Population Control

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ted Turner: China a Good Example of Population Control, Despite Forced Abortions[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Steven Ertelt[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
LifeNews.com Editor
May 8[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], 2009

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Email

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]RSS[/FONT]

Print[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Billionaire broadcast magnate Ted Turner is causing guffaws from observers with his latest comment on family planning in China. He lauded the Asian nation for its population control program and said it was a good example even though it is rife with forced abortions and sterilizations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During an interview with the Diane Rehm Show gave China as a model for how to handle growing populations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“We do have the example of China, and they've done it without, uh, draconian, as far as I can see, draconian steps," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Observers of the quote are surprised that Rehm let it go unchallenged and without any mention of the human rights abuses that accompany the Chinese family planning program.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The policy has resulted in epidemics of forced abortions and sterilizations and human rights abuses ranging from job loss and imprisonment to house arrest and threatening family members.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In fact, new reports show the forced abortions have resulted in high infertility rates forced abortions. A new report indicates that has sparked infertility and given rise to an underground network of surrogate mothers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, family planning authorities are cracking down on the surrogacy and more forced abortions are occurring as a result.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, a new investigation from a group that monitors population issues shows population control officials in China are now engaging in kidnapping.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The fines for having an illegal child are now three to five times the family’s income. The equivalent fine in the U.S. would be $150 to $250 thousand dollars. Couples have to mortgage their future for decades—literally—in order to be able to borrow enough money to pay off these fines," says Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The government insists on calling this extortion 'social compensation fees,'" he says, "as if the parents were simply defraying the cost to society of another child—but in reality they are heavily punitive. Faced with the prospect of such a fine, many couples 'voluntarily' submit to an abortion and sterilization.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What happens to those who don't pay the fine?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In Guangxi province, what reportedly happens is that illegal newborns are taken into custody by government officials, who hold the infants until the parents are able to scrape together enough money to pay the huge fine. In other words, the babies are kidnapped and held for ransom," Mosher explains.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Turned either is unaware of that these phenomenon is occurring or believes it is not draconian.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

I like how the elite are pro population control. If you look at the billionaires around they tend to donate to birth control companies (give out free condems.. abortion clinics etc.). There is plenty of space on this earth for more people... it's not getting too crowded yet. The fact that these people want as much control as possible and they want to go through the least amount of people as possible.

what are your takes on this subject?

jfgordon1 said:

I like how the elite are pro population control. If you look at the billionaires around they tend to donate to birth control companies (give out free condems.. abortion clinics etc.). There is plenty of space on this earth for more people... it's not getting too crowded yet. The fact that these people want as much control as possible and they want to go through the least amount of people as possible.

what are your takes on this subject?

Click to expand...

You should cite your sources please.
Where are figures demonstrating which billionaires "donate to birth control companies"?

When you say that "There is plenty of space on this earth for more people... it's not getting too crowded yet. " -- that's incorrect. While there is physically enough land "for more people", humans have pushed natural resources passed appropriate sustainability levels.

"The fact that these people want as much control as possible and they want to go through the least amount of people as possible."

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously wealthy people want more control but what do you mean when you state: "they want to go through the least amount of people as possible."? Are you speaking of defeat or extermination? It's speculative nonsense, at best.

Ted Turner is proof positive that wealth doesn't guarantee mental stability.

Vi

I think bio warfare would be a more efficient way for population control. Contained outbreaks. Poisoning food, water, general consumables helps too. Would be best to turn the people into zombies first, numb them so you can herd them like cattle.


Ted Turner is just another elite wanting the world for himself. He's not gonna get it. But that doesn't mean he's not going to try with the rest of his buddies at the top of the food chain.

Microdizzey said:

I think bio warfare would be a more efficient way for population control. Contained outbreaks. Poisoning food, water, general consumables helps too. Would be best to turn the people into zombies first, numb them so you can herd them like cattle.


Ted Turner is just another elite wanting the world for himself. He's not gonna get it. But that doesn't mean he's not going to try with the rest of his buddies at the top of the food chain.

Click to expand...

Actually, as far as billionaires go, Ted Turner is one of the better ones. He is for stopping damage to mother earth, helping the poor, birth control, (In poor countries, birth control should be a high priority, less mouths to feed) And he is a renowned conservationist. There are many more billionaires that are worse than Ted Turner.

This thread is hilarious.

medicineman said:

Don't worry, I see massive population control in the near future, can you say "Hydrogen bombs"? I'm pretty sure the next world war will significantly reduce population. How can it not with this many nations having these weapons: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, Packistan, India, Israel, and maybe N. Korea, did I forget anyone? Then there's the wannabees, like Iran and who knows what other countries have these aspirations, maybe Brazil, Venezuela, etc. Man has never invented a weapon that he didn't use in war, it's just a matter of time. Nuclear population control, there's a novel Idea.

Click to expand...

Strange, the same thing can be said about Biological and Chemical Weapons, and yet (outside a few rogue nations in recent history) they have not been used by civilized nations (the West) since they were originally used in World War I.

Any nation that uses Nukes or any other Biological or Chemical Weapons (NBC) is courting destruction.

The policy of the US is that we will only use them if they are used first, so if a nation uses nukes it'd be faced with suicide (the only nations with a large enough stockpile to wipe us out would be Russia, China, and the UK (possibly)).

Other nations would cease to exist. Though in the case of a nuclear exchange between Russia, China, the UK and the United States it is likely that the entire world would cease to exist as we know it.

No, only an irrational fanatic would rely upon the use of nukes, knowing that attacking any of the major nuclear powers would be suicide, and that the use of Nukes in war would likely result in the UN authorizing the use of Nukes in a "police action" against that nation.

Besides, you're assuming that there will be another world war. It is not likely, the majority of the nations that have been involved in world wars are now at the leading edge of technology, and the citizenry is no longer under the impression that there is some kind of mythical divine right of Kings.

Besides, who would fight a world war?

There are no major axes of power at this point.

Japan, Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Far East could easily oppose Chinese attempts to wage a global war, mostly because China (like many other nations) does not have the naval capabilities to wage a war of conquest in the South East Pacific.

The only direction China could go is North (Russia (and Nukes)); West (Why by trouble); or South (Same as going West.)

Besides, if the Chinese experience in Tibet is anything to go by, it is unlikely that they would successfully be able to digest any "conquest" that they make as the civilians would still maintain a low level of insurgency that would sap any army of troops by requiring occupational forces.

The need for occupational troops has historically been the factor that has caused wars of expansion to stop, outside of having the major general killed.

The only other option would be for the Chinese to follow the model of the Mongols or Alexander the Great (Macedonia) and not worry about occupation so much as defeating as many peoples as possible. Ultimately that would fail as the UN would mandate a police action and thus the flanks of any such empire would be vulnerable.

Nations that are more likely to engage in such a War of Conquest (Iran, North Korea, some rogue African Nation) are surrounded by neighbors that are as militarily strong if not stronger.

Where would North Korea go? South? and fight South Korea and the United States or North, and fight China?

Iran is in the center of Iraq and Afghanistan, if they try to launch a War of Conquest they might as well consider themselves as being between the two feet of a Colossus and realize that the United States could easily turn their soldiers towards Iran and let them go.

A Rogue African Nation, no matter which direction they go they will be getting more trouble, and after their army is sapped from fighting and from occupation it will be likely that any Empire of Conquest would fail.

There is no possible input for a World War, the major powers would not go for it (or rather their population would not), not unless the economy turns twice or three times worse than it already is, and then at worse you have the United States.

Now, that of course begs a question. Would the United States population go for a War of Conquest?

I don't see it happening under the Democrats, nor under the Republicans really, especially if they return to their typical anti-interventionist, pro-small government roots, such as that marked by Ron Paul.

Even under the NeoCons and RINOs, I don't see a global war erupting because of the United States.

Despite claims to the contrary the United States has effectively forged a global empire threatened only in Europe by Russia's ability to cut off the flow of Oil and Natural Gas, and in the Middle East by Iran and their puppets.