Do you think other nations (particularly those that are overpopulated) should follow China's example of "One child per family" law?

Noooo. I don't believe the government has any business getting involved in the personal lives of its people. I do wish people would only have as many as they can afford. But I don't like this kind of government involvement. There's too much of it already.

Actually, our sensitivity to individual rights can't be applied to other cultures, especially those with a real problem of feeding the overpopulation. China had a problem with too many ppl and their dictatorial government dealt with it.

Unfortunately, China has lightened up and it is becoming a world problem with their massive population now wanting cars instead of bicycles for getting around and it impacts the planet as a rising consumer of petrol and producer of air pollution.

If they relax their control of limiting population, then where are all those ppl going to get food. China may end up like a lot of famished African nations - except, they have nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver them if it comes to demanding aid.

Hell no, people have already let Big Brother tell them enough crap on how to run their lives, we don't need them dictating how many kids we need to have in each damn house. That's one area where the Chinese are NOT smarter than us.

Hell no! Nobody should be told they can only have one kid, especially not by government. It's a bad policy and it can only lead to self-destruction. Overpopulation is a myth used to force people to conform to certain ways. If you think the population is too big, don't have kids. Butt out of other people's lives.

Much as I don't like seeing momma's with 6 kids that welfare is paying for, it's overstepping bounds for government to try and dictate what happens in women's uteruses.

Part of the problem with that is in countries where the men have 10 wives and sleep with all of them and they don't have birth control. If birth control was more available to them, do you think they would be having as many kids as they do now?

A Beijing woman was recently forced to abort her 8 month old fetus because she violated their 1 child law. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/reality-china-s-one-child-policy-forced

Shale wrote:

I suppose those slums in Mumbai where thousands of ppl are crammed together with no pure water to drink or even a toilet is a myth also.

Less a myth and more just a different cause than "overpopulation."

That's a human rights violation IMO. Plus I always wonder what happens when there are twins, triplets? Government has no business saying how many children a family can have.

Exactly...how many children do the members of the government have? I seriously doubt they all just keep it at one or less.

^^^^All governments like to make themselves exempt from their destructive policies.

Shale wrote:

That is a generalization, sorta like saying All religions like to make themselves exempt from their destructive policies.

Actually, it's not at all like saying that. (That religion comment doesn't even make sense BTW.) I'm just going by what I see.

Shale wrote:

I'm just going by what I see also. The anti homosexual Catholic Church covering up all the misdeeds of its pedo gay priests for decades. Televangelist Jim Bakker of PTL (pass the loot) went to jail for violating what I suppose he taught "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Innumerable holy men who preach against infidelity, immorality, homosexuality being caught in bed with hookers, their wife's best friend or some Rent Boy.

Ah but those are religious PEOPLE, not religions. Religions themselves are not people(hence why your comment made no sense). Governments ARE people.

Also, people are typically free to reject religious teachings. They can't reject government policies nearly as easily.

So again, it's nowhere near the same. And your analogies are weak at best(especially the Catholic one, but that's a debate for another time). But I am glad you basically conceded my point.

[quote="Forgiveness_Man"]
I don't think YOU can concede someone else's point in a debate, but you seem to play by your own concepts despite the facts laid before you.

Such as the Catholic Church in the middle ages was the government. Islam in much of the most fucked up part of this planet today is the government. And the ppl in those situations can't reject their policies, such as stoning infidels, women who do what the men do all the time and homosexuals. (and you think China is bad?)

But please do continue with your obtuse observations. Maybe someone else on this board will chime in.

Nah, I play exactly with the facts laid before me.

First of all, those are governments. Religion is only one of many factors that influence a government. All your examples do is reinforce my claims about GOVERNMENT. Religion itself cannot implement policies, governments can. Governments may be influenced by a particular religion but it isn't the religion itself implementing policies. You seem to be taking victory in things never even in this debate it seems.


Obtuse observations? Which are they? You said that saying what I said is like saying what you said.("That is a generalization, sorta like saying All religions like to make themselves exempt from their destructive policies.") I actually never denied that it was a generalization. But by your logic, we're both right.

(And China is bad. More than one country can have bad policies. )