I hadn't investigated China's one child policy, until tonight, when I
read about a woman survivor of the destruction that had a new little
girl. I was wondering if she was in threat of being aborted.
Possibly, but it wouldn't be state directed. This was a real eye-
opener for me. According to this site...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
....couples are only allowed to have one child, unless their first
child is disabled or FEMALE. If it is a female, they are allowed to
try, again, for a male.
Think about that for a second. How does that make ANY sense, if
population reduction is the goal? If you have a female, she is able
to be pregnant and have babies (thus a greater population). So, if
population reduction were the goal, it would be MALE babies that
allowed for a second child. Reproductive capable women being born
would be the threat, not men that cannot carry a baby (or twins).
So, if population is not the issue for the one-child policy, what is?
Go back to the first exception. If the child is disabled, they are
allowed to have another child. What do disabled children and women
have in common? They do not add to the work force (equally). It's
not that male children are more a threat to the population. They are
a threat to the workforce. More male babies means more workers to
pay, out of limited socialist resources. Thus, the one-child policy
isn't a population control issue, it is a workforce control issue.
Extra male babies are being aborted to save the government a few
bucks. This is reinforced by the fact that families that violate the
one-child policy has to PAY a fee to the government, pay for both
children's healthcare, and pay for their education. An extra child is
allowable, if it doesn't cost the government more money...which
shouldn't be an issue, if it were really all about population control.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
|
