Family size limits

[peadar1987]

This is going to be controversial, just the way I like it!!

So the problem is we have far too many people on the planet already for our environment and resources to handle, and the number is only getting bigger.

One of the ways that could solve this problem is by introducing a limit to family sizes, either strictly enforced, or by a "child tax" on couples with more than say, 2 children.

Would you support such a scheme were it brought in?

 

[Hentenza]

Nope.

 

[peadar1987]

Nope.

Why not?

 

[Krus]

Why not?

Because Church says nope.

 

[Hentenza]

Why not?

I believe that having children is one of those unalienable rights spoken about in the declaration of independence.

 

[jayem]

It's too authoritarian.

I prefer positive incentives. How about paying people to be voluntarily sterilized? The fewer children you have, the more you're paid.

 

[Rhovanion]

While I agree there are already far too many humans on this planet and that we definitely need to stop breeding so much, I wouldn't want to see a family size limit enforced by law. Look what it did to all the little children who happened to be born of the female gender in China. Not a great solution.

I like jayem's idea!

 

[canukian]

sounds like you would be happier in the peoples republis of china, where they forcibly limit childbearing. oh,and strickly limit discoarse on the internet. and remove organs from concious political dissidents. look it up. bloody facism.

 

[peadar1987]

While I agree there are already far too many humans on this planet and that we definitely need to stop breeding so much, I wouldn't want to see a family size limit enforced by law. Look what it did to all the little children who happened to be born of the female gender in China. Not a great solution.

I like jayem's idea!

You're right, of course. Jayem's idea is good as well. I don't think simply putting a "baby tax" into effect would be a good idea though, as this would simply allow the rich to have as many kids as they like, and restrict the poor.

I am firmly of the opinion that we need to reduce world population, or at least halt growth, but I am just not 100% sure if there is a fully ethical way to do this.

@Canukian:
I must have missed the part of my own post where I advocated censorship of the media and harvesting of organs from people who don't agree with me. Thanks for pointing it out. Your comments, as always, have been most constructive.

 

[canukian]

that is the kind of country that people like you who think it ok to "stricktly enforce" child bearing should be happy in. bloody facism.

 

[Athene]

This is going to be controversial, just the way I like it!!

So the problem is we have far too many people on the planet already for our environment and resources to handle, and the number is only getting bigger.

One of the ways that could solve this problem is by introducing a limit to family sizes, either strictly enforced, or by a "child tax" on couples with more than say, 2 children.

Would you support such a scheme were it brought in?

How would you enforce a limit of two children? Mandatory abortions? Forced sterilisation after birth of second child? Either way would give the government a huge amount of control over our bodies and I'm opposed to that on principle.

 

[keith99]

This is going to be controversial, just the way I like it!!

So the problem is we have far too many people on the planet already for our environment and resources to handle, and the number is only getting bigger.

One of the ways that could solve this problem is by introducing a limit to family sizes, either strictly enforced, or by a "child tax" on couples with more than say, 2 children.

Would you support such a scheme were it brought in?

To a degree. In principle. remember that at this point in the U.S. there is a deduction for children. How about thinking of no deduction after 2 kids as a starting point.

But there are problems.

What about kids already born (or conceived). What about accidents or rape. What if two previously married people with kids marry?

But one thing is clear, mild steps early are better and kinder than drastic steps later.

Heck, how about a decreasing child exemption? There are 2 very good points for this. First it is a more accurate reflection of the costs of having a child. You need lots of things for the first baby, hardly any for a second. The second is it does not have to be much to start getting the idea across that more kids is not good or approved of.

 

[Rhovanion]

I don't think there is an ethical way to reduce the world population to be honest. Not if you're going to do it by law. But at the same time, it has to be done somehow. Naturally, if people all across the world would come to the realization that having more kids than an entire village isn't really necessary in these modern times, we'd see an end to the problem fairly quickly. People won't come to this realization on their own though. I think education is vital here.

 

[pgp_protector]

You mean I couldn't adopt more than 2 kids ?

 

[peadar1987]

that is the kind of country that people like you who think it ok to "stricktly enforce" child bearing should be happy in. bloody facism.

This coming from a person who thinks Muslims should be banned from running for political office?

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is going to be controversial, just the way I like it!!

So the problem is we have far too many people on the planet already for our environment and resources to handle, and the number is only getting bigger.

One of the ways that could solve this problem is by introducing a limit to family sizes, either strictly enforced, or by a "child tax" on couples with more than say, 2 children.

Would you support such a scheme were it brought in?

One I have been thinking of. When a person turns 18 (or what ever the age of adulthood in that are is), they get one child voucher to be used. You can sell or use the child voucher. If you have a child without a chlid voucher, there is a fine based on the price of a child voucher.

Of course, I am not actually agreeing with this, just thinking it would be interesting, and would support it more than a limit per person which cannot be sold by those who don't want children.

P.S. Adopting would not consume a voucher.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I believe that having children is one of those unalienable rights spoken about in the declaration of independence.

What about being able to raise them?

P.S. when a woman is in jail, she is not allowed to reproduce (at least, I think she isn't). If it is really an unalienable right, and not just a privilege of some sort, should we not allow women to reproduce even in prison?

Better yet, what about extremely abuse parents, say those who have killed children in the past due to neglect, but who are now out of jail? Should they be allowed to reproduce, or should we just limit them of raising any children they have?

 

[lawtonfogle]

How would you enforce a limit of two children? Mandatory abortions? Forced sterilisation after birth of second child? Either way would give the government a huge amount of control over our bodies and I'm opposed to that on principle.

The government already has a huge amount of control. All they have to do is find a law your broke and they can imprison you, and most of us have broken some law, not matter how archaic and trivial it is.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This coming from a person who thinks Muslims should be banned from running for political office?

Well, look what they did to China's government.

 

[white dove]

I prefer positive incentives. How about paying people to be voluntarily sterilized? The fewer children you have, the more you're paid.

Yikes. Taken further, what types of people do you think this idea would attract? And what would be the implications therein?