President Obama spoke with groups and leaders in China this week about a host of topics. One issue that some people would like Obama to address is the country’s controversial One-Child Policy. This is China’s attempt to curb population growth by limiting the number of children per family among the ethnic majority.
This policy is not a black and white issue; rather there are so many shades of gray. I asked a few people about their opinions on the one child policy and most answered by saying it isn’t a great policy, but they see the motivation and benefit from it.
So let’s break it down a bit. Not everyone in China is subject to only having a single child. For instance, ethnic minorities are exempt. Also, in some areas couples that are both only child may have two children of their own. The policy is intended to be enforced through fines and a reduction in wages/governmental assistance if a couple has more children than they are permitted.
Many positives and negatives have been discussed regarding the policy. So here is a snapshot of some of the most distinct and significant pros and cons of China’s family planning policy.
Pros:
- Less population, therefore more resources and food are available to everyone. Also, this positively effects the environment and reduces pollution and waste.
- More programs to promote adequate sex education, access to contraception and maternal health have been established.
- Families have been able to increase their savings capacity in part because they don’t have as many children to support or send to school.
- Unemployment goes down as the number of workers goes down.
Cons:
- It potentially infringes on human rights, such as privacy and family.
- There have been reports of forced sterilizations and abortions
- The policy has been associated with female infanticide and creating a gender imbalance.
Obviously, the problem with forcing couples to only have one child is complex. Male children are seen as more valuable. Therefore if families are limited to only one offspring, they hope it is a boy. Several girls have gone missing since the implementation of the policy in 1979. A 2005 census revealed that males under 20 years of age outnumber females of that age by 32 million.
To avoid female infanticide or abandonment, some areas especially in rural China, have began allowing people to apply for a second child if the first is a girl. Of course, it would be more appropriate and sustainable if girls were valuable as much as they should be.
As a strong believer in freedom of choice with your body and reproduction, I don’t really like the idea of punishing someone for having more than one child. No one with respect for humanity would approve of forcing someone to have an abortion. These are very serious consequences that need to be addressed.
On the flip side, I’m not a big believer in large families. (However, as an only child I would prefer to raise at least two children myself someday) Education and access to resources such as contraception and OB/GYN services are essential for positive family planning. In fact, China had a government policy from 1970-1979 called “Late, Long and Few,” which promoted having fewer children, spaced out and at an older age. During the time of this policy the Total Fertility Rate dropped.
Maybe there could be a happy medium between fines for having babies and having too many babies?
Photo Credit: Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Great job providing multiple sides to this issue, Andrea. Here’s a question that’s been on my mind as I’ve been thinking about our upcoming Choice Chat with Carol Adams – what would a vegan feminist paradigm say about spaying or neutering your cat/dog? If we are arguing for reproductive choice for human females, then should the same freedom be extended to nonhuman females?
I bring up this question in relation to the One Child Policy debate because I think that this is no different than spaying/neutering your pet so that there isn’t an overpopulation of feral cats in the neighborhood. I’m not advocating mass sterilization. But I do think that all humans, not just the Chinese, need to stop effing breeding because we’re killing the planet. There’s nothing sacred about the human species. Maybe we should stop breeding and save some of this planet for the rest of the species that also call Earth home.
I am opposed to the government coersively enforcing birth limits, but I think that the One Child Policy does have some merit.
Well, I respect you for being honest. Most feminists argue they are for “reproductive rights” but in reality couldn’t care less about rights, and are primarily motivated by an interest in limiting population and positive family planning and well balanced children.
What you have realized, but most feminists deny, is that the right to have children is equally important as the right to abort them. Bear with me on this: You see merits in China’s one child policy (a coercive policy which tramples reproductive rights) because it’s good for the whole in your view. So a policy which limits abortions, and tramples reproductive rights, in the name of increasing population for the common good would be equally justifiable under the right circumstances. That is to say, if it was decided that one country has too few people and is at a threat of being overwhelmed military, culturally or because it would be the “right thing to do”. I’m not arguing we need more people, just pointing out that for the most part feminists stance on abortion is born out of utility and not rights considerations.
This is an odd post for a blog called “Feminists for Choice.” To say “There have been reports of forced sterilizations and abortions” is misleading. The existence of forced abortion in China is well-confirmed, and your phrasing implies a level of uncertainty that does not exist. If I said that the existence of rape or domestic violence in America is something “there have been reports of,” you’d be well-justified in suspecting that I was trying to downplay or tacitly support real violence against women by insinuating that it may be simply imaginary.