POLL: Do you support population control ?

[Spike]

hmm, I support it on a limited scale. The question "do you support population control?" does not really say much as there is alot of things that could be considerd "population control" I support methods like birth control, but as for genetic testing and limiting of children... I just don't know. In china this results in families literally throwing away baby girls. I find this, well, repulsive. I don't have a solution myself, I just have some concerns with population control

 

[eakers]

*has her human/environment interaction final tomorrow morning*
the one factor that has been shown to control population growth rates by stabalizing and even reducing them in developed countries is the education of women. as women gain more education and power in society their role as mother and caregiver often switches to mother, caregiver, careerperson. by realiseing their power in a community women feel that their role as a mother is not the most important role that they have socially. for this reason it is important to get education programs for women into developing countries so that women can see that having more children isnt necessary to survive finacially and to give these women some type of economic power in communities encourageing economic growth and developement in regions where the cycle of poverty continues on.

*kat. <--

 

[Mookow]

Not with the USA's current population. If there were a serious change in the situation, then maybe, depending on the factors. As things stand now, I have to answer with a resounding no. Until there is a quite clear and present danger, I dont want the government saying what I can and cant do... and I apply that thought to most everything in life.

 

[amdskip]

heck ya

 

[JupiterJones]

I don't like the idea of one kid per couple. I think two is fine. Industrialized nations are doing ok with their current populations. If we had one kid per couple the US would shrink and I don't think we need that. Growth is bigger than it should be though.

Every Western nation is not producing enough children to maintain current populations. Numeric growth in the US is due mainly to immigration.

The only population group in the West that IS producing enough children to replace themselves (and in fact growing slightly) are Evangelical Christians.

Looks like we might win the Culture War by attrition.

 

[dude8604]

Have any of you read The Truth Machine by James Halperin (good book btw)? Anyway, there is a small part of it (maybe a page) where he talks about the idea of a parenting license.

 

[sandorski]

If there is any god given right, it's the right to reproduce!

 

[gopunk]

<< If there is any god given right, it's the right to reproduce! >>



i would think the right to live comes before that.

 

[Lithium381]

I think we need population control......too many children, expecially up for adoption....people have kids they don't intend on taking car of(or can't for certiant reasons).......not sure what the solution to be, limiting kids wouldn' work, what about twins? (i'm a twin!) can't help that......i'd say two would be enough, one for each parent.......

 

[Farmall]

Population control??? where are we overpopulated, other than a few metropolitan areas?

Have any of you been out of the metro before? I live on 80 acres - not to much controlling that I or any of my neighbors need to do, my place is by far the smallest homestead of any in my area. There are quite a few who have several hundred acres and more.

My wife and I have 4 kids. If we are going to go to a population control type of scenario which ones do we have to get rid of? I would most likely be over the limit now would I not?

You look at the countries around the world who have gone the route of government controlling to much. China for example - What rights do the chinese people have? They probably can't hold internet discussion such as this. Look at Tienamien(spell?) square from a few years ago. The government started to slaughter the people for having demonstrations!

There are some people who probably should not have kids, and do. And there are some people who would love to have kids and can't. Now we have the ideal situation called adoption do we not?
Why is it that the government would make it so hard to adopt kids? If a couple has the basic necessities for raising the child, I feel there is not a problem. I know of one family in particular who found it easier to adopt overseas than right here in the U.S. - they now have 2 kids they adopted who came from a russian orphanage. I think this is a bigger problem than attempting to control the population.

Just my 2 cents and probably more.


Farmall

 

[gopunk]

My wife and I have 4 kids. If we are going to go to a population control type of scenario which ones do we have to get rid of? I would most likely be over the limit now would I not?

well... under my proposal, you wouldn't be under the limit

You look at the countries around the world who have gone the route of government controlling to much. China for example - What rights do the chinese people have? They probably can't hold internet discussion such as this. Look at Tienamien(spell?) square from a few years ago. The government started to slaughter the people for having demonstrations!

well, it depends on what you consider to be "too much".

There are some people who probably should not have kids, and do. And there are some people who would love to have kids and can't. Now we have the ideal situation called adoption do we not?

*shrug* i have heard people say that there is an excess and that there is a shortage of adoption opportunities. i have no idea who to trust... it's my suspicion that if there is a excess of adopters in this country, it is because they are unwilling to adopt a child from a different country/race.

Why is it that the government would make it so hard to adopt kids? If a couple has the basic necessities for raising the child, I feel there is not a problem.

i really don't know that much about what the government does in regards to adoptions, but i don't disagree with doing background checks and stuff. you don't want to put the kid into an abusive home.

 

[Nefrodite]

*shrug* i have heard people say that there is an excess and that there is a shortage of adoption opportunities. i have no idea who to trust... it's my suspicion that if there is a excess of adopters in this country, it is because they are unwilling to adopt a child from a different country/race.

don't forget age. once a kid hits a certain age no one will adopt em and as for why its hard? mistakes in something this important aren't acceptable.


and don't forget foster homes. no mater how good they are, bounce a kid around a few times and damage is done. adoptive parents don't want damaged kids

 

[rgwalt]

The problem with population control is enforcement. If a couple goes over their limit, what do they do? Do they get to have the child? If not, what happens to the child? Abortion is the likely answer, which I personally believe is wrong. This is why I am against population control. Accidents always happen, and the method of enforcing the rules is morally and ethically wrong in my opinion.

Now, a more voluntary system that doesn't punish people for accidents would be acceptable, though it violates the religious beliefs of some groups. However, I don't think overpopulation is that much of a problem in the US. We could feed all our people if we really wanted to, it is just that the government doesn't want to spend the money to do so.

Ryan

 

[Odoacer]

yes. save the planet

i hate seeing all the free land in my beautiful little town getting gobbled up by new housing developments. It makes me MAD!

and when i get MAD, people GET HURT

 

[Amused]

<< Although against Catholic teachings, I do support it. I think the world should adopt the policy of one child per couple. Face it people, we have limited resources and growing pollution problems.

I saw Waterworld last night (no one told me it was a four hour movie!!). Thats what really made me think about this. >>



Waterworld was about as big a joke as Noah's flood. There is only a finite amount of water on this planet, and trust me, even if all the ice melted, the oceans would never get anywhere near that high (within 100 feet of the summit of Mt Everest? Give me a farkin' break). Secondly, Costner's character defies any and every evolutionary theory to date. By looking at the condition of the tanker ship (the Valdez, come on) and the "paper" that was traded, the time span had been less than 100 years. Evolution could not possibly occur that fast.

Finally, we can educate people on population control, but reproduction is a basic human right. We will not solve the problems of the world by becoming oppressive little nazis/communist Chinese/nanny state tyrants.

At any rate, it wont work unless we invade and rule every third world country. Europe already has negative population growth, and the bulk of the US population growth comes from immigration. Our reproductive growth is barely above replacement as it is. The bulk of world population growth comes from third world Catholic and Hindu countries.

 

[IGBT]

Exponential population growth is the common denominator to nearly all social and geopolitical problems the world is suffering. We need to get over and past the faild philosophy of self validation thru child birth. Were screwing our selves off the planet and out of recorces. And the US open immigration policy on top of 50% oil imports, near black out/brown out's on the power grid and soon to be experienced water shortages are going to greatly deteriorate the quality of life for US citizens. INFRASTRUCTURE IS LIMITED. Ever growing population negates ALL conservation.

 

[ed21x]

hey, i actually support population control in china. I mean, it shows that the government there is pragmatic enough to realize that they might be running low on space, and by reducing population, the lifestyle of everyone would go up. and this coming from a taiwanese kid...

 

[Pocatello]

It's very hard for a democratic country to control population growth, India for example. Forcing people to have an abortion because they already have one or two kids is quite un-democratic, and there are religious factors as well. China, on the other hand, can because the government doesn't answer to anyone. Most poor countries don't have the mean for population controls except for fighting each other. The western countries don't need to worry about population control, except for the Mormons in Utah. The way the Mormons are multiplying, I see this country will become Mormonized in the future .

 

[Nefrodite]

also depends on the need china needs population control to garrantee it can feed itself and support a higher quality of life in the future. the richer they get, the more meat they will eat. meat is far less efficient because you gotta feed tons of wheat/rice to grow a damned cow or pig. we don't have that problem at all here. we can easily eat/grow all the meat we want..and it shows we're fat asses..

 

[BornStar]

I don't have a problem with population control. The world is getting overcrowded. I was eating dinner with my extended family and I made the comment that China had the right idea. You should have seen the looks I got from my family. I think that there are problems with what China is doing (killing females) but the basic idea is sound. If you're unable to not have any more kids after the first, I think you should get slapped with a major fine and tax increase. Maybe counterproductive, but I think it will stop people from accidentally having kids.

I do, however, think that there's a bigger problem than married couples having kids, and that's 18-year-olds having kids and not being able to support them. I don't know what the government would do, but it should be drastic. Having a kid when you're that young should be strictly forbidden. It costs the taxpayers tons of money when they end up supporting these people (again, we shouldn't have Welfare but that's a topic for another thread) and then these people just assume that's an appropriate way to live their life.

I think that the world should adopt a policy restricting the number of kids families can have. I don't want to end up having to stand on somebody else's shoulders to be able to get some elbow room.

 

[IGBT]

As far aspopulation managment in the US, the answer is in the tax code. No more dependent deductions, tuition for public schools and eliminate the home mortage deduction. When ever possible pass on the FULL cost of raising/having kids to the parents. Tax payer should be out of the loop. If you want kids fine...pay for em. Now it's reduced to an economic decision. Over 20+ years this will have a tempering effect on population growth.

 

[Ciber]

a easy way to lower the population and also lower the crime rate is to execute criminals....you're convicted of any serious crime(murder,rape,theft,gun without permit or whatever) you get executed the second he/she is convicted. this will also save us tons of money which we can use to educate people about not having freaking kids at 16. another plus is that we get to clean up the gene pool by killing the people stupid enough to commit a crime . this will also bring up the quality of life all around since we wont have these scum bags running around because they got 2 years in jail and did not learn a damn thing and are out to do the same stupid things. i still have no idea why we dont do this yet, i dont see the point in keeping these losers in jail for 10-30 years at our expense. less serious crimes(drug dealing etc) get 1 warning, if they are caught again they are executed. these people are not freaking babies they know wtf they are doing, we should not be giving them all these chances and then just throwing them in jail so they can pull the crap again. sure killing all these people is not nice but it will improve life for the majority and if that means wacking a couple of losers so we have enough money to feed all the hungry and feel safe when were walking outside im all for it.

alright im going to bed, let me know what you think of my idea

*it's 6:30 am, dont bother me about grammar or spelling or wtf ever....lol*

ok im really going to bed now....

 

[Nefrodite]

<< a easy way to lower the population and also lower the crime rate is to execute criminals....you're convicted of any serious crime(murder,rape,theft,gun without permit or whatever) you get executed the second he/she is convicted. this will also save us tons of money which we can use to educate people about not having freaking kids at 16. another plus is that we get to clean up the gene pool by killing the people stupid enough to commit a crime . this will also bring up the quality of life all around since we wont have these scum bags running around because they got 2 years in jail and did not learn a damn thing and are out to do the same stupid things. i still have no idea why we dont do this yet, i dont see the point in keeping these losers in jail for 10-30 years at our expense. less serious crimes(drug dealing etc) get 1 warning, if they are caught again they are executed. these people are not freaking babies they know wtf they are doing, we should not be giving them all these chances and then just throwing them in jail so they can pull the crap again. sure killing all these people is not nice but it will improve life for the majority and if that means wacking a couple of losers so we have enough money to feed all the hungry and feel safe when were walking outside im all for it.

alright im going to bed, let me know what you think of my idea

*it's 6:30 am, dont bother me about grammar or spelling or wtf ever....lol*

ok im really going to bed now....

>>



well the first thing i'd do is frame you


As far aspopulation managment in the US, the answer is in the tax code. No more dependent deductions, tuition for public schools and eliminate the home mortage deduction. When ever possible pass on the FULL cost of raising/having kids to the parents. Tax payer should be out of the loop. If you want kids fine...pay for em. Now it's reduced to an economic decision. Over 20+ years this will have a tempering effect on population growth.

er why, we dont' have a problem with population in the US.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

<< a easy way to lower the population and also lower the crime rate is to execute criminals....you're convicted of any serious crime(murder,rape,theft,gun without permit or whatever) you get executed the second he/she is convicted. this will also save us tons of money which we can use to educate people about not having freaking kids at 16. another plus is that we get to clean up the gene pool by killing the people stupid enough to commit a crime . this will also bring up the quality of life all around since we wont have these scum bags running around because they got 2 years in jail and did not learn a damn thing and are out to do the same stupid things. i still have no idea why we dont do this yet, i dont see the point in keeping these losers in jail for 10-30 years at our expense. less serious crimes(drug dealing etc) get 1 warning, if they are caught again they are executed. these people are not freaking babies they know wtf they are doing, we should not be giving them all these chances and then just throwing them in jail so they can pull the crap again. sure killing all these people is not nice but it will improve life for the majority and if that means wacking a couple of losers so we have enough money to feed all the hungry and feel safe when were walking outside im all for it.

alright im going to bed, let me know what you think of my idea

*it's 6:30 am, dont bother me about grammar or spelling or wtf ever....lol*

ok im really going to bed now....

>>


so a gun without a permit = death, and drug dealing = warning....

 

[Ciber]

well i dont see the point in having the gun unless you're planning to use it. drugs are a bit less serious in my mind i guess..... oh and i almost forgot drunk drivers, they need to be executed too. no warnings they see the damn commercials all the time and the damn labels on the cans/bottles so if you drive drunk that means you're either stupid or just dont care about living so we might as well wack you and lower everyones insurance rate...oh man can you just imagine the lower rates? btw my father is a moron who tends to drive drunk and im perfectly OK with him being executed if he breaks the law, while he's my dad and all i dont like the idea of him running into my wifes car and killing her and my kids or anyone elses family for that matter. yes he has been in jail for it and it hasnt stopped him. so there's two solutions left to make sure he stops driving drunk, we put him in jail for life or a couple of years and hope he stops wasting money that can be put to better use or kill his stupid ass, i vote for the latter. we should not waste time and resources on stupid people that refuse to learn.

yeah i know it will break xxx ammendment and xxx right, and that it will be cruel and unusual punishment, but that will only be at first, after we get the process running and people get with the program it will be USUAL PUNISHMENT =). besides , i dont see ANY reason why any of the crimes we will kill people for would need to commited other than pure stupidity.

hmmm what you guys think of me running for president?