China's Assault on Human Dignity

A CNN article has reported that China plans on keeping its one-child policy for at least the next ten years. The reasoning stated by Minister Zhang Weiqing is predictably fueled by communist assumptions. The Minister argues that there are too many citizens entering a child bearing age at this time. Those citizens could have the potential of burdening China’s Communist Party to the point where there could be “serious problems and add extra pressure on social and economic development."

There are lots of questions raised by this kind of thinking. The one I would like to ask is who is the most important player in a state? Is it the state? Is it the individual? Is it a plurality or majority of citizens? The communist assumption is that it is the state that is the most important player. What do we believe as Americans?

It is my belief and likely that of many other Americans that the individual is the most important player in the state. Let me explain a little more. The purpose of the state is to protect and serve the individual and his social nature through promoting human dignity. This is a sort of humanism, although in my case it would be a religious humanism. This human dignity is not an abstract or changeable idea but an innate God given human quality. The State’s protection of this dignity begins with the recognition of the unique nature of a human being. One way that this unique nature is shown is through natural law. That is, a common point of reference for all human beings in what is right and what is wrong. The State has a responsibility to use this natural law as a point of reference for protecting human dignity. The Chinese Communist Party does not understand this. Their regime has emphasized the dignity of the state (through laws restricting the movement of citizens, restricting births, etc) over the dignity of the human.

Now is a good time to note an assumption of mine you’ve probably already realized. Bearing and raising children is a natural right (i.e. an inseparable part of human dignity).

The other option I laid out was that it is a plurality or majority of citizens who are most important. It’s my belief that this majority is only important if the basic human dignity of individuals within the state is taken care of first. Once this has occurred then the majority can decide on other matters.

Let me ask a question to anyone who thinks the state is more important. This is the basic question and highlights why religion is so important in protecting the individual. Who will last longer, the individual or the state? The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years, fairly impressive according to the standard of empires. This looks like a compelling case for the state unless you believe, like I do, that the human is made to live for eternity. This “eternal destiny” leads to the belief that the state is only useful in that it protects the human dignity and social nature of its people (we happen to be lucky enough to live in a country that does this exceptionally well). If man is made for eternity then the state can never be thought of as more important than the individual.

In this particular case the Chinese have accosted the human dignity of the very people they are meant to nurture. The people are forced to pay a tax if they have more than one child. Many Chinese can’t afford this tax and have no option. Female children are abandoned/aborted in scores because the male can provide for the family later in life. The repercussions of these policies seem obvious to me. China is raising a population disproportionately full of young men. Chinese families, having been forced to sacrifice their own human dignity, are more likely to feel the quieting of the natural law. The results of these policies can only spell disaster for the Chinese Communist Party. An angry, hurt, belittled group of people whose moral compass has been spun is likely the biggest threat to a regime that was meant to protect them.