211–220 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can we claim this policy has no effect if clearly people are still killing female infants? Strong statement. Evidence please.
Not exactly “killing infants” but abortion. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-chil... https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211
I find it a bit odd how accepted a child mandate has become when it comes from the CCP with the global community. For instance, it seems that a large reason that China is hesitant to lift any limits whatsoever is a belief that rural women will have large families and urban women will not and that this would be 'unfair'. This cant help but feel like a eugenics argument about not wanting to swamp the gene pool with 'lo…
The reluctance to lift limits is perhaps better owing to the fact that means yielding a bit of control, and not wanting to appear to have been wrong (why today and not yesterday?).
That said, you don't see much outrage in other countries (despite stories of infants being thrown out, forced abortions, forced sterilizations) because we have short attention spans and no real hope of forcing the government's hand.
Look at all of the accusations, allegations and witness over the treatment of uighurs. Or, look at the middle eastern countries where women couldnt vote, drive, or even travel out of the county without their husband's permission. Even of we had pushed harder for faster reforms, we would have faced internal criticism for a "colonial" attitude.
Surely that will solve their demographic problems.
1) There is an entire family planning bureaucracy within the CCP setup to manage this; would do you do with all those people if they are not needed anymore?
2) China is more strict on population planning for certain minorities - not officially, but in the background; think Muslims in western China or Tibet or Mongolians, or ethnic Koreans in northeastern China... If you had no population planning for all the Han chinese, you might have a brighter light cast on this small in number but impactful population control actions.
3) Once someone has power, why let go of it? The CCP survives by creating a fairly good life for the majority in China - and it has done that extremely well - in exchange for control. It is easier to go from 3 back to 2, than it is to go from unlimited back to 2, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can we claim this policy has no effect if clearly people are still killing female infants? Strong statement. Evidence please.
Not exactly “killing infants” but abortion. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-chil... https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211
Both are well documented and account for the 30M extra males than females (Can’t hide this cultural bias).
There is some question on whether the one-child policy was even needed. If you look at a graph of "children per mother" chart before and after the original policy went into effect, it's quite evident that rates were dropping for more than a decade beforehand: * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/october/china... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth_rate_in_China.svg * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
> The ghastly human rights violations that led from the policy were completely unnecessary.
No, this was entirely intentional. That was the whole point.
This is "the big lie theory" taken to its extreme. It was done to keep people, and party cadres preoccupied. If you were to speak to an adult Chinese at around late eighties, the 1 child policy would've been the number 1 thing on people's tongues, as if there were no other problems.
It was an entirely artificial crisis made to distract people from the total economic ruin, and destitution as a result of cultural revolution.
I'm reading the progression of this thread, and can't believe my eyes. You HNers, supposedly intellectual elites, got completely hooked by the same cheap diversion.
The point is not whether it was a legit, or not policy. The point is the entire conversation being completely pointless.
The real rationale was to not to let people talk about something having a point — the real problems in a starving, falling apart nation in a deepest crisis, which China was at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Must give parents leverage when arguing with a child „I paid a 50000 yuan fine for you just so you could live! Now do your homework!“
I doubt that works. Every parent spends lots of money on their children. It should be a gift, not a dept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly “killing infants” but abortion. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-chil... https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211
Abortion is not the same thing as killing infants. The racism that's tolerated on this site is very telling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One child policy is one of the major things that led China's historic revolution out of poverty. It's a very controversial policy, but you're free to prove me wrong. People could be employed longer without an abundance of young people taking their jobs.
I'm more inclined to think it was industrial espionage on an industrial scale.
A lot of people are asking why a policy is even still needed - why not go for no limit at all? 1) There is an entire family planning bureaucracy within the CCP setup to manage this; would do you do with all those people if they are not needed anymore? 2) China is more strict on population planning for certain minorities - not officially, but in the background; think Muslims in western China or Tibet or Mongolians, or…
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-uses-coercive-poli...
56.5% decline in birth rates in one year when the right sample is taken. Beyond shocking. Doing such a thing with your left hand while allowing more births for Han Chinese with your right hand must be seen for what it is: genocide.