You Are Either Opposed to China’s One Child Policy or You Cannot Call Yourself Pro-Choice (Unless You Are a Moron)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
And of course, that “moron” option is extremely viable when we are talking about Vice President Joe Biden.
First, let’s establish that he is pro-choice:
I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years. I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.
That is from his book Promises to Keep, on page 105. The Amazon link allows you to search inside the book to verify that.
Now, here is what he said about China’s one-child policy. He was in China discussing their lack of a “safety net”
But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.
No, Joe, that is not a pro-choice stand. That is a pro-abortion stand. Either that or you are a moron.
Hat tips to Hot Air (for the China quote) and to On the Issues (for the book passage).
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Well, there’s also birth control, which is the main way that the Chinese stick to the one-child policy. So it’s not quite as black and white (i.e., either this or that) as you make it.
Comment by Kman — 8/23/2011 @ 7:18 am
The ‘pro-choice’ crowd is full of people who aren’t in favor of choice, they are in favor of telling other people what they should do. Of course, so is the pro-life crowd, but they are more up front about it.
Both sides should be made to stand in a corner with their nose to the wall until they can speak civilly to one-another. My personal belief is that on average the pro-choice types will stand there longest, but there are loudmouths, drama queens, and swine on both sides.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 8/23/2011 @ 7:19 am
he seems to be saying that the one-child policy has screwed China to where its codgers are s.o.l. in their twilight years
which, bless their hearts
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 7:39 am
The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.
Does Biden even listen to himself sometimes?
Comment by Timesdisliker — 8/23/2011 @ 7:53 am
I don’t see where he says that he agrees with or supports the policy. He says that he understands it, which isn’t too difficult. He says that he’s not second-guessing it, which is basically saying that he’s going to accept that their decisions are in their best interest. That tends to be polite when you’re talking about the leader of another nation you’re trying to be friends with.
He does point out that it’s going to create issues with caring for older generations — a slight bit of criticism. But I’m going to differ with Aaron and say that I don’t see this as a conflict with the quote from Promises to Keep.
Comment by Steve — 8/23/2011 @ 8:04 am
steve
> he’s going to accept that their decisions are in their best interest.
and you don’t consider that support?
And no, saying you understand it, is support.
if he wanted to be neutral, there were ways to do it. he wasn’t.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 8/23/2011 @ 8:13 am
That is a pro-abortion stand. Either that or you are a moron.
With Biden, it’s a bit of both…
Comment by Mark — 8/23/2011 @ 8:15 am
Ha, ha.
“Or”.
“Or.”
LOL.
Comment by Dang, always ninth — 8/23/2011 @ 8:23 am
second-guess
vb Informal
1. to criticize or evaluate with hindsight
2. to attempt to anticipate or predict (a person or thing)
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 8:53 am
First, let us stipulate that Biden is a moron.
Second, even the Chinese are beginning to realize that the one-child policy is a disaster for China. There are reports of women being kidnapped from other countries to become “wives” in China. Secondly, this will lead to a demographic collapse later this century.
It seems to have had another interesting consequence although I can’t prove cause and effect. Chinese women have always tended to marry only Chinese men. It has been a sort of racism thing in which Chinese considered themselves to be the source of all high culture. I know a number of young Chinese women, some friends of my daughter who visits them in China and several Chinese women came here to attend her wedding in 2009. They are all married to Caucasian men. One of my medical students, a graduate of Beijing University and whose mother is a professor there. She is married to a south American man. I think these women may be avoiding Chinese husbands. I can only speculate why. They are all high status, well educated women born and raised in China.
Comment by Mike K — 8/23/2011 @ 8:55 am
Well there does seem to be, a common attitude.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-frederica-wilson-the-real-enemy-is-the-tea-party/
Comment by ian cormac — 8/23/2011 @ 9:02 am
AW, I am very disappointed in you.
Your accusation that Biden might be a moron is disrespectful to all those suffering from mental challenges.
We all know, that the Veep is one of the great thinkers extant within the Beltway – I’m sure spvrty will be along shortly to exclaim those virtues.
But, more rational, sentient beings realize that the “learned gentleman” from DE is one notch below Babs Boxer, who is the Queen of Dumber than Dirt.
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 9:07 am
Very few people who claim to be pro-choice have criticized China’s population policy. I take that as evidence that most of those who claim to be pro-choice are really just pro-abortion, and they use the language of choice to beguile the gullible.
However, I think the pro-life people are overreacting in this case. Biden says he is not second guessing the Chinese, but in fact he is. He is telling them that the policy was a mistake because it has put them on an unsustainable path.
China will find that when they try to reverse this policy and encourage births, it will be too late. There is something in Asian cultures that seems to lead to very low fertility levels (even lower than the Western European levels) as countries get prosperous. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan all have fertility levels that are at or are almost at one-child levels.
Comment by nohype — 8/23/2011 @ 9:10 am
Tell me, what would the downside be of the Chinese de-birthing themselves out of existence?
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 9:12 am
Being pro-life Is not swine master projectionist.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 9:20 am
“most of those who claim to be pro-choice are really just pro-abortion, and they use the language of choice to beguile the gullible.”
Precisely.
Jefferson Davis was pro-choice: A white man’s right to choose whether a black man is a human being or not.
Comment by pst314 — 8/23/2011 @ 9:52 am
Chinese would be aborting baby girls in large numbers whether there was a one-child policy or not I think
It’s a thing.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 9:58 am
China’s policy is abhorrent.
Anyone who morally understands it is also abhorrent. It is wrong, sexist, the opposite of freedom.
Aaron’s got an interesting juxtaposition based on the propaganda surrounding the progressive abortion agenda. They say it’s about choice, but it’s really about eliminating unwanted poor people.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 10:03 am
Since Vice President Joe Biden is an experienced liberal Democrat politician, long accomplished at the art of deception, he can talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time without so much as even hinting that his ChiCom hosts are contemptible baby killers.
Biden certainly understands the compelling need for benevolent central governments to enforce unpopular policy decisions on recalcitrant populations because they’re intellectually incapable of grasping what’s in their own best interests.
That’s why tax increases are an absolute necessity, so an establishment media and growing legions of government employees can instruct the hoi polloi in appropriate and obedient demonstrations of acquiescence to the inevitable victory of social justice over individual selfishness.
Comment by ropelight — 8/23/2011 @ 10:13 am
“Biden says he is not second guessing the Chinese, but in fact he is.”
nohype – Where are the invisible words where he second guesses the one child policy? Can you point them out please?
Perhaps what you are really imagining is his questioning of the result of the policy, the lack of a safety net and the ratio of 1:4 working people to retirees. China could have addressed that issue in many ways other than through forced abortions and sterilizations.
Maybe my problem is I don’t think like a genocidal liberal, just sayin’.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 10:14 am
if the Chinese keep aborting babies it won’t be long at all before there’s not enough chinese stupid enough to lend America monies for to make the food stamps
omg we’re all gonna starve!
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 10:20 am
Mr. Feets – If we run out of monies to make the food stamps, the Democrat job machine might screech to a halt!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 10:23 am
This is why America desperately needs a shovel ready speech by President O’Blameless!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 10:26 am
someone should organize a conference
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 10:26 am
Can’t I just let the Chinese deal with their population policy on their own?
Comment by stari_momak — 8/23/2011 @ 10:26 am
I’ve got a solution but it involves a lot of toner.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 10:39 am
Why do I get the feeling that stari would implement a similar policy elsewhere, given the chance?
Comment by JD — 8/23/2011 @ 10:41 am
“Can’t I just let the Chinese deal with their population policy on their own?”
stari – Did anybody suggest you should interfere? Seriously?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 10:44 am
Stari likes to complain a lot about things that don’t matter (or aren’t happening), while disapproving of those who complain about things that matters so much.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 10:45 am
we must print print print quick like a bunny
or a cheetah
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 10:51 am
“Why do I get the feeling that stari would implement a similar policy elsewhere, given the chance?”
Nah, but I would like us to stop subsidizing the baby-making of those who can’t afford it–including ‘free’ school lunch and breakfast and WIC and Section 8 housing.
Comment by stari_momak — 8/23/2011 @ 10:56 am
nothin’ wrong with that. That’s a big part of the problem. People are entitled by God to realize the results of their choices.
The real point here is to make sure you’ve got a pair of parents first. That’s key to so many issues.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 11:02 am
Section 8 is where crime comes from mostly
Comment by happyfeet — 8/23/2011 @ 11:04 am
or a drunken sailor ninja on crack,happyfeet.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 11:09 am
@5 Aaron: We’ll just have to disagree on this.
Comment by Steve — 8/23/2011 @ 11:18 am
“Nah, but I would like us to stop subsidizing the baby-making of those who can’t afford it”
stari – So murder is your solution to poverty? Not very creative.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 11:39 am
A Earthquake just occurred and a fault may have been named after bush?……………so it literally may be bush’s fault.
Ahahahahahahaha.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 11:50 am
opponents of nuclear power are useful idiots.
Just watch when the nuclear power is done away with they will complain.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 11:52 am
Comment by JD — 8/23/2011 @ 10:41 am
See: Roe Effect!
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 12:01 pm
Bush’s fault.
/SpartacBS
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 12:03 pm
Can’t wait for that Tsunami to wash over the Hamptons.
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 12:06 pm
Can’t wait for the opponents of nuclear power[Which does have its risks but they are minimal] to try and defend Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/23/2011 @ 12:23 pm
They don’t even try for they know that Iran’s statements are lies, and they’re wetting themselves over the fact that there might be bombs in their future, or in the future of
Israelthe Palestinians.Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 12:28 pm
When you’re talking Joe Biden, “moron” is always the most likely choice. Poor old Slow Joe Biden gets confused—by Joe Biden. He starts a 425 word sentence, but somewhere in there about the 200th word he forgets not only where he intended to go, but even worse, where he started.
Comment by Comanche Voter — 8/23/2011 @ 1:03 pm
Steve, doesn’t it seem like Biden’s objection is merely financial?
It’s like telling an unemployed wife beater that his discipline method is understandable, but as the wife will be unable to hold a job when injured, it not sustainable.
Biden’s priority is not on how a country outlaws the choice to bear a second child. It’s on money.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 1:06 pm
Joe should be glad that there was not a one-child policy in effect in the 40′s, or else his family gatherings would be very lonesome.
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 1:14 pm
“Steve, doesn’t it seem like Biden’s objection is merely financial?”
Dustin – See my #19.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 1:31 pm
Yes, you’re exactly right, Daley.
Biden has a problem with one aspect of a horrible thing, and doesn’t bat an eyelash at the actual horror. It’s as though he doesn’t notice it.
Comment by Dustin — 8/23/2011 @ 1:33 pm
The Great Leap Forward, the One Child Policy and the Cultural Revolution are three of the most egregious and deadly leftist policies ever applied against a country’s economy and forced on a people’s psyche. Those government enforced regulations are also some of the most visible and well-documented real world examples of the draconian anti-freedom and anti-human nature of leftism post WWII. They were not just theories. They are examples of modern era applied governmental leftism that not only failed miserably but ruined lives, confiscated private property, and starved millions. Those policies have played themselves out in the lifetimes of many of us. Is it any wonder that rational and historically knowledgeable Americans are worried about such things as “death panels” if the radical left is in charge of health care and its economics?
Limiting the focus on China here only to abortion and the economic safety net is way too narrow. There were millions of other people murdered in China as well who were not babies. The right has never done an adequate job of pointing out what fascist leftism really is in the larger sense– total government power and control in the guise of collective good and “fairness”. It would be nice to use Slo Joe’s words and his unintentional entry into that ugly world as a conversation starter here in America. Perhaps some of our fellow citizens would begin to get a clue.
Comment by elissa — 8/23/2011 @ 1:36 pm
But…but…elissa…
it’s not the policies, it was only that they were adminstered improperly, with inadequate funding.
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 1:45 pm
AD – They were just doing it wrong. Obama is so brilliant he would do it right.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/23/2011 @ 1:54 pm
Yes, each generation applies its best and brightest to the problem, and solves nothing; for they refuse to acknowledge that the problem isn’t the people applying the policy, it is the policy itself.
The worst part is that we let these morons reproduce; the upside is that they are ardent pro-choicers, and have very few children.
The Roe Effect is a date with destiny.
Comment by Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/23/2011 @ 2:06 pm
More of Mark’s illustrations
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/opinion/sunday/what-id-do-if-i-were-president.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Comment by ian cormac — 8/23/2011 @ 2:09 pm
Biden was arguing against this policy, but using a “practical” argument.
The problem here is that he wants to understand – or not argue too much about – something a tyranny is doing. Not necessary. He can make his poracxtical point without conceding anything. There is no need to concede any goiod intentiuons to the Chinese government (even though this actually may be based on a technocratic grounds rather than self-interested tyrannical grounds. Only a strong dictatorship would try anything like this.)
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 8/23/2011 @ 2:19 pm
By the way, monority groupos in China are exempt, probably because of the genocide treaty. (Where there is no great military/secutity policy reason for doing something, China may pay attention to such things)
The policy may in large part now still go on, at least to the degree it does, because of internal bureaucratic dynamics. (People have careers being in charge, people do not get high government policy jobs because of their general skills, if a job is eliminated they will not get some other prestigious position and there are also opportunities for bribery.)
Biden knew this criticism actually would be kind of welcome to the top leaders of China.
For themselves, some high ranking people have found a loophole – they can have their children born outside China – and high ranking people can travel – where the births will not count.
Some travel to California where they can also get U.S. citizenship. This is actually of advantage to the United States – they and their parents will have some kind of interest in the well-being of the United States – they all know what China is like.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 8/23/2011 @ 2:26 pm
@44 The emphasis was on “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” This statement doesn’t make a commitment either way. His limited criticism of the policy in that quote was that it is financially unsustainable.
What Biden didn’t do was to take a position on whether he endorses the policy. If I were in his shoes, I probably wouldn’t have stated a position on the policy. It is generally considered poor etiquette to criticize someone when you are their guest. That rule applies more so when that host is an aspiring superpower with whom you have a tenuous relationship.
Aaron would have us believe that Biden’s failure to condemn the policy is approval of the policy and therefore makes him a liar who claims to be pro-choice and then contradicts that claim with the above statement. I would counter that Biden’s failure to condemn the policy is diplomacy: skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact. I suspect he got some very stern warnings from various diplomatic corps employees reminding him not to do certain things while in China and not directly opposing this policy could have been one of those places you just don’t go.
I understand China’s policy. It’s not that difficult to understand. I suspect that Biden understands the policy just fine. I also appreciate that he was in a difficult situation and probably couldn’t have gotten away with stronger language.
Aaron’s headline claims that “You Are Either Opposed to China’s One Child Policy or You Cannot Call Yourself Pro-Choice (Unless You Are a Moron).” The argument is disingenuous. The right claims that the left does this, taking things out of context and misrepresenting positions in the process. In my opinion, this post does the exact same thing, only somehow it’s right this time because we’re doing the criticizing. That’s hypocritical, at best.
I stand by my original position: “I’m going to differ with Aaron and say that I don’t see this as a conflict with the quote from Promises to Keep.” Biden never stated an opinion on whether he agrees with or disagrees with the policy on moral grounds. He did point out that it is unsustainable from a financial standpoint. I’ll willing to let Aaron believe that lack of condemnation is endorsement of the policy, but on that point we will have to disagree.
If you follow the original link, there is another sentence that wasn’t included in this post: “So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.”
That sounds a little more like criticism of the policy on moral grounds. It’s also probably as much as he could get away with in that situation and not start a diplomatic crisis.
<sarcasm>So, Dustin, are you of the opinion that it is OK to beat your wife as a discipline method? You haven’t really said that you’re opposed to it. From a factual standpoint, I agree with you. Beating your wife so that she is injured is counter-productive to having her bring home more money. Perhaps you could clarify your statement and let us know whether you consider this an acceptable form of discipline. </sarcasm>
For the record, I understand China’s policy. I’ll go ahead and second-guess it because there are plenty of opportunities for the country to increase efficiency rather than restrict population. The policy and its effects are abhorrent. Even if the intended result wasn’t mass abortion, it should have been obvious that mass abortion was the likely outcome. Implementation of the policy and failure to repeal it are two steps beyond wrong.
Comment by Steve — 8/23/2011 @ 3:16 pm
I believe that in all the other Han Chinese dominated countries, that the fertility rate is less than 2. Why yes, Taiwan indeed outdoes the 1 child police with a TFR per woman of .9
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Taiwan-Birth-Rate-Falls-to-Worlds-Lowest-Challenging-Productivity-127933153.html
Further, I know that in non-Chicom east Asian and South Asian countries, sex selection abortion is common.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm
Comment by stari_momak — 8/23/2011 @ 5:52 pm
Steve @ 55,
You give Biden a lot of benefit of the doubt, and of being far more savvy than what we’ve ever seen of him before.
It’s hard for me to be objective as to whether or not he is so clueless that he lends a tacit approval to the policy or whether he really is that sharp to hold back and walk the tightrope because this practice is so utterly abominable that it doesn’t lend itself to a dispassionate analysis.
The Chinese are simply notorious for not valuing human life. They see it as a throwaway item.
Comment by Dana — 8/23/2011 @ 6:14 pm
Stari–See if you can see a difference here–
Poor and desperate people have unfortunately (privately) practiced forms of infanticide throughout the eons as food supplies, weather conditions, war, and other matters made it necessary for them to limit the number of dependents their community or family was responsible for, and the mouths they had to feed. In some of the worst times it was done by parents to alleviate anticipated suffering or to prevent a loved child from the pain of slow starvation if the mother could not produce milk. I will never forget the Mash episode where a crying baby threatened to expose a group in hiding from the enemy and the Korean mother smothered it to stop it from crying. Women from many cultures had “brews” to prevent conception and/or to cause an unwanted pregnancy to fail via miscarriage.
Modern family planning worldwide has resulted in abortions to limit family size and often they involve sex selection. Many of us find that revolting. But at least those procedures are done by the parents’ choice and using free will.
The One Child policy was government mandated. They forced people to have abortions and to kill their live born babies. They had bureaucracy, kept charts documenting womens’ menstrual cycles, and had local committees comprised of party members to monitor and enforce the One Child Policy. Neighborhood spies were paid a bounty by the Chinese government to “out” pregnant women who might be trying to hide their condition and drag them off to the abortionist. How you or anyone can find a way to justify the Chi-Com’s actions with respect to this policy boggles the mind. Your pathetic “everybody’s doing it” defense is ridiculous.
Comment by elissa — 8/23/2011 @ 6:34 pm
I’m not justifying the ‘Chi-com’ (LOL, like in the 1950s!) policy. Just saying the end result might not be a whole lot different without the Communists in power.
Comment by stari_momak — 8/23/2011 @ 7:05 pm
Oh heck — I used ChiCom first! Still love the term.
Comment by stari_momak — 8/23/2011 @ 7:06 pm
Dana @ 57,
No. I would credit the White House diplomatic corps with being that savvy. What I don’t think they anticipated is how that would be interpreted as tacit approval of the policy here.
Comment by Steve — 8/23/2011 @ 10:20 pm
Biden is the equivalent of a swirly.
Comment by DohBiden — 8/24/2011 @ 7:20 am