Although is a very old subject, I find it very interesting.

As many of you might know, since 1979 China has had the One-Child Policy which allow Chinese marriages to have up to one child.

Let us remember that current world's population is about is almost 7 billion. According to Wikipedia sources, China is leading with 1,334,018,022, India is 2nd with 1,198,003,000, and then the US with 307,896,665.

Natural resources are limited, global warming is increasing, poverty stand still and UN projections by year 2050 goes from 8 billion to 10.5 billion.

Do you think this policy violates human rights?

I think if it wasn't for this policy, millions of Chinese would have a far (*)(*)(*)(*)ty standard of living than today's.

Now I feel very comfortable in my 17 million population country and would hate such policy, but if my country was about 1,5 billion people, I'd think twice.

You're only looking at total population, many countries have higher population densities. China's population density is 363 sq/mi; Japan's, for example,is 874/sq mi. On top of this, far less of Japan's land is arable. China doesn't get to use the excuse that they have too many people for their nation to support, that's an absolute crock.

Looking at India and China, China made the right decision.

The one-child policy has been adapted to be a one-son policy. Many provinces have done away with it and ethnic minorities never had to follow it. The only punishment is a very small fine, anyway.

It doesn't violate human rights anymore, since forced abortions are illegal and the only penalty is a small fine.

f/x wrote: The one-child policy has been adapted to be a one-son policy.

You betcha...

... an' Dr. Jack an' Rexella say dey gonna use dem surplus boys to build dat 200 million man army so's the kings from the east can invade Jerusalem...

... just like it says inna Bible.

__________________
Walt's Law - Computers enable change to happen at an ever accelerating pace until, at some point, the rate of change cannot be tolerated and systemic breakdown occurs.

No, I am a chinese, and I know if there is no One-Child Policy, the streets will be full with people, millions people will be in poverty because people's too much with a few works. from the food side, many people will have no water, food, and no house to live. children cant go to school because no place for them.

China made the right decision? There are more men than women now in that country. That could be a problem...

And what about personal freedom?

__________________
"...what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson

There's a lot of countries like that. But I know what you mean, the gender gap is a huge problem and the leading reason for regions to repeal the policy. More modern estimates show the gap decreasing 5-10 years after it reaches its max.

Personal freedom was not sacrificed in all but the rarest of cases. You're not banned from having kids, you just have to pay a fine. There were cases of sterilization and forced abortions back when it was first implemented, but things have obviously changed.

It wouldn't surprise me that much if a case or two happened still, in the rural, lawless regions, though.

__________________
Political Props
The BETTER Forum.

Many families cannot afford to pay the fine, and choose instead to kill their baby girls in order to have a son.

__________________
"...what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson

The fine is anywhere from a day to a week's salary (depending on the province). If you can't afford that... can you honestly afford another child?

The only argument is that self-sufficient farmers would be able to, but they are rarely hit by the law anyway. There is a problem of course with all that; but looking at the other problem (over-population), it was the right decision.

Having around 7% of China in UN defined 'extreme hunger' is nothing compared to India's 30%.

__________________
Political Props
The BETTER Forum.

Personally, I'd rather not have the government telling me how many kids I can have. Sickening.

__________________
"...what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson