The Most Important Lesson of the Iran War Is to Buy Guns and...
Do All Democrats Have to Be Complete Jerks?
Wisdom From the Founders: Why Eric Swalwell Should Never Have Been Elected in...
Those Who Can Afford to Be Frivolous
Trump Takes on the Pope, and the Pope Gets Trumped
American Values
In Alabama, Big Gambling Is All In
The Pope Has an Epiphany
For Trump, Winning Is the Catalyst for the American Renaissance
Grievance Culture Is Destroying American Resilience
State Bar of California Ignored Schiff and Swalwell but Relentlessly Pursued John Eastman
NYC Doctor Pleads Guilty to $24M COVID Testing Fraud Scheme
AI Boom Exploiters: How iLearning's CEO and CFO Allegedly Faked Their Way to...
White South African Refugee Goes Viral After Thanking God, Trump, and America for...
Albany Man Accused of Climbing Fence, Stealing FBI Patrol Truck
Tipsheet

Behold: The Most Tone-Deaf Analysis of China's One-Child Policy

Behold: The Most Tone-Deaf Analysis of China's One-Child Policy

Yesterday, China amended its one-child policy to a two-child policy. While some human rights activists applauded the move, others reminded people that any policy that limits or restricts births is not a good policy.

Advertisement

And then there's CNBC's Carl Quintanilla, who tweeted this:

Which is just...wrong, on so many levels.

China's one-child policy did "successfully" reduce the birth rate of Chinese citizens, but at devastating societal costs. China now has one of the largest gender imbalances in the world, and there are millions of "missing" women who were either forcibly aborted, killed at birth, or abandoned as a result of the policy. It's been dubbed the world's worst law.

When Twitter users, including my colleague Guy Benson, called out Quintanilla for his rather harsh phrasing, he had this defense:

For the record: tweeting a picture of a graph, and then tweeting "it worked" from your own personal account is not a "retweet."

It's important to recognize the horrors the one-child policy has wrought upon China--as they've far outweighed any "benefits" from a shrinking population. It may have "worked," but at what cost?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement