The end results are much worse.

"When you don't regulate population the end results are much worse."

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that "regulating population" is somehow a positive thing? Exactly who determines such matters? Do you know of a government on earth with the requisite wisdom to "regulate" the birth rate of their citizenry? Do you know of any other entity other than a mom and dad who can decide what's best for their family?

The end result of such regulation is mass resentment and divisiveness within societies who utilize such experiments. Under no circumstances does a government entity belong in the business of normal family life.

You're writing from the perspective of an American - of a people that have not known famine since the nation was born a few short centuries ago. The Chinese know what starving to death means. They do what they have to do to avoid that horror.

Here's the thing though: while the official one child policy is a series of economic disincentives, the way it is implemented (with local officials being required to meet quotas, etc.) is rife with the potential for abuse. I have seen lots of defenders of the policy on this board and in other places, and very few people seem to want to confront the fact that the Chinese government still forces abortions, forcibly implants IUDs, etc. Does that fall into the realm of the Chinese doing what they have to do to avoid famine? And is that more acceptable than allowing the Chinese people to make their own choices regarding the sufficiency of their individual resources? I'm not trying to be snarky, here, seriously. I'm just asking how far the ends can justify the means, and how forced abortions, forced birth control, etc. (if we can agree that these are Bad Things) compare to the Bad Thing of the government's relief obligations in the event of unchecked childbearing leading to widespread starvation (which I'm taking as a given for the purposes of this discussion, because I see it asserted so many places and because it is the best reason I have seen for justifying the one child policy at all).

Bluehue,

You seem to think that the "horror" of possible starvation is worse than the reality of forced abortion. I rather doubt that. I'm just saying that you are writing from the perspective of someone who has no connection to your assertion. You likely know nearly nothing of either starvation OR forced abortion. Get back to me when you've faced either. Till then, I'm right. Government intrusion such as that in China is barbarism...

most governments in the world seem to think that it's their matter to regulate gay marriages though. That's a pretty personal matter to which one would think the individuals and 'families' on hand know best.

recent riches of china make people forget that the country was extremely poor not so long ago, with very little arable land or agricultural technology and with more than enough politically hostile countries on the international scene, not to mention the country is extremely prone to natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, droughts) in the few arable regions.

The policy was probably warranted given the historical context, whether it is now outdated is another matter and shouldn't be the sole basis for attacking the policy and government. Fact is that even now China is a net importer of food, and would probably not be able to feed 2 billion mouths if needed.

RE: "I have seen lots of defenders of the policy on this board and in other places, and very few people seem to want to confront the fact that the Chinese government still forces abortions, forcibly implants IUDs, etc. Does that fall into the realm of the Chinese doing what they have to do to avoid famine?"

I'll be happy to join you in urging the Chinese government to utilize the least coercive means of implementing their population control policy - for what that's worth. It is the necessity of that policy I think we should recognize.

"And is that more acceptable than allowing the Chinese people to make their own choices regarding the sufficiency of their individual resources?"

Have you ever taken an economics course? Ever hear of "the tragedy of the commons"? It goes like this: A town has a pasture, a "commons", where anyone can graze his sheep. It is in each man's self-interest to increase his flock, to maximize the wool and mutton he can sell, but the end result of that every-man-for-himself behavior is an over-grazed pasture that supports NO sheep.

We don't live in Eden anymore. The existence of other people, with the same right to survive as we want, limits our freedom. It's not ideal, but moral behavior is not a matter of picking the one simple overriding principle we like.

RE: "You likely know nearly nothing of either starvation OR forced abortion."

I suspect I know at least as much about them as you do.

dwtintx, you are exactly right. According to the NYT articles on the subjects, Chinese officials calculated that the Family Planning Policy prevented 400 million births.* You can not prevent 400 million births in a non-coercive manner.

*Estimates made by people outside of China place the number of prevented birth at around 200 to 250 million, which is still a huge number.

BlueHue:

Have you ever taken an economics course? Ever hear of "the tragedy of the commons"? It goes like this: A town has a pasture, a "commons", where anyone can graze his sheep. It is in each man's self-interest to increase his flock, to maximize the wool and mutton he can sell, but the end result of that every-man-for-himself behavior is an over-grazed pasture that supports NO sheep.

I think the tragedy of the commons argument is an oversimplification here, in the global society and economy. (Let me say up front that I'm an educated person, but not an economist, so I'm only discussing from that perspective). I recognize that China has very little arable land to support its population, but as someone pointed out here, China is even a net importer of food, even with population controls in place. When a country's economy shifts from agricultural to industrial (make things to buy food with, rather than making food itself), then I think the commons argument is much less relevant, and individual choices become much more important. If we were referring to a global commons, I think that's possibly worth discussing, but China isn't exactly the best world citizen, so I'm pretty sure that is not its motivation.

That said, however, the government would presumably bear some responsibility for caring for people who had children and could not support them, in one way or another. If it left those people to starve, we would all be shaking our heads and tut-tutting at them as human rights violators. I guess I'm interested in exploring which is worse. I personally think the one child policy- as it is currently implemented- is worse, because it takes away the people's right to choose for themselves how they live, where they live, whether they educate themselves or otherwise prepare themselves to be successful. But that's a result of both my American outlook and my generally libertarian nature. If I had confidence that the policy was solely economic, I probably would reconsider, but that is unfortunately not the reality.

dwtintx:

I personally think the one child policy- as it is currently implemented- is worse, because it takes away the people's right to choose for themselves how they live, where they live, whether they educate themselves or otherwise prepare themselves to be successful.

Note that this bit came off a little more hyperbolic than I intended. All I meant was that I think it should be up to individuals to plan their lives, which includes how many children and when to have them.