2006-10-13 06:30:24 · 24 answers · asked by St.Anger 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
our enviroment ( earth ) can only support so many of us, at some point we will have to realise this simple truth.
2006-10-13 06:48:04 · answer #1 · answered by steve c 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wouldn't work. There would have to be so many exceptions for disabled children, teen pregnancies and divorces, etc., that it would be unenforceable. Besides, people would NOT comply.
The best way to institute such a ban is to raise a generation of kids who know from grade school on that they'll only be allowed to have one child.
One child per family is stupid anyway. It should be one child per adult. If a teen mother wants her very first child to be her replacement, that's it. She can't change her mind later. The only way she'll be allowed to get pregnant again is if she births a baby for a man who hasn't fathered one yet (his replacement). She'd never have custody of that child. If they get divorced, that child goes with his father.
The extras would have to be (1) adopted, (2) aborted or (3) end up in orphanages like China.
2006-10-13 06:47:49 · answer #2 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would think I woke up living in china.
Then I would think what F$ck I'm the 5th child in my family my god I don't even exist, then I would try to figure out how to be born as the first and only child to a rich and famous or better yet a royal family.
After this I would educate myself and attend the most prestige schools in the world, then buy or take over the government that implemented that law and change it to where people have the right to make there own responsible decisions.
After this I would go out for a pizza and beer, Oh look at the time time for lunch. Good luck.
2006-10-13 06:49:52 · answer #3 · answered by Chiprat 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
China did this about 20 years ago. The result was a spike in late-term abortions, and over 1 million abandoned babies (mostly girls.) There are now over 2 million orphans in China because of this action, as a result the ban has been basically lifted if the first child is a girl.
It is very likely we would have the same problems here.
2006-10-13 06:38:13 · answer #4 · answered by my_iq_135 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would fight it, it goes against the "ideals" of America. BUT I would stand in congress fighting this...giving the idea that we should limit the aid given out to multiply birth families, offer free sterilization, make fathers of multiple mothers financially responsible AND limited to showing means of support or be charged with criminal neglect/disregard charges. In the end every child should be cared for and wanted, and it should not fall solely off onto the government and it's people. ///People need to start being responsible BEFORE the have a baby...and maybe the question could be "would it be wrong for the government to only allow children to be born to parents that can prove at least some standards of financial/living conditions of a FAMILY?"////As for overcrowding reasons on there own...We need to stop it globally...if we stop...they won't...and we get consumed. Overcrowding wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that we pile up in cities, have tremendous social problems, and live in a capitalistic/dog eat dog country and world.
2006-10-13 06:50:53 · answer #5 · answered by baron_von_sky 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I was thinking that it would be better to have to apply for having a child. Requirements would be: steady job history to show you can support the child, tests to show you are not on drugs, background checks showing you don't have a severe criminal or deviant history and a home visit showing you can provide a safe and clean home. Kind of like what all adopting parents have to go through. I say once you meet those criteria, then you are authorized to have a child, or another sibling as long as you can afford to. Make it like an infertility device like Norplant, which is removed once you meet the basic requirements of parenthood.
2006-10-13 06:53:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it would be unenforceable. What are they gonna do, put birth control in the water?
Also, it SOUNDS like a clear-cut law, but really it would be extremely difficult to define clearly. There are too many differing situations where "one child per family" would be hard to define because - what would consitute a family?
Okay, two people who have no kids marry each other and they're allowed one child. Easy enough. But what if one of them already has a child?
Say a woman had a child out of wedlock and then married a childless man. Does that count as "their" one child, or are they allowed to have one together?
What if a childless woman marries a divorced man who had a child with his first wife but that child lives with his ex-wife in another part of the country. Is he allowed to have a child with his new wife since their "family" has no children?
What if a couple's child dies? Are they allowed to have another one? What about twins, triplets, etc.? Would the couple have to choose which baby to keep and give the other(s) up?
What if a man with custody of his child from a previous marriage and a woman with custody of her child from a previous marriage marry each other? Is that family allowed to have two children? Is the new couple allowed to have a child together or must they be content with the children from their previous marriages?
2006-10-13 06:41:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Personally, I think it would be wonderful. I heartily endorse the concept of Zero Population Growth. However, I just don't see how you could enforce it. What I would like to see is no tax deduction for any child after the second one. Overpopulation is one of the primary causes of our environmental and economic crises. If people choose to overbreed, I don't see why they should be rewarded for it with a special tax deduction. They chose the burden....carry it!
2006-10-13 06:58:18 · answer #8 · answered by pessimoptimist 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Such a restriction would be a flagrant violation of the U.S. constitution, a persons basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2006-10-13 06:39:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would think that we are doomed to economic decline. Statistically, families must produce 2.1 children each just to maintain a countries population. Japan, and some European countries have fallen below this and it is a cause of huge concern for their governments because for 1st world countries declines in populations mean future declines in productivity. So while population control is a good idea for third world overpopulated countries it actually is bad for countries like the U.S.
2006-10-13 06:37:12 · answer #10 · answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That is touchy, I think no one has the right to make that restriction. However some people do not deserve to be parents.
2006-10-13 06:48:50 · answer #11 · answered by mandylynn77 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋