Red China's Hatred Of Its Subjects

New One-Child Documentary Highlights The Evil Of China’s Communist Party

The filmmakers show us totalitarianism in its rawest form, in its effort to control the most sacred of all bonds—that of the family.

Ben Weingarten 

The Federalist

Students of history right up to present-day Venezuela know that economic central planning inevitably results in poverty and misery. A harrowing new documentary on China’s one-child policy shows that this rule holds true for familial central planning as well—but in the case of parents and their children, the devastation extends far beyond the material to the moral and spiritual realm. “One Child Nation,” a Sundance-winning film coming to select theaters this summer, asks us to stare this man-caused disaster in the face before the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) whitewashes it away.

The film is the work of two Chinese filmmakers, Nanfu Wang and Jialing Zhang, who were born in the 1980s near the dawn of the policy. “One Child Nation” is a story of life and loss, brainwashing and corruption, and man’s capacity to engage in unimaginable cruelty at the point of a government gun. It is a story in which human traffickers represent some of the only protagonists, saving the lives of babies otherwise left for dead in marketplaces and on roadsides, lest their parents face the wrath of the authorities.

The putative rationale for the policy, according to news accounts featured in the documentary, is the belief among the ruling CCP that China could not sustain rapid population growth, or people would starve to death. With some exceptions for sparsely populated areas, the CCP threatened families having more than one child with expropriation, property destruction and, where necessary, forced sterilization, abortions, and even the outright murder of newborns.

Authorities and family planning officials recount dragging pregnant women from their homes, kicking and screaming, to force upon them the procedures to end their babies’ lives. All told, the Chinese government claims the policy “averted” the births of up to 400 million people. This dystopic social engineering is hailed as a success.

The impetus to study the one-child policy came to Wang after the birth of her first child. Realizing her ignorance of the critical social policy during the era in which she was raised, Wang, who received her film education in the United States, returned to her native China and the rural village where she grew up.

Rogue United Nations

U.S. Blasts UN Support for China’s Birth Control Policy

Susan Yoshihara,
C-Fam


NEW YORK, September 8 (C-Fam) The United States blasted the UN Population Fund on Thursday for supporting China’s four decades-long birth control policy, which has led to human rights abuses such as forced abortions. The censure came as the agency unveiled its new three-year plan which promoted policies on sexuality which UN member States have expressly rejected in negotiations.

“As long as UNFPA supports or participates in any program of coercive birth limitation, the United States will not fund UNFPA,” U.S. deputy ECOSOC ambassador Stephanie Amadeo said.  The United States withdrew $32.5 million in funding from UNFPA earlier this year, but continues to spend about $600 million a year on family planning and remains on the UNFPA’s executive board. Amadeo said the $32 million will be transferred to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities.

The strategic plan—meant to guide the agency’s spending, programs, partnerships and advocacy in the next three years—calls for giving children as young as ten years of age “comprehensive” and “integrated” access to “youth-friendly” “sexual and reproductive health services,” a term that some UN staff use to include abortion and sex change therapy.

Reality Check in China

Virtual Worlds Meet Divine Law

When men in their arrogance attempt to abrogate Natural Law--as established and decreed by God--they are given rope--enough rope with which to hang themselves.  The consequences of the rebellion are usually unseen, but ultimately hard and real. 

An example is China's one-child-policy.  This policy was originally enacted to combat an alleged problem: the  over-population of China.  The rationalist-cum-materialists (aka, communists) decided the solution was to restrict couples to just one child.  The destructive consequences of this rebellion against divine law are becoming more and more evident.  This one instance of reckless hubris will end up doing  more than anything else to weaken China from within.

There is now a severe and burgeoning imbalance between the sexes which will destabilize Chinese society.  If you are allowed only one child, and abortion is the central state method of enforcing the dictat, then male children will be preferred to female because males are deemed to have better prospects.  For every hundred female children born, there are 117 males.  That adds up to millions of Chinese men unable to marry because there are no women available.  Men, unable to enter into marriage, congregating in large numbers will inevitably be drawn into anti-social, marauding behaviour. 

A society cannot rebel against the Creator's law--systematically and relentlessly--and escape the consequences.  Some of those consequences, whilst initially subtle, are now increasingly manifest.

Letter From America

Kudos to the ADF

Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, 21 February 2012

It is good to see Protestants joining the fray against the contraceptive mandate issued by the Thrones, Dominions, Principalities and Powers at HHS. While Protestants do not share the Roman Catholic view of every form of birth control, they are in full agreement on the unlawfulness of abortifacients, and the mandate issued by Sebelius requires an employer to pay for such abortifacients. The mandate, if obeyed, would violate the Protestant conscience every bit as much as it does the Catholic conscience.

And besides, whether or not anybody's views of contraception are correct, in a free country they ought to be allowed to have them. Right? That's kind of the point.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Eleven Theses on Birth Control

Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Yesterday a friend called to chide me (in a friendly way) for the way in which I have not come down definitively on the question of birth control. My reason for this has been that when it comes to families and the size of them, we have more important things to talk about, but I have also recognized that I have had to say something and have done some of that in a couple of my books. But sometimes you have to say something more. So here goes.

1. The rise of our birth control-friendly culture and our abortion-friendly culture happened as twin parts of the same zeitgeist. This was all part of our cultural apostasy, and our rejection of the Christian view of marriage and family.

2. Notwithstanding, the Scriptures say nothing definitively about birth control considered as such. Despite the anti-family bias that created the default assumptions of the world around us, we still have to be careful not to go beyond what is written. We especially have to take care not to go beyond what is written. Slavish following of the world is bad, but so is knee-jerk reaction to it.

3. In making the previous point, I recognize that I am departing from the historic Christian tradition on this issue, both Catholic and Protestant. This means that I differ, not only with the pope, but also with Calvin and Luther.

4. At the same time, because of the world's bias in favor of birth control, the world's representatives are not too scrupulous about distinguishing between forms of birth control that are abortifacients and those which are not. This unfortunately includes some Christian medical professionals who have gotten their training from a medical establishment which doesn't give a rip as to whether the method prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg or prevents the fertilization itself. This is the evil lurking behind the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology redefinition of conception as "the implantation of the fertilized ovum." What this means that someone can now sincerely say that a particular method isn't an abortifacient, although by the older definition of conception, it was. Beware of being misled -- a culture that has killed more than 40 million infants thus far is not going to scruple about a few altered definitions.

5. This said, Christians also have to recognize the intent of a procedure, and not build a dogmatic case on statistical likelihoods alone. It is true that some methods might make it less likely for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterine wall, but it is also possible that other daily activities might do the same thing. Jogging? Weight loss? Oil of Olay? Beats me, I don't know. We need to trust the Lord, and not the periodic worries caused by the great baal of statistics.
That said and acknowledged, all hormonal methods of birth control are known to work in one of three ways. Here they are, from most to least common: (a) suppression of ovulation, (b) obstruction of fertilization, and (c) prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterine wall. Many Christians know that the IUD is an abortifacient (using the older, un-tinkered with definition of conception). But primary intent notwithstanding, there are also dangers with the hormonal methods (the Pill, Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs), Plan B, etc.), dangers that do not exist with barrier methods like the condom, diaphragm, and spermicide. These don't place unborn children at risk of an inhospitable welcome to their first bed.

6. The Scriptures do contain one example of birth control (the example of Onan), but this narrative is complicated by the fact that the whole point of a Levirate marriage was the preservation of a deceased brother's name through a legitimate heir. Onan therefore defrauded his sister-in-law through the instrumentality of an act of birth control, which makes it problematic to say that he was struck down by the Lord for the birth control simpliciter.

7. While the Scriptures don't say anything definitively about birth control as such, they do teach an enormous amount about the blessing of faithful covenant seed. This is one of the three main reasons for covenant marriage -- the begetting of a godly seed (Mal. 2:15). This should be taught and emphasized in the church, and is the only really effective way to counter the world's anti-child bigotry. If this is effectively done, visitors to your church will think you must teach against birth control, and they will think this because of the large teeming population at the three foot level that they can see during fellowship hour.

8. More is involved in raising up a godly seed than to have a man with dogmatic convictions about birth control, matched only by his unwillingness to feed, read to, educate, pay tuition for, bestow upon, and love the results of his dogmatism. There are no promised covenantal blessings for the self-absorbed proprietors of stud farms.

9. Children are a blessing from the Lord, but not an automatic blessing from the Lord. They are a covenant blessing, which means the terms of the covenant must always be believed and remembered. A man with a lazy son is ashamed (Prov. 10:5), and it should be obvious that he would not be more greatly blessed if he had five sons sleeping through the harvest.

10. Pastors and teachers should take special care to make sure their teaching and their practice of discipline line up. It is sometimes easy to say things in the pulpit which, if taken seriously, would necessitate church discipline for any violators. But to be all bark and no bite is a good way to bring the authority of the pulpit into disrepute. Don't call it something you are not willing to treat it as. But the balance here should be determined exegetically, and not by a pragmatic cowardice.

11. As each married couple make their decisions about this, and as pastors help them, they should take care to make careful distinctions with regard to motive, as well as a sharp distinction between principles and methods. We must learn to distinguish between a couple postponing fruitfulness for no reason other than that the worldlings told them they should spend some time surfing together in Argentina first, and a seasoned married couple with six kids who stop having them because their covenantal hands are quite full. It appears that the former do not understand the creation order at all, and that the latter don't have any problem at all understanding it. To focus on birth control in isolation interferes with such essential distinctions from being made.