The One Child Policy

The one child policy is a famous policy that was implemented in the People’s Republic of China. A Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping established it in 1979 to limit China’s population growth. By the name itself, the policy states that only one child is allowed in a household. However, if the first child is a girl, the couple is given another chance to have one more child but you can’t bear a child right after the first one. A well-known slogan in China: ” Late, Long, and Few” The policy advocates delaying marriage, having fewer children, and increasing the years of age gap between children. The one child policy states that couples must first apply for a certificate before they will be allowed to have a child. No matter how strict the government of china is, there are always exceptions, especially those in the rural areas. In fact, it is said that the policy only applies to 35 percent of the Chinese. Through the one child policy, China has instituted the most aggressive and comprehensive population policy in the world. The government reinforces the one child policy because for them, the one child policy was a great success in terms of economic growth and decrease in population. On the other hand, the perspective of the society, precisely the Roman Catholic Church, is that they are not against the one child policy if and only if there will be no abortion and using of contraceptives. “All girls allowed”, a newly formed Boston-based organization is against the one child policy because millions of babies are aborted, killed and abandoned. Their mission is to restore life, value and dignity to girls and mothers in China, and to expose the injustice of the one child policy. Majority of the individuals in the civil society believes that the one child policy has violated many sections in the bill, “Universal Declaration Human Rights”. This thought supports article 16, which states that, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” Article 25 states that, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.” The bill itself also states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Given these ideas, we can see that the perspective of the Chinese government is totally different from the civil society. There are still compensations that we can acquire from the one child policy. China wouldn’t have food shortage, wouldn’t get overpopulated, citizens of china would suffer less from poverty. Their citizens can get a chance to live in a more comfortable life by having one child because they don’t need to cater the needs of many children. The economic growth of their country would be much higher, because they get to focus on one child. They can send the child to school and let them be properly educated. Another main reason is that the family can lessen the burden if they cooperate with the One Child Policy because government will provide housing, food, education and health service. On the contrary, there are also disadvantages. Baby girls are often killed in China because they value boys more since they can continue their family name. Many are against this policy because for the Chinese, having someone to continue their family name is one of the most crucial things for them. Another disadvantage is that there would be a gender imbalance for the next generation. It will result to more male than female. Then the male of the next generation would have a hard time finding wives because there are more men than women. Also, the children are treated like little emperors at home because of the full attention given by the parents. Thus resulting to being a more dependent person and consequently, will lead to having a hard time getting jobs in the future. The conflict in the one child policy is that the perspectives of the Chinese government differ from the civil society. Thus conflicts often occur. For the Chinese government one child policy is the only way and the best way to solve their problem in terms of economic growth, food shortage and decrease in population. Even though they need some scarification it would still be worth it. All in all for them, the end always justifies the mean. However for the civil society, it is unfair for those babies because they are not given the chance to live and the one child policy is way too harsh for the citizens. The abortion is also a main reason in the conflict. Majority in the society are against abortion especially the Roman Catholic Church (pro-life). There is a conflict between the government and the citizens for the reason that majority of the citizens agree that the policy should be eradicated. Because the perspective of the Chinese government differs from the others, conflict will often occur. There is an ongoing debate about the one child policy in China, there are good and bad points on the argument of both side. I stand against the one child policy. However, I am neutral towards abortion. I believe that women have the right to choose what they want to do with her body—in this case, whether or not to abort a child. Abortion has its own advantages but in China abortion is used coercively. This is why I am against the one child policy, the fact that innocent babies are killed despite China’s success in its economic growth. I mean, so what if the country succeeded as the best country in the world? Are the citizens really happy with it? Is the cost worth it? Is it really true that in order to achieve the end justifies the means? The country may have been overpopulated, but still that gives no right for the government to kill the innocent babies. I therefore conclude that China should have used a better policy. The government should have stand more on the side of the citizens and try to develop the idea of them and make it into a better policy. Thus by doing this, not only the country will be prosperous, but also the welfare of the citizens. Reaching the best of both worlds.