College Prof: You Have No Right to More Than One Child

A philosophy professor at Bowdoin College, Sarah Conly, really misses China's One-Child policy. I mean, really misses it.

She even wrote a book called “One Child: Do We Have a Right to More" because I don't want to financially support garbage like that. I'm not going to buy that book but she was kind enough to write a column in the Boston Globe putting her anti-human kookiness on display for everyone to see.

In it, she bemoans China ending it's one-child policy and asks "Is this really a good thing?" She thinks not.

She writes, "the idea that people should limit the number of children they have to just one is not, I would argue, a bad one, for the Chinese or for the rest of us."

Then you get a lot of blah blah blah nonsense about overpopulation and all that. But then you get to the moral case. She posits that YOU have no right to have more than one child.

Given the damage we are causing, and the suffering we foresee for all those who live after us, it is clear that having more than one child is just something that none of us — Chinese or American — has a moral right to do. We have no right to cause great harm to others when we can avoid this without great loss to ourselves.

She compares having more than one child to screaming fire in a crowded movie theater. So therefore she says it's no right at all.

At this point, uncontrolled fertility is likely to have worse consequences than the false cry of “fire!” Even having two children — the replacement value for the population — as the new Chinese policy allows is likely to be too many children. Due to what specialists call “demographic momentum,” the population will continue to grow for quite some time even if we all cut back now to two children. By the time the birthrate stabilizes, the global population will be at an unsustainable level. So, we don’t have a right to have so many children.

To be clear, she's a tad uncomfortable with forced sterilizations and abortions. She said she'd rather use sanctions that wouldn't be "physical in nature" so she'd rather punish those who have more than one child financially.

We can have tax penalties for those who have more than one child. In terms of money, receiving a tax penalty may be no different from failing to receive a tax break, but calling it a penalty can provide more motivation. Lastly, if we ever did discover that we needed sanctions to get people to refrain from having an unsustainable number of children, they wouldn’t be physical in nature. Fines may be the best way to go, and again, there is reason to think suitable fines, fixed on a sliding scale relative to income, can be effective — not 100 percent effective, which no regulation ever is, but effective enough.

Financial is physical. So, it would seem she's in favor of starving families with babies to death as long as its in the name of the environment.

Here's the kicker - parents are paying $48,000 per year to have their children educated by Sarah Conly and those who hired her.

Conly does, however, do a good thing here. She unmaks the true agenda of many. For those who might wonder,Hey, whatever happened to freedom of choice, think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, the abortion movement wasn't ever about that. "Choice" was a slogan, a brand to mask their anti-human agenda. It is not freedom they espouse. It is death.

Their way is lies and death. For me, I'll take Jesus' way - the way, the truth, and the life where every human life is sacred.