Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[BNguyen]

For the sake of argument I'll say zero, at least for a decade or so. Let a decent chunk of our population die off before we insist on filling the gap to exceed the number of deaths.



As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.

So why should a family that has fewer children keep more of their paycheck than one that has let's say two more children? A family that has to pay higher taxes would eventually become homeless and/or living off of the government. either that or the stress rate would cause mental breakdowns and increase the amount of violence. Either way, a family that has more mouths to feed needs a bigger amount of money in order to survive even if the amount of people living in the same family was formed under less than reasonable means

 

[BNguyen]

Wow, just wow. I didnt think there were people who actually thought this was an intelligent idea outside of china. I mean fuck are you completely insane? Putting a cap on the number of children you can have and forced abortions is not something a sane person should be thinking.

'I'm not advocating any living 3rd + child be shot, nor that if a family has a 3rd child that it be aborted.' - Guessing you missed that part. And no, nobody thinks it's a nice thing to do, just that it's necessary.

I've never seen abortion as necessary, to me it just seems like the easy way out to people who don't want to take care of the children they foolishly create through unprotected or unplanned sex. And by unplanned I mean having sex when you are obviously fertile but don't believe that you are capable of getting pregnant by some arbitrary means or that you're just sex-crazed and want to have sex dozens of times without thinking about it

 

[Darkmantle]

I think they should be allowed to have as many children as they want to have.

And, where is the spare planet you're going to need to house, feed and supply them?

Yeah, because given the choice people are obviously going to opt to churn out 20 children.

You have no sense of statistics do you...

For every family who has more than two kids. One family has to have only one child to maintain some semblance of stability.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG

As we can clearly see, the CURRENT rate of growth is entirely unsustainable - sure we have spare land now, but at current rate of growth by 2100 we definatly will not; that ladies is what we call an exponential curve if you paid attention in maths.

A minority of people are going to go off and have 20... 10 or even 5 kids. But that's still 3 kids too many in a world where juvenile deaths are nearly zero in the developed world.

Have you ever looked at those stats by country? Because in developed countries we are RIGHT on the border of a replacement birthrate in all 1st world countries. It's constant in every case, the more education, access to contraceptives and equal rights for women, the closer we get to replacement birthrates. It's 3rd world countries that are making our global population soar, so doing anything in the states or Canada to curb global population will do fuck all. The best way is to actually help the 3rd world get on it's feet.

And for every family that has 5 kids, half a dozen will have one kid. It evens itself out.

 

[Xan Krieger]

2 maximum and this is one of the few cases where human rights don't matter, there's bigger things like human survival.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

For the sake of argument I'll say zero, at least for a decade or so. Let a decent chunk of our population die off before we insist on filling the gap to exceed the number of deaths.



As far as enforcement, obviously you can't. not without turning your government into a kind of totalitarian "big brother" state. So you just discourage breeding by increasing the incentive to the alternative. For example tax credits for households with no children. Decreasing returns for every child until the number of children in the household equals or exceeds the number of adults in the home.

So why should a family that has fewer children keep more of their paycheck than one that has let's say two more children? A family that has to pay higher taxes would eventually become homeless and/or living off of the government. either that or the stress rate would cause mental breakdowns and increase the amount of violence. Either way, a family that has more mouths to feed needs a bigger amount of money in order to survive even if the amount of people living in the same family was formed under less than reasonable means

By the same argument why should a person who has engaged in the relatively unimpressive act of procreating get to keep more of theirs? Why should we reward those who lack the foresight to make sure that they can take care of their families without additional assistance?

 

[dagens24]

This thread makes me sick. Procreation is a fundamental human right that should NEVER be limited.

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/07/china-forced-abortion.html

 

[Pinkamena]

Wouldn't it be better to allow a little more than two children? I mean, not all people are able to reproduce, some children might die before reaching maturity, some people might not want to have children at all, etc.

 

[Delsana]

2 Is a nice number.

Now, if they have twins and already had one kid.. or they had quints, or quads, or some strange thing happen... those babies are allowed to stay.

 

[Don Savik]

Humanity is going to always consume more than it creates. I'm not being misanthropic, I'm just being understanding of the majority. Certain people are NEVER going to be convinced that having more children than they can support, raise, nuture, teach, etc is bad for them. And how exactly are you going to teach them? If you put a child limit then they'll just rationalize their actions against a "us vs oppressive government" scenario where you're the bad guy trying to destroy families.

 

[Tevious]

Sometimes, after going for a stroll in the city I live in, I start thinking that the spartans had the right idea when it came to population control. Seeing people who leech off the community and have more and more ******** kids makes me want to start a genocide.

 

[HappyCastor]

SECRET OPTION F: Expand into the limitless expanse of space beyond our atmosphere(filled with planets, moons, asteroids, and comets, which in turn have vast amount of resources) and not have to worry about what sounds like a law that is a complete waste of human resources(these will probably be in short demand), time, and money. Enforcing would also be about as easy as trying to give a wolverine an enema, and then you'd have to deal with the civil uproar. Also, what if you set the limit to two kids,and someone has triplets? Or they have one kid and then they have twins? Setting the limit to 3 or 4 isn't helping, that's more kids then most people(or most that I know) have.

 

[Black-Toof]

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG

Haha, seems legit. Although I do agree with your points.
Especially about the Boom & Bust Food Resource.

2 Is a nice number.

Now, if they have twins and already had one kid.. or they had quints, or quads, or some strange thing happen... those babies are allowed to stay.

Sure, i agree also, and this would naturally be counter balanced by infertile women, adoptions and such.


There have been some people saying that you can have 2, but you can also have more if you can pay for them.
I would disagree, On a sensitive subject such as this, equality should be kept primarily.
Footballers / Bankers should not be allowed to have a myriad of children because their job is grossly overpaid.
This would cause a large rift between social classes (larger).
Not to mention that the richest people in the world are not necessarily the most skilled.

 

[Black-Toof]

SECRET OPTION F: Expand into the limitless expanse of space beyond our atmosphere and not have to worry about it!

I'd feel quite guilty if humans spread throughout the galaxy without thought.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

Well aren't we all feeling cheery and lovely today.

 

[Scrustle]

I don't think that anyone should be legally restricted to how many children they have, except perhaps unless there was a huge problem with over-population. Like we have now.

But for the sake of argument I put 3. That seems about right to me. If I ever had children I don't think I'd ever have more than 2, but more than 3 seems pretty ridiculous to me. How the hell do you control that many kids?

 

[Seives-Sliver]

As long as the couple can afford the children, sure, have as many as you want. If a couple is on welfare, poor, and lives in squalor, then I would think that it is not ethicly correct to bring more and more children in on such a poor situation. I am one of three children in my family (Though both my parents had a child in a previous marriage) my parents were able to support me and all my siblings rather well, and we were all middle-class. To put a limit on how many children one can have is not right, but to say, start taking babies away when it's proven a parent isn't fit, and keeping them until such a time is determined a parent is fit to care for said child, is a good idea...Now only if we had something like that...A protection service for children perhaps...

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yeah, because that worked so well for China, except for all the problems they had with it. I know overpopulation is an issue but I think dropping a law down on people to limit how many children you can have still has problems that need to be worked out.