“The Real Inconvenient Truth”: China’s One-Child Policy Will Save the World

“The Real Inconvenient Truth”: China’s One-Child Policy Will Save the World

On the same day we sent out our alert last week on the UNFPA’s troubling adoption of climate change to promote “reproductive rights” programs, The National Post ran an article confirming our fears.

In the article, “The Real Inconvenient Truth,” Diane Francis writes:

“The ‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

“A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Francis is asserting that China’s disastrous one-child policy—the policy that resulted in state-sponsored, coercive sterilizations and abortions—should become “planetary law.” It seems that in order to protect the planet, the international government must become directly involved in the reproductive decisions of every world citizen and advocate the abortion of any children that exceed numerical quotas. Such a claim should give even the greatest environmental advocate a moment’s pause.

As we said in the alert, “Whenever a numerical calculation of life is used to defend a public policy, any and all who value life should be incredibly wary. The slippery slope to murder for the greater good is shorter than most imagine.”

Thank you, Diane Francis, for proving our point.

You can read the full article here.

2 Comments
  • Kay
    Posted at 23:26h, 04 January Reply

    I agree that a one-child policy like China’s is a violation of individual rights, and would never want to see it implemented. On the other hand, you argue against it using this reasoning:
    “It seems that in order to protect the planet, the international government must become directly involved in the reproductive decisions of every world citizen and advocate the abortion of any children that exceed numerical quotas.”

    So… you don’t like the government being involved in your reproductive decisions? Neither do I, and that’s why I think abortion should be legal.

    • United Families International
      Posted at 13:09h, 05 January Reply

      Unfortunately, your argument presumes that abortion is simply a reproductive decision rather than a decision on whether or not to end a life. The government has always been involved in protecting the right to life as the most important of all human rights. It is a right superior to even a woman’s right to choose.

Post A Comment

thirteen + 19 =