China Creates Another Exception to the 'One Child' Rule

The Chinese government plans to further relax its restrictions on reproduction by allowing families living in cities to have two children if one parent has no siblings. The so-called "one child" policy already makes exceptions for urban parents when both are single children, for rural couples whose first child is a girl, and for certain ethnic groups. The shift is part of the government's grudging acknowledgment that its draconian limits on family size, supposedly necessary to prevent overpopulation, have had serious unintended consquences, including a lopsided ratio of old to young and a shortage of women (the result of sex-selective abortions by boy-preferring parents). "By 2050, more than a quarter of the population will be over 65," the BBC reports. "By the end of the decade, demographers say China will have 24 million 'leftover men' who, because of China's gender imbalance, will not be able to find a wife." As Vice President Joe Biden explained a couple of years, ago, the "one child" policy is "not sustainable." 

It also happens to be cruel, tyrannical, and in many instances appallingly brutal. Although Diane Francis and Thomas Friedman may be upset, anyone who values liberty and human dignity should welcome what appears to be the gradual (very gradual) reversal of a policy that entails violating people's basic rights on a huge scale. 

In a 2007 Reason article, I considered the relationship between China's reproductive restrictions and its international adoption program.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Loki||

    By the end of the decade, demographers say China will have 24 million 'leftover men' who, because of China's gender imbalance, will not be able to find a wife.

    Maybe we can send them some of our Code Pink/ Jezebel/ Feministing left-tard feminists.

    "China: go for the socialism, stay for the sausage fest."

  • Jquip||

    Maybe someone can start an investment fund in Chinese brothels. As that's one industry that's bound to go up.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended, etc.

  • Paul.||

    Well my ten year prediction is off, but it's nice to see that China is at least starting down the road of getting rid of this inhumane policy. A policy that is every progressive's wet dream.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It's nice to see progressives show their devotion to reproductive freedom and the right to make choices over one's own body.

  • Copernicus||

    "if one parent has no siblings. "

    In a nation with a one-child law, don't all parents have "no siblings"?

  • 0x90||

    Let me be clear: if you like your child, you can keep your child.

    (under certain circumstances)

    (for the time being)

  • Paul.||

    For up to a year.

  • 0x90||

    If it's not substandard.

  • cavalier973||

    Men want wives; if they can't get wives, they tend to have wars.

  • Doctor Whom||

    So-cons should be thrilled. This will be the perfect demonstration of their dogma that sexual orientation is a choice.

  • GamerFromJump||

    This strikes me as the Chinese government's face-saving way to backtrack on a policy, whose genesis is rooted in Malthusian Greens, after reality ensues. Better than the doubling-down-on-stupid that takes place in the US. Not as good as not being stupid in the first place, but what can you expect of governments?

  • JidaKida||

    These guys see to know what the deal is.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties