Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple
- Thread starter Black-Toof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What is it with people asking for these things then going around complaining about the government having too much power...
Capcha: Forget this yeah forget this I'm out of here!
Capcha: Forget this yeah forget this I'm out of here!
As long as they can care for the children people should have as many as they want. People like Octomom are a disgrace and should have her kids taken away. Chick is doing lowbudget porns and scraping the bottom of the barrel for whatever publicity and cash she can get.
Granted, having 8 kids was not her choice but I feel bad for the kids nonetheless.
Granted, having 8 kids was not her choice but I feel bad for the kids nonetheless.
The overall population needs to be reduced and having lots of children isn't helping, so I'd definitely say as little as possible. However, I wouldn't wish a child to be forced out of having a brother or sister.
Changing people perceptions of that will be hard as we have all been hardwired to want to have children to spread our DNA into the next generation. Overcoming our natures is a rather hard thing to do.In Search of Username said:1, but an unlimited number of adopted children. Seriously I don't get why more people don't adopt. All the, er, fun, of raising a child without the horror of childbirth.
But yeah, as others have pointed out, actually implementing any measures like these generally leads to a lack of human rights - even if you implemented it purely through something like financial incentives it'd still have a greater effect on the poor than the rich, so that'd just be another problem. Much as this policy seems necessary, it just isn't feasible.
I'm all for getting rid of this perception we seem to have that babies are the best thing in the world and your life is incomplete if you haven't had one though. Changing people's perceptions is the only real way to do it.
Of course, this will never happen because we're a bunch of idiots, and eventually it'll just be necessary to have the kind of population control they have in China, or die. Bye bye human rights!
Man, we're screwed.
so no limits on first world countries and heavy limits on 3rd world then?Aurora Firestorm said:
Lets say we put in a limit of two kids. I'm going to use a real life example of some people I know and then put it into this new law. This family has one kid. They want another. They end up having triplets. Now they have 4 kids. What does the law do to them? Do they have to abort all 3? Do they send two of the kids to adoption? How do they choose which one to keep? Do they simply kill two of them post birth?
My point being this law would be inhumane. Even for people who attempt to follow the law, measures must be taken. It seems unreasonable for the government to force abortions, adoptions, or murders on innocent people.
What about divorce? Lets say I had two kids with my wife and she divorces me and gets sole custody of the kids. Now I get remarried. Can I have more kids with my new wife? If not that would be horrible because she could never have kids.
What if a child dies? Say a child suffers from some sort of condition and dies in infancy. Can I have another kid in that case?
And lets say they do manage to enforce it. How do we know it won't turn out like China's population control where most people wanted a son? That would lead to unnatural population distributions and a lot of infant deaths.
How do you enforce the law? Fines? That might work but it seems unlikely. Chemical castration (or regular castration)? That seems wildly inhumane.
TLDR: The law has too many flaws and could not be implemented humanely. I chose 4+ because limiting births seems shortsighted and could not be executed.
My point being this law would be inhumane. Even for people who attempt to follow the law, measures must be taken. It seems unreasonable for the government to force abortions, adoptions, or murders on innocent people.
What about divorce? Lets say I had two kids with my wife and she divorces me and gets sole custody of the kids. Now I get remarried. Can I have more kids with my new wife? If not that would be horrible because she could never have kids.
What if a child dies? Say a child suffers from some sort of condition and dies in infancy. Can I have another kid in that case?
And lets say they do manage to enforce it. How do we know it won't turn out like China's population control where most people wanted a son? That would lead to unnatural population distributions and a lot of infant deaths.
How do you enforce the law? Fines? That might work but it seems unlikely. Chemical castration (or regular castration)? That seems wildly inhumane.
TLDR: The law has too many flaws and could not be implemented humanely. I chose 4+ because limiting births seems shortsighted and could not be executed.
Really? A limit on the number of children you can have? Really? Wars have been fought over smaller infringements of people's freedom.
If you worry about overpopulation, then you could advocate small families. You can make a choice and be vocal about it. If you're worrying about child neglect, you could speak out for better child care services or stricter child care laws.
But if you really feel that the best way to go about it is by outlawing it outright... well... that really says a lot about you. And there's many, many scary analogies that could be drawn to that statement.
Think on it.
If you worry about overpopulation, then you could advocate small families. You can make a choice and be vocal about it. If you're worrying about child neglect, you could speak out for better child care services or stricter child care laws.
But if you really feel that the best way to go about it is by outlawing it outright... well... that really says a lot about you. And there's many, many scary analogies that could be drawn to that statement.
Think on it.
No limits. That's just silly. I think trying to persuade people to have less children is a good idea, but forcing them? Just no.
I've gotta go with Bujold's "Beta Colony" solution.Black-Toof said:
Everyone gets contraception implants at 15. These eliminate the ability to reproduce.
When an individual (or a couple) decides that they would like to reproduce, they then attend classes and take a certification test. It is no more difficult than getting a Drivers License.
Upon getting said license, the implants are deactivated until the individual or couple produces a child. The implants are then reactivated.
To get a second child, the individual (or couple) must perform a standard amount of community service. This could be in the form of donating old clothes worth a certain value to Good Will, volunteering at a soup kitchen, buying gifts of the yearly Toys for Tots, etc - basically any community service activity you can claim on your taxes.
When the individual/couple has saved up some points, then can cash them in for a Second Child - their implants are deactivated again and they can go ahead. When second child is born, implants reactivate again.
And that's it. Perhaps certain special accommodations could be made for a third child (like, if one of the others dies, or if one member of the couple has had no children while the other has already had the allotted two due to relationship status changes) but generally, two is it. And it is impossible for "accidents" to occur because everyone uses the same government-issue implants.
There are other issues of course - last time I posted this idea (from a Utopia society sci-fi novel, mind, that also had devices that allowed couples to let an electric Uterus take care of the actual pregnancy without inconveniencing the mother - or fathers, since it was just as easy for this method to be used by gay couples as straight, but that's another thread) a lot of people protested about personal rights and freedoms and stuff.
... which is a bit silly, considering the first thing that came to my mind was device malfunction, but whatever...
Anyway, since this thread already is asking if personal freedoms should be restricted to prevent overpopulation....
YES. Hell yes. For pregnancy safe sex, enforced classes and testing for parents, and population control, I am willing to give up some personal freedoms that are entirely biology based. The personal freedoms GAINED by not having to worry about accidental pregnancy would far outweigh what was being given up.
And where are you going to keep all these extra people? If we want to keep current population rates, we should have started terraforming Mars a good century ago or so.dagens24 said:
I think you should only be allowed to have children if you can afford them. Rich people can have as many as they want, because they won't be mooching off the gov't any time soon and their wealth will slowly be redistributed. As poor people slowly die off, there'll be more job openings available. It's a shame that Subsaharan Africa and SE Asia would pretty much go extinct except for a handful of despots, but that's the price of progress, and it's not like anyone born there has any opportunities in life anyway.
This would mean that I'd probably never have children either, which is a shame, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. actually, I'll probably never have children anyway.
This would mean that I'd probably never have children either, which is a shame, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. actually, I'll probably never have children anyway.
China has tried (and continues to try) this idea. It doesn't work very well.
There are far too many "what ifs". Say we only allow two children. A couple has twins who both die of a serious birth defect before they reach six months old. Are the couple allowed to have more children? What if the children die at 8 years old instead? 18? 28? What age do your children need to reach before they make up a permanent part of your "quota"?
The trend seems to be that as countries become "richer", the birth rate drops. So maybe we should be addressing global poverty rather than fixating on the number of children a couple should be allowed to have.
There are far too many "what ifs". Say we only allow two children. A couple has twins who both die of a serious birth defect before they reach six months old. Are the couple allowed to have more children? What if the children die at 8 years old instead? 18? 28? What age do your children need to reach before they make up a permanent part of your "quota"?
The birth rate in the UK is already at about 1.7 children per woman, so it seems to be working out just fine without any totalitarian regulation. Some people have loads of kids whilst others have none.RyuujinZERO said:
The trend seems to be that as countries become "richer", the birth rate drops. So maybe we should be addressing global poverty rather than fixating on the number of children a couple should be allowed to have.
You know, here in Germany we actually need MORE children. Germany is becoming older and older because people keep having less children.
Yes, the earth is overpopulated. However, you need to think regionally. Some regions need fewer children, some need even more.
Edit:
In poor countries: "Oh, the state won't help me, so I need children who support me financially when I can't work anymore." Children are old-age assurance, you need them to survive.
In richer countries: "Oh, children need so much time, effort and especially money! They are hindrances in my way to economic and academic success! Children are luxury, I will focus on my own goals."
We need to find a middle-way. We need to assure that children won't be hindrances in someone's way to happiness and success, but also assure that no one needs lots and lots of children to survive.
Yes, the earth is overpopulated. However, you need to think regionally. Some regions need fewer children, some need even more.
Edit:
This is the solution. Listen to him.MetalMagpie said:
In poor countries: "Oh, the state won't help me, so I need children who support me financially when I can't work anymore." Children are old-age assurance, you need them to survive.
In richer countries: "Oh, children need so much time, effort and especially money! They are hindrances in my way to economic and academic success! Children are luxury, I will focus on my own goals."
We need to find a middle-way. We need to assure that children won't be hindrances in someone's way to happiness and success, but also assure that no one needs lots and lots of children to survive.
I think positive reinforcement is probably the easiest way to implement a desired policy of this type, with incentives and tax rebates for up to 2 kids, and less incentives, reduced incentives, or none even, for families with more. That way, people can have as many kids as they want, but are rewarded for up to 2.
But that's just my opinion.
But that's just my opinion.
I remember hearing somewhere that to have sustainable growth the mean number of children per couple is actually 2.1 rather than 2. This takes into account premature deaths, accidents, disease etc. and that, apparently, it is slightly more likely to have a boy than a girl (not sure on the truth of that).
I grew up in a family of 6 (4 kids) but I'd be inclined to say 2. If anything, the more kids you have the more of a pain they can be
I grew up in a family of 6 (4 kids) but I'd be inclined to say 2. If anything, the more kids you have the more of a pain they can be