I would be fine with a cap at 3. Matter of fact, I would love it. An average child bearing cap should be a necessity for every welfare nation.
I would be fine with a cap at 3. Matter of fact, I would love it. An average child bearing cap should be a necessity for every welfare nation.
you do realize they have reasons to get that many kids right? First of all, high infant mortality, secondly they need them to take care of them when they are old, thirdly they need them to work for them and lastly atleast in India's case, children create connections to other families and thereby status and money
---------- Post added 2011-12-06 at 04:42 PM ----------
besides, my country is bigger than the Netherlands and have a third of the population... dont care much...
Everyone pay 55% taxes. People with one kid pay 50%, people with 2 kids pay 43% people with 3 kids pay 35% people with 4 kids pay 47% people with 5 or more pay 55% too.Forcing people to have kids who don't want kids is good... how? All I see in the future is increases in suicide rate, poverty, and child abuse/neglect. Not to mention the obvious increase in overpopulation, which would make all the topics brought up exponentially worse.
You are not forcing anyone to do anything, however you support "proper" amount of births
Seeing how almost no one I know in the US has 5 kids I would be fine...
In Africa can't be a limit just because most of the kids came out of violations. However, it's true that we have to watch out for the overall age, or else we grow old, i agree there. But there is no way people who decide not to have kids would have to pay extra taxes as the person i quoted claimed. Many people who don't have children don't have them just becuase they can't.
And there is also a lot of people who should NEVER have the RIGHT to have children. Because they are insane and simply can't look after another person. We actually have a lot of those on tv everyday.
So it's a delicated thing.
I don't want to live in a country that calls itself free and then limits the amount of children any one person can have.. besides, how would they even enforce such a rule? Force women to get their tubes tied? Force men to get a vasectomy? Either way, in a place where the government is forcing people to be operated on without their consent is not a place where I want to live.
I would be all for it, but sadly everything the government does is corrupted so after a while it wouldn't matter. Is it our right to have kids even if we refuse to raise them and they become a burden on society?
Captain of the Rarity's Perfection Order Celestia will go down like the Tyrant she is. Vote Rarity for Princess
Sig and avatar By Anakonda
The most logical method would be to create a system of monetary rewards / penalties based on the number of children you have.
Perhaps tax incentives for have less kids? Or maybe just a fee when you go over the limit.
(If you think about it, you do use more of the governments resources when you have more children)
I'd say no on a hard limit reguardless of how high it is. Thats just not the governments place to dictate how we live our lives. On the other hand I'd support a limit on how many children you can have to qualify for government monetary help/support. Sometimes people hit rough patches and need help to get back on their feet. The amount of money the government offers increases based on number of kids. While 3-5 kids is somewhat reasonable when your talking about someone with 15+ kids your now talking about life choices that probably caused them to get into their difficulties and are endangering the kids as well. I'm not saying let the kids starve but geting into that situation shows the parents to be irresponsible and they should be expected to give at least some of them up for adoption to couples that could adequately care for them. Leting folks know they wont get any additional money past X number of kids would force them to either make better choices to begin with or to live withen their means instead of just puting more and more burden on society.
Who is John Galt?
There's a nice picture I saw once of a gay couple who had a nice home and was rejected on an adoption request, while the other half of the picture is a destroyed house with a straight couple with two children running around, the father watching tv in his wife-beater and drinking his beer and the mother not paying any attention to the children, with a 'adoption approved' paper on the table.
That's what I mean by abusing the system. Those who want children but can't, either by law or by some issue with their body can't benefit from the system, but the people who can have children but don't pay an ounce of attention to them can. Giving benefits to people like this just screams abuse.
(I cannot for the love of me find that picture :<)
This is a ridiculously stupid idea. You're penalizing people who prefer to have fewer kids. And thus you're basically asking those of us who choose not to have kids, to in semblance take care of those who do have more. I don't think there should be a limit on births, but there should definitely be some kind of oversight on how many you have after a certain amount. I.E. your financial wellbeing and other criteria for ability to take care of an additional child must be met. Though penalizing those who choose to have more children even though they don't meet this "criteria" is a fallacy in itself. Lose/Lose situation either way.
Oddly enough I think i would have been fine with a 2 or 3 cap.. But saying that Im happy right now there was not. I have 4 kids, and planing on a another.
Would hate to think i never got know my last child cause of a cap. Since he is such a joy.
But i do understand the math, and can see the big picture in the long run. SO understand why one day if not yesterday they need to cap the number of new humans by some amount.
Interestingly enough, four very good friends of mine have the same mother, and their other seven siblings are also upstanding and polite people. It all comes down to how the parenting is handled.
And yes, all eleven kids were raised by the same mother. Eldest kids helped, but that is to be expeccted when you have a 26yo in the house and diapers need changing.
EDIT:
Personally, I find three to be the most ideal, but I've seen families with more pull it off. So I'd vote "no".
And for the love of heeavens, population is NOT getting out of control. The distribution of resources, on the other hand, is.