First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Should People Have Less Children?
2459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Michigan
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
Well China does have that one child policy...even so, I don't think the amount of children someone has can be controlled very much.

What about when there's one of those poor women out there who ends up having octuplets?
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 11/13/14 , edited 11/18/14
Should people have less children...? As a species yes, it's arguable people should have fewer children; we're probably overtaxing the planet's sustainability as is, and the population is only growing. Never gonna happen (not in the USA); you're infringing on personal rights if you do, though.

Ah well, I guess we'll just have to wait until we run out of fossil fuels and/or a badass plague hits us.
Posted 11/13/14 , edited 11/18/14
yes.

humans are disgusting, filthy animals that constantly pollute this planet and disrupt the equilibrium.

if we were living naturally--it wouldn't be a problem if our population was 7billion. but since we are producing so much artificial wastes that can't be broken down by bacteria, we're going to end up f.cking ourselves and the future generations.


the present people don't care because they will be dead before this planet turns into Garbage Central INC.
1246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
I think people should have as many as the can afford and take care of emotionally. I honestly hate the idea of only children since they are just so... weird. They don't have some of the experiences people with siblings do, like the idea of sharing and responsibility.
46139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
I believe the world is already overpopulated, but I also believe that society has no place in forcefully controlling what an individual does with their own body.
So all I can suggest given those limitations is that we don't _encourage_ people to have children who can't afford them (Many/most western countries give payments for families with children) and if they can't/won't take care of their children, then the children would be placed into care. However, we'd need to fix the horrible care systems. It would be good to do that in any case.
11460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Austin, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
I don't agree too much with most forms of population control aside from VOLUNTARY sterilization for these reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
37909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
It's fewer...
9760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 11/13/14
Yes, but not forced, and that I favor it varying according to local population and whatnot. The dark side of China's one-child policy is more than enough for the thought of mandatory limitation to put me on edge.
4490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Online
Posted 11/13/14

Akage-chan wrote:

I'm going to propose another idea - How about having children for people who can't have children?

There are a lot of women who enjoy being pregnant but don't want and/or can't support any more kids. I would love for society to be more encouraging for these women to consider surrogacy to help other couples have children. Obviously, there would be compensation given to these women who offer to go through with it, but I can imagine no higher gift you can give another person than that of a child.


That already happens. Some even go to other countries where surrogates are cheaper. Problems arise though when a child is born disabled and the potential parents reject the baby. Also laws on which ones are the parents vary from place to place. In the UK the mother that gives birth to the child is legally the mother even if the baby is not hers biologically. This mother has to sign over the baby to the potential parents. I've even seen a case where the birth mother surrogate changed her mind and refuse to give twins over. The children were even a different ethnicity to her so it was noticeable that they may not have been hers. International surrogacy makes babies vulnerable to being stateless until all relevant authorities and parents sort it out.

How about encouraging more local adoption? There's already loads of needy children out there.

9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/13/14

tkayt wrote:


Akage-chan wrote:

I'm going to propose another idea - How about having children for people who can't have children?

There are a lot of women who enjoy being pregnant but don't want and/or can't support any more kids. I would love for society to be more encouraging for these women to consider surrogacy to help other couples have children. Obviously, there would be compensation given to these women who offer to go through with it, but I can imagine no higher gift you can give another person than that of a child.


That already happens. Some even go to other countries where surrogates are cheaper. Problems arise though when a child is born disabled and the potential parents reject the baby. Also laws on which ones are the parents vary from place to place. In the UK the mother that gives birth to the child is legally the mother even if the baby is not hers biologically. This mother has to sign over the baby to the potential parents. I've even seen a case where the birth mother surrogate changed her mind and refuse to give twins over. The children were even a different ethnicity to her so it was noticeable that they may not have been hers. International surrogacy makes babies vulnerable to being stateless until all relevant authorities and parents sort it out.

How about encouraging more local adoption? There's already loads of needy children out there.



I think the other point missed is that last sentence. There's already a bajillion children that are out there. It would be of help to not have them in the first place.
Posted 11/13/14
Why don't we take half of the population and push them somewhere else?

Posted 11/13/14
Like the first person said, if you can afford it.
13322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
As long as you are able to take care of them and give them a good life i don't see why not, although i don't understand why you would want more than 2 at most.
14916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 11/13/14

tkayt wrote:How about encouraging more local adoption? There's already loads of needy children out there.



The problem is that many of these children have problems, either mentally, physically or emotionally. Many children in adoption were not given up for adoption at birth. They were placed in adoption after their parents were either determined to be unfit to take care of children or one or both parents were placed in jail. Many of these children were abused and will face years of therapy.

Very few people either can or are able to take care of children like this either because they don't have the finances to do so or because they can't emotionally handle a special needs child. Telling couples "You should adopt" instead of surrogacy is almost as heartless as what their crummy parents put their children through before welfare agencies intervened.

29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
Nah, it's none of my business. Do whatever you want. If you can afford it, go ahead. Just use protection if not.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.