Posted on 11/03/2015 12:11:55 PM PST by BlessedBeGod
A philosophy professor at Bowdoin College, Sarah Conly, really misses China's One-Child policy. I mean, really misses it.
She even wrote a book called "One Child: Do We Have a Right to More..." I'm not going to buy that book but she was kind enough to write a column in the Boston Globe putting her anti-human kookiness on display for everyone to see.
In it, she bemoans China ending its one-child policy and asks "Is this really a good thing?" She thinks not.
She writes, "the idea that people should limit the number of children they have to just one is not, I would argue, a bad one, for the Chinese or for the rest of us."
Then you get a lot of blah blah blah nonsense about overpopulation and all that. But then you get to the moral case. She posits that YOU have no right to have more than one child.
Given the damage we are causing, and the suffering we foresee for all those who live after us, it is clear that having more than one child is just something that none of us -- Chinese or American -- has a moral right to do. We have no right to cause great harm to others when we can avoid this without great loss to ourselves... (snip)
Conly does, however, do a good thing here. She unmasks the true agenda of many. For those who might wonder, Hey, whatever happened to freedom of choice, think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, the abortion movement wasn't ever about that. "Choice" was a slogan, a brand to mask their anti-human agenda. It is not freedom they espouse. It is death... (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
I choose to make decisions for this idiot professor because she clearly is not able to do so for herself. It is all in the name of her own best interest which clearly she doesn’t understand. See how this works!
******
Paternalism has a bad name. We don’t like the idea that anyone else can know better than we ourselves what is in our own best interests, and that we should be forced to do what others think is best for us seems, to many, a moral outrage. Many are willing to allow paternalistic interventions in a few cases, but these exceptions are thought to be extraordinary: where the harm of allowing us freedom to act is very severe (a death that could have been prevented by the use of a seatbelt) or where the facts are too complicated for us to be able to make informed decisions (we require prescriptions because medicine is just too complex for the layman to figure out.) Generally, though, we think it is morally required that we respect autonomy: that we let people make their own choices.
Why, though? If we can intervene in these cases, why not others? There is ample evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology that we make bad decisions routinely and predictably. We eat to the point of obesity, we smoke, we get ourselves hopelessly in debt. What is the argument that we should be allowed to choose actions that will significantly undercut our chances of happiness?
If we were about to harm someone else in a serious and irrevocable way, we would be stopped. When it comes to harming ourselves, however, we are allowed to wreck havoc on the grounds that letting us hurt ourselves manifests respect. You might think, though, that respect for a person’s worth might justify saving him from himself. If a person has certain identifiable goals—good health and financial solvency, for example—and it is about to act in such a way as will make it impossible for him to prevent those, how exactly does it show our respect for him when we allow him to make choices that will make it impossible for him to reach his own goals?
See more at: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2013/03/why-paternalism-is-justified/#sthash.7ZkL1LxQ.dpuf
Well, too bad. I did it anyway.
God said go forth and multiply, not go forth and (sustain, replace, limit, balance etc)
Yes-—but it was a Marxist construct to destroy Natural instincts in normal little girls and for boys to hate females (and emasculate little boys)-—to make irrational Malthusian, Darwinists who will “think” it is “good” to kill their own genetic offspring and allow the government to “raise” them and “shape” their desires and understanding of “male/female LOL”.
It was to get women out of the home to be taxed and controlled and so that the state had access to the minds of the young that used to be raised by mother/father (Natural Family) where normal, morality/Virtue is habitated and control of emotions is learned.
It is all a war on the Christian Worldview-—for it has to be destroyed in little children so they are “happy” slaves of the elites and have no biological supports-—only the State. The children have to be removed from the Natural Family-—and only girls who have their maternal instincts destroyed will allow strangers and a tube to “raise” and “care” for their own biological offspring.
No female mammals in nature allow “strangers” to get even close to their offspring—but the “human” ones.
“Publish or Perish”, and the idea that being a little ‘out there’ keeps one ‘relevant’, are responsible for a LOT of nonsense, and wasted ink...
-JT
Humans have the fight to chose for themselves you nit wit professor.
once is too many -
Because such a system means you can guarantee the population falls in half if everyone has just one, while still letting most people have an expression of parental impulse.
And parents spend mega bucks to send their little darlings to this sort of indoctrination camp. Geeez!
I have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Going by her Darwinist standards, I win and she loses. Going by her environmentalist and feminist standards, I’m evil and she’s righteous.
Her cognitive dissonance aside, I like winning.
the best way to overcome any suffering caused by damage to the environment is to gain enough wealth by increasing economic progress by means of more capital accumulation. You can't repair damage when you live in a hellhole which can't afford to fix anything because it hasn't got the funds to do so.
Gosh—do I have to hide some of our 5 kids and 11 grandkids?
Bowdoin has gone quite a ways downhill since the days of Joshua Chamberlain.
But, back to the article. She looks truly unhappy. Perhaps she is saying her parents should not have had her. Sad.
I want to hear where she got the right to tell me I don’t. A government claiming such a right is defacto outlawing sex.
Sex results in babies. This means babies must be eliminated, or women must be forcibly sterilized.
Anyone who tries to enforce this should be resisted with as much violence as it takes.
Not to worry lady. All this global warming should bring down the urge to breed and the resultant offspring.
There’s just the right amount of people. The right sort of people that is.
There’s too many of the rest of us, and we’re living way to high on the hog, consuming resources that rightfully belong to them.
This is the essence of the world-view of elites since time began. There shouldn’t be any more serfs and peasants than is absolutley necessary to keep them in luxury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.