harvest few decades ago. I doubt it can reach much higher in the near future. (KG=kilogram 1kG=2.2lb,use metric units, Americans! catch UP!!)
remember, if we don't stop the population growth, 1 million ppl died in a famine happen only once in next 100 yrs, it will be average death of 10,000 /year. Does that worth it? what happen if it is even worse than 59-61..
u are just rich enough to feed all of them? and remember , food don't come from money, it come from production, even if u have 1 billion dollar now u still can't make the food instantly...wait for the next harvest...but can u wait?

Plz....understand some chinese culture before u speak
shrink naturally ... the only way I can think is mass scale bio-chemical-nuclear war..natural disaster just not strong enough, even though during the perion of "3 yrs natural disaster" I mentioned above, chinese population still have positive growth rate in those years..
Chinese tradion not the Communis party encourge the population growth in the past. "the more the better". A family without a son will be shamed, ithe worst in the family. so with low motality rate in babies, average chinese family have 5-8 children (e.g. my father have 8 siblings, my mother only have 4 'cause my grandfather left for HK in early 50s). And you expect these generation to have less babies? "oh, my father have 8, so I will have 4, well, still less than last generation." Yes, it may take several generation to make the birth rate well below 2.1, but the whole population can't . 1 billion in late 70s,and there's no sign of decreasing in overall population. that's not good at all.... we just can't make to the next harvest!! And the worst case, if u only have $5 in ur pocket, and u need to feed urself for a week. do u want to beg ppl on the road for money or just buy some bread and baraly make it. what if it's during great depression and ppl on the road don't have any money to spare at all? what if u are a relative respected man in town?


Oh..sorry..I didn't notice last post in the thread...

Mingo

Actually in Korea a child’s life is measured from conception and they celebrate their first birthday at 100 days from date of delivery.

I understand what you are saying about the culture. The same was the rural culture in the US at the end of the 1800’s. Without machines farmers made babies to grow up and help with the work. Think Budweiser Clydesdales doing the work and the requirements for the laboring horses, hay, corn, oats shelter and a whole lot of horse crap to clean up. A small 20 HP tractor replaced twenty horses that were cared for by all of the kids.

The shame of no male child is you die when you are no longer able to care for your wife or yourself if there is no SS program. The girl babies belong to their husband’s family and cannot help you because you gave them away when they married. It was that way in Korea and old people without sons due to war or only girl babies walked in front of fast moving trains daily because Korean people have no sympathy or compassion for others misfortune.

Restricting people's right to have children is highly oppressive and the Bush administration is right to oppose it. Current agricultural technologies are easily capable of feeding the world's population many times over and China's birthrate will decrease as the population gets richer.

Every single European country placed a high cultural value on large families when the majority of the population were involved in agriculture or other rural activities. As incomes rose, culture changed. I don't see any reason why this won't happen in China.

"Should the Bush Administration promote it's beliefs about China's population control policy, and put pressure on the Chinese Government?

If so, on what grounds:

If not, why not?"

The laws of another country is none of americas business. Only if they are a threat to other countries. Putting pressure on the chinese government because of their population control would be the same as Japan criticizing America because of it's "The Winner Takes All" rule in elections because they are undemocratic and make the votes of many people in all of Americas states worthless.

The chinese have good reasons for their population control. It is an instrument to prevent the overpopulation (right word? My english isn't that good you know) of their country. I think Ame