A more cheerful One Child Policy!

If Pres. Obama has his way, this will coming to a neighborhood near you.

From the Beeb:

China to overhaul ‘threatening’ one-child slogans
By Viv Marsh
BBC News

China is to overhaul the sometimes threatening slogans used to enforce its one-child policy, the authorities have announced.

Details of the project were published in the Chinese communist party newspaper, the People’s Daily. [Which I believe also runs the New York Times.]

State media blamed local officials for coming up with phrases such as, “If you don’t get sterilised, your house will be demolished“. [So, it's a little heavy-handed.  James Carney would probably try to distant the White House from this one.]

They said they would be replaced by friendlier expressions. [Like... "Change!" and "Free Reproductive Services For All!"  "It's a Right!"]

But they insisted that the one-child policy itself would not change.  [As a matter of fact, it will soon be tested in that country whose debt the Chinese own.]

The Chinese Communist Party has long appreciated the value of the concise, direct political slogan, but in matters of family planning, street banners and wall posters are frequently seen as lacking tactfulness and taste.

Kill your family[It has the advantage of being brisk.]

Research by China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, [Hey!  Wait!  Isn't Pres. Obama's science adviser John Holdren?] published in the People’s Daily, concluded that a quarter of slogans posted in furtherance of its policies had been crude and harsh in the past. It described some as spine-chilling.

Among the examples it cited were, “Kill all your family if you don’t follow the rule” and, “If you escape (sterilisation), we’ll hunt you down; if you want to hang yourself, we’ll give you the rope“.  [Not as snappy, but ... memorable!]

The research said milder expressions should be used to “avoid offending the public and stoking social tensions”. [Easier to sell that one in the US.]

For the past three decades, most Chinese couples in urban areas have been limited to having a single child.

Implementing the law has been hugely controversial, and has frequently involved sterilisation and even forced termination.

The one-child policy has also been blamed for causing a gender imbalance, with families eager to have male children and selectively aborting girls.  [Remember!  Reproductive services are your RIGHT!]

The People’s Daily said future propaganda would address this issue, and suggested the slogan: “Caring for the girl means caring for the future of the nation.” [Yahhhh.... that's work.]

Upbeat slogans were also mooted to prevent birth defects. The paper said one new slogan would be: “Please get rid of the alcohol and cigarettes before you plan to be a father”.

A more friendly One Child Policy!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A more cheerful One Child Policy!

  1. Johnno says:

    Holy cow at those original slogans! Imagine waking up everyday and seeing these during your morning walk in the park… Sure doesn’t set the mood…

  2. Bryan Boyle says:

    You would be shaking your head in disbelief (see the previous posting on infanticide today) if this wasn’t in what the common man would consider a neutral sourced Main Stream Media outlet, all of whom frequently float trial balloons about where they would like to see society go in the guise of reporting on what’s the societal trends are in other lands, and two, if it wasn’t a depraved result of following the path we are being pushed down.

    We’re like the proverbial frog put into the pot of cold water while the flame is incrementally turned up. If you come down like a ton of bricks, the sheeple will revolt, but, if you slowly, inexorably, and by fractional change, move a society in a more depraved direction, eventually, you will reach your goal of ‘change’. And no one will really notice.

  3. Maltese says:

    Hilarious!
    But, seriously, many in China don’t give life it’s due regard: Child in China run over twice; 18 bystanders ignore her.

  4. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    It would be more a propos if that final satirical image showed Pelosi et all with condoms and IUDs in their hands.

  5. Captain Peabody says:

    Wellllllllll…

    Okay. Pure evil will now have catchier slogans. Lovely.

  6. This is one reason why I have been boycotting China. On the other hand, I have been wondering if I should be boycotting “Made in USA” too as we aren’t much better, though such a boycott would be more symbolic than practical as we don’t make much of anything here any more apart from bad entertainment.

  7. RichR says:

    I’m reading this as I rock my fourth child to sleep. I guess, if I lived in China, I’d be shot on sight.

    You get comments even in this country if you have more than two kids. Funny, they’re the same people who complain about there not being enough workers to fund Social Security

    Sigh…..

  8. CatholicCaliGirl says:

    Oh God Please let it end!

  9. Geoffrey says:

    “Details of the project were published in the Chinese communist party newspaper, the People’s Daily. [Which I believe also runs the New York Times.]”

    I never laughed so hard!!!

  10. Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it

  11. Legisperitus says:

    You don’t need a one-child policy to cause selective abortion of girls. It’s been happening in Britain.

  12. AnnAsher says:

    This is the citizenry that is taught in your government monopoly compulsory schools.

  13. DisturbedMary says:

    “Abortion is Healthcare” is my favorite.

  14. Alexis says:

    Frightening indeed.

    How is it that Catholics can even survive in China? I mean, unless all Catholic couples are living as brother and sister (doubt that), then isn’t it impossible to live according to Gospel values in China, since the couples are forced to contracept (or, as I said, refrain from sex)?

    Aren’t Chinese Catholics duty-bound by their faith to ignore the one child policy and suffer the consequences? Just because acting in accord with the Gospel of Life is illegal doesn’t mean it’s okay to dispense with it, obviously. Right?

  15. ContraMundum says:

    Soon to be followed by involuntary euthanasia of the elderly. That’s the only way they will be able to keep the population inversion from crashing their economy.

  16. irishgirl says:

    I shudder at the thought of this becoming a reality in this country.
    And that picture of Obama and his cohorts is enough to give me nightmares!
    One more reason he has to get VOTED OUT this November!
    Oh Lord, please. come soon….come soon….

  17. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    ” unless all Catholic couples are living as brother and sister, then isn’t it impossible to live according to Gospel values in China, since the couples are forced to contracept ?

    “Aren’t Chinese Catholics duty-bound by their faith to ignore the one child policy and suffer the consequences?”

    Sure, Chinese Catholics are duty-bound by their faith to ignore the one-child policy and suffer the consequences. Just as, for another example, U.S. Catholic soldiers are duty-bound by their faith to refuse an order to mistreat prisoners or to harm non-combatants.

    Also, if a bank robbing gang were to take you as hostage, hold a gun to your head, and order you to assist the robbers in collecting cash from the tellers, you would be duty-bound to refuse.

    But who among us can be certain that he or she could summon the courage to resist threats to our lives?

    Luckily for us Catholics, God distinguishes between sinful acts we commit with the full and free consent of our will vs. sinful acts we commit under mortal duress, such as under threats to our life or the lives of our family. That is not to say that Christians who cave in to threats of mortal duress act well in so doing; it is only to say that it is not accurate to suppose that the moral culpability of the sinner who sins under mortal duress is comparable to that of the sinner who freely chooses evil.

    It is always better to choose martyrdom. However, it is also always better for me to choose martyrdom for myself; what is really, really a bad thing for me to do would be, while reclining in my own comfort and safety, to cluck my tongue at the apparent slowness or hesitancy of my suffering brother to die for Christ.

  18. ocalatrad says:

    The more things change the more things stay the same. Chesterton wrote a masterful rebuke of this same sort of eugenic thought decades ago. I suppose it took something atrocious like WWII to show where such thought leads and silence it for a short time. But alas, our memories are short and we’re back to square one. We need to begin changing this, first off, right in our communities by encouraging a renewed love for children, childbearing and life. I am stunned at the number of Catholics that I’ve spoken with who ostensibly tow the party line by expressing disdain for having multiple children or any children at all. They’re apparently not getting sound doctrine where they’re supposed to and are instead adopting the shibboleths of the very vocal eugenic Left from whatever orifice whence such drivel emerges.

  19. Johnno says:

    As ContraMundum said… euthanasia is the next necessary step.

    As birth rates decline, the young are left with the depth of paying to look after the aging.

    In countries like Japan where the economy is dangerously close to peril, the government has tried to offer incentives for more children to be born in reversal of their earlier strategy to reduce births, just like Russia.

    Unfortunately the contraceptive mentality that has raised a new generation makes them uninterested. Women want careers and don’t want children. And if they do have children, they don’t want the burden of being stuck with a husband and so divorce is up. On the other side, men either just want to be promiscuous and not tied down to marriage, or men have lost interest in sex altogether and have no interest in being with a woman because they believe such happiness is no longer possible, as there is no guarantee of them having a stable family and lasting marriage; and also women, in Japan in particular, look down on and dismiss men who do not earn a higher income than them. So the Japanese government who once tried to suppress population growth, is now trying to have more babies being born, but is failing because the people are so changed and demoralized.

    Population-reductionists argue that the country like Japan can continue giving people the rights of contraception and aborting, and can survive if they allow immigration. The irony of this statement is that it just puts the responsibility of population growth and having kids on some other country which must then double its ‘supply’ of kids to sustain its own population to avoid the pitfalls of a broken economy, and account for those immigrating.

    Instead of admitting that their population-reduction agendas have been a total and abject nonsensical failure, they are too proud and arrogant to admit it. Instead they will do the next best thing. If the aging population is getting too burdensome for the reduced younger population to support… Kill them! Once the facts of the dangerous declines start coming in, you can look forward to the widespread practice of euthanasia for the old past a certain age, and also for the younger disabled who if not identified with disabilities in the womb are aborted, if you get into an accident and lose your leg, become crippled, or go into a coma. Then you are not being productive for the state and are just a burden on them. It’s time for you to go as well!

    Of course this will not begin with euthanasia directly, but control over drugs and health medication and other necessities that elder people need. Once something like Obamacare goes draconian and has total control over what drugs and bought and sold and who is allowed to sell them and who is allowed to buy them, they will first introduce a ‘natural solution’ whereby the elderly, not getting access to medicine they need, will die off faster. Once the citizens are acclimatized to this phenomena and brainwashed to accept it through education, then it will be time to introduce the ‘final solution’ to the unproductives.