China’s one child policy is arguably one of the worst human rights abuses in recent memory. Forced sterilizations and abortions, threats, beatings, and job loss are part of the horror stories that come out of China on a regular basis.
And yet, Sarah Conly, an associate professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, writes in the Boston Globe, “Still, the idea that people should limit the number of children they have to just one is not, I would argue, a bad one, for the Chinese or for the rest of us.”
Professor Conly begins her article condemning forced abortions or sterilizations, but she continues in a discussion of “rights” to claim that humanity doesn’t have a “right to cause devastating harm” through “uncontrolled fertility.”
If we don’t have a right to “uncontrolled fertility,” how exactly does she think it should be controlled?
She is going to “educate” us into doing the “right” thing, and then, sanctions might not even be necessary. I kid you not, she actually says this,
“We may well be able to reduce the fertility rate without using sanctions at all, and that would, of course, be best. Most of us do what is right because we think it’s right, not because we’re afraid of punishment. We think murder is wrong and so (most of us) don’t murder. The same could be true for limiting how many children we have.”
“First, we can educate people about the need to have fewer children. It’s a sensitive subject, and even activist groups have regarded population as the untouchable third rail of environmental preservation. This is a case where avoiding a sensitive subject will only come back to haunt us, though. We can learn the advantages of having only one child, and get rid of the myths that some people still attach to that. Some think that even with the new freedom to have two children, at least most urban Chinese will stick to the old policy, and of course if people do the environmentally right thing without being forced to, that is best all around.”
I’m so glad she “thinks it best all around” not to bring forced sterilizations and abortions to the United States. The article continues in the same condescending tone, and concludes that should sanctions be necessary, fines will probably be all that’s needed.
Why exactly does the good professor want to force herself into the bedroom of every man and woman in this country? To save the planet of course!
“We can see the damage that is already being done by our present population of “just” 7.3 billion. We all know about climate change with its droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and heat. But it’s also soil depletion, lack of fresh water, overfishing, species extinction, and overcrowding in cities.”
What a bunch of ivory tower hogwash.
Do alarmists really think they can convince the general population that the apocalypse is nigh by telling us “we all know,” when in reality those of us in the real world look around and see something very different? (I would also like to point out that what we “see” doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of long term climate trends, but since she brought it up…)
Here is what I see and don’t see:
1. I see a cleaner environment.
2. I see that 7 billion people could all live in Texas.
3. I see food production increased significantly thanks to the work of Norman Borlaug and others like him. And, around the world, I see a huge amount of food wasted every day.
4. I don’t see an impending apocalypse, especially since many a scaremongering deadline has come and gone with no real problems.
5. I see elitist liberals trying to define “reproductive rights” as the “right” to murder a child instead of the right to have children.
6. And for the foreseeable future, I see women in the United States of America continuing to practice their reproductive rights to have as many children as they choose and God allows.