Human Rights and China's One Child Policy

Monday, May 07, 2012

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, talks about the human rights implications of China's one-child policy. 

Comments [14]

A real WNYC "crowd-pleaser" might be the edited segment of "Julia" where the "population police" appear during her second pregnancy to transport her to the local public overpopulation prevention center.

May. 07 2012 01:16 PM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

@ Calls'em -

Thanks for your continued broadsides, overgeneralizations, and lack of nuance, you can always be counted on to draw simplified conclusions from complicated issues, as in this case linking choices made by free individuals with unrelated coercive human control by autocratic states. Very reductionist and false.

Oh and yes, glad that your judgment defines other peoples' beliefs and religion. Thank you for your condescension and anti-democratic statements.

May. 07 2012 01:15 PM
Calls'em from Fairfax, Va.

An inconvenient truth - abortion is murder. Abortions forced by the State is genocide. The Communist Chinese murdered 40-60 million people while taking and consolidating power. Since the one child law came into being hundreds of millions of babies have been murdered as well as thousands of non-compliant parents. But, since Marxists here and abroad don't believe in God, every kind of hell on earth is possible. The left has oceans of blood on its hands here and abroad.

May. 07 2012 12:00 PM
Amy from Manhattan

John, the other factor in population effects is overconsumption. The 1st-world countries (esp. the US) that have lower population density also tend to consume more resources, leading to more environmental problems. The good thing is that reducing population growth can be done by educating women rather than by forcing abortions & sterilization on them.

May. 07 2012 11:55 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Yes, it's funny how people accept this barbaric practice because there are "too many Chinese" god forbid.

If this were happening in Denmark or Russia it would be a different story.

May. 07 2012 11:50 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Mark

Who decides if children are having a "decent life" or not, assuming they are not starving or being physically abused? Who decides, liberal social workers? Poverty and subsistence was the norm for thousands years, and yet we survived horrible poverty for many centuries. Frankly, it might just be better to be poor and surrounded by raggedy urchins, than to be rich, old with no children or grandchildren to hug, and only dogs and cats!

May. 07 2012 11:49 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Urbanization and crowding people into tight megacities is GOOD for the environment! THe more suburbanization is reversed and come back to live in hi-rise buildings in the megacities, the better the overall environment will get! As for population growth, that is checked when women are almost fully in the work force as they are here in the US and the EU, Japan, etc. The problem will be UNDERPOPULATION with too many old people for the few young people to support in this century. Japan is dealing with it through robotics.

May. 07 2012 11:46 AM
Mark from manhattan

having more than 1 kid should be correlated to the ability of tthose individuals to take care and provide a decent life and education to the child avoiding to rely on the rest of society to pay for it

May. 07 2012 11:44 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I don't think China's 1-child policy is an effort to be a "good international citizen" but an attempt to have fewer people in its own country for it to need to take care of. Is there any other area in which China is trying to be a good international citizen?

May. 07 2012 11:44 AM

I'd just like to point out that over population is mostly a third world problem. The united states has a lower birth rate than it did 50 years ago, same with Europe. It's also worth pointing out that Japan has the opposite problem, with a dangerously low birth rate.

May. 07 2012 11:41 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Brian's most liberal audience is SO concerned by overpopulation yet mostly CHOOSES to live in overcrowded NEW YORK CITY! Isn't that somewhat ironic? Liberals are incapable of seeing the ironies and hypocrisies in their own arguments versus how they choose to actually live their lives.

May. 07 2012 11:40 AM
Jenna from Hamilton Heights

While I personally agree with this as a human rights issue, we have to remember that we are not comparing apples to apples. China's entire governmental and societal structure is completely different than how we live here in the US. It's difficult to cherry pick this particular issue among the many many other issues in China, many of which we, as US citizens, would disagree with.
To the Chinese government, this practice may make total sense in their larger strategy of how they want to conduct a society.

May. 07 2012 11:37 AM

When do "human rights" infringe on "bioshpere rights"? At what point is human overpopulation a health issue for humans? Is it a human right to destroy environments and non-human species in order to protect a human right to procreate?

May. 07 2012 11:36 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The way to bring down overpopulation is to let women leave the home and go to work. That has been bringing down the birthrate rapidly wherever it has happened since WWII. However, abortion denies the right to life of the still unborn. I have no objection to contraception to avert unwanted pregnancy, but abortion is the denial of the right to life for the unborn once pregnancy has happened.

May. 07 2012 11:35 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.