china- female baby rejects. (1 Viewer)

[paper cup]

Whats your opinion on chinese familys rejecting newborn females????

it doesn't happen anymore.
where it does it's in very poor families, people don't have a westen education or whatever and most of the time they don't enjoy it trust me
because girls can't help out on the land as much

 

[OZGIRL86]

Whats your opinion on chinese familys rejecting newborn females????

wow I never knew this happened, thats ridiculous.....

 

[transcendent]

you NEVER knew about this?!

 

[table for 1]

Whats your opinion on chinese familys rejecting newborn females????

it doesn't happen anymore.

exactly. i didn't think chinese people followed those traditions strictly anymore.

 

[yenta]

I thought the case nowadays is that people in China are allowed to keep having girls until they get a boy, but if it's a boy first then that's the only child they're allowed...is that right?

 

[table for 1]

really? i thought in some/most [?] areas, they were only allowed to have one child [unless they were twins, etc] or else they got fined

 

[jm1234567890]

Wikki for one-child policy

No relaxation of one-child policy

I thought they were gonna relax it??

 

[jm1234567890]

really? i thought in some/most [?] areas, they were only allowed to have one child [unless they were twins, etc] or else they got fined

you don't get fined, the children just don't get govenment funding for alot of things.

 

[table for 1]

you don't get fined, the children just don't get govenment funding for alot if things.

oooh ok. everyone says something different -.-"

 

[withoutaface]

Wikki for one-child policy

No relaxation of one-child policy

I thought they were gonna relax it??

I wouldn't be relying too heavily upon anything supercharged's Xinhua link says John, they're not exactly the most unbiased source out there...

 

[supercharged]

Xinhua isn't biased, its not like the bias dripping tabloids, ala Daily Telegraph or A Current Affair (just check their stinking non-efforts at "balanced" coverage of the Corby case to prove my point) Considering Xinhua is government owned, I highly doubt it would missreport official government policy. If it says that the one child policy is being wound back in Shanghai, then I'm sure it is. :uhhuh:

Btw, Xinhua is the best news service cos they regularly have photos of various hot women in fashion shows or even bodypaint in the photos section, What other serious news websites have that? :uhhuh: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

 

[paper cup]

I thought the case nowadays is that people in China are allowed to keep having girls until they get a boy, but if it's a boy first then that's the only child they're allowed...is that right?

no, where the fuck do you get your information

 

[withoutaface]

Xinhua isn't biased, its not like the bias dripping tabloids, ala Daily Telegraph or A Current Affair (just check their stinking non-efforts at "balanced" coverage of the Corby case to prove my point) Considering Xinhua is government owned, I highly doubt it would missreport official government policy. If it says that the one child policy is being wound back in Shanghai, then I'm sure it is. :uhhuh:

Btw, Xinhua is the best news service cos they regularly have photos of various hot women in fashion shows or even bodypaint in the photos section, What other serious news websites have that? :uhhuh: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

I'm not debating the reporting on the policy itself, but rather the effects of the policy, because it'd be in their best interests to focus on the positives, and only the positives, of any policy decision.

 

[Kittycat]

I thought the case nowadays is that people in China are allowed to keep having girls until they get a boy, but if it's a boy first then that's the only child they're allowed...is that right?

lol then what is the point of the one child policy? The chinese population would have really really exploded. Nah, it is just one child, thats it end of it unless it is multiple babies or if the first one is sick eg having a serious heart condition, if u get divorced & remarried 9however giving birth twice is the max).... or if u r in the country. Actually, that is true for the country area except you have have two births, if the 1st is a girl, u can try for another.

 

[jm1234567890]

no, where the fuck do you get your information

well, yenta was 1/2 right....

it said in some poor country areas your allowed another child if the first one was a girl.
since girls can't work on the farm as effectively.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What the hell is the obsession with human rights in China? Get over it, Human rights in China is damn good compared to many parts of the world. If you want some reading material about human rights abuses against children why just go take a look at Africa (world's worst human rights) where child slave labour and child soldiers are rife?





Now this is real child abuse:



Shock, Horror! Look another country with poor human rights! http://www.time.com/time/asia/2005/nepal/images/feature_home.jpg
Now start jumping up and down about it






Btw, Gender tests on the unborn have been banned in China, to stop couples choosing the sex of their child. Anyhow the one child policy is being relaxed in some parts of China such as Shanghai http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-04/15/content_2833453.htm

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH You know your human rights record is shit when you compare it with africa.
I'm just waiting for someone to compare china to US and not need to justify it since everyone hates america anyway...

edit: State controlled media is shit, while any media student can tell you that are existing controls on a 'free press', only a moron would claim state-run press are better...

 

[Xayma]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH You know your human rights record is shit when you compare it with africa.
I'm just waiting for someone to compare china to US and not need to justify it since everyone hates america anyway...

edit: State controlled media is shit, while any media student can tell you that are existing controls on a 'free press', only a moron would claim state-run press are better...

Exactly. Comparing human rights records are pointless the country should try and improve even if it has the best human rights record.

Australia doesn't get off the hook for the Stolen Child Policy or sometimes questionable immigration policies because 'it was better then the Rwanda Genocide'.

 

[supercharged]

Well the Rwandan Genocide with a million civilians hacked to death by machete wielding militiamen, makes any dodgy detention centre policies look like a storm in a teacup.

edit: State controlled media is shit, while any media student can tell you that are existing controls on a 'free press', only a moron would claim state-run press are better...

Actually state controlled or funded media can be a heck of alot more objective and informative, than commercial media controlled by billionare media tycoons like Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch, who do will anything to get more fucktard viewers to tune in. "Free press" in reality means big business ($$$) controlled press.


Eg. The ABC and SBS news services were shitloads more objective than Channel 7, 9 and The Daily Telegraph which led the whole shamelessly populist "Corby is innocent" drum beating throughout their news coverage

 

[Not-That-Bright]

At any time the government could give the ABC less and less money, or replace people there...

The broadcast media has so much power to form opinion that it is dangerous to give politicians too much power over it. Once in government, a political party can use the state’s ownership and control of television and radio stations to manipulate the news agenda and the view of the world received by its citizens - as the Milosovic regime did in Yugoslavia, for example.

The privatisation of broadcasting is in the interest of the public as consumers. As with all forms of nationalised industry, the market is a better judge of what consumers want than politicians and bureaucrats, who tend to give them what they think will be good for them. Privatising state broadcasters is likely to result in more popular programming, with much less money wasted on shows which very few people want to watch. It may also save the viewer money, as many state broadcasters are currently funded from regressive license fees, or through taxation via direct government subsidy, and because the state will benefit from a privatisation windfall. Regulation can ensure that certain minimum standards are maintained, and that, for example, children’s programming and serious current affairs coverage is safeguarded.

State ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or broadcasting of sporting events. The market share of the private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon their number of viewers or listeners. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes, and are less well placed to compete internationally.

In the past with analogue systems, radiowaves were a limited resource and it was perhaps reasonable for the government to control them tightly. With modern cable and digital broadcasting technology, however, it is possible to have a much larger number of television and radio stations. This means that every interest group and section of society will be catered for and that there will be plenty of scope for experimentation, while the best-funded broadcasters will also be trying to differentiate themselves with more expensive, quality programming.

Privatisation would be good for former state broadcasters, exposing them to the bracing impact of proper competition and forcing them to focus more effectively upon their strengths while eliminating waste. Freed from government control, they would be less exposed to political decisions about the level of a license fee or direct subsidy, and better able to raise finance in the capital markets. This would allow them to compete internationally in the changing digital marketplace, developing commercial operations, and ploughing increased profits back into better programme-making for their domestic market.

 

[supercharged]

At any time the government could give the ABC less and less money, or replace people there...

Either way its not like the ABC is scared of challenging politicians with hard questions during its Lateline program, and making them squirm and flop around like a fish


Any new service owned by Rupert Murdoch is basically guranteed to be biased and distorted to hell, so much for "free press" then