Feminists Silent On Call For Global One-Child Policy

Alice, first of all, in most countries it is currently perfectly legal to have 20 kids or more. So based on your logic, all of your neighbors must have at least 20 kids, right? Because if it's not illegal, surely everyone is going to do it. So, just how many people do you personally know with 20 living children? 15? 10? 8? And if you do know any in these categories (personally), then how many of those families' kids have been born during the past 30 years? People make choices. We are not animals. Most of us actually try to do what seems right, e.g., limit our brood to the number we can feed, educate, and emotionally nurture.

Secondly, there are several problems with the argument that this policy would be right for "overpopulated countries or countries where the population is growing too fast." The most glaring are the oppressive / genocidal aspects of it. Who are we to decide that those people's potential children have less right to exist than ours? Did each of them get a vote on whether it should be our child or theirs that is allowed to be born?

Then there is the issue of what the true economic impact will be if we eliminate lots of people in the "overpopulated" countries. Most of them are dirt poor and consume next to nothing as far as the global environment is concerned. An American child, particularly one in a small family, probably consumes more than several extended families of children in one of those "overpopulated" countries.

Further, forced population control, wars, disasters, plagues, etc., may decimate a population, but to my knowledge, none of these has ever led to an improved environment or economy. There are more positive ways to reduce population growth AND improve the environment / economy. Instead of oppressing these folks by killing their babies, we might try educating them and providing other aid targeted at ensuring they and their babies remain healthy. Even in overpopulated countries, those who have more security about their future have fewer children.

I had to cut off my previous comment because my sick kid was calling me. I meant to add:

The comment that "overpopulation is a threat to the world" is unsubstantiated. There is no proof whatsoever that a human population even as high as 10 billion would actually threaten "the world." (Actually I should start by asking: how do you define overpopulation? I assume you think 6B or 7B is too many.) The biggest threats to various aspects of the global physical environment are from the relatively sparsely populated, "developed" countries. I mean, all we have to do is stop eating beef, and that would fix a lot of problems right there. Who eats the most beef? How about the environmental effects of air conditioning? How much of that can you blame on overpopulated countries?

The final reality is that overpopulation in poor countries has its own natural consequences which don't require outside intervention. Unfortunately, it leads to malnutrition, rapid spread of disease, etc. It doesn't come knocking at your door in whatever western country you live in. To say that forcibly killing their babies before birth is more humane than letting them make their own choices and deal with them is outrageous in my mind. We're talking about human beings.

Regarding your first paragraph I was just reflecting on the article talking about freedom to choose how many kids one has, and showing that it would be problematic if everyone decided to have a huge number of children. There is nothing in my post that states that people will do everything that isn't illegal. Just that as I said, IF you think it's ok for everyone to have 20 kids (which you apparently don't) you are irrealistic about the possibilities of this planet. I know this situation is rare and unlikely and that comment was less for people like you than for people who took "be fruitful and multiply" a bit too literally and are convinced that it would be "such a blessing" if the whole world decided to have more children.
What you said about doing what seems right actually applies to the occidental cultures I was talking about. If the whole world limited their children to what they could feed and educate there would be no close to no issue.

The genocidal aspect is something I said I disagreed with. Such a policy doesn't have to mean killing babies, it could be done the same way we do it, by raising awareness about contraception, abortion and try to suppress the cultural norms that a woman is supposed to breed as much as she can to be worthy. That coupled to a one child or two children policy seems a little better. I know it is not really applicable for financial reasons but ideally yes such a policy would help. As to why it should apply to them and not to us well simply because it somehow already applies to us, regarding the growth rates. And obviously it's not something we can force on them nor is it our place, but they could (should?) realise it on their own, for their country and its inhabitants' own good.

"Further, forced population control, wars, disasters, plagues, etc., may decimate a population, but to my knowledge, none of these has ever led to an improved environment or economy." I disagree about forced population control. If China was twice as populated, just how much more would they pollute!? You are right about the other situations, because they are so expensive. It crashes economies to pay for rebuilding (or healthcare in the case of plagues). And they are not a progressive change but a blunt loss of adults in the workforce, suddenly crippling the economy.

I am under the impression that we actually think quite similar things as to how the population growth could be limited. The difference is I believe a limiting policy on number of children would definitely help. It doesn't have to be a violent thing with the right tools. It could help establish a new "social norm" as someone previously said, with less children. But we can only rely on these countries to do it, and maybe help them with money or material if possible.

Re: your second post that I hadn't seen, I know occidental countries pollute a lot too, but this isn't the issue here. If you look into the ecological footprint you will see that unless we all lived in the same hard conditions as the poorest countries one earth isn't enough for the world's population.
"It doesn't come knocking at your door in whatever western country you live in." No it doesn't, that is something they have to do themelves. I don't find it outrageous at all, but I think we just have to agree to disagree on that.

Alice, did it ever occur to you, or anyone else, that the government doesn't need to pay for abortion? The most sincere form of "Choice" is to make the CHOICE not to have sex in the first place, or to protect yourself from pregnancy. Using abortion as a form of birth control, and by extension, as population control, is abhorrent.

LS, I completely agree actually! Although I must say birth control isn't 100% efficient and abstinence is obviously not a birth control method that can be applied indefinitely for a person. But mostly, unfortunately lots of people do not understand that abortion is an extreme measure that shouldn't have to be done unless they did take precautions to prevent a pregnancy.
I did mention it among other more preventive (better) methods for population control. It's not possible to rule it out completely - not to mention it would be wrong as people can still need it.

"Still Rachel is naïve to think feminists care about a woman’sability to reproduce when feminists have made it clear they care moreabout a woman’s right NOT to reproduce. [Feminists] hate children,think of them as little parasites, and have compared pregnancy toboth having cancer and being enslaved. Rachel is clearly unfamiliarwith the underbelly of today’s feminism. I hope the posters hereand their hateful opinions toward human reproduction will open hereyes."

I suppose some feminists do hate children but not all do, and I truly hope you realize that to imply as such is a gross generalization. I consider myself a feminist and I don't hate children - I love my child (and many other children I interact with on a regular basis), nor am I hateful toward reproduction, but I'm ok if someone doesn't want to reproduce. Why should anyone be told to reproduce, or not reproduce, by you, Francis, or anyone else? (if a person really does think of children as parasites, as you suggest, maybe it's best for all concerned that she NOT reproduce over her objections.)

Anyway, I don't agree with the ideas espoused by Francis (I do agree with your points on the classist double standards), but this is a freedom she has in this society - to express her ideas - along with all the other fanatics' rights to express theirs. As you must realize, there are many fanatical people on the other side of the debate who are actually misogynists - people who want to force all women (and teenagers and, sadly, some "tweens") to carry a baby to term, whether they can/want to or not. These fanatics really don't care about the well being of these individuals, only their own fanatical, extremists views, at any cost. Not everyone shares these views, or mine, or yours. That's why it's about individual choice (and for my own potential reproduction that means MY choice...not a fanatics' choice).

Pro-Life-Pro-Choice - YOURS is the MOST LOGICAL comment on this enitre board.

Biology 101:
The 'contents of the uterus' are actually another living human being. By 18 days, there is a beating heart. This is not the woman's body, it is the fetus' body.

You cite the tough cases of rape and abnormalities. These *very* rare scenarios open the door for allowing abortions for any reason, including sex selection. It's not logical and it's not consistent with the US ideal of the right to life.

Sandyone - "It's not logical and it's not consistent with the US ideal of the right to life."

Clearly you mean YOUR ideal of the right to life/anti-choice since it isn't a Unite States ideal - the US is based on CHOICES - whatever they may be.

From The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to life is not my original idea, but it is an ideal that I embrace. "Choice" is nowhere in the Declaration. That's a euphemism commandeered and marketed by the pro-abortion crowd. (and this blog entry is pointing out that the 'pro-choice' crowd is hypocritically silent on this particular issue of choice. It leads one to believe that the 'pro-choice' crowd is more interested in keeping abortion legal than they are in protecting true reproductive choice.)

sdaf - On your first point (on how does she find the time to mother AND be so prolific) here's an expression I like that really applies here: "If you want to get something done, give it to a busy person!" As she's said here and in her book, she also gets help from her husband, who is very supportive.

mmk - unfortunately you are a rare case. Most people DO NOT take care of their parents/grandparents. My husband and I are currently taking care of his grandparents solo becuase his children (the grandfather) and my husband's siblings can't be bothered. It happened on my side of the family too when I watched all my grandparents go into nursing homes (I was too young at the time to help take care of them). so just having kids doesn't guarantee that there will be someone around to take care of you - just look at all the neglected elderly now and it's pretty clear we as a whole don't look after those who gave birth to us.