Child Limitation.. or not?

[Shu]

I don't have much time, and We were just talking about this with a couple of friends last night...

What do you think, should there be a limit on how many children a person can have (excluding twins, because this is a bit unfair and unplanned).

I am not going to post my opinion quite yet, but I'll keep you guessing..

So what do you say?

 

[Midnight Memoire]

Ooo, this is a good one. I've had this discussion with some co-workers in the past. It was an interesting conversation to say the least.

First off, I'm going to have to say that I'm Pro-Life meaning that abortions to control the amount of children a family has is not how I'd like things to be handled.

Did you know that after having two children some women are asked if they would like their tubes tied? I find that interesting. It's as if the doctors are hinting that two is enough. I agree that doctors should discuss with women this option as well as discuss it with males. I don't think there should be a forced limitation to the amount of children but I think there should be a suggested limitation. I don't agree with the way China handles their overpopulation ordeal though, that's for sure.

We're going to need to find a way to live on the Moon if we keep populating so quickly.

 

[Fusilli]

I don't really think there should be a limitation on the amount of children a couple can have. How would it work anyway? Would it be children per couple or children per person? How would it work with single parents or divorced parents, etc? Besides, these days when more women are becoming career-driven, many are choosing to have less children, if any. And I think most people who choose to have children only want 1-3 anyway, since it's just easier in every aspect. There will be people who want big families too, but I think these people are a minority anyway. And what if there were limitations, what penalties would this involve? Forced abortions and sterilizations? I really don't think that's the way to go, since a lot people probably wouldn't want to exceed the limits anyway.

Of course, I'm making a lot of assumptions there, I'm just going by what recent trends show. I think it should be up to the couple/person, because I really doubt that most people want to have huge families.


Sooo to sum up, I think that child limitations would only really affect a minority of people anyway, making it a little pointless and unfair on those who DO want big families, or have unplanned pregnancies. But this is on the assumption that the limitation would be something like 3 kids per couple. >_>

 

[blakstang98]

Well, to limit the amount of children a couple can have is pretty restrictive. China does this for population control, which probably isn't all that bad of a thing considering how densely populated the country is. But it is pretty bad in a sense that the government has that much control over how a family wants to run their life. So I've heard that if you wanted to adopt children, chances are that it will be a Chinese girl because they prefer the families have boys to turn over the family name and such.

As restrictive as it may be, and the fact that I don't like for the government to have so much control, I do believe that some control wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Some families get in way over their head and have too many children. In turn they don't make enough money to support them. Octomom is a great example for this. The movie Idiocracy is another example. Not to say that people who lack education have more children, but they don't plan as carefully as the ones with a little more financial sense. But it is pretty bad to see a poverty-stricken family continue to have children they can't afford to take care of. Then if these families go on welfare, the taxpayers end up paying for these children that should have been planned for a better financial situation.

So I guess I can take both sides of the argument. But I think government control of child limitation is the greater evil here. We do not want the United States to become another communist country (even though we're slowly getting there).

/end political rant

 

[Donald Trump]

So I guess I can take both sides of the argument. But I think government control of child limitation is the greater evil here. We do not want the United States to become another communist country (even though we're slowly getting there).

/end political rant

Better Communist than being run by Chiang Kei Shek, but I digress.
Whenever people talk about this they always bring up China's one child policy, however that policy applies to urban China, in rural areas, there are no such limits. That's because they need children to work the farm for them and eventually take over the farm when they die, which happens in ever 'normal' country. Male children are prefered because in China, traditionally, the husband and wife have looked after the husband's parents when they retire. As the wife would have male brothers it all works out. But because of the one child policy things can't continue as they used too. It's a matter of practicality, rather than them being nasty communists, their policies make sense, rather than the Pope's religious bullshit, 'have more sex, have more kids, have more AIDS'.

That being said, I just don't think it's necessary to have population restrictions. It's inevitable that population levels will increase. They'll be fights for food, the weak will die, and natural disasters will kill people, we'll come back to these kinds of levels and it'll be a lot more stable.

 

[blakstang98]

That being said, I just don't think it's necessary to have population restrictions. It's inevitable that population levels will increase. They'll be fights for food, the weak will die, and natural disasters will kill people, we'll come back to these kinds of levels and it'll be a lot more stable.

For once, we can actually agree on something, amen to that! The strong will prosper and the weak will perish, etc etc. Wars tend to take down the population count a few ticks as well.

 

[M1ghty Mous3]

It works for china. Why not us? More then anything i'd much rather focus on the intelligence of the kids. I don't wanna be an old geezer hating his neighbors cause his kids won't stop yelling and being shitty little brats. I'd like to live in a world where people are smart and not dumb asses. thanks.

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

I don't really agree with the idea that their should be limitations as to how many children a couple/person can have.

Though I do think that their should be limitations when it comes to people who simply can't afford to raise one child, let alone three or four.

But I really doubt such a law would ever come into place in Australia. If it does it'll be long after I'm dead.

I think that if you know you can afford to have a certain amount of children and that you're prepared to take on the responsibilities that come with it, then it's the persons decision and no one elses.

If you end up pregnant by rape/stupidity etc and you wish to have an abortion simply because you know you're not cut out to be a parent then I have no problem with that either.

The only thing worse than having an abortion is bringing a child into a world of uncertainty. Chances are that the child won't get looked after and they will turn out into a little horror that the world could do without.

Anyway that's for another discussion.

I don't agree that there should be limitations, just people making better decisions. <_<

 

[Shu]

Well I would not go as far as China's limitation but they do that out of a need, so in my eyes I can't exactly judge them unless I were in their shoes.

I agree with child limitations to an extent, but hear me out before jumping on my case. Alright for those of you who said 1-3 children is normal, I totally agree and these are not the parents I frown upon all that much. It's the families that have 4 or more generally. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing these families since I know some good families out there, but this thread was inspired from the TV shows with 8 kids or more and such. It made me sick when they planned to have that many.

Before going into a rant, I am fully aware of the amount of kids Catholic American parents generally have. (5 to 7 usually) I also know some parents are more eligible at raising kids than others. What it all comes down to though is parenting basically. Does one have the ability to take care of the children fully as far as financially comes (health insurance, food on the table, clothes on their backs). Also does one have the ability to take care of them emotionally.. meaning able to nurture them on to a guided path in life. (teaching them this that and the other) Also providing them with love and care and understanding that a child needs.

We aren't in the baby boomers generation anymore, so we don't have the excuse of birthing out 6 kids in a 8 year span..

America.. land of the free, (right..) we probably would never see a bill passed until our resources are being squeezed. When a man and a woman or woman and woman (sperm doner I assume)/ man vs man (Same).. wish to have a kid I believe their needs to be some sort of qualification.

I can't tell you how many bastard kids I've seen here living in the south. The mom and dad have a kid in hopes of saving their marriage and turn around get a divorce in the next week, and the father runs off to another woman never acknowledging having a kid in the first place. Years later that kid is asking where his babies daddy is.. and so on.

If a family wishes to have more than 3 kids I believe there needs to be a stronger qualification to be honest. Here's why.. and it is sad to compare it to this. Think as it if your child is a visa card except with a 50% APR. When you have a kid, you have to buy copious amounts of diapers and they are constantly outgrowing clothes. The education systems can be free, but at the same time transportation is needed. Like a credit card always making payments and such for the kid, a person is always liable if he or she loses his job. Also during the day, if they are working their kid needs either a sitter or to be in day care, and ask any parent if daycare is free or not.. If their income is still lower than average, than most likely the person should be limited for the protection of the parent and most definitely protection for the kid.

A baby should be treated like a life, not a 2nd chance for the parent. It will become aware of its surroundings one day, and whether it was raised wholeheartedly or not, will develop their life skills in order to survive this crazy world. I'm not saying those that are financially secure should be able to have kids either... take in mind some of these school shootings and such have just been because of neglect of parenting. (can't always blame it on depression, a parent is in the wrong sometimes) If you are not in touch of what your kid is doing on a day to day basis, this is already bad parenting. I sound kind out of my element though, since I have never had a kid.. but these are at least what I would "Assume" would be right.

This post was not to center around a nations resources.. it was to actually focus on the moral backings of our system. We could sit here and be all doom and gloom about the world as a whole, running out of fuel and food.. and water... blah blah - but I won't be alive to see that day.. so I have no right to post that.

In the end I think there should be a written test or a mental adviser before having more kids than one can handle. If they fail for just reasons.. (which I could not even fathom what kind of reasons yet) then.. no extra kid.

 

[TheRealTrxd]

Ooo, this is a good one. I've had this discussion with some co-workers in the past. It was an interesting conversation to say the least.

First off, I'm going to have to say that I'm Pro-Life meaning that abortions to control the amount of children a family has is not how I'd like things to be handled.

Did you know that after having two children some women are asked if they would like their tubes tied? I find that interesting. It's as if the doctors are hinting that two is enough. I agree that doctors should discuss with women this option as well as discuss it with males. I don't think there should be a forced limitation to the amount of children but I think there should be a suggested limitation. I don't agree with the way China handles their overpopulation ordeal though, that's for sure.

We're going to need to find a way to live on the Moon if we keep populating so quickly.

I understand where you are coming from but you are sort of thinking a bit to easily. No limitation will make people happier for the mean time, of course it will but it will lead to MAJOR problems in the future! Its easy for you to say "Oh lets just find a way to live on a moon" because you arent part of the team that is researching ways to do that. For all you know it could be completley impossible!

As for me, i cant say. My brain is saying Limitation but my heart is saying no limitation.

 

[Flagg]

Before people start bleating about their rights being taken away, that the big bad government should have no say in the matter of how often we can breed, consider China. Back in the early 90's China implimented a "one child only" policy. They still have the worlds biggest population today at 1.2 billion. If they didn't impliment that policy their population would be unfeasably bigger. That would more poverty, less resources to go around and more homelessness. Today they have possibly the best economy in todays economic crisis and are bailing everyone out currently.

The point is, sooner of later there will be a cap on children simply due to a fact of you cant make food out of thin air.

Democracy has been abused for far too long by us and we're just turning into greedy locusts now.

 

[TheRealTrxd]

I agree with Flagg, its just too easy to say our rights are being violated and we should be allowed to do what we want but we have to realise that somewhere along the line THIS HAS TO HAPPEN. Its nobodies fault, you cant blame it on the goverment its just an unfortunate situation.

 

[Ness]

Before people start bleating about their rights being taken away, that the big bad government should have no say in the matter of how often we can breed, consider China. Back in the early 90's China implimented a "one child only" policy. They still have the worlds biggest population today at 1.2 billion. If they didn't impliment that policy their population would be unfeasably bigger. That would more poverty, less resources to go around and more homelessness. Today they have possibly the best economy in todays economic crisis and are bailing everyone out currently.

I believe that we've already addressed the issue of China's domestic policy in this regard. I think it's difficult to speculate of the consequences of China NOT adopting such a policy, though. I mean, there's some reason in what you're saying, that the negative consequences you've described are a possible outcome of not having a population controlling policy. However, the assumption that these negative consequences were guaranteed to occur doesn't stand as proof that the policy worked as it should have.

As stated previously, though, the Chinese government was just being pragmatic. Enacting these policies ensured that the negative consequences of a possible explosion of population did not occur...which is a reasonable goal of a government, I would say.

The point is, sooner of later there will be a cap on children simply due to a fact of you cant make food out of thin air.

It's true, you cannot make food out of thin air. I do not foresee a worldwide shortage of food ever occurring though. We would run out of space and/or energy resources first...if it ever even comes to that.

I do think, though, that it's going to take a lot more than that for a worldwide "cap on children". Certain countries/religions are simply never going to do that, due to the nature of their very existence.

Democracy has been abused for far too long by us and we're just turning into greedy locusts now.

I fail to see what democracy has to do with this issue...perhaps you could enlighten me?

 

[Flagg]

I believe that we've already addressed the issue of China's domestic policy in this regard. I think it's difficult to speculate of the consequences of China NOT adopting such a policy, though. I mean, there's some reason in what you're saying, that the negative consequences you've described are a possible outcome of not having a population controlling policy. However, the assumption that these negative consequences were guaranteed to occur doesn't stand as proof that the policy worked as it should have.

But we only have one planet. It's like global warming, whatever your stance on that subject is, we should treat it like it is a anthropogenic created problem because if we ignore it and the very worst happens... well, it's too late, and all the money in the world isn't going to buy you an ozone layer. I would rather nations of the world took actions on problems, domestic or global, by citing possible negative outcomes, because it's better to be safe than sorry, no?

As stated previously, though, the Chinese government was just being pragmatic. Enacting these policies ensured that the negative consequences of a possible explosion of population did not occur...which is a reasonable goal of a government, I would say.

It's irrelvant if the negative was possible or not, the fact it was possible is very alarming and you can't easily reverse negative outcomes of the magnitude being discussed in this thread.


It's true, you cannot make food out of thin air. I do not foresee a worldwide shortage of food ever occurring though. We would run out of space and/or energy resources first...if it ever even comes to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ood-shortages-how-will-we-feed-the-world.html
Have a read of that article. Also you would be alarmed if you knew just how much water was used to mantain agriculture around the world. Water is going to be a big problem in the hundred years, there are not many known aquifers left.


I do think, though, that it's going to take a lot more than that for a worldwide "cap on children". Certain countries/religions are simply never going to do that, due to the nature of their very existence.

Oh I agree, places like the African states and India are going to continue to breed like rabbits and until they are properly educated on such matters, some things will never change.



I fail to see what democracy has to do with this issue...perhaps you could enlighten me?

I replied to your other points in bold above.

The OP asked if having a limitation on children, in the West im assuming, is just? The natural knee jerk reaction to that is "is that an infringement of our rights?", which has everything to do with Democracy. I still stand by my point, that in the West, we take it for granted we can do what we want, take what we want, whenever we want, because we are enlightened and free and the rest of that illusion we're under. But I suppose we might never have a problem with food one day, if we go the way of Solent Green.

 

[CassinoChips]

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that there's a global overpopulation problem when the United States alone has 2.3 billion acres of land, the vast majority of it inhabitable. However, I would agree that there are independent, isolated enclaves of overpopulation in cities like Beijing, or New Delhi. Or Washington, DC, for that matter. But that's less a total fertility rate issue than it is a people need to make money issue. If those people could be scattered across their respective countries and still pay the bills, there wouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand, I have read some literature that says there's going to be an evolutionary bottleneck in the near future, and it's just a matter of how much of our culture survives to make it through that bottleneck.

On the topic of China's policy, they've begun to relax it.

Male children are prefered because in China, traditionally, the husband and wife have looked after the husband's parents when they retire.

While that's very probably true, it's overly simplistic. A Confucian society is incredibly hierarchical, and one of the hallmarks of the introduction of Confucianism to the Han Dynasty was its subservience of women. Women were expected, taught, and forced to take roles structurally beneath men in every aspect of life. And as the Han Chinese spread their influence over what would become modern day China (94% of all Chinese today are descendants of the Han Dynasty), the Confucian line of thinking took root. Thus, males are preferred because they are more valuable; not only to the family, but to the nation as well.

Interestingly, China very nearly developed the earliest form of "democracy," some hundreds of years before the Greeks did. Women achieved equal status with men, officials were elected, and the people could become upwardly mobile. Confucianism changed all that. /tangent

Bottom line, in my mind, is this: Procreation is biologically driven. Laws that are enacted that go against human nature for the most part fail epically, or have ghastly side effects, as in China. It's not that people in Africa or India are "uneducated" as to world population and resources. It's two reasons: A) they don't care. B) they're poor. A) It's tough to care about the world's problems when you don't know if you'll have enough food for dinner tonight. Or tomorrow night. Or the next. B) If you gave those same people access to sexual education and contraceptive devices, you'd see a marked drop in total birth rate. Why? Because being wealthy/poor or educated/uneducated doesn't change the amount of banging human beings do. Being wealthy allows one access to personal methods of birth control.

Economic viability solves a great number of the world's problems.

 

[Ness]

But we only have one planet. It's like global warming, whatever your stance on that subject is, we should treat it like it is a anthropogenic created problem because if we ignore it and the very worst happens... well, it's too late, and all the money in the world isn't going to buy you an ozone layer. I would rather nations of the world took actions on problems, domestic or global, by citing possible negative outcomes, because it's better to be safe than sorry, no?

It's irrelvant if the negative was possible or not, the fact it was possible is very alarming and you can't easily reverse negative outcomes of the magnitude being discussed in this thread.

I'm simply making a point: you can't reduce the argument to the two choices being presented. You cannot just say that the only alternatives are "no population control and negative consequence" or "population control and a lack of negative consequences". I just got the impression that this is what you trying to say in your argument...if not, then no problem. My point was that there's no way to directly prove that "population control measures" ALONE prevented those negative consequences, though it makes common sense that the helped, at least in part. Perhaps even a minor point, but a point nonetheless.

I agree though, on the point of "better safe than sorry". As you said, this is the only world we've got (at least for the foreseeable future), and it's certainly very prudent to take the best care of it that we can. I'm certainly more concerned, in a relative sense, with "planetary overcrowding" than "global warming"...but that's another topic for another day.

Have a read of that article. Also you would be alarmed if you knew just how much water was used to mantain agriculture around the world. Water is going to be a big problem in the hundred years, there are not many known aquifers left.

The article's all fine and good, but it doesn't provide for any relation between overpopulation and the food problems mentioned within. In fact, the article doesn't even suggest a catastrophic shortage of food...simply that food prices have increased significantly and that people want food in impoverished countries. Furthermore, the article doesn't indicate that these problems are caused by overpopulation, on the contrary, they not only suggest several other factors for the rise of food costs, but suggest alternate solutions as well.

I'm not particularly worried about water shortages so long as there are rainstorms, lakes, rivers, etc.

The OP asked if having a limitation on children, in the West im assuming, is just? The natural knee jerk reaction to that is "is that an infringement of our rights?", which has everything to do with Democracy. I still stand by my point, that in the West, we take it for granted we can do what we want, take what we want, whenever we want, because we are enlightened and free and the rest of that illusion we're under. But I suppose we might never have a problem with food one day, if we go the way of Solent Green.

Thanks for clearing up my question, I understand now.

If we are indeed referring to government-enacted population control measures in the West...I'd hardly say that concern over one's rights is a "knee jerk" reaction, it's a completely valid question. I'm not denying that our society has become somewhat complacent about protecting our rights from the government...but I'd also say that the threat isn't as serious as many people view it to be.

On that point, I think there are bigger issues to be concerned with than the issue of population control. From a political standpoint, such a measure would be too unpopular in a country like the USA to ever get close to passing. I can't see things getting bad enough to allow the government to slip that one past us...but I suppose I can't tell the future.

My personal perspective is that parents should simply be aware of their limits before they choose to bring a child into this world. If you can't support a child...don't have one. If you aren't financially stable, don't have a child (or eight). I think, at the end of the day, it should be a personal choice...but people should be more responsible about their choices, especially in this arena.

 

[Lirael]

Well, this is coincidental! I was talking to my dad about this very thing earlier on.

I don't think that the law should be in control of how many children any family has. Having a child is a basic human right.

However, I do think society would benefit if greater emphasis was placed on the positive living that results from having a child WHEN you can support it. I hate seeing children suffer because their parents can't provide them with good food, clothing that fits, or a warm house (because of heating bills). It's just not fair on the child, and it often leads to unecessary stress for the parent too, who will be upset to see their child suffer.

The problem is, emphasis on having children only when you're ready will make it more difficult for the people who decide to have them before they're ready. These people may become stigmatised, and will therefore feel unable to seek extra help if they need it. Sometimes, having kids can't be avoided (e.g. in cases of rape). Yes, yes, the woman can have an abortion, but don't underestimate the emotional stress of this decision. Women should not be treated like machines. It is perfectly possible for someone to love an unborn child unconditionally and deeply, even if that child was created by... a traumatic experience. :/

As with many debatable issues, there is no clear or easy answer. I do think something needs to be done to reduce the number of couples having kids they cannot support because kids should not have to suffer, but I hate to think about the measures a government would take to do this, and I hate to think about the attitudes it could lead to.

 

[Bambi]

Ooh I was having a rant about this to a lad at work yesterday, cant remember how we got ont he topic, but i dont think there should be a limit on how many kids a person/couple can have, but more about their personal situation. If you have one child, and you can't afford to support it, then you shouldn't be able to have another, and claim yet more benefits. You should at the very least be able to partially support yourself if you want more children. There are too many people that have the attitude, Il just have a kid, get a free house and get all my rent and that paid for. Being paid to pop out kid after kid is just ludicrous, I know of women who have gaggles of children and have never worked a day in their life, why should they be allowed to continue breeding? Its just bringing more people in to the world that will have the mentality that its ok to not get off your arse. Either forcibly sterillise them, or have the kids adopted.

Obviously if you have been left in a situation where you have kids, youre partner has left, or vice versa, that cant be helped, but its people that go into it knowingly, having several kids knowing fine well they have no means to suport them that get on my nerves

Also, repeat offenders should be sterillised or restricted from breeding until they have proved they are reformed characrers...

I know many wont agree with me, and my opinions are harsh, but I live in an area where the majority of people just dont work. And thaqt, if it were up to me, the human race would eventually die out becasue for one reason or another there would be no fucker having kids haha