Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Wait what. You're making huge leaps here by jumping right to the extreme. Who said anything about sterilisation? I just think that the only time there is any justification for government intervention in this area is if the parents in question are criminally abusive and/or negligent.
    So how would you enforce the law, then? I don't really think that fining people for having too many kids is enforcing the law as they've already broken it, and people who have enough money are going to do whatever they want anyway. Fining poor people is just going to make the lives of their children worse. Taking their children and putting it up for adoption/foster care would just put one more kid into a system that doesn't work.

  2. #202
    Well people like myself who are losers and will never have kids would not be affected much.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    So how would you enforce the law, then? I don't really think that fining people for having too many kids is enforcing the law as they've already broken it, and people who have enough money are going to do whatever they want anyway. Fining poor people is just going to make the lives of their children worse. Taking their children and putting it up for adoption/foster care would just put one more kid into a system that doesn't work.
    Thousands of children die from child abuse in the US every year. The foster care system may not be perfect or work particularly well, but given the choice it is still far superior to letting criminally abusive parents kill their children either through malice or cruel indifference.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Thousands of children die from child abuse in the US every year. The foster care system may not be perfect or work particularly well, but given the choice it is still far superior to letting criminally abusive parents kill their children either through malice or cruel indifference.
    I'm not necessarily talking about taking their kids away vs. letting them keep them as much as I am sterilization vs. taking their kids away.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    I'm not necessarily talking about taking their kids away vs. letting them keep them as much as I am sterilization vs. taking their kids away.
    Except I'm not talking about sterilisation at all. I thought I made that clear.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    So why specifically single out these abusive parents? Do you feel there is no hope for reform? What about murderers and rapists, should we stop them from having children?
    I could be convinced the government has no business telling anyone at anytime how many kids they can have.

  7. #207
    Mechagnome durza's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    hidden rain village
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleSilas View Post
    Dude he's just trying to annoy you......
    your right... i feel trolled, thanks for for enlightening me
    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by fordpinto View Post
    I could be convinced the government has no business telling anyone at anytime how many kids they can have.
    They can't because it's one of the human rights to be able to do with your body what ever you want, and no one else except for you can decide that. By the time they decide to remove the human rights we'll be dead within a few years anyways.

  9. #209
    Capping the amount of children you can have in a country like... America would be pointless and we'd actually LOSE population, fairly rapidly.

    They might say they only want each household to have 3 children. But there are a LOT of Americans who aren't interested in having children at ALL. If they want an average of 3 (or 2.3 or whatever it is supposed to be to sustain a population), and 2 families choose to have 0 kids, then other families have to have more to make up for it.

    This is only relevant in countries where many/most people are having a lot of children. Not an issue in America. It doesn't matter if someone decides they want to have 10 kids, it's fine, because there's going to be other people who want to have 0.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Except I'm not talking about sterilisation at all. I thought I made that clear.
    Then why did you reply to me in the first place when I clearly am? The thread is about a child limit and we were talking about ways to enforce said limit, one of those being sterilization. Even if you don't want to use it as a way to enforce the policy, you would still have to take it into account as an argument that somebody else was making.

    Quote Originally Posted by fordpinto View Post
    I could be convinced the government has no business telling anyone at anytime how many kids they can have.
    Same here. I just want to make both positions justify their arguments.

  11. #211
    Brewmaster Linry's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcadem View Post
    Enforcing this law is impossible. So it would be worthless.
    china does it, i believe you are taxed for every additional child you have over the limit.
    personally imo there's no need for some one to have more then 5 children. that's just way too many in this day in age.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Amazing. You have nothing to do now that people who aren't you have cleared Ulduar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boubouille View Post
    PS: Pandas are awesome.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Then why did you reply to me in the first place when I clearly am? The thread is about a child limit and we were talking about ways to enforce said limit, one of those being sterilization. Even if you don't want to use it as a way to enforce the policy, you would still have to take it into account as an argument that somebody else was making.
    Because the post I was originally replying to made no mention of sterilisation. If you recall, you were replying to someone saying the government has no business telling anyone how many children to have, except abusive parents. I was essentially agreeing that abusive parents is the most relevant group in a discussion of limiting reproduction, compared to other generic criminals.

  13. #213
    Deleted
    At least on most countries on the west they need to pay to ppl do more then 2/3. If that no happen many cultures will fall. We are doom.

  14. #214
    Watch the personal attacks guys. Post respectfully, and report a post if you feel it's in violation of our rules.

  15. #215
    Considering overpopulation is and will be one of biggest global issues we have and will ever face no i have no problem with using this as a tool to control the number of people on the planet.

  16. #216
    At this point it kind of needs to be capped at one... There are way more people than there is room.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Because the post I was originally replying to made no mention of sterilisation. If you recall, you were replying to someone saying the government has no business telling anyone how many children to have, except abusive parents. I was essentially agreeing that abusive parents is the most relevant group in a discussion of limiting reproduction, compared to other generic criminals.
    The entire context of the discussion contains sterilization as a possible argument. You can't just dismiss it as not being part of your argument when somebody brings it up. I brought it up, and instead of giving an alternative (which I asked for) you just said that you didn't say anything about sterilization. I want to know, how would you enforce it? What government intervention? Because taking their kids away (the only other thing we've discussed) isn't enforcing the hypothetical law in question. Maybe I misunderstood your position and you weren't attempting to argue about the original point of the thread?

  18. #218
    I'd consider moving. When that happens, it's not really democratic anymore. You may not like someone with 20 kids, but to that person, it brings immense joy, and it's beautiful to them. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean they don't have Constitutional rights to do such a thing.

    Anyways, the Supreme Court would overturn such a ruling, although the ruling would never get passed anyway.

  19. #219
    Pandaren Monk Shamburger's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Dome View Post
    I'd consider moving. When that happens, it's not really democratic anymore. You may not like someone with 20 kids, but to that person, it brings immense joy, and it's beautiful to them. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean they don't have Constitutional rights to do such a thing.

    Anyways, the Supreme Court would overturn such a ruling, although the ruling would never get passed anyway.
    If they can provide for 20 kids without help from the gov't I'm all for that. It's when I have to start paying for said persons children that I have a problem with. It sounds cold-hearted but I'd rather my tax money go to fixing a road than some irresponsible parent who to ignorant to "wrap it up".

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    The entire context of the discussion contains sterilization as a possible argument. You can't just dismiss it as not being part of your argument when somebody brings it up. I brought it up, and instead of giving an alternative (which I asked for) you just said that you didn't say anything about sterilization. I want to know, how would you enforce it? What government intervention? Because taking their kids away (the only other thing we've discussed) isn't enforcing the hypothetical law in question. Maybe I misunderstood your position and you weren't attempting to argue about the original point of the thread?
    Okay, just because something is brought up in a thread, doesn't mean that every conversation in that thread has to revolve around it. The overall discussion may contain sterilisation, but I am only talking about a very specific point - safeguarding children from criminally abusive/negligent parents. The context of my point, if you navigate through the chain of quotations and replies, is that government should not be allowed to limit the number of children people can have.

    In other words, your hypothetical law here is only relevant here in that I don't support it. I am willing to accept some limitations of child rearing rights when it comes to abusive parents, so to that end I support removing their children. But I still don't support a government mandated limit on children. And that's why I am dismissing sterilisation, because it really is at best tangentially related to my point.

    If you only want to talk strictly about a law limiting children then I apologise, but I think what I was talking about is covering a nuance of the topic. Government should not limit the number of children we can have, but it can still act to protect children from bad parents.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2011-12-07 at 04:11 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •