General Discussion

Skelly

(238 posts)

84. A socially responsible policy in this case

Sat May 5, 2012, 12:19 PM

May 2012

as administered by any government, would have to definitely include the sterilization of 'x' percentage of men (1/2? 1/3?). A female can only have 'x' number of children in a lifetime. Men, an infinite number. A lottery should do it. Problem solved. You're welcome.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Personally I think China's 1 Child Policy to be socially responsible policy [View all] FreakinDJ May 2012 OP

Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do. baldguy May 2012 #1

Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do FreakinDJ May 2012 #4

where do you see this "6,7, 10 children" being born with no means? CreekDog May 2012 #119

Either you are living an extremely sheltered life or ..... FreakinDJ May 2012 #144

I'm asking you to say where you see it --I didn't post it in AN OP CreekDog May 2012 #150

Do you think that people should be required to vaccinate their children JDPriestly May 2012 #8

Do we levy fines against & imprison those who don't? baldguy May 2012 #21

Don't imprison them but certainly fine them. GoneOffShore May 2012 #136

What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #140

I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly southernyankeebelle May 2012 #2

As I said I don't agree with the implementation of the policy FreakinDJ May 2012 #5

I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only southernyankeebelle May 2012 #7

I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death FreakinDJ May 2012 #11

Good for you southernyankeebelle May 2012 #90

Just my mother wished to remain in her home FreakinDJ May 2012 #97

Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children southernyankeebelle May 2012 #99

Math lesson: if everyone has 4 kids - bhikkhu May 2012 #120

Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But southernyankeebelle May 2012 #143

Listen to God some time - he is telling you act responsibly FreakinDJ May 2012 #145

Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't southernyankeebelle May 2012 #149

Sad thing when people believe sex is only for procreation FreakinDJ May 2012 #157

I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #158

I don't know why "Lust" became so distorted FreakinDJ May 2012 #163

I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #166

You sound so ... so ... normal FreakinDJ May 2012 #174

Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers southernyankeebelle May 2012 #177

Your arguments are right in line with anti-choice rhetoric. Way to go! Zalatix May 2012 #171

I don't either. But its an authoritian government. Left Coast2020 May 2012 #194

The reason why I recommended this OP JonLP24 May 2012 #216

Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #217

I'll flame. It'll burn hot so stand back: cali May 2012 #3

I'll stand right here and warm my hands varelse May 2012 #65

both parents go on record... happerbolic May 2012 #79

Absolutely not! varelse May 2012 #98

Oh fuk that. Way cheaper to just be a dictatorship and elehhhhna May 2012 #141

100% Free will is a novel idea... happerbolic May 2012 #153

Octomom and the Duggars Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #6

"People with no means to support them". Nye Bevan May 2012 #9

Not the parents. The planet. NYC_SKP May 2012 #16

And if they refuse? hack89 May 2012 #181

there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich MH1 May 2012 #38

Providing freedom, education and healthcare to woman .... etherealtruth May 2012 #10

7 billion people on the planet. randome May 2012 #12

Finally - some one who gets it FreakinDJ May 2012 #15

Frankly, their post was very much the opposite of yours. noamnety May 2012 #22

+1 etherealtruth May 2012 #24

see post No. 14 FreakinDJ May 2012 #28

I don't think that really refutes the assertion etherealtruth May 2012 #87

You've made quite a lot of assumptions on my behalf FreakinDJ May 2012 #25

Are you suggesting a policy with no means of enforcement? noamnety May 2012 #36

You are the only one distinguishing between "White and Nonwhite" FreakinDJ May 2012 #39

I'm just the only one stating the obvious: noamnety May 2012 #45

It doesn't have to be about 'poor versus rich'. randome May 2012 #49

I completely agree with that. noamnety May 2012 #56

I made no such reference FreakinDJ May 2012 #52

Who do you think is to blame more? noamnety May 2012 #58

Mr Ignorance FreakinDJ May 2012 #64

Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t hughee99 May 2012 #27

No, I meant our entertainment demands. randome May 2012 #116

You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t Logical May 2012 #29

People will die regardless. How do you implement such a policy cali May 2012 #31

Maybe it depends on how it's framed. randome May 2012 #42

Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t cynatnite May 2012 #44

Not everything involving women has to do with taking away their rights. randome May 2012 #47

I think there would have to be a global consensus... cynatnite May 2012 #51

I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights 4th law of robotics May 2012 #127

We have all sorts of limits on freedom now, of course. randome May 2012 #130

Access to BC, education, and a retirement system seem to do it 4th law of robotics May 2012 #131

If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival. Zalatix May 2012 #169

I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #67

We could treat people like stray cats 4th law of robotics May 2012 #126

Give more reproductive control to women, and also parents in general, Quantess May 2012 #13

Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up. NYC_SKP May 2012 #14

DU has certainly changed! BlancheSplanchnik May 2012 #80

145 replies so far telling me to Shut the Fuck Up about the obvious FreakinDJ May 2012 #146

like teabaggers.....same kind of willful misinterpretation BlancheSplanchnik May 2012 #156

Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society? hack89 May 2012 #183

Actually, having children *is* a right CreekDog May 2012 #203

So you admit it's a Ponzi Scheme? NYC_SKP May 2012 #205

who are you talking to? CreekDog May 2012 #206

"...children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for (social security)..." NYC_SKP May 2012 #207

You called Social Security a Ponzi scheme? CreekDog May 2012 #208

No, you did. (nt) NYC_SKP May 2012 #210

But YOU called Medicare a ponzi scheme CreekDog May 2012 #211

I accept your apology. NYC_SKP May 2012 #212

Social Security has disability CreekDog May 2012 #213

by the way, if someone becomes disabled, did they fully fund their SS and Medicare? CreekDog May 2012 #209

Socially and ecologically responsible, but not economically responsible. DCKit May 2012 #17

Why is it economically responsible? Because we insist people retire at a young age? MH1 May 2012 #41

I don't see how you would enforce it quinnox May 2012 #18

Trade and economic treaties are made all the time without a world government. randome May 2012 #26

No flame here. I agree with you 100 percent. Glorfindel May 2012 #19

American Representative to the UN Calls for Worldwide Depopulation Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #20

this is a tough one for me fascisthunter May 2012 #23

I'm with you, my friend. LAGC May 2012 #78

There is a way Marrah_G May 2012 #178

If you could separate the policy from it's implementation, it still involves more than live births HereSince1628 May 2012 #30

The Governement has no business telling people what they should do with their bodies, hughee99 May 2012 #32

Why focus just on the birth rate? frazzled May 2012 #33

China has deep cultural issues. randome May 2012 #35

I see no benefit in spiting out children so they can die in the streets FreakinDJ May 2012 #37

Oh my, you really are a dyed-in-the-wool eugenicist frazzled May 2012 #40

You certainly like to make assumptions on little or no fact FreakinDJ May 2012 #46

Now, now. randome May 2012 #53

Personally I believe "Unattended White Children" have just as many problems FreakinDJ May 2012 #55

Sure, but I don't think this needs to be framed in economic terms. randome May 2012 #63

Well, 4 out of 6 random DUers think it's a-ok to attack someone as being racist MH1 May 2012 #60

Content of my alert *** Jurors please note *** MH1 May 2012 #50

If they promote a policy noamnety May 2012 #59

How do you know which countries? Why not the U.S.? MH1 May 2012 #62

I think you're being disingenuous noamnety May 2012 #69

Really? Do you actually think that the US can independently sustain its population? MH1 May 2012 #73

I sure don't think that. noamnety May 2012 #82

In this case, I'll take a hidden post as a badge of honor frazzled May 2012 #61

The post you seem to be referring to, did not imply any racial component to me. MH1 May 2012 #66

The OP is a eugenicist AngryAmish May 2012 #200

I must disagree with that awful accusation you made here Zalatix May 2012 #185

One child for some, death panels for others Capt. Obvious May 2012 #48

Hey, population growth has many mothers. Igel May 2012 #70

Picture of the earth and the amount of water as spheres Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #34

Another view jberryhill May 2012 #111

I remember reading that to my daughters. randome May 2012 #115

Five Chinese Brothers jberryhill May 2012 #118

So we vomit? Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #121

It's from a children's book which has been popular for decades jberryhill May 2012 #123

Personally, I find China's policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations horrific... cynatnite May 2012 #43

I suppose. sendero May 2012 #54

Ya - thanks Mom and Dad FreakinDJ May 2012 #57

There is a better way to achieve a very similar result nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #68

Hey you, common sense lady, scoot, get outta here! Zalatix May 2012 #104

Nothing shocks me anymore nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #107

This is the only thing that will ever work LadyHawkAZ May 2012 #114

yours is not a popular opinion, but I agree with it tnvoter May 2012 #71

Real world example of unintended results, is the 120male to 100 female ratio. CK_John May 2012 #72

The world is going to pay for over-population either way. nt MH1 May 2012 #75

An old wive's tale was that when many boys were born there was war coming. Mnemosyne May 2012 #162

Not just an old wives' tale, it's pretty much historical fact. Zalatix May 2012 #170

Thank you for that, Zalatix. I still have much to learn. I'm not an old wife, but Mnemosyne May 2012 #173

The way to do it is to increase the education, rights, and economic well-being of women worldwide, drm604 May 2012 #74

I agree with this whole heartedly. MH1 May 2012 #76

Agree that this is the answer. n/t kiranon May 2012 #92

Key: Socially responsible RobertEarl May 2012 #77

Yeah. China: Where "The War On Women" starts at conception. cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #81

Let's play Jeopardy! I'll take population dynamics for a thousand. Zalatix May 2012 #135

Here on the other hand is some Actually Educated Information on the subject FreakinDJ May 2012 #187

Youth Bulge is actually quite correct and proven. Zalatix May 2012 #188

Your assuming Gender Selection would be legal or condoned under such drastic measures FreakinDJ May 2012 #191

Even China cannot control gendercide against girls, what makes you think you can? Zalatix May 2012 #192

I agree on all points. magical thyme May 2012 #83

A socially responsible policy in this case Skelly May 2012 #84

And thank you. randome May 2012 #85

Thats is biased against men FreakinDJ May 2012 #96

No more bias Skelly May 2012 #103

A sterilization lottery? Nolimit May 2012 #106

Oh... Skelly May 2012 #109

Has anyone read the short story "The Lottery"? Quantess May 2012 #134

We're gonna need some more stones. randome May 2012 #137

YES. Because what's more liberal than involuntary sterilization? (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #108

Or accepting the anti-choice position for the sake of population control? Zalatix May 2012 #110

There is always SOMEONE Skelly May 2012 #112

That's not a good solution 4th law of robotics May 2012 #128

Edit. Didn't see your post downthread. Union Scribe May 2012 #161

Of course our top military and government men would be automatically exempt from the policy slackmaster May 2012 #196

Mother Nature will take care of us if we won't police our own numbers. CrispyQ May 2012 #86

Yes, yes, yes -- But does every single wild species of animal have to die first? aint_no_life_nowhere May 2012 #89

'7 Billion Miracles is Enough!' randome May 2012 #91

That's another interesting math problem: bhikkhu May 2012 #122

57 billion people. Thanks for the link. randome May 2012 #124

As a concept, yes, but its the implementation that causes problems. prefunk May 2012 #88

China holds 1.3 billion people. Rex May 2012 #93

If you see the human race as a 'herd', that may be part of your dilemma. randome May 2012 #95

No, Rex correctly sees humans being TREATED as a herd Zalatix May 2012 #100

Thank you Rex May 2012 #132

I strongly support the concept. silverweb May 2012 #94

I'm pro-choice not anti-choice but to each his/her own cabot May 2012 #101

Education, opportunity and access to birth control for women are what brings down birth rates. Marrah_G May 2012 #102

Trust women with their own fertility! Quantess May 2012 #129

Really Old Codger May 2012 #105

OR... Skelly May 2012 #113

Personal policy- maybe loyalsister May 2012 #117

I think it's awful. A more acceptable policy would be . . . 4th law of robotics May 2012 #125

i dont. i am pro-choice arely staircase May 2012 #133

Eliminating all tax deductions for spawning would be a start. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #138

I concur!!! nt and-justice-for-all May 2012 #155

You think forced abortion is "socially responsible policy"? former9thward May 2012 #139

I wouldn't worry about it too much. roamer65 May 2012 #142

Or the Biblical Prophecies FreakinDJ May 2012 #147

I can't believe I see support for such an Authoritarian, misogynistic policy like forced abortion chrisa May 2012 #148

I don't see a need for a policy, just distribute birth control and teach people how to use it Hippo_Tron May 2012 #151

And how are you different than the anti-choice crowd? Skidmore May 2012 #152

Yeah, I find 19 kids and counting to be irresponsible and-justice-for-all May 2012 #154

How about Skelly May 2012 #160

unregulated human population growth and-justice-for-all May 2012 #214

Perhaps not Skelly May 2012 #215

It's worth a real discussion. Skip Intro May 2012 #159

thanks FreakinDJ May 2012 #164

Good post aint_no_life_nowhere May 2012 #167

Places with famine and starvation rarely have education or opportunity for women Marrah_G May 2012 #195

You can't have a one child policy..... musical_soul May 2012 #165

This is offensive Fort Minor May 2012 #168

Welcome to DU! LAGC May 2012 #172

And your answer to all that is totalitarianism? Daniel537 May 2012 #175

Don't worry - Soon you won't have a choice FreakinDJ May 2012 #176

You are offering apologia for a horrible human rights abuse. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #179

Then you're not a Democrat Ter May 2012 #180

Between Global Warming and diminishing Oil Production FreakinDJ May 2012 #182

You are not a Democrat. Your views are anti-choice. Zalatix May 2012 #184

Don't worry - your children won't have a choice FreakinDJ May 2012 #186

Post removed Post removed May 2012 #189

Except for one slight problem -- there is no 1 child policy in China. Major Hogwash May 2012 #190

Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? Son of Gob May 2012 #193

Families deciding to limit themselves to 1-2 children would be socially responsible policy slackmaster May 2012 #197

In the US we have a $1000 per child tax credit Bill McBlueState May 2012 #198

Social responsibility? How about a country that has something like 5% of the world's population and raccoon May 2012 #199

The only problem China has with that MissHoneychurch May 2012 #201

Men who can afford to will import brides from other countries slackmaster May 2012 #202

Of course, actual achievement of your vision would ultimately require these enforcement mechanisms apocalypsehow May 2012 #204