Many people have asked me WHY? so I wanted to share some info:
One-Child Policy and encounters with the enforcers:
A Chinese official from Wenzhou, China, crushed a 13-month old baby-boy to death by driving over him after the parents refused to pay a fine for violating China’s one-child policy.
The socially acceptable statement that has been released for public consumption is “Under China’s population controls, instituted more than 30 years ago, couples who have more than one child must pay a “social upbringing” fine, while in some cases mothers have been forced to undergo abortions.” This is not the case for most situations….
“There was widespread outrage last year after a woman who had been forced to abort seven months into her pregnancy was pictured with the bloody fetus.”
On March 29, 2012, Paul Joseph Watson brought attention to the brutal face of China’s one-child policy, describing how a 9-month old baby was forcibly aborted, after which it was thrown in a bucket… Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy… The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die according to Paul Joseph Watson. There were photos but they are so heart breaking I could not bring myself to post them.
Recently the Chinese Health Agency released a staggering figure. Since 1971, the government has performed 336 million abortions. Researchers say that breaks down to 13 million abortions per year, or about 1,500 every hour. The are also responsible for 196 million sterilizations.
Our country is not necessarily safe from this policy occurring here. Obamas current science czar John Holdren has said…
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.
Direct quotes from his release of Ecoscience
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Involuntary fertility control
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at pubertyand might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
the quotes can go on and on… We must keep ourselves aware…