ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Granted, this is one author's perverted and twisted opinion. But a global law? A planetary law? Are you kidding me?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Brethren, this is disturbing
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
- Status
Granted, this is one author's perverted and twisted opinion. But a global law? A planetary law? Are you kidding me?
It's unprudent to try to take a rule that works in one region (in this case, China) and try to apply it to all. Imagine if California were to adopt Maine's building codes. The homes would be ill-fitted to California's meditteranean climate, plus, they wouldn't withstand the earthquakes that occur on a sometimes monthly basis. China's one-child policy works (arguably, not very well) for them, but it would be ridiculous to apply that to other regions where polulation density is not a problem.
But, it will never happen, so we can just count the comments at the conference as silly.
But, it will never happen, so we can just count the comments at the conference as silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is, as you said, one person's view. I don't put much substance behind it.
Interestingly there are more than a few population experts that believe the world's population will max out by 2050 and begin a several generation decline after that. Several factors are at play, but I don't think that population controls are the answer.
Frankly, China's population policy is an abomination. Suggesting that this is a reasonable answer, as this columnist has, is just rhetoric and very near sighted.
Reading the comments for the article though did give me hope. Most were completely opposed to this foolish viewpoint.
Interestingly there are more than a few population experts that believe the world's population will max out by 2050 and begin a several generation decline after that. Several factors are at play, but I don't think that population controls are the answer.
Frankly, China's population policy is an abomination. Suggesting that this is a reasonable answer, as this columnist has, is just rhetoric and very near sighted.
Reading the comments for the article though did give me hope. Most were completely opposed to this foolish viewpoint.
Works? So, forced abortions work for you? Or is that the part that doesn't work "very well"?
Well, I'm not a brethren, but I would like to say that the one-child law, as I understand it, isn't about forced abortions.
It's about only one child being a citizen and participating in rights such as education, medical care, .....
Any other children are considered non-citizens or non-existent.
If I'm wrong, someone can correct me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Human_rights
Forced abortions may not be the official policy, but it is the result of the policy.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
China's one-child policy is not just unprudent; it's evil. And, yes, forced abortions do occur in China.
You neglected to note the part where I said "arguably, not very well". I neither condone nor understand China's policy. Please don't put words in my mouth.
There's nothing to argue or debate about it. It doesn't work. Any policy that results in forced abortions doesn't work. Period.
I'm not arguing the morality of it. In fact, morally, I agree with you. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
My point was in regards to the comment at Copenhagen. My reponse was that just because somethign might work in one region, that's no reason to impliment it in all other regions.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Double post. Someone else responded to the request for info with the wiki link.
Unlike you, I'm not able to seperate the morality of a topic and say that something works, when it results in the murder of children.
That's all fine and dandy. But don't berate those who can so separate arguments in a post. And again, I didn't say it works. I in fact noted that it didn't work very well.
Once more, I insist you refrain from putting words in my mouth.
No need to put words in your mouth. Your own words are condemning enough.
So, tell me again how you didn't say that it works? There's two examples where you say it works.
I will continue to berate anyone who attempts to seperate the crime of murder from a topic such as this. If you are able to put your morals aside as easily as you imply, then may God have mercy on you!
My words never condone China's policy. In fact, I abhor it. Why are you being so infantile over this?
You must be missing where I say "arguably, not very well". I wasn't making a moral statement on it in that context at all. I later clarified, mostly in response to you, that I abhor China's policy. What's the problem?
Translation: You will continue to accuse people of something they neither did nor said.
It's a huge stretch to not address the moral implications of a topic, and to "put morals aside". If a person is too immature to discern that, then that person should refrain from infantile and unscriptural accusations until such a time in the future that that person can do so.
Johnv, you remind me of my 4 year old son. Whenever something isn't going his way in a conversation with one of his siblings, he just throws out "You're a baby!". Of course, his siblings don't really have anything to respond to that since whether or not someone is a baby wasn't the topic of conversation. It seems that you, and my son, both just resort to name calling when you know that you've been backed in a corner and have nothing else to say.
Let me know when you are willing to discuss this topic without resorting to calling people names. Thanks.
Let me know when you are willing to discuss this topic without resorting to calling people names. Thanks.
Third party perspective:
Johnv is correct. His words were distorted by others - he is correct to point that out.
windcatcher
New Member
Yes, omitted here is the morality issue and that of infanticide and abortions, but in a population where few are Christians and the government controls religion or the state is a substitute for religion.... their morality is based on 'the ends justify the means (make that the ends prove the morality or right-ness of the means..... according to communism/socialism in its extreme).
In a society where persons may live without the benefit of citizenship, it is doubtful that they can have much of a life: Their employability is unlikely recognized, they are most apt to be considered expendable, and their life is likely reduced to servitude,..... slavery, beneath the possibilities of those citizens who's society and government has enslaved the general populace.
The Wiki article noted that the rich are getting around the one child policy by attending fertility clinics so that their 1st birth is a multiple birth.... in which case, it is accepted by the state without attending penalties.
As for abortions...... the article mentioned 'forced' so, whether the law declares it as a requirement or not is essentially beside the point if the pressures placed on couples, doctors, and the community is such that this is the outcome regardless of the parents wishes:
emphasis added.
- Status