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.
Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple
- Thread starter Black-Toof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
Haha, seems legit. Although I do agree with your points.RyuujinZERO said:
Especially about the Boom & Bust Food Resource.
Sure, i agree also, and this would naturally be counter balanced by infertile women, adoptions and such.Delsana said:
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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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.