Posted on 11/06/2015 5:32:20 AM PST by wagglebee
BOSTON, November 5, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – China has officially gone from a forced abortion and sterilization one child policy to a forced abortion and sterilization two child policy. While most of the free world think this is an improvement, one Boston Globe columnist is lamenting the change and says no one should have the right to give birth to more than one child.
"Having more than one child is just something that none of us – Chinese or American – has a moral right to do," Sarah Conly, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Bowdoin College, wrote in a column. "We don't have a right to have so many children."
"China has enforced its one-child policy in unacceptable ways," she acknowledged. "Still, 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."
Conly responded to arguments that limiting couples to just one child violates human rights, by saying that rights, such as religious freedom and freedom of speech, have natural limits. For instance, she said, no one has the "right" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
"Uncontrolled fertility is likely to have worse consequences than the false cry of 'fire!' in a crowded theater," Conly said. "Even having two children – the replacement value for the population – as the new Chinese policy allows is likely to be too many children."
As for religions that may prohibit the use of contraceptives, she said they should simply be pressured to change their teachings. "Does the right to religious freedom mean we have a right to do whatever our religious doctrines dictate?" she asked. "Of course not."
"We want to accommodate religious practice whenever we can, even when that has some cost to social welfare. But again, if the cost is too great, we tell practitioners that in this case they need to amend their own ways," she wrote. "We’ve done this many times and will do it again. Typically, a change like this (allowing contraception) doesn’t cause an otherwise thriving religion to collapse and fail.
Conly concluded, "We may well be able to reduce the fertility rate without using sanctions at all, and that would, of course, be best."
To accomplish her worldwide one child policy, Conly recommended making contraception free and readily available over-the-counter. She advised giving out awards to those who have only one child, in the form of tax breaks – the exact opposite of what the State does now in helping families with the Child Tax Credit. Further, she wrote that "[w]e can provide disincentives" in the form of "tax penalties for those who have more than one child." Conly concluded that if that isn't enough, greater "sanctions" may be necessary.
Conly argued along the lines of the long ago debunked overpopulation myth, writing that supporting the world's people "will bring about environmental disaster," and warned about global warming.
Conly's argument – "One-Child Allowed means less starvation" – flies in the face of evidence that the earth is no where near exhausting its capacity to feed the world's population. A University of California study concluded that, without raising average yields, U.S. land is available to feed two times the world's population.
Colin Clark, former director of the Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University, stated that if all farmers used the best methods, enough food could be regularly raised to feed 1,053,000,000,000 people a normal Japanese diet, or over 35,000,000,000 (nine times the world's population) an American diet.
Most of our planet is empty. The entire world population could live in Texas, with each man, woman, and child given 2,000 square feet of space (larger than the average home). Author Valerie Protopapas explains: "In the Third World, most poverty is the result of inefficient economies, political strife and poor management. Well run governmental and economic structures in such 'overcrowded' places as Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan put the lie to the belief that people are a detriment."
Opponents of population control contend that our problem is not overpopulation, but rather our inefficient and selfish use of the abundant space we have. Jacqueline R. Kasun writes, "Most people who accept the 'overpopulation' theory, don't want to be eliminated themselves to lower the number of people in the world, but rather are worried about having to share their abundance with someone else[.] ... There is more than enough arable land and goods available for all humanity; it is a matter of distribution and the poor management of much that should be far more productive."
Exactly!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Big headlines were made that China ENDED their one child policy. They only expanded it to TWO children, they didn’t end it.
The Left who decries China’s forced abortions need to take it from the stinking camel’s mouth, Margaret Sanger said NO MORE BABIES for Western Europe for at least 10 years. NO choice about it.
“No More Babies!” - Expert Calls For Ban on Childbirth (1947)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCjgYGTL4Y
Pathe Newsreeel
The moron should do some study of demographics and try to learn how her promoted policy causes economic collapse.
Show me someone advocating population control, and I’ll show you the face of evil. We could draw battle lines right there and every other fundamental difference will fall into place.
Bingo !
Spay the bitch immediately so she can say she’s doing her part and besides, she has no right.
...and Sarah Conly doesn’t have any right, or privilege, to tell me how to run my life, or manage my family.
For nations subject to the “white plague”—including Euro-Americans, Serbs, Russians, etc.—it is good if couples can get MARRIED and have at least THREE children, and then raise them in the Holy Orthodox Church!!!!
Think about what a strict one-child policy does to the family scructure. No brothers or sisters, no aunts or uncles, no cousins.
Quentin Tarrantino in drag.
Oh, boy, this “associate professor” believes in government dictatorship over every aspect of our lives.
Pfui!!!!
I read stories like this and pray that the author represents the thinking of less than 1% of Americans. She hates life itself, feels peaceful religions such as Christianity need to be adjust our teachings, she clearly doesn’t understand the freedom soldiers sacrificed to give her.
Like so many socialists, anarchists, and batshit crazy liberals - just leave. We were fine without you. Pick your utopia: Venezuela, Cuba, Romania, North Korea, China, etc. Such places seem to be the model society for young lady. She should go. Today.
Yike!
Old face.
Long blond hair.
.
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.