What if your government limited the amount of children you could have?

[Darsey]

But there is no way people who decide not to have kids would have to pay extra taxes as the person i quoted claimed.

Why not? the people with the children sponser those people at old age, as they put money into there education feeding and what not, while the childless people did not, and yet they will benefit from the taxes thse children will pay too at old age, in fact if you don't do that the parents sponser the childrenless.

There is a golden number of children per family that is 2.3 or 2-3 and that is what we should want people to have, not more nor less. our way to encourge that is economical and it is a just way to be frank.

[Ærion]

Cap at 3 is fine, 4 and you get a month or two in jail, 5 and get both parents sterilized. Primary, secondary, and a backup child is more than enough to assure your own bloodline's continuation, any more and you're an irresponsible person... or simply an idiot that thinks with your genitals.

Screw morality and religion, if people don't start acting logically we'll regret it later on. I honestly don't see us developing the necessary technology to evacuate this planet before the overpopulation (and subsequent heat problem) becomes unmanageable.

[Marimba]

Only places this would be relevant is in developing nations like India and those in most of Africa. History has proven that government intervention isn't necessary and the high birth rates seem to solve themselves as LDC's turn into MDC's. Look at the U.S. for example. In the 18th and 19th centuries our TFR was much higher than it is now (due to cultural reasons that catta pointed out earlier in the thread), but with the lower IMR that occured with breakthroughs in medical technology and the lowered need for labor created by the Industrial Revolution, people began to have fewer and fewer children. Through the hightened use of contraceptives in there and there you go. Historically, population growth patterns coincide with the stages of economic development that we have seen worldwide.

Tl;dr: don't get your panties in a bunch over overpopulation yet

[Deleted]

If you're going to limit the number of children people have then you'd also have to encourage wealthy career couples to have MORE children, ie rather than 1 or 2 children encourage them to have 3-4. Either that or you have to take in a lot more immigrants. Elderly population crisis is a huge issue in developed nations, and soon China too because of their policies.

People don't understand that overpopulation isn't an issue in developed nations. The only reason our fertility rates are at or just above replacement level is due to immigration (and even then some European countries are below it). Even the poor who can have a good 4+ children aren't enough to keep the fertility rate much above 2, currently it's only possible due to immigrants from poorer backgrounds who have even more children. We don't have fertility rates of 4 or 6 like underdeveloped countries do, we aren't even close.

So yes if you want to spend billions on a policy that limits the number of children AND on massive tax incentives on wealthier couples having more babies, maybe it could be done. But even if you had the money for it there would still be a lot of people who don't particularly want such an authoritarian law.

As for my personal opinion, I say no.

[StayTuned]

What if it was capped at 5 children? Would you care? 10 children? 20?


What if you could vote on such an issue? Would you vote it down?

Capped at 5? I wouldn't care about such a cap because I think that having more than 4 underage children is a hard fail in 90% of the cases.

However, I don't like the idea of gov deciding what we must and mustn't do, so I'd vote it down

[Scene88]

I think it could be a good thing since some people just don't know when to stop breeding... having kids they can't afford or look after. But that's ok because the government in the UK will pay for them!!

Would this stop 13 year old girls shaming the rest of us and popping out kids..? My guess in no but hey, at least she can't have loads that her parents have to pay for if this was the case.

[Deleted]

I'll have to agree with this person.

The world population is getting out of control.

ehm, you need to look where the population is getting out of control, e.g. in most European countries the opposite is the problem.
"The 'replacement' fertility rate, to maintain population, is 2.1"
Something for you to read
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...tes/63566.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...mb-888030.html

And for the question. It is none of the Government business how many children people have as long as they can take care of them (feed them, health care, education, etc.) It is the limitation of our freedom.

[Catta]

ehm, you need to look where the population is getting out of control, e.g. in most European countries the opposite is the problem.
"The 'replacement' fertility rate, to maintain population, is 2.1"
Something for you to read
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...tes/63566.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...mb-888030.html

some people repeat that population out of control thing as their mantra like those who claim that guy discovered a cure for all the cancers and the big corps are just keeping him down!

[Sarynn]

As a woman still contemplating whether or not to bring life into this world, I would most likely stand behind my government if they chose to limit the population.

I'd back it for a variety of reasons, especially if the government offered 100% free of charge (including the visit to the physician) birth control or sterilization options, not that birth control pills are expensive, I spend maybe $25 a pack from Planned Parenthood a month but to some people that $25 is vital to their survival and can't spend it on BC. Condoms are so cheap it's ridiculous, although I admit I'm on the pill because I prefer the feeling without them but I'm still covered for the most part from accidental pregnancy.

There's so much needless suffering on the part of children because of irresponsible parents bringing more life into this world than they can afford to sustain comfortably. My aunt for example, single mother of 5 children, "supporting" 4 of them because she chose to have unprotected sex and bring more children into the world when she was already on welfare and living off of food stamps. Now, I put supporting in quotations because from my point of view, she isn't supporting them, my grandparents are; they purchased her a home to live in, they buy her food every week, they purchase the children's school supplies, as well as clothes and other essentials. Which would have been totally unnecessary if she had been an adult and taken precautions.

People like my aunt are unfortunately a fair chunk of the American population, just like that annoying breeder with 15 children by different men and demanding to have government support, although that is a much more extreme situation. If free sterilization/birth control were offered then I do believe a lot of certain issues could be stamped out, except from the obvious social services abusers who just breed to plump up their government checks. I personally believe that a family can comfortably support 2-3 children, I prefer 2, as it replaces the parents who will eventually die but doesn't risk overpopulation too much as the lives of human beings are being extended by advances in healthcare.

Anything more than that, regardless of religious standing, is overkill. There's other things to consider though, those who disregard the regulations and continue to have children, where will the extra children, who are born into this world not because of their own choice, go? There's so many children in the American foster system as it is and only so many families willing to take them in.

What about families who can financially support multitudes of children? The family who is expecting their 20th child comes to mind, that family isn't suffering at all, and they all seem to be emotionally balanced, so do we offer permits based on financial planning? So many factors to consider. The comedian Kat Williams has adopted numerous children, but he can also support them all and then some, so he would be another example of an exception to the theoretical mandate.

There's just so many factors to consider that if something like this were proposed, I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime but I do guarantee that once I am married, financially stable enough to have my 2-3 children that I will personally seek out a permanent birth control option, until then gogo generic birth control pills.

[Bahloo]

I wont be happy until the government allows post birth abortions

[Deleted]

Not planning on having any at all in my life, so basicly it wouldn't rly affect me

[ghostkitteh]

I think the limit should be two, personally. Perfect amount of kids. I'll opt for none though. Annoying little things imo.

[Marimba]

I think the limit should be two, personally. Perfect amount of kids. I'll opt for none though. Annoying little things imo.

See, this is the problem with limiting population. Who is gonna offset the people who have no children? Or children who die? This would result in a shrinking population, which causes all new problems. Like putting a larger load on the younger generation, like in Japan.

[Adeodatus]

It's scary how many people in this thread are alright with the governemnt just waving around their mighty hand and sticking it into your lives. Just plain scary.

[Buryit]

Since dozens of folks I know have 2-3 kids and all of them are non working and drawing welfare out of my hard earned tax dollars I am all for a limit of one unless you can afford it yourself and post a bond.

[Marimba]

It's scary how many people in this thread are alright with the governemnt just waving around their mighty hand and sticking it into your lives. Just plain scary.

It has to do with the whole "nanny state" thing becoming more prevalent in the world.

[Sarynn]

It's scary how many people in this thread are alright with the governemnt just waving around their mighty hand and sticking it into your lives. Just plain scary.

My view on it is, what doesn't the government regulate nowadays? I come from NY originally, with governors who do not approve of smoking and wish to slowly weed it out, therefore raise the taxes on cigarettes every year in order to make them harder to obtain, how is that not the government trying to influence every day life? When I left the cost of cigarettes in Manhattan were roughly $11 USD per pack, versus $5 USD just a few short years prior.

This would just be one more government regulated instance which some support, others don't; I didn't support the raising of cigarette taxes but that didn't stop it from happening anyway. I just happen to support the idea if it were to be implemented in a proper fashion but there's no way it is going to as there are way too many factors involved.

[Catta]

It has to do with the whole "nanny state" thing becoming more prevalent in the world.

except that many here are americans, and those who disagree the most with the nanny state when it comes to welfare and whatnot... But i guess its alright as long as its THEIR fascist state

[Citrustree]

I know someone who has 9 siblings. Her father is from Surinam, her mother's from the US. It pisses me off, how can someone living in our modern society have fucking 10 children? Cannot believe how stupid some people are. Having 10 kids just makes our world more overpopulated. Even having 5 kids is just fucking stupid. No more than 3 kids, and we'll be somewhat fine. (And yes, I do want kids. Only 2 though)

[herpderpslurp]

As a woman still contemplating whether or not to bring life into this world, I would most likely stand behind my government if they chose to limit the population.

i guess you dont think that other women have the same right to their reproductive decisions as you do?