Email subscribe to LLC blog updates:
Your email:
www.agoda.com

Recent Forum Posts

Recent Comments

Chinese Women and One Child Policy

中国女人与独生子女政策


One child policyDuring a recent telephone conversation with my mom, she mentioned that few months ago she started receiving a monthly payment (about 50 RMB) for the fact that I am the only child in family. But if my parents wouldn’t comply with the one child policy, they – as urban residents belonging to Han majority – would have to pay big fines.

Everyone knows that China has implemented a family planning policy promoting the small family culture – preferably one child only. Strictly speaking, however, there are many different exceptions from this rule that eventually exempt from it 60% of population.

For example, rural residents can have a second child, especially if the first one is girl or has physical disability or mental illness… Putting females in the same category with disabled is telling, huh?

Another group benefiting from relaxation is ethnic minorities. So, in the same province there can co-exist three different quotas: one child allowed for Han Chinese, two children – for ethnic minorities, and even three children for ethnic minorities living in remote areas.

In this respect it’s appropriate to quote the letter of one blog reader describing the situation in Guangxi:

… when the government labeled millions of Guangxi people as members of the Zhuang minority, they at first objected vociferously – why, they were Chinese! Always had been! They had been Chinese for millennia!

It was proven using census and tax records, plus family genealogies, that they were, in fact, originally Zhuang, though most of them could not even speak the Zhuang language. When they found out that the one-child policy did not apply to minorities, they embraced their “new” status for all the very best of traditional reasons – specifically, so that even if the first, second, third child were a girl, they could always try again for a boy.

Besides the abnormal sex ratio, there is another demographic consequence with which China will have to deal in the upcoming years – the so-called “4-2-1” problem, when the only child is expected in the future to economically support 6 people (2 parents and 4 grandparents). This problem gave birth to another exception from the one-child policy – namely, couple in which both spouses are only children themselves are often allowed to have a second child.

But how is the policy enforced for those who are not lucky to fall into one of the aforementioned categories? Actually, every province and municipality has its own annual quota for the number of children that can be born. And they also can choose the way in which they ensure that the figures are not exceeded. It can be anything from fines to property confiscation, from social pressure to forced abortions and sterilizations.

Sometimes, it can take grotesque forms. Thus, in last April the authorities of Puning launched an “Iron Fist Campaign”.

In April 2010, a task force of approximately 600 local officials targeted 9,559 women who had violated the country’s one-child policy. The women were required to report to government clinics to undergo sterilization. Family members of those women who had refused sterilization were detained indefinitely until the women complied with the procedure. In some cases, the women themselves were detained. Over the course of the 20-day campaign, 1,377 people were detained. From April to June, over 9,000 women were reported to have been sterilized as a result of the campaign.

Internet is full of other scary stories – especially referring to the early 1980’s when the one-child policy just started. They say that in some cases even women at the last week of pregnancy were forcefully taken to hospitals for abortions. There they would be given injections causing death of fetus and its expulsion from uterus. If for some reason, however, the child was born alive – the second injection would come into his/her head.

You can call me the fan of conspiracies, but I would like to hear your hypotheses for one curious statistical fact. As one would naturally expect – giving birth to twins is not punishable by law. On the other hand, it has impact on numbers. So, let me cite the research “The comparison of twinning rates between urban and rural areas in China”:

The MZ [monozygotic] twinning rates in urban and rural areas were 2.36 pairs and 2.11 pairs per 1000 deliveries respectively, significantly lower than that in most studied populations.

Compare it to statistics claiming that the average identical twin rates in the world are 3.5 per 1000 […] this figure being universal and random. I will only note that the percentage of monozygotic twins is not influenced by hormonal treatment or artificial fertilization.

Let me conclude with more optimistic figures. It appears that 76% of Chinese people approve of the one-child policy. :cool:

Regarding it I will only point out that agreeing with policy [for others] does not mean not wanting more than one child [for yourself]. Especially, if you get such opportunity! To check it, I used my never-ending source of statistical information – dating site “ChineseLoveLinks”.

I counted the number of profiles among women of Asian ethnicity, living in China, who are 25 to 30 years old, have a child and check the reason of being on site as “looking for marriage”. One of the questions in profile is “Do you want more children?” and the possible answers are: “Yes”, “Not sure” and “Not”.

Well, the ratio of “Yes” to “Not” answers was 378 to 77. It was not different and even slightly higher than the ratio among Asian women who are not from China (36 to 10) and non-Asian women on this site (121 to 33).

Fan of conspiracies, Crystal Tao

Incoming search terms:

  • one child policy
  • opinions on china\s one child policy
  • opinions about the one child policy in china
  • chinese opinion of one child policy
  • is china’s one-child policy acceptable
  • china one child policy opinions
  • ethics of china\s one child policy
  • one child policy opinions

If you liked this article, consider to subscribe to new LoveLoveChina posts by RSS. You can also follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

And most important! I want to invite you to join LoveLoveChina forums where you can read posts on different topics, leave replies and post your own threads.

  • http://wanderingamericantravelblog.blogspot.com/ WanderingAmerican

    While I may not agree with the methods that are allegedly employed to enforce the One-child Policy I am inclined to support it. China barely has enough resources to support so many people. Some of the mega-cities have massive water shortages so they have to steal it from other areas which makes the people from there run out of water and then they can’t irrigate their crops and so they move to the city for an easier life and the cycle repeats. Something like that. Does India have something like the 1 Child Policy? It needs one. And maybe Chinese women have more twins because they’re just naturally super fertile. :mrgreen:

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      I changed the sentence in the text to highlight that the number of monozygotic (or identical) twins in China is LOWER that in the rest of the world.

      It has nothing to do with fertility. Fertility can influence the number of heterozygotic twins (that is babies which develop from two different eggs).

      But monozygotic twins is just a kind of “random” anomaly when early in the course of pregnancy the already fertilized egg divides into two independently developing but identical eggs.

      And the incidence of this “anomaly” happening was found to be roughly the same all over the world among women of all countries, races and nationalities. This is the fact of nature which is hard to fake!

      So, I ask – why at birth there are significantly less monozygotic twins in China??

      • http://wanderingamericantravelblog.blogspot.com/ WanderingAmerican

        my bad. been hittin’ the sauce tonight.

  • Teacher in China

    Yeah, I support the policy too, even though it has some unintended side-effects like “Little Emperor Syndrome” and the 4-2-1 thing you mentioned. No law to reduce population is going to be perfect, and as WA said above me, it sure is needed in a country like this where it was threatening to destroy the very nation itself.

    However, those stories of forced sterilizations and other such nonsense give me the creeps. That’s some real dystopian shit happening right there.

  • http://www.teacherinchina.com teacherinchina

    The method seems cruel, but the outcome is amazing, so as to ponder whether the end justify the means.

    One issue I see with my students is that many are spoiled. They follow
    the demanding Chinese education to a certain degree, but are rather self-centered
    and materialistic.

  • ziccawei

    The one child policy is one of the worst man-made social disasters of our times.

  • Guy

    There isn’t any need for one child policy anymore. Most people will decide to either have only 1 child or none at all.

    My personal belief is in these days, having a kid is a luxury good. I really don’t even see the point of having children. You’re not going to have them work in the fields anymore. Most of the 80 post generation will never be able to financially take care of their parents anyway. Children are liabilities and not an investment. Unfortunately, too many here in China especially the poor place way too much of a burden on their children.

  • bobi

    I am a French guy, and my gf is a Chinese girl. She hasn’t any brothers, whereas I have 1 brother and one sister. I have been with her for more than 5 years, and of course we have already talked about children.

    What is strange is that she cannot imagine her having more than one child, and tht I cannot immagine having less than 2 children.

    I think that the one child policy really changed the chinese mentality, or at least for part of chinese people, it is impossible to imagine something they never saw when they were kids…

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      I think that a lot will depend on where you are going to live: China or France.

      • bobi

        France for the moment, I am looking for a job in china, but this is not so easy !

  • Kong

    There are three levels of questions to be asked: 1) What does it address? 2) does it work? 3) are the methods acceptable?

    The one-child policy address the symptom, not the problem, so it’s doomed to failure. Over-population is not a problem—it is over-usage of resources. Reducing China’s population growth rate isn’t going to do anything if even 20% of the population expect to live an American lifestyle.

    The policy has reduced China’s population growth rate. Congrats. It has not, of course, taken into account ethnicity politics, gender relations, workforce composition, the 4-2-1 economy, etc. The overarching issue that I see here is a lack of diffuse trust in the government. Most governments have a low discrete support, but the Chinese government has especially failed to address the problems of the 老百姓, and they have subsequently taken it into their own hands with sometimes horrible consequences.

    Ignoring the obvious problems with the policy itself, exceptions for minorities is something else. The policy is a failure because it draws a line between Han and minority, where no such line exists. The rules do not take into account the nuances of ethnicity, but then again, no plan can. To suggest, however, that minorities should be doomed to extinction just because “Han” chinese think it is “fair” is a bit much. Perhaps it would not be as much of an issue if the government were not so intent on “harmonizing” minority groups to begin with, but that’s a different issue.

  • GentleGiant

    Re` the Want more children question.

    Most of the men looking at the sites want more children, so the women tends to say yes, even when they dont want another child; or even if they are too old to have another child safely, because it increases their chances of hooking a man.

    Some of the methods being used to enforce the “One Child” rule are horrific – formaldehyde injected into the brain of the child as it is born – is one that I heard a few years ago; and many will have heard of the dying rooms.
    Yes, the policy has reduced the population growth; but economic pressure will help more than the extreme methods, these just make people hide the truth from the government. I know a number of Chinese with large families who just move the children around to disguise the true number from government officials. My GF is one of 4 children, and the biggest problem her parents had was affording the school costs for them.

  • China Shark Mike

    These horrofic practices are usually only perpetrated on the poor, little educated masses. 9,000 sterilizations is nothing compared with the female population of China. I do agree that the one child policy is good in theory yet not very practical. Chinese have been circumventing the system for 5,000 years. One of my students remarked Chinese prefer the easy way or the short cut whether it be cheating on a test or moving from are to area to avoid the tax penalities. If you have money no worries just pay the fee and produce as many as you like. One Child Policy Enforcement wreaks of Human Rights Issues. But that is another story. The government plays the Ethic Minority scematics nonsense. Old propaganda new name for it. It’s about control and submission of the general populace. Paranoia is still forever present in the government’s mind. What happens if Chinese people aren’t afraid of the government anymore, oh my god a revolt of epic proportions. Couldn’t be further from the truth. As a culture China’s government will always have a certain amount manipulation governing the people whatever ethic group they happen to be from. Ethnic groups is just a free pass on the politically correct bandwagon. Holds about as much weight as a wet paper bag. Hopefully with the internet and people becoming more aware of what government is actually doing {Chinasmack} maybe then there could be the possibility of progressive change. Know how many Chinese know the real story about Tiamen Square. Not many up about 10 yrs ago. Read a book on the massacre by an American that was there during the actual seige. The reason the people were run over by tanks because they were too exhausted to move {camped out there for days at the demonstration} {sleep dprivation as well as lack of food}. The day of the Iron Fist is gone.

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      Mike, I hope that you have VPN – to access my blog in the future :roll:

  • David

    I have some very strong opinions about the China One Child Policy, but let me set those aside for the moment. I want to address the issue of forced abortions, which is one of the key components of enforcing this policy.

    Let me pose this question: there are those who support the right of women to have an abortion, and those who oppose it. Those who oppose it claim that a fetus is a human being from conception, and thus abortion is murder. Those who support the right to abortion claim that an early-term fetus is not a human being, and therefore abortion is not murder. They claim that the fetus becomes a human being at some later point, either during late pregnancy, or at birth (there is not a universal consensus on this idea).

    Here is my question: if abortion is not murder (as would be the claim of those who support the enforcement of the One Child Policy through abortion, whether forced or voluntary), then what is the problem with forced later term abortions? If the government has the right to prohibit you from having a second child, what is wrong with the government enforcing that prohibition through (non-murderous) forced abortion? And again, if the government has the right to prohibit you from having a second child, what is wrong with the government enforcing that prohibition through forced sterilization?

    I find it a bit of a contradictory opinion for someone to support the One Child policy and yet express outrage or concern over the natural (and presumably, according to their logic, the non-murderous) enforcement of such a policy. Choose one side or the other; if you support government family planning, support the enforcement as well.

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      I find it a bit of a contradictory opinion for someone to support the One Child policy and yet express outrage or concern over the natural (and presumably, according to their logic, the non-murderous) enforcement of such a policy. Choose one side or the other; if you support government family planning, support the enforcement as well.

      David, do you subscribe to “Ends justify the means” approach to morality?

      • David

        Crystal,

        I personally believe that there exists such a thing as absolute truth. As such, if the “means” is absolutely “morally right” or “morally wrong”, then the “ends”, no matter how good or bad, cannot affect the “rightness” or “wrongness” of that “means”. I do not believe that “the ends justifies the means”. My purpose of this statement was to force people to objectively examine their beliefs and the logical implications of those beliefs. It’s impossible to have an objective discussion with someone who hasn’t objectively established their own beliefs.

        By the way, I think that your blog is wonderful. I have six China-related blogs that I read regularly, and I always spend the most time on yours. I have already found my wonderful Chinese wife, but I like hearing different perspectives to help me understand her even better!

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      Let me pose this question: there are those who support the right of women to have an abortion, and those who oppose it. Those who oppose it claim that a fetus is a human being from conception, and thus abortion is murder. Those who support the right to abortion claim that an early-term fetus is not a human being, and therefore abortion is not murder. They claim that the fetus becomes a human being at some later point, either during late pregnancy, or at birth (there is not a universal consensus on this idea).

      You are absolutely right here, David!

      By the way, some philosophers-ethicists would argue that the new-born infant is not a human being yet and there should be no moral prohibition to kill him/her.

      In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

      Peter Singer is not alone in these beliefs. As early as 1972, philosopher Michael Tooley bluntly declared that a human being “possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.” Infants do not qualify.

      More recently, American University philosophy professor Jeffrey Reiman has asserted that unlike mature human beings, infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.” He explicitly holds that infants are not persons with a right to life and that “there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children.”

      Source: http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide

      • David

        Yes, I remember studying Peter Singer in my college Ethics class. His ideas on utility and alleviating suffering sound pretty good, until you find out the logical implications of those ideas. According to his logic, a man who shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her baby is not guilty of murder. Also, since he defines “humanness” as the possession of “self-awareness”, one can argue from his logic that infants, Alzheimer’s patients, the mentally handicapped, and even those who are asleep are not “human”, and are therefore candidates for death in order to serve the “greater good” by freeing up resources…kind of flies in the face of “inalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”…

    • Kong

      Your argument is a perfect example of a “false-dichotomy”. “Means” are not inseparable from “ends”. If the goal is a lower population growth rate, is there REALLY no difference between using had power and using soft power? Keep in mind that the people who make the law and the people who must obey the law are not set in stone. They are always in flux, and their power relationship is too.

      You profess a belief in an “absolute truth”, so I suspect this will go nowhere, but what is the absolute value of a human being? Of a fetus? Who is doing the valuing, and to what end? I suspect a pregnant woman may value the fetus more than some government official.

      Valuation is variable and depends on many things. What we are talking about here, of course, is emotion, not cold analytical reason. Logically, if a bunch of people are falling off a bridge, there should be no difference whether they are family members or not.

      To suggest that abortion is either murder or not murder is irrelevant, because people’s feelings toward abortion are highly contextual. Is the fetus the only thing being affected when a woman is being given an abortion? Do the feelings of the woman even matter?

      “there are those who support the right of women to have an abortion, and those who oppose it” AND there are those who don’t think the woman has a right to choose AND there are those who are not women but consider themselves enough in-the-know to make moral calls about it anyway AND there are those who support abortions only in certain contexts.

    • Teacher in China

      You make some good points there, David. The one thing I would say to you is that there are plenty of choices in how to enforce any law or rule. You don’t always have to go the brutal route (forced abortions, forced sterilization).

      I support the government’s idea behind the One Child Policy as one viable option to curtail population growth – a very serious problem here. I am allowed to support that but feel uncomfortable at the enforcement because I think there are plenty of ways to enforce the rule without being so invasive. For example, families who have more than one paying much higher taxes than everyone else; second children not getting identity papers (which I believe is the case, is it not?), etc. Making the second child an undesirable option because of all the monetary or social consequences seems much more humane to me than forced sterilizations or abortions.

  • bomber

    Bold post.

    So many nuances here. It’s difficult to discuss this issue without bringing up a litany of other issues that both directly and indirectly relate to this.

    At the time of the revolution, the Chinese numbered about 400 million. For that number to triple in a mere 75 years is an utterly astonishing feat. It was not accidental.

    There was the ‘Mother Heroes’ cult in the 1950s and 1960s, which helped balloon the population to well above 1 billion.

    Poor morons begging to be told what to do by a demagogic leader; the problem was idiocy, ignorance and a willful disregard for the facts – “Uncle Mao said that he would guarantee as much food as necessary if we kept having children.”

    So a problem that was exacerbated by government policy now needs to be reigned in using the same force, and again, most people on the street will say “Yeah, there’s just too many Chinese people.”

    …towing the line, buying the propaganda… Not that people elsewhere don’t do the same, they do, and to at least as great a degree. But I suppose the quip by anthropologist Ralph Linton sums it up best “If you asked a fish what the most obvious element in its environment was, the last thing it would notice would be the water.” Perhaps that is why the criticisms from foreigners about China can be so direct and biting at times.

    What to do? The Social welfare system will not survive a massive pensioning population being supported by a narrow cohort of only children. Hopefully the situation will work itself out. In the meantime, enough with all the abortions already – at the very least its bad karma!

  • Utah not Mormon

    In the last few years we have ironically become more concerned about animal rights, “Save the whales” PETA or should I say “PITA” than about infant rights. They (infants) have no voice in the matter. I am quite confident however what they would say if they could understand and speak.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am sensitive to the whale issue.

  • http://chineseleafwrap.blogspot.com/ Sarah

    some of the suposed or possible ways of abortion sound pretty horrible. but in a sence I can see how some people support the 1 child policy, because things are expensive in China for a typical average couple because they are able to give there one child a better life because they only have one child to look after. If they had 2 children they would have to spread their money across 2.

  • keius

    Something to note:
    There are many areas in China where it is possible for people to have more than 1 child. Guangzhou is a perfect example. As of several years ago, single
    family couples have been encouraged to have more than 1 child…in order to ease the problem of an increasingly aged population percentage…and
    decreasing population of those who actually hold residency cards/status in the city. (The majority of Guangzhou’s schools have closed due to lack of ‘native’ children).
    I also recall reading recently that the entire Guangdong province is requesting Beijing ease restrictions on the entire province to 2 children.

    The problem: Once the restrictions were lifted in Guangzhou, and many people are now eligible for more than 1 child, they chose NOT to have a second child.
    It really depends on the ‘local’ culture but i think it’s more common in citified folk. Life is China is becoming more and more expensive. Having a quality lifestyle with a single child is much easier. Once people have adapted to the one child policy, forced on them by the gov’t, they become used to it and even
    support it.

    My wife is like that, and she’s in the States where the one child policy does not apply.
    She only wants one (our son). I want another (a daughter). BUT it is what it is :) It is her body after all.

    BTW, i always believed that China should have had a 2 child policy. The population growth was overboard but limiting it to a single child was stupid.
    The social/economic issues should have been all too obvious.

    • http://wanderingamericantravelblog.blogspot.com/ WanderingAmerican

      Now we say that but people can never really anticipate the consequences of policies like that. Or maybe they knew this would happen and thought it was the lesser of 2 evils? Just imagine if people were allowed to have as many kids as they wanted. A couple has four kids and then they have four kids and then they have four kids. In 40 years one couple has produced like, 80 children/grandchildren. Food, water, housing shortages would be ridiculous, far far worse than they are now and an obscene North Korean-ish poverty rate. Instead of all that wouldn’t you rather be limited to one child?

  • ziccawei

    The OCP has caused – and will cause – so many social problems for China. The end doesn’t justify the means at all as it has failed monumentally. Apart from all the ‘bare branches’ waiting to start a revolution of their own (30 million pissed off young men unable to vent their frustration via sex), all living in the countryside – didn’t Mao start his own revolution from the countryside? Then there is the 4-2-1 problem – China’s cities are like huge old peoples homes – this problem coupled with inadequate/incapable 80′s generation kids constantly expecting handouts from the six pockets. It’s just a huge mess, a big water dam with little cracks joining together to form one big crack.

    Things like the wealth gap may not be directly related to the OCP, but may be related by a couple of degrees of separation. Also the fact that China’s cities have more girls than boys (girls in Shanghai constantly moaning about being single). The OCP has highlighted China’s preference for boys but in the cities shrewd parents may be trying (or have tried) for a girl to use her as a commodity.

    I just feel that pretty much all of China’s social problems are connected to the OCP one way or another. It was a huge mistake and typical Chinese leadership thinking – act now, think later.

    The Chinese govt ran an experiment on a city in northern China where parents were allowed to break the OCP and have as many kids as they wanted. If the whole country had followed the same experiment the population would be no different than it is today and there would be no huge disparity between boys and girls.

    I think 2020 is China’s year that will be best remembered for having some huge social issues – social and economic issues on a massive scale.

  • Sarah Walker

    Crystal, you know why One Child policy was needed at the time and still should be applicable to general population. However,the exceptions to the rule should expand to allow people who can afford to have more than one child without burdening the government and public. It sounds foreign to the rest of world to One child Policy,but looks around, how many kids do Singaporean have? We have to be realistic. In the States, we don’t have such law,but have more kids that we can economically afford, it may become the burden or cost to public in the form of social program etc. There are always two sides of the story.

  • Dennis

    The other choice is over population and that one day will have dire consequences. Not sure about what is the best policy but certainly there has to be a policy this people can understand as being fair and good.

  • Peter Phelps

    I have a question regarding the policy. I would expect that it applies to all foreigners that marry a lady and live with her in China. My question is would there be a loophole as far as if the couple wanted to adopt a child after they had their first? Seeing as it is not actually increasing the population could they adopt as many as they wanted? I think I have blown it again with a lady from Guangzhou, she suddenly sprung the fact she would not come to USA and wanted me to move there. I had a huge issue with the one child policy as I had stated I wanted two kids from the start. It is too late to fix this argument,sigh, but I am curious for future reference.

  • ziccawei

    As a foreigner you can marry a Chinese woman and have as many kids as you want.

  • http://michaelturton.blogspot.com Michael Turton

    Hey Crystal, what happens if I am a Chinese woman studying abroad. I get married, kick out two kids and return to China. Am I punished, or is giving birth abroad also an exception?

    Michael

    • http://www.lovelovechina.com Crystal

      Chinese citizens studying or working in foreign countries can return with more than one child without any serious problem.

      Source: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,CHN,,4a70409928,0.html

  • JADE

    I stumbled upon this blog questioning the one-child rule from a visiting professor friend who’s now merely a pen-pal…. What a very informative and multi-faceted topic this is. It is completely culturally bound, and is challenging to fully appreciate from an American mindset!

    I wonder if the cultural differences and expectations lessen the psychological, spiritual, and emotional impacts for the parents? [As American women suffer greatly after abortions--for years].

    When one ponders the American population explosion since the 1960′s here in the United States. . . should people on welfare be accountable (in some way) for the numbers of mouths they support? Is more always better? For every child one woman has, her eligibility for more money is received. . . by as many men and means as possible. Public schools show that many homes were not prepared to care for and nurture them. Forty or fifty years later, employed taxpayers are vastly outnumbered by “vulnerable” groups–makes the Chinese government’s incentives and fines sound reasonable at some level.

    Families in those days opted for birth control to enjoy better lifestyles for their kids and the
    parents who could focus on careers, excellence in childrearing and family. Meanwhile the population shifted and is now so unwieldy the national debt won’t be fixed in my lifetime (or ever?).

    Too many who reproduce most rapidly without consequences and who are too poor, disenfranchised, disempowered are yet such entitled people expecting handouts from too few educated, concerned, involved, insured middle class citizens. I’ve watched young women with four children under 10 years-old wearing salon nails, expensive hair extensions using food stamps gabbing on their cellular phones a decade before many of us could afford one!

    I’m a hard-working tax-paying single-mother-nurse (never less than two-jobs) bburdened with enormous medical expenses ON state health insurance supporting 2-kids with chronic and intermittent acute needs. Rich enough to be ineligible for any help–
    even university scholarships yet living poor month-to-month!

    I’d love to see food stamps and state healthcare be limited to only the first two kids right here at home. If you want more kids, it’s fine, but—make it happen yourself!

    Any thoughts as to how the United States could address similar problems?