The one child policy was tried. It was a disaster.
The real question is why you would possibly think it's a good idea to try.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
-6 points (20.0% liked)
Asklemmy
53875 readers
271 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally zero way to enforce it without being cruel.
Absolutely not. There’s no scenario where I would agree with forcing people to have children.
nope but I don't think we should subsidize having kids with tax brakes and such. 100% public education and meals at school and we should have universal healthcare. so if children are born provide for their needs as we do for other members of society but no tax breaks or such.
I’d happily pay more taxes for all of those things, absolutely agree.
As an upper limit? As a lower limit? What do you mean?
Forcing people who don't want kids to have two is insane. Who will make it happen? Is there a conception agency where agents just go a rape women in this imagined scenario?
Forcing a third pregnancy to terminate is also pretty insane. Suppose the mother doesn't even know she's pregnant until pretty far along. Suppose a mother hides her pregnancy and gives birth in secret; is that baby getting killed?
In either case, what is the punishment for violation? Suppose a woman is incapable of having kids when you mandated 2; is she to be executed for being unable to fulfill this societal requirement? Suppose a woman intentionally had more than her government-permitted 2 children; what is her sentence for providing extra mouths to feed?
It's unethical, it's not reasonably enforceable, and frankly, I'm not sure I understand what such a policy would even be attempting to accomplish.
I meant as an upper limit.
Forcing women to terminate pregnancies is as cruel as forcing them to be inseminated.
What's your point with this question?
That was already performed in China.
Kids were born outside of hospitals and either were ghost people without proper paperworl or registered as children of other family members like the sister.
Omg, that's awful
load more comments
(24 replies)
What's your point with this question?
I wanted to know? What else would it be? That's pretty obvious.
There’s no pros to controlling women’s autonomy and bodies.
I never said that. Why're you soo intent on putting words into my mouth?
Population could also be controlled by neutering men.
Not when it is a two child policy - women still birth those children.
Fundamentally this is a question centered around controlling women’s bodies because it’s women that bear and birth children.
And men still produce sperm. If we neuter them after 2 children we can still do it. Not that I like that. Just saying there is something else
Still forcing women to birth two children each.
I notice that you have replied to my other comment. You must know I meant that as an upper limit. Is there a reason you need to pretend you didn't read it?
Read my other comment. I think I should have specified that in the post.
I think with the cost of living, wars etc, the world population will begin to slow, then eventually lower. With or without a one/two child policy. Shit fucking sucks and I think people won’t be be able to afford kids soon. I am just grasping at straws here, and this is just personal opinion.
Due to economic, environmental, and cultural state and trends, my wife and I are choosing to not have children. Our dog is lovely. I will not spend my time and energy to give capitalists another generation of cheap labor just in time for this class to flee from rising sea levels, suffer malnutrition, and choke on contaminated air and water. I believe that it is inhumane to bring life into this world with the knowledge that they will endure the hardship and suffering that is so obviously coming.
We will sooner see throuples become socially acceptable in order to make rent than offer any real help to the working class. There is a pedophile running America and the American people are still policing bathrooms to protect against imaginary pedophiles. The priorities are beyond fucked.
might i suggest adoption? There are lots of kids who need a home. Just a thought :)
The current trend on world population has us hitting 10.3 billion in 2080, and then it starts to recede. The idea of an overpopulated world comes from a book written in 1968 called “The Population Bomb”. The actual problem we’re facing in the west is a rapidly aging population, and birth rates that are falling off a cliff.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yes.
People shouldn't come in litters. Ever.
no
Are you asking if it should be a thing, or if it exists?
Ah, I missed the 'should'. Thanks :)
view more: next ›