I agree 100% with what China is doing. I don't care if other people think I'm a horrid bitch because of it. People need to wake the hell up and realize some things.

It's perfectly logical, and for the good of the planet and it's current inhabitants, animal and human-animal alike. The human population is out of control. We don't let our pets breed out of control because they want to. Why should we be allowed to?

Think of how many extra humans the one child policy is preventing. Less resources are used up. there's more for the humans that already exist. When you add more humans, you add more pollution, more spending, less space, less food... I could go on and on.
What China is doing is benefitting all of humankind (even the people who want more than one kid, but they probably don't see it that way). It's incredibly selfish to breed in such large numbers, expecting others to suffer, and some to go without, just because you feel somehow incomplete without more than one offspring.

Think about it. We don't allow animals to keep having baby after baby. Why should we do it? Just because we're humans? We're animals too, and we're causing a severe overpopulation problem. It's just as bad (much worse, actually) to be up to your eyeballs in humans as it is to be in pets.

Uh, don't know what to say about Tokaia's comment, so I guess I won't address it.

I don't really blame Hong Kong's government for taking this step. 1/3 of births in Hong Kong are to mainland Chinese mothers? That's crazy. The residents of Hong Kong may be relatively rich and powerful, but I seriously doubt they can do a damn thing about what's going on in mainland China.

"We don't let our pets breed out of control because they want to. Why should we be allowed to?"

We don't allow pets outside of the house unless they're on leashes, either, but I see no reason to apply that rule to human beings.

Governmental interference in reproduction is an infringement of human rights. Pets don't have human rights. If a government can force you not to have children against your will, it can force you to have children against your will, and as I've said on more than one occasion, my body is not a public resource.

Understandable law, in my book. Changing the economic conditions is long, complicated process. This law is a much easier way to prevent women from coming in, and, if I remember the last time an article about this was posted on Feministing, not paying for the medical care they recieve. Its a temporary solution, but what else is Hong Kong to do? The only other solution is proving residency and citizenship before the doctors agree to see a pregnant woman, but I think that would just piss everyone off as a violation of human rights that could potentially harm women going into labor.

Tokaia, China's fertility rate is already below replacement.

Hong Kong is *PART* of China. What's going on here is class warfare. And it looks like a lot of you support the rich.

Jesus, this is disgusting.

Josh, this issue came up exactly one month ago and the post and comments ovewhelmingly supported mainlanders having their babies in Hong Kong:

(No) Preggies crossing. This is just nuts.

http://feministing.com/archives/006222.html

Six commenters were supportive of mainlanders, three were not. You might be interested in some of the supportive comments:

Maybe they'll build a seven-hundred-mile wall to keep out the preggo immigrants. I mean, isn't that what any sensible country would do? --The Law Fairy

As for letting people take advantage of health care, my comment was mostly meant flippantly, but sure, I'll talk about it. It's incredibly selfish and arrogant of us, as Americans (and similarly selfish and arrogant of Hong Kong residents), to think we've somehow "earned" the right to superior medical care simply by virtue of having been born here. I didn't do anything to deserve citizenship in a country that affords me access to greater wealth than 99% of the world. I think it's wrong of us to pretend that there's something noble about "protecting our own" when our own don't deserve special treatment any more than we do. --The Law Fairy

I completely agree with you, TLF, and would also add that since, when was it, 1997?, Hong Kong is a part of China--this is not a situation involving immigrants from another country trying to take advantage of a neighbor's resources. This is a situation of residents of one part of a country going to another part. The fact that the two parts of the PRC seem to have widely differing standards of care is a serious problem--and so is the fact that we in the US have similar extremes. Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region, which means that it sets its own immigration policies, but the situation is really not perfectly analogous to that between two unaffiliated countries. --EG

Hong Kong's health care situation is not the same as the USA's. The USA has HMOs and administrative blubber that drive up health spending to $6,000 per capita per year, or 15% of GDP. In Hong Kong, it was about 5.7% in 2001-2. That said, the $40 million figure is a joke. Hong Kong's tax levels are so low that there's plenty of room for even a 1% hike, which will recover a lot more than $40 million a year. --Alon Levy

You also have to ask what exactly they will be doing to prevent pregnant women from crossing the border. Who are these women, what is their immigration status, what are their rights under the laws of China and Hong Kong, and what exactly will happen to them? How far are they from home? Will they be imprisoned? Will they have health care in detention? How long does deportation take? What is the immigration status of a child born in Hong Kong? The question is what we do with people who cannot pay, and who are using every resource at their disposal to preserve their life and the life of their child. You can say "we shouldn't let those people come here," or something, but that doesn't really answer the question. Armed guards at the border allowing husbands but not their pregnant wives? It may cost more to "keep them out" than to just treat them. --Ms. Underhill

To be honest, I don't think the issue is to do with women, per se. It is, however, a "racist" issue: despite being the same race, and the same country since 1997 ("one country, two systems"), Hong Kongers see mainland Chinese as being quite inferior. The mainlanders are viewed as "country bumpkins": poor, smelly, stupid etc. And are often blamed for crime, social problems etc. Of course the quality of life of most mainland Chinese differs vastly from that enjoyed by most Hong Kongers. So the medical tourism thing is an extension of those attitudes. Hong Kong has a free healthcare service, and it's good quality. HK also has a very low tax base – yes with room to grow, but the political inertia is heavy. Just recently the government stepped back from a proposal to introduce a goods and service tax (GST –sales tax). So government spending is viewed as a real problem. In addition, mainland Chinese children born in HK are then entitled to an ID card here. This means they can get free schooling, medical etc, and eventually work here. This is an issue for the economists in the government who are unable to plan, for example, for the number of school teachers needed in future. (The babies born in HK are often taken back to China once the have their ID card, then will return when they are 5 years old to start school: that influx of kids could be very damaging in terms of school places etc.) And I know that HK and China are "one country": but Hong Kongers don't quite see it that way. --cleo meer-cleer

40 million in HK is not alot. it's expensive for westerners or anybody to live there. they should be able to have their babies there. it is china, after all, and there is a snob factor in hk. --yours truly

This OP is supportive of mainlanders:

That sounds intense. A team of doctors are going to determine how pregnant you are and then determine if you can cross the border. It just doesn't seem right or fair. Why does the legislation fall on the bodies of women? As opposed to an analysis of the conditions causing the desire to cross borders?

The difference between the commenters on the December thread may be the announcement that mainlanders account for a third of Hong Kong births and that the wards at the hospitals are too full for local women:

But the numbers doing so now account for almost a third of Hong Kong births, and local women are complaining of arriving at hospital to find the wards already full.

(oops--) The difference between the commenters on the December thread *and this thread* may be the announcement *in this post* that mainlanders account for a third of Hong Kong births and that the wards at the hospitals are too full for local women:

Thanks for saving our good name, donna! I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't post on this is that I said all I had to say last time.

Josh called us ignorant nitwits and Feministing classist fuck-tardery from purported liberal feminists so I hope he's happy now.

http://blog.pulpculture.org/2007/01/18/internally-riven/#comment-15219

EG said:

"Governmental interference in reproduction is an infringement of human rights. Pets don't have human rights."

That's only because humans think they're better than other animals. Such an arrogant, destructive, filthy, self-entitled species that creates horrible things and does terrible things to others doesn't need to propagate more than it already has. It's better than letting things continue to get worse, is it not? It's also certainly better than letting rampant disease, war and genocide take over to lower the population.

Like it or not, everyone knows deep down that it's true. I'm removing myself from this discussion now because it's fruitless to keep arguing with people that deny reality and refuse to see logic. I've said all that needs to be said.

Overpopulation is a problem, no doubt. I think alot of male commenters on blogs are pro-natalist because they can't give birth/have womb envy/want to have control over reproduction. This is one of the reasons so many ob-gyns are men. Many male ob-gyns go into obstetrics to experience the miracle of life. How many female urologists are women? Right. None.

Overpopulation is a problem, no doubt. I think alot of male commenters on blogs are pro-natalist because they can't give birth/have womb envy/want to have control over reproduction. This is one of the reasons so many ob-gyns are men. Many male ob-gyns go into obstetrics to experience the miracle of life. How many urologists are women? Right. None.

It's true overpopulation is a problem. I see alot of male commenters who are pro-natalist and I think this is because men can't give birth and have womb envy or they want to control the reproduction. I think alot of ob-gyns are men because they have womb envy. Alot say they went into the field because of their awe of the miracle of life. The truth is men have womb envy and women do not have penis envy. After all, there are no female urologists as far as I know.

"It's better than letting things continue to get worse, is it not? It's also certainly better than letting rampant disease, war and genocide take over to lower the population."

Government control of my fertility is bad enough for me, thanks. Nor will letting the government into my womb stop rampant disease, war, or genocide.

Do I think humans are better than other species? I don't think that's a meaningful question--what does "better" mean in that context? Human beings are more important to me than other species, and I'm not willing to accept human suffering and totalitarianism as the price of ecology. If it be, then I will say that price is too high, and I do not think I will be alone. I like human beings.

You can console yourself with the fantasy that I secretly "know you're right," but it will be a fantasy. I actually disagree with you. It is possible, especially when two people start from radically different bases, as we do.