Prof Says US Should Have One Child Policy

Liberal Professor Goes Overboard… Issues This Haunting ‘Threat’ To Every Family Out There

The left's culture of death again revealed...

Alexander Sommerset November 5, 2015 at 12:30pm

 Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

Even the communists in China have finally realized that this policy is a bad one and they’ve just changed it, but now an American college professor is seriously suggesting that no one has a right to have more than one child. Why? Global warming, naturally.

Sarah Conly, an associate philosophy professor at Bowdoin College — a tiny, liberal arts school in Maine — seems unable to learn the lesson of how disastrous a one-child policy is for a nation, as she runs around demanding that Americans stop having more than one child per family.

This educator even wrote a book entitled “One Child: Do We Have a Right to More.”

In a recent op ed in The Boston Globe, Conly scolds China for changing its one-child policy, suggesting that China’s restriction on families was “really a good thing.”

You might recall that the Chinese policy was ruthlessly enforced. In fact, the government went throughout the country and forcefully sterilized people, performed mandatory abortions, and in some cases even murdered babies born alive despite the policy by drowning the babies in a bucket of water right in front of the child’s mother and father.

You can guess what is coming next from the professor. Conly claims that it is immoral for Americans to have more than one child because people are “destroying” the world with pollution and global warming.

Conly then goes on with the typical and long-debunked “over population” claims to which many alarmists have resorted. These theories have been popular for hand-wringers and hair-pullers since Paul R. Ehrlich’s discredited book, “The Population Bomb,” was published way back in 1968. It was filled with doom and gloom about a rising population but not a single one of its dire predictions ever came true.

So, after relying on warnings that have been proven wrong for close to 50 years, Conly goes on to delve into her ideas of enforcement for restricting families to one child. She wants to use our tax code to penalize Americans families for having more than one kid.

We can have tax penalties for those who have more than one child. In terms of money, receiving a tax penalty may be no different from failing to receive a tax break, but calling it a penalty can provide more motivation. Lastly, if we ever did discover that we needed sanctions to get people to refrain from having an unsustainable number of children, they wouldn’t be physical in nature. Fines may be the best way to go, and again, there is reason to think suitable fines, fixed on a sliding scale relative to income, can be effective–not 100 percent effective, which no regulation ever is, but effective enough.

As Matt Archbold of the National Catholic Register notes, Conly’s outrageous editorial reveals the culture of death and the anti-freedom agenda of the control-driven left.

“For those who might wonder, Hey, whatever happened to freedom of choice,” Archbold writes, “think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, the abortion movement wasn’t ever about that. ‘Choice’ was a slogan, a brand to mask their anti-human agenda. It is not freedom they espouse. It is death.”

Read more: http://www.tpnn.com/2015/11/05/college-professor-goes-overboard-issues-haunting-threat-every-single-parent/#ixzz3r7uVeHHp

Abortion's Irony! Women Aborting Girl Babies. How Many Million Women Have Been Killed?

GENDERCIDE: 200 MILLION WOMEN 'MISSING'

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reports on impact of 'anything goes' abortion polices

Published: 16 hours ago

 JOSEPH FARAH 

Practically any politician who proclaims a belief in even the most modest regulation of abortion is labeled as “anti-woman” and part of a so-called “war on women.”

Ironically, that’s even the case when it comes to matters like parental consent laws, waiting periods, full-disclosure requirements about the risks, late-term abortions and restrictions on the use of the procedure for the purpose of sex selection of babies.

In China, where population control is severely enforced, abortion is widely used to eliminate girls after determining through ultrasound the sex of the child. As a result, far more boys than girls are birthed every year.

In Vietnam, where boys are preferred for cultural reasons, women resort to abortion for sex selection to please their husbands. Recently, one Vietnamese woman appeared on Vietnamese television to explain she had aborted 18 baby girls so she could give her husband the son he wanted.

But this is not a phenomenon restricted to China, Vietnam and other faraway lands. It’s a worldwide plague – one I first dubbed “gendercide” 18 years ago.

That’s when the World Health Organization, part of the United Nations, released a report explaining that 50 million women were estimated to be “missing” from the population in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing’s one-child policies. Many of the girls were killed while still in the womb – the victims of ultrasound technology that revealed the baby’s sex. Others, WHO said, were starved to death after birth, the victims of violence or were not treated when they became ill.

Just to put this story in perspective, WHO was documenting what can only be described as the biggest single holocaust in human history – and doing it in a surprisingly clinical and low-key fashion. I declared then that the little-noticed report cries out for a new word in our vocabulary – “gendercide.”

But the news has only gotten worse 18 years later.

There’s a new United Nations report out that finds there are now up to 200 million girls “missing” today because they have been killed, abandoned, or aborted because of their sex. And in the cases of sex-selective abortion, those missing persons would have been wives, daughters, best friends, sisters and mothers.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

The new U.N. report demonstrates, once again, that ideas have consequences. In this case, at least 200 million female lives have been snuffed out worldwide – and that’s if you accept the U.N. report on face value. There are many reasons to suggest the U.N. is biased in the direction of underplaying the statistics. The U.N., for instance, does not take issue with China’s one-child policy, which is responsible for so much of this holocaust.

It happens in America, too – not despite the radical feminist demands for “equality,” but precisely because of them. Restrictions or regulations on any kind of abortion can never be tolerated, they say, because they are “anti-woman” and part of the phony, made-up “war on women.”

Can there be any doubt it happens in the U.S. at least sometimes?

Should it ever happen?

Can “progressives” admit there are bad reasons to get an abortion?

It seems to me the real fanatics on the abortion issue are those who insist that any reason – or no reason at all – is good enough to kill an unborn child.

Am I crazy? Or are the “progressives”?

We’re approaching another high-profile presidential election in 2016. It’s important for candidates running for office to turn the tables on the real abortion fanatics.

It’s important for you to understand the reality of “abortion on demand” as the de facto law of the land.