Big families always used to be seen as a good thing – even a blessing. But increasingly population controllers are telling us they are a bad thing – even a curse. And the voices in the West calling for radical curtailment of family size certainly remind us of places like China, where rhetoric has become harsh reality.
Indeed, what is the difference between Dick Smith demanding that all Australian families be limited to no more than two children, and China demanding that families have no more than one child? Not much actually. Australian businessman Dick Smith is willing to double the Chinese quota, but otherwise he pretty much shares their worldview.
Both look at children as a disadvantage instead of an advantage. Both want to radically cut population figures, and both are willing to use radical measures to accomplish this. Sure, Smith would claim he is just promoting a voluntary scheme, whereas in China this is state-enforced policy.
But history shows us that many so-called voluntary measures soon become coercive measures, with the heavy hand of the law making sure compliance is occurring. What may begin with good intentions and without statist coercion usually does not stay that way.
And soon we end up with the nightmare that is now China, with its forced abortion and sterilisation to keep families down to just one child. Of course all sorts of problems abound here, including the huge gender imbalance. With only one child allowed, most parents of course prefer having a boy.
So girls are being aborted in huge numbers, and there is now a massive gender imbalance in the nation, which is leading to an increase in things like sexual slavery, prostitution and other social problems. This has been documented many times before, both on this website and elsewhere.
But the horror stories keep pouring forth from China. The horrendous acts of barbarism and coercion by the state apparatchiks jealous to enforce these misguided policies continue unabated. Consider just one of the more recent stories to emerge from this nightmarish land.
Reggie Littlejohn of the Women’s Rights Without Frontiers organisation tells the story this way: “On March 21, 2011, Family Planning Officials entered the home of Xu Shuaishuai to seize his sister for a forced sterilization. Unable to find her, they beat Xu’s father. When Xu defended his father, one of the Family Planning Officials stabbed him twice in the heart with a long knife. Xu died on the way to the hospital.
“This murder is a shocking and extreme example of how coercive family planning presses fear into the hearts of the Chinese people every day. Women who become pregnant without a birth permit – illegally pregnant – are terrified of discovery and forced abortion. Fathers feel helpless to protect their wives and children. Paid informants – friends, neighbors, co-workers – tear down trust in Chinese society. Family members are detained and tortured.
“The One Child Policy, moreover, is causing a demographic disaster for China. Due to the traditional preference for boys, girls are disproportionately aborted. This ‘gendercide’ has given rise to a critical gender imbalance: there are now an estimated 37 million more men than women in China. This gender imbalance is a driving force behind sexual slavery, not only in China but in the surrounding countries as well.
“How does this affect us? We (the people of the United States, England, and other nations) are helping finance the infrastructure used in coercive family planning in China. The international community funds UNFPA, United Nations Family Planning Fund, as well as IPPF, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Marie Stopes International. These organizations are operative ‘abortion providers’ in China. How many of these abortions are forced?
“In 2008, then Secretary of State Colin Powell found that UNFPA was complicit in coercive family planning in China. The IPPF website openly declares, ‘The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China’s family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation . . .’ The website for Marie Stopes International, lists as ‘major partners’ the Family Planning Commissions of several provinces in China.
“Why are we financing the infrastructure of forced abortion in China with taxpayer money?” A very good question indeed. Quite heartening in this regard is the number of Republican Presidential hopefuls in the US who have declared that if elected they will move to halt government funding of Planned Parenthood.
I would like to see some Australian politicians pledging to do the same. They need to see the bigger picture here, and the negative repercussions of such beliefs. Indeed, as Australian political commentator Paul McCormack reminds us, this is really a battle about two different worldviews, and two different ways of looking at humanity.
“There is a war going on in this nation essentially between two groups and my contention is that it is centred on a difference of opinion towards a single idea, and that so many policy positions and disagreements stem from this difference. The difference is this: one group sees humanity as a problem, the other group sees humanity as a solution.
“People who subscribe to the first school of thought argue that we need a carbon tax because they believe that humanity is causing the planet to warm. More generally, the consequence of this train of thought leads to positions that are anti-growth, meaning that little or no growth in the population is a favourable outcome. If you are opposed to a larger population, who is your natural target? Families, of course, though not just any families. To oppose families holus bolus would be a tactical disaster (politically) for the low-growth environmentalists. For this reason the war is being waged against big families.”
He continues, “It is also the case that if you view humanity as a problem, you will likely end up in a position whereby you support a political movement that seeks to exerts as much control over humanity as possible. And what political movements have at their core the total control of humanity by an omnipotent State? Socialism, and its twin brother, communism.
“Remember that Joseph Stalin famously remarked, ‘a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.’ It stands to reason that if you see humanity as a problem, then the death of people is an unfortunate but necessary outcome and control of the population becomes the foremost priority.”
He concludes, “Large families are not a burden to society; they are a blessing for society and a government that encourages large families is taking the path of life and growth instead of the path of death and decay. The path that is taken with larger families is the one preferred by those who view humanity in a positive light and, in so doing, look to the future with hope and confidence.”
Quite so. I for one would be interested in asking Dick Smith (and others like him) if he has more than one brother or sister. If so, it needs to be pointed out to these folks that it is a good thing indeed that their parents did not subscribe to their foolish and despotic ideas. If they did, these anti-natalists might not even be around today.
“But history shows us that many so-called voluntary measures soon become coercive measures, with the heavy hand of the law making sure compliance is occurring. What may begin with good intentions and without statist coercion usually does not stay that way.”
True Bill – particularly in Australia. Having lived in a number of different countries in the world I have become increasingly horrified at the propensity of Australian governments (of either side of politics, and throughout all levels of government down to local) to impose regulation on every aspect of peoples’ lives. Australia is a lot closer to “police state” than many people want to acknowledge.
John Symons
Contra feminists, abortion is not a boon to females. It results in the selective abortion of disproportionately more females. This isn’t just a problem in China and India but also for those immigrants in the US. As Joe Carter points out in “The Global War Against Baby Girls”,
“If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? Landmines? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?
Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine…
…This threat to baby girls, however, is not just a phenomenon found abroad. In the United States sex ratios at birth for the Chinese-American population, the Japanese-American population, and the Filipino-American population, and for the Asian-American population as a whole are out of kilter,..”
Yes Damien, I wonder what the pro-death feminists do say about this culling of females?
Annette Nestor, Perth
The forcing underground of Miracle Christian Center over the weekend showed the Dandenong City Council’s inability to stand against leftist agendas that are against life.
It disturbs me to think what else many levels of government would be willing to bow down to.
Mario Del Giudice
Hi Annette,
Probably the same thing they say about the repression of women under Islam – absolutely nothing.
Mansel Rogerson
No one will be telling ME how many children to have!
Jane Petridge
Given that most of the Western world has a fertility rate under 2 these people are largely preaching to the converted. Who needs a law when a basic belief that children are a nuisance who need to be put off for the sake of career abounds. Women wait so long to have children that when they want to they find they can’t. Money and lifestyle considerations keep families small in a society that puts comfort above family. Families of more than 2 are considered large families, whereas families of 5-10 used to be the norm.
I’m afraid if Bill Gates wants to limit family size he will have to choose another country to do it in.
Kylie Anderson
Yes quite right Kylie
We are already under 2 children per woman in Australia. So according to Smith, we should have more kids to get that number up to 2!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Every family should have as many children as they are able to, taking into account fertility, economic and emotional factors.
For some this will be 0, for others it will be 2, for others it will be 5, for others it will be 8.
No one should be coerced into a number that doesn’t suit them.
Jereth Kok
What I can’t understand is why Christians have so few kids (on average). It is so blindingly obvious that Islam is having a population race, and the developed world has thrown in the towel. The standard pastor’s role model 3-kid-family just isn’t going to help much.
I’d say evangelism first, and have as many kids as you can – there’s nothing worth doing more than that.
Fortunately I have seen a glimmer of this in the homeschool movement (moreso in US). The Amish are growing due to family size too.
At least Christians have a chance to grow in population share here – why not take it? Pretty easy to compete in a progeny contest with homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, greenies, hedonists, materialists and people who listen for little green men in the sky.
Do the Greenies realize that by thinning the numbers in the West they’ll dwindle any hope of conservation because the world will be inherited by Islam? Look what muslims Turks did to the land of Israel – turned it into rocks. Now it’s gradually coming back to life.
But I suspect the one-two punch of western dulling of senses and Islamic buildup are orchestrated demonically. That’s why we should just do what the Book says. God never told us to stop multiplying, and He definitely still commands us to make disciples…
Tim Lovett
I’m with you on this Jereth and Tim.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hmmm. If tricky dickie’s policy were to have been in effect in the past (where all the problems originated, of course!), I would not have a brother, I would not be married to my wife, and some of the greatest joys I have come across would never have been born!
It is also sobering to think how many of my friends would not even exist now. Many of those born 3rd and lower in their families are now successful business people, surgeons, rocket scientists, etc.
Perhaps we should start a policy to boycott Australian Geographic shops?
Robert Wickstead
I think I heard on TV that someone (probably Dick Smith, but I can’t be sure) was advocating tax breaks for families that ‘only’ have 2 kids. Hang on – if I have more than 2 kids, I’m putting more money in the economy, creating jobs and demand for products. I’m going to benefit the country more (purely economically even) than someone that has 2 kids – so shouldn’t I be rewarded with tax breaks?
Christie Ewens
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding Dick Smith’s argument. To maintain a steady population I think we need an average of 2.1 children per family. To see a population growth we need to see more children. So is Dick Smith saying that there should be no natural maintenance of population and that current Australians should eventually dwindle away and that population growth is best maintained by the importation of large large families from overseas. So if the current population diminishes and overseas immigrants increase this is good for Australia?
Jim Sturla
Australia’s current fertility rate is about 1.9 children per woman in the child-bearing ages. At this rate the population will dwindle from 22.6 m to 16 m by 2100.
On the other hand, if we are to benefit from the mining boom, which has so far insulated us from the global financial crisis, we will need to maintain our immigration program; currently at about 250,000 per year. This will add 22.25m to the population by 2100.
What this will do to the ethnic mix is anybody’s guess. Will Australia in 2100 bear any resemblance to the Australia we live in now?
Dunstan Hartley
Let’s remind Dick Smith that population control begins with suicide.
Michael Watts
I have always believed that the “LEFT” in politics could be truly described as the “nutty Left”. What other description would be more appropriate, when these characters, on the one hand wish to control the local population in such a way that if they had the power, they would coerce couples to have only two or fewer children, but simultaneously support an open door policy for any queue jumpers, who turn up on our shores in leaky boats, with their papers destroyed and expect Australians to accept them on face value as refugees. If anyone objects, they are labelled racists. Is it any wonder when leftish politicians, harbouring such logic in what passes for a brain for them, gain power at either a state or federal level, it takes a new government many years to make even a partial recovery from the damage they inflict on the nation with these and other nutty policies?
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Still catching up on my reading.
Jereth, I would add to your list of factors Biblical truth – God’s view on family, which is implicit throughout Bill’s article.
De 30:19 “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live”
To Dick Smith, I would like to say: if I had applied your policy, then you would have had five fewer customers in your stores – forever.
“But history shows us that many so-called voluntary measures soon become coercive measures, with the heavy hand of the law making sure compliance is occurring. What may begin with good intentions and without statist coercion usually does not stay that way.”
True Bill – particularly in Australia. Having lived in a number of different countries in the world I have become increasingly horrified at the propensity of Australian governments (of either side of politics, and throughout all levels of government down to local) to impose regulation on every aspect of peoples’ lives. Australia is a lot closer to “police state” than many people want to acknowledge.
John Symons
Contra feminists, abortion is not a boon to females. It results in the selective abortion of disproportionately more females. This isn’t just a problem in China and India but also for those immigrants in the US. As Joe Carter points out in “The Global War Against Baby Girls”,
“If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? Landmines? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?
Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine…
…This threat to baby girls, however, is not just a phenomenon found abroad. In the United States sex ratios at birth for the Chinese-American population, the Japanese-American population, and the Filipino-American population, and for the Asian-American population as a whole are out of kilter,..”
Read the whole column:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/03/the-global-war-against-baby-girls/joe-carter
Damien Spillane
Yes Damien, I wonder what the pro-death feminists do say about this culling of females?
Annette Nestor, Perth
The forcing underground of Miracle Christian Center over the weekend showed the Dandenong City Council’s inability to stand against leftist agendas that are against life.
It disturbs me to think what else many levels of government would be willing to bow down to.
Mario Del Giudice
Hi Annette,
Probably the same thing they say about the repression of women under Islam – absolutely nothing.
Mansel Rogerson
No one will be telling ME how many children to have!
Jane Petridge
Given that most of the Western world has a fertility rate under 2 these people are largely preaching to the converted. Who needs a law when a basic belief that children are a nuisance who need to be put off for the sake of career abounds. Women wait so long to have children that when they want to they find they can’t. Money and lifestyle considerations keep families small in a society that puts comfort above family. Families of more than 2 are considered large families, whereas families of 5-10 used to be the norm.
I’m afraid if Bill Gates wants to limit family size he will have to choose another country to do it in.
Kylie Anderson
Yes quite right Kylie
We are already under 2 children per woman in Australia. So according to Smith, we should have more kids to get that number up to 2!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Every family should have as many children as they are able to, taking into account fertility, economic and emotional factors.
For some this will be 0, for others it will be 2, for others it will be 5, for others it will be 8.
No one should be coerced into a number that doesn’t suit them.
Jereth Kok
What I can’t understand is why Christians have so few kids (on average). It is so blindingly obvious that Islam is having a population race, and the developed world has thrown in the towel. The standard pastor’s role model 3-kid-family just isn’t going to help much.
I’d say evangelism first, and have as many kids as you can – there’s nothing worth doing more than that.
Fortunately I have seen a glimmer of this in the homeschool movement (moreso in US). The Amish are growing due to family size too.
At least Christians have a chance to grow in population share here – why not take it? Pretty easy to compete in a progeny contest with homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, greenies, hedonists, materialists and people who listen for little green men in the sky.
Do the Greenies realize that by thinning the numbers in the West they’ll dwindle any hope of conservation because the world will be inherited by Islam? Look what muslims Turks did to the land of Israel – turned it into rocks. Now it’s gradually coming back to life.
But I suspect the one-two punch of western dulling of senses and Islamic buildup are orchestrated demonically. That’s why we should just do what the Book says. God never told us to stop multiplying, and He definitely still commands us to make disciples…
Tim Lovett
I’m with you on this Jereth and Tim.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hmmm. If tricky dickie’s policy were to have been in effect in the past (where all the problems originated, of course!), I would not have a brother, I would not be married to my wife, and some of the greatest joys I have come across would never have been born!
It is also sobering to think how many of my friends would not even exist now. Many of those born 3rd and lower in their families are now successful business people, surgeons, rocket scientists, etc.
Perhaps we should start a policy to boycott Australian Geographic shops?
Robert Wickstead
I think I heard on TV that someone (probably Dick Smith, but I can’t be sure) was advocating tax breaks for families that ‘only’ have 2 kids. Hang on – if I have more than 2 kids, I’m putting more money in the economy, creating jobs and demand for products. I’m going to benefit the country more (purely economically even) than someone that has 2 kids – so shouldn’t I be rewarded with tax breaks?
Christie Ewens
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding Dick Smith’s argument. To maintain a steady population I think we need an average of 2.1 children per family. To see a population growth we need to see more children. So is Dick Smith saying that there should be no natural maintenance of population and that current Australians should eventually dwindle away and that population growth is best maintained by the importation of large large families from overseas. So if the current population diminishes and overseas immigrants increase this is good for Australia?
Jim Sturla
Australia’s current fertility rate is about 1.9 children per woman in the child-bearing ages. At this rate the population will dwindle from 22.6 m to 16 m by 2100.
On the other hand, if we are to benefit from the mining boom, which has so far insulated us from the global financial crisis, we will need to maintain our immigration program; currently at about 250,000 per year. This will add 22.25m to the population by 2100.
What this will do to the ethnic mix is anybody’s guess. Will Australia in 2100 bear any resemblance to the Australia we live in now?
Dunstan Hartley
Let’s remind Dick Smith that population control begins with suicide.
Michael Watts
I have always believed that the “LEFT” in politics could be truly described as the “nutty Left”. What other description would be more appropriate, when these characters, on the one hand wish to control the local population in such a way that if they had the power, they would coerce couples to have only two or fewer children, but simultaneously support an open door policy for any queue jumpers, who turn up on our shores in leaky boats, with their papers destroyed and expect Australians to accept them on face value as refugees. If anyone objects, they are labelled racists. Is it any wonder when leftish politicians, harbouring such logic in what passes for a brain for them, gain power at either a state or federal level, it takes a new government many years to make even a partial recovery from the damage they inflict on the nation with these and other nutty policies?
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Still catching up on my reading.
Jereth, I would add to your list of factors Biblical truth – God’s view on family, which is implicit throughout Bill’s article.
De 30:19 “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live”
To Dick Smith, I would like to say: if I had applied your policy, then you would have had five fewer customers in your stores – forever.
John Angelico