I'm trying to figure out how people who are pro-choice can also be proponents of a one child policy like China's on a global scale. I say this because I'm willing to bet that the writer of this article is pro-choice when it comes to reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are not just about terminating pregnancies, but the right to have children at all. How can someone say a women has reproductive rights, therefore should be able to terminate any pregnancy when she wants to, while simultaneously saying that we as a world should consider a one child policy which would force women to only have one child if they have any at all? What's the twisted logic that allows this allows these two separate and conflicting ideas to reside in the same brain? She is not the only one.
The China one child policy has had odd consequences like missing women. Big surprise that a society that binds women's feet and isn't enlightened like Western Europe and the USA would use abortion as a way to pick what gender their one child will be. Infanticide depresses us all (except extreme abortion rights supporters and NJ prom dates), and it's sad the rise of the infant mortality rate of baby girls in China since their one child policy was enacted. Sounds fan-freaking-tastic, let's apply this policy to the entire world and see how well that goes. As if sub-Saharan or Muslim countries would be 'pro baby girl'. We'd probably have a female deficit epidemic worldwide by 2075. Screw climate change, our biggest problem would be calming down the nations with skewed male-female ratios.
This is why I want more climate research before we enact weird policies or arcane cap n trade schemes that will damage the economy more than it will help the environment. A big question a lot of skeptics want answered is: if CO2 makes the earth warmer, why have temperatures not risen since 1998 while CO2 levels have risen steadily? Let's figure that one out. Maybe there is a way to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Maybe we could switch to geothermal and nuclear fuel for electricty generation instead of coal (too easy). If there's something else we did from 1998 to now that offset the CO2, maybe that's the key to mitigating 'anthro-global warming', not crazy trading schemes Goldman Sachs can game or government policies that intrude on the basic right of every woman.