Poll: Maximum Children Allowed per Couple

[Mr_RogersCU13]

I would say that the right to have as many children as you please is fundamental (given by nature or God, depending on your persuasion), and can't be taken away.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I stopped reading at "people are outgrowing the planet and our ability to support the population." Why? Because we have artificial food and we have a lot of land to build skyscrapers on.

Water isn't a problem, housing isn't a problem, food isn't a problem. I really don't see the problem if I'm honest. All this Malthusianism repeats itself over and over and it never comes to anything, humanity always finds a way to support itself. When we actually have run out of space the I expect we'll be in much bigger conundrums than whether or not we should limit the number of children each couple can have.

 

[Snowbell]

You know, I said exactly the same thing recently on another post,about limiting the number of births per year, hang on I might as well go lift it directly

Ah, here we go;

I was actually having the same debate with some friends yesterday. As I see it, a better method than the one-child policy is to have a birth cap each year. The previous year, people would apply to have a child and their finance and situation would be assessed to decide whether they would be appropriate to have children.

The benefits to this would be:
Families can still have multiple children (within reason)
There would be no more 'chav' families living off child benefits
Children would more likely be born into a good family structure who can support them
It would create a motivation for people to work hard to be approved
Overpopulation would stop being a problem
Birth control would become mandatory, meaning fewer teenage girls would have to suffer traumatic abortions
Jobs would be created in the form of assessing the families and doing the paperwork
Numbers of adoptions would rise, as they would be exempt from the birth limit

The drawbacks are that rich families could be given preference (though limiting the number of children per family to, say 3 would help prevent this), and there would be a whole lot of fuss from pro-choice factions and religions who're annoyed their congregation can't have as many children to fuel their ranks

Inb4 'That's a really harsh view and you should feel bad': Can YOU think of a better way to prevent overpopulation?
I have a lot of pro-choice views too, and I'm not saying this 'conservative' policy should be implimented I just can't think of a better way to combat overpopulation and job saturation.

 

[cookingwithrage]

On how many you can support. If you're a poor crack whore, you shouldn't even be allowed to think about kids.

 

[WanderingFool]

We SERIOUSLY need to reduce our population total by a solid billion or so.

It's just for general reasons. More food for everyone, space, blah blah blah.

it would just increase the quality of life really. And if we simply keep increasing our population this planet is gonna burn out faster than you can count the children being born themselves.

What we need is a good, old-fashioned mass slaughter.

Man... where are the reapers when you fucking need them, eh?

 

[Superlative]

How many kids u should have depends on the amount of money you make and, more importantly, how much time you can give to those childern.

even if your household brings in over 200k a year, if that money comes from the man and woman working insane hours constantly, then they shouldn't have even one kid if neither person is willing or able to cut down on hours.

your nation's population also should be factored in. if you live in China, stick to having one or two kids, due to over-population. if you live in Japan, have as many as you can afford due to that whole...you know... slowly aging into oblivion thing.

capatcha: for keeps

 

[spartan231490]

I don't support a maximum. I support licencing, because some people just shouldn't be allowed to have children. Any violation should result in the child being put up for adoption, to stop people who want to have children but shouldn't, and the parents should be sterilized, for those people who can neither close their legs nor wear a condom. A licence could be obtained in between conception and birth as easily as before birth. The licence would be free, and it would arrive in a timely fashion. This solves the problem of disgenics that is provably occurring nearly worldwide, and also help drastically cut down on unwanted pregnancies. It would also begin to reduce the stigma around adoption.

 

[Darkmantle]

You know, I said exactly the same thing recently on another post,about limiting the number of births per year, hang on I might as well go lift it directly

Ah, here we go;

I was actually having the same debate with some friends yesterday. As I see it, a better method than the one-child policy is to have a birth cap each year. The previous year, people would apply to have a child and their finance and situation would be assessed to decide whether they would be appropriate to have children.

The benefits to this would be:
Families can still have multiple children (within reason)
There would be no more 'chav' families living off child benefits
Children would more likely be born into a good family structure who can support them
It would create a motivation for people to work hard to be approved
Overpopulation would stop being a problem
Birth control would become mandatory, meaning fewer teenage girls would have to suffer traumatic abortions
Jobs would be created in the form of assessing the families and doing the paperwork
Numbers of adoptions would rise, as they would be exempt from the birth limit

The drawbacks are that rich families could be given preference (though limiting the number of children per family to, say 3 would help prevent this), and there would be a whole lot of fuss from pro-choice factions and religions who're annoyed their congregation can't have as many children to fuel their ranks

Inb4 'That's a really harsh view and you should feel bad': Can YOU think of a better way to prevent overpopulation?
I have a lot of pro-choice views too, and I'm not saying this 'conservative' policy should be implimented I just can't think of a better way to combat overpopulation and job saturation.

A better way to combat over population?

Education and women's rights. The more educated a population, the closer that population gets to a replacement birth rate naturally. No human rights violations required.

 

[okyVdtCP]

Christ, what the hell is wrong with you people?
You really want to limit how many children a couple is allowed to have? How do you want to enforce this?
There shouldn't be a limit. No government should be telling its people how many children they are allowed to have. If you think they should, then you're an idiot.

 

[Edible Avatar]

No limit.

No person or collective should have any say in your right to reproduce.

BTW, I think we should severely cut food aid to under-developed countries. They grow their own food, and then population would drop and stabilize.

EDIT: Wow, now i'm really bummed by all the Malthus believers in here. Relax guys, the population always naturally evens out.

 

[Snowbell]

A better way to combat over population?

Education and women's rights. The more educated a population, the closer that population gets to a replacement birth rate naturally. No human rights violations required.

Sadly, in Britain, child benefits can actually be better financially for some people than not having a child at all, leading a lot people to have multiple kids when living on a very low income.

By women's rights I presume you mean free access to abortion, which is also available to we women in this country, but upon becoming pregnant a lot of women choose to not abort the fetus.

Education also may not work, as a lot of the families who account for large amounts of children are religious and ignore such education, for example continuing to believe that dinosaurs did not exist and that contraception is wrong etc.

Although I'd prefer it if the answer was simply 'show people the right way', there's a whole lot of idiots in the world who'll never listen to such advice, especially when it affects the population as a whole rather than individuals.

 

[chadachada123]

As many as you have the drive and resources for.

If you don't want kids, don't fucking have kids. If you don't know how to have kids, don't fucking have kids. If you can't afford to have kids, don't fucking have kids.

But even then, limit it to 3 to counter for kids that die before rearing kids of their own and to counter for couples that don't have kids.

 

[Darkmantle]

A better way to combat over population?

Education and women's rights. The more educated a population, the closer that population gets to a replacement birth rate naturally. No human rights violations required.

Sadly, in Britain, child benefits can actually be better financially for some people than not having a child at all, leading a lot people to have multiple kids when living on a very low income.

By women's rights I presume you mean free access to abortion, which is also available to we women in this country, but upon becoming pregnant a lot of women choose to not abort the fetus.

Education also may not work, as a lot of the families who account for large amounts of children are religious and ignore such education, for example continuing to believe that dinosaurs did not exist and that contraception is wrong etc.

Although I'd prefer it if the answer was simply 'show people the right way', there's a whole lot of idiots in the world who'll never listen to such advice, especially when it affects the population as a whole rather than individuals.

you are aware that most if not all 1st world countries are near replacement birthrate right? We're already there. It's 3rd world countries that the overpopulation problem lies in.

And factor in all the baby boomers we will be losing soon...

EDIT: well there's abortion, but just stuff like allowing women in the workforce helps. Gives women a purpose other than having babies. That could be worded better I'm sure :/

 

[BeeGeenie]

Remember when we used to have wars, and famine, and plagues, and bad health care to keep the population in check?
Good times...

 

[Korolev]

It should be 2 .3 actually. Just having 2 children per couple won't actually stabilize the population, because of accidents, deaths, etc. You actually need a few couples to have three if you are going to have long term population stability.

I heard a theory once stating that it would be good to give each individual the right to have 1 and a quarter children. When they marry someone, they merge their rights and can have 2 and a half. Obviously you can't have half a child, so you can sell your half to another couple who want three.

 

[CityofTreez]

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

Welcome to the escapist! Where lovely members advocate forced population control! Whoo!

 

[CrazyDave DC]

Sounds too much like socialism? I think you mean authoritarianism given that the restriction of civil liberties occurs in dictatorships of varying ideological bents. Also, talk of "first world" and "third world" is awfully outdated and quite offensive to people from developing countries.

Anyhoo, while it would be better for the planet to have a one-child policy, such a law would only be acceptable if society arrived at some kind of consensus based on a number of public opinion polls and referendums indicating that a majority of people would be in favour of chipping away at their own freedom. Since this statute would effect pretty much everyone, a sizable majority, say 2/3 or 3/4 would probably be needed in order to conclude that this law would best serve the people.

Even writing that felt ridiculous, so I can't ever imagine people actively wanting to make that a law. A better way of going about limiting the number of children born would be to start public awareness campaigns urging families not to breed like rabbits. This way, an effective campaign might produce worthwhile results that weren't garnered by limiting people's freedom.

 

[Pat8u]

3 is a good number of maxium as it can easily be handled but I don't care for population control as the more people the better chance we have against possible aliens

 

[DanielBrown]

Two should be enough for any family.
Though what we really need is another world war to reduce the population a bit.

 

[Snowbell]

you are aware that most if not all 1st world countries are near replacement birthrate right? We're already there. It's 3rd world countries that the overpopulation problem lies in.

And factor in all the baby boomers we will be losing soon...

EDIT: well there's abortion, but just stuff like allowing women in the workforce helps. Gives women a purpose other than having babies. That could be worded better I'm sure :/

That could indeed by written much better, but I thank you for considering us worthy of being allowed in the workplace XD perhaps 'Equalising male and female pay and motivating young female children to take on important roles in society' would sound better?

Are we losing the Baby Boomers or are they already past the age where they can provide more children? I can't currently remember what decade they began 'mass-producing', so to speak, but presuming it was either of the World Wars their fertility will have long discounted them at this point.

I don't have experience of other countries so I prefer to focus on my own, where I have at least some small knowledge of proceedings, but I am aware that Third World countries are accounting for a lot of the world's population, and although I approve of their progress in terms of medicine and healthcare, I have no idea what will happen once their death rate reduces and more children start surviving past birth, again putting a strain on the country in question's resources.

In Britain it's more a lack of jobs than a lack of space we're experiencing, with thousands of us on benefits and payed unemployment. And yes this could be fixed by improving our economy as pointed out to me by a friend, but to house a growing population means converting yet more of our green land into estates, and I really don't see the long term positive effects of having a massive population count that just ruins the beauty nature provides, does the world really need more humans?