Posted on 08/23/2011 4:48:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
No Surprise! Exactly.
Hillarycare/Obamacare/Totalitariancare has it covered on the backside. Compassionate totalitarianism, not in-your-face totalitarianism like Mao’s boys.
FUJB & FUBO
Thanks for posting. HOORAY Rick Perry!
Well duh... does this not fit right in with the Left’s massive payoffs to their political supporters (unions or otherwise)?
There’s money in abortion. So proclaiming a “one child” policy a good thing is just another step towards forcing the issue.
In Joe Biden’s case, It’s too bad his mom didn’t endorse a “No Child” policy.
Just Like Ted Turner who has several kids, they endorse one child policy but only for others.
not to mention all the beautiful little girls abandoned to orphanages.
They have figured out capitalism when it comes to selling off their own babies though.
They keep charging and charging whatever the wealthy westerners are willing to pay.
this is manbearpig’s new pet cause too right? Teaching proper “fertility management” - just to women.
The chasing of massage therapists by crazed men is still fair game.
how many kids does algore have again?
They have four children, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III. Using the disgusting fuzzy logic of the abortophiles, Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III, should be expendable and are a drain on the planets ecology . . . they should go.
Aren't libtards fun?????
A debate about when two becomes one
By BETSY HART
www.betsysblog.com
Last Modified: Aug 22, 2011 07:50PM
In 1958, at the age of 25, my mother gave birth to fraternal twin boys. She didn’t know she was having twins until after they were born, of course.
“Mrs. Canfield, did you know you had two babies?” was the question asked when she awakened from the anesthesia. My mom already had two children, ages 3 and 2. Rounding out this picture was a husband in sales, little help and not much money.
The stories about her and my dad stumbling around in the middle of the night with formula bottles trying to figure out which twin had already been fed when they both were still crying is the stuff of family lore.
And it only starts there. My mother described years of being so exhausted by 6 in the evening that all four children were in bed, lights out, by 6:15. I wish she had patented some of her ideas for keeping her toddler twins safely trapped in their cribs.
Then there was the time a twin climbed out the bedroom window of the split-level when he was about 4. Or was he pushed by a sibling? We’ll never know. He survived. Later, one twin broke the other’s arm in a bout of roughhousing. And on it went.
Five years after the twins came into the world, I was born. I like to think of myself as my mother’s consolation prize for having gone through all that. My brothers saw it differently. The twins told me when I was about 10, “Bets, we had a fight with (friend) Jim about who had the most annoying little sister. Don’t worry; we stuck up for you and you won!” Awww, nice.
I thought of all this as I read about the small but increasing phenomenon of selectively aborting healthy twin pregnancies down to one baby to make sure the pregnancy produces only one desired child. Such was the subject of an extensive New York Times Magazine story recently.
In “The Two-Minus-One-Pregnancy,” Ruth Padawer writes about a few of those who have chosen this route. Here’s one example:
“Jenny’s decision to reduce twins to a single fetus was never really in doubt. The idea of managing two infants at this point in her life terrified her. She and her husband already had grade-school-age children, and she took pride in being a good mother. She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. ... Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent. ‘This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,’” Jenny was quoted as saying.
Really?
The essay recounts that while still somewhat ethically troublesome in the medical community and certainly more so — for now — in the population at large, “selective reductions” from twin pregnancies are on the rise in part because of the growing use of in-vitro fertilization, which often produces multiples. And more parents producing pregnancies on their own terms may be leading some to believe that life itself — theirs and their children’s — should be on their own terms, too. As Jenny put it, “somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
I suppose this phenomenon is even less about the individual players involved than it is about a self-obsessed and, ironically, child-obsessed culture that in the very process of providing choices about life itself has minimized the awe we ought to have toward it.
Myself, I almost couldn’t finish the essay. I thought of my mother and my annoying older twin brothers. Two of my best friends now. I considered the four children born within 31/2 years to a young couple unprepared for those children in almost every way the world counts as significant. I felt her and my dad’s overwhelming love for us.
Most of all, I marveled at the sad irony of an increasingly sophisticated and advanced culture in which the gift of life itself is in some ways ever more precarious.
Scripps Howard News Service
When Chairman Mao took power in the late 04s, he was warned by Chinese scholars that China was in danger of being overpopulated if it kept on it's current growth trend. They were growing faster than their infrastructure or their ability to grow food. Their numbers were quite compelling and he actually started off his reign with fairly strict measures to encourage low birth rates.
Later in the 1950s, he believed that the USSR and the West were going to engage in an atomic war, and likely wipe each other out. He also concluded that if China was populous enough, it would survive any war by numbers alone, and would be able to resettle the remaining world after the dust settled.
Because of this, he pushed off a major propaganda campaign, calling for huge families as necessary and patriotic. This lead to the skyrocketing population increase that Chinese scholars were terrified of.
Sure enough, after Mao's death, the numbers were pretty bleak. China was heading towards mass starvation, inescapable poverty and social collapse. There just weren't enough resources in the country to support a culture where families just kept having kids until they has a boy or two. They had to do something to stabilize the numbers, and they did.
While there is some instances of sterilization and forced abortion, as a percentage that's extremely rare. The actual mechanism for enforcing the 1 child policy is social pressure and a hefty tax on any children over the first.
I spent some time in China, back when I was in the Army, and I spoke to a number of people about this. They uniformly don't like the 1 child policy, but also concede that Mao's policies had left no choice. It was either 1 child or starve.
Whereas our policy, on the other hand, it to seize the healthcare industry and then ration it by age, so that "wage earners" don't have to support as many retired people.
CINO Biden once again proves he does not read or follow the Bible!
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.