<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>The One-Child Warranty, Continued</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2008/06/06/the-one-child-warranty-continued.aspx</link><description>Last week I wrote about the warranty on children killed by the recent earthquake in China. I referred to an exemption to the country's one-child policy, allowing parents who lost their kids to replace them. At one point, I asked, "Why should the warranty</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>