Should the US adopt a policy of only allowing a family to have one child?

[BatmanNate]

What bothers me, is how would you ENFORCE it? I mean, no contraceptive or combination of is 100% effective unless you're talking surgery. So, unless each couple, after having had their 1st child, immediately got a vasectomy or hysterectomy (sp?) then how would it be enforced? Mandatory abortion? And what about instances of twins?

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population. Soon there won't be enough food to support us, and there won't be enough places to live. As the population increases, pollution increases. We have already run out of places to dump all our garbage, and soon we might end up living in it, which will add to disease. We cannot keep reproducing like bunnies because we will only end up killing ourselves and our enviornment.

China has already adopted such a policy because of the huge overpopulation there. Do we really want to wait until the last minute, until its too late? Should the US government adopt a similar policy now, so that a couple is only allowed to have one child? I am curious what your opinions might be. Please, keep this mature.

You know, my first reaction to the thread title was "Jesus, somebody send this commie back to China."

And then I thought about it a little and decided that you are entitled to your opinion. No, I don't think the government should regulate the number of children we are allowed to have. If I thought the US should adopt a policy like that I'd vote to put some Commie in office.

 

[LiekOMG]

You know, my first reaction to the thread title was "Jesus, somebody send this commie back to China."

I just really care for our enviornment and future, thats all.

 

[desy]

OK then write the Pope in Rome who refuses to recongnize contraception and use his power to promote it throughout the world. .
That would have a much greater effect.

 

[jackwhitter]

Originally posted by: DOACleric

You know, my first reaction to the thread title was "Jesus, somebody send this commie back to China."

I just really care for our enviornment and future, thats all.

that you care for the enviro and future is admirable, but the US is not the population problem. the US has less then 300 million people anyways. compare this to china's 4 billion and india's 1 billion. you are preaching to the wrong crowd.

 

[LiekOMG]

I'm not preaching. It was only a question.

 

[Balthazar]

Um, no, maybe we should start getting rid of some of the crack babies and wellfare-mooching parents out there and that 90 million new people estimate will drop, and it wont be nearly as many wastes of space (not the childs fault, the parents need to know when they can and cannot afford/handle a new child).

Telling me I can only have one kid will land you in a hell of alot of high water pretty quick (not saying I even plan on any at all, but taking away my rights to have more than one child is wrong, are you going to force abortions on parents to be if they go over the limit, thats worse still).

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
I don't remember the exact number, but my biology professor said that something like every 10 years the population here in the US doubles. In about 30 years without some kind of limitation, our population would be out of control.
to have HUGE problems in the future.

Data from the US Census Bureau does not seem to bear that out.
50 - 55 years is a bit closer. Discount immigration, and I don't see where we have an actual birth rate problem.

 

[Geekbabe]

No !!

 

[mithrandir2001]

Of course not.

Population growth from childbirths in the US is not a problem. If anything, I think the problem is not enough newborns from middle and upper income families. It seems the more educated and affluent groups have fewer children today. That means a growing percentage of children are raised in financially shaky families, with limited health care options and often underwhelming educational outlets.

Most population growth comes from immigration. It would be much easier (and morally acceptable) to limit the number of immigrants coming into this country than limit the number of children each family may have.

 

[silent tone]

Undeveloped nations are the culprit. The third world countries need education to move away from agrarian lifestyles.

On an unreleated note, I'd support licenses to have children if there was some reliable metric to judge a person's intelligence and responsibility. I don't think these ideas are too preposterous, personal freedoms often take a back seat when they infringe on the freedoms of others. Though they won't pass in the U.S. until the whole country is turned into an urban environment.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: jackwhitter

Originally posted by: hungrypete
Did I wake up in a communist country?

*piches self*

Now only allowing welfare for say, 2 children max, that's not unreasonable.

welfare is a bad idea period. paying someone for doing nothing is ludicrious. "Free government money is more dangerous than slavery." (can't remember who said this...). FDR had the right idea when he EMPLOYED people via the government to keep them payed. when people think the government owes them something without doing anything, then a serious problem exists.

You are correct that welfare is a bad idea, but it was Hoover that employed people. FDR is the president that actually created welfare and social security. An example of what Hoover employed people for, look at the Hoover Dam. It was made by people employed by the govt just because people needed jobs. The Dam was not necessary, but it gave people jobs. That's what we need now. Put those leechs to work. It doesn't matter if all they are doing is cleaning dog doo off the street, at least they are contributing.

 

[XZeroII]

Any teacher/professor who thinks that the population of the US doubles every 10 years is a fraud. Assuming the US begain in they year 1800 with 500,000 people. The population of the US would be approx 524,288,000,000. That's 524 BILLION! And there were more than 500,000 people in the US in 1800, so that is a conservative number. Since the US census is performed every 10 years, that means that every census should show twice as many people as the previous census. HEY! Someone wrote the word Gullible on your ceiling! Look now! The only thing worse is DOACleric who said that the US's population goes up by 90million every year. What a whacko. GULLIBLE!!!

 

[gopunk]

i have no problem with people having kids... but i do have a problem with retards having kids. so i think the US should adopt a policy of only allowing qualified people to have children, as many as they want.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: gopunk
i have no problem with people having kids... but i do have a problem with retards having kids. so i think the US should adopt a policy of only allowing qualified people to have children, as many as they want.

and how would this policy be administered? who gets to decide which persons may or may not have children?

 

[SilverThief]

NO. I want at least one more.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: xuanman

Originally posted by: gopunk
i have no problem with people having kids... but i do have a problem with retards having kids. so i think the US should adopt a policy of only allowing qualified people to have children, as many as they want.

and how would this policy be administered? who gets to decide which persons may or may not have children?

guns

me




no, but seriously, i'm aware this is impossible in a democratic society. but a guy can dream, can't he?

 

[Jugernot]

All the catholic men would die.... they would! Catholics aren't supposed to use birth control. And we all know the only way to get pregnant without birth control right? Kill your husband.... and grab a long veggie.

 

[glenn1]

Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population. Soon there won't be enough food to support us, and there won't be enough places to live.

Paul Erlich already beat you to the idea...The population bomb

But 200+ years of time has elapsed since the idea first came into vogue with Thomas Malthus, and the world has seen what a complete and total load of crap it was, you don't have to follow in his footsteps and be a dumbass yourself.

 

[krwell]

Actually what I learned was that the main factor for the growth in US population is immigration. Without immigration the US would double in population every 200+ years

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Its a fact that the population here in the US is growing exponentially, and that in about 30 or so years, the enviornment will no longer be able to sustain us. Every year we add 90 million new people to the worlds population. Soon there won't be enough food to support us, and there won't be enough places to live.

Paul Erlich already beat you to the idea...The population bomb

But 200+ years of time has elapsed since the idea first came into vogue with Thomas Malthus, and the world has seen what a complete and total load of crap it was, you don't have to follow in his footsteps and be a dumbass yourself.

Ouch . . . I'm glad I didn't go up against you when I was in debate team . . .

 

[Dragnov]

We have more than enough space in the US. It's just that most of us choose to live in the same place (near the ocean). Just gotta encourage people to live in the the middle states somehow in the future (probably pay them to. )

As for resources, gotta become more efficient, find new things, and invent. It's struggle for survival, we're animals... we must procreate to continue our species.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
We have more than enough space in the US. It's just that most of us choose to live in the same place (near the ocean). Just gotta encourage people to live in the the middle states somehow in the future (probably pay them to. )

As for resources, gotta become more efficient, find new things, and invent. It's struggle for survival, we're animals... we must procreate to continue our species.

you would have to pay me a lot of $$$$ to go live out in podunk, kansas

 

[glenn1]

Ouch . . . I'm glad I didn't go up against you when I was in debate team . . .

That's because i recognize "population control" for what it is.... racism considered socially acceptable by the left.

 

[IGBT]

Get rid of the dependent tax deduction. Make parents pay a school tuition for public schools. No taxpayer subsidies for having/maintaining kids. No home mortage deduction. If you want kids..you pay for em. Not the taxpayer.