To stop population increase should we have a law that only allows a couple 2 children? And also should people who are on long term benefits be allowed to have children?
2007-02-15 19:32:10 · 7 answers · asked by michael c 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
limiting children isn't even about the population but the economic capability of certain families to support 5 or 6 children. i think that having children should be seen as a benefit and not a right. if you can live and work in society with out finical aid, etc, etc then you can have kids.
if only there was a way to switch peoples reproductive capabilities on and off.
i also think people should have to get a license to have a kid, we have drivers license are kids less important than cars. people should learn how to raise children.
2007-02-15 19:38:40 · answer #1 · answered by David M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the government already has to much control over what we do and say. Everyone has the right to have children and to decide how many. What does being on long term benefits have to do with your ability to be a parent.
2007-02-15 19:45:35 · answer #2 · answered by s_k_wilson1990 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think anyone needs more than two or three children. There is a need for birth control and access to abortion in developing countries. These measures, along with education and literacy campaigns, will help to improve women's conditions. Investment and capitalist reform will also help to create job opportunities outside the home. It is good for women to have a career of some sort, as long as it doesn't contradict with home life and marriage.
2007-02-15 19:37:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point, I am sick of people having children and expecting someone else to pick up the tab. Not only that, if you are long term unemployed (because you are a lazy sod) what sort or morals and values would you be able to pass on to your children??
2007-02-15 20:30:51 · answer #4 · answered by monkienutz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no i don't necessary think that the number of children should be restricted. but i do think that the government should only pay benefit for the first two. can you believe the shock this would be to the young chavs and the large proportion of the moslem population who fair to say have quite large families.i was once talking to a muslim guy and i said his wife was pregnant again. he patted his wife's stomach and with a great grin on his face he said "yes this is my money box".
2007-02-16 02:04:50 · answer #5 · answered by briangimma 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes and it is happening beyond your awareness ,people are being made sterile and gay by changes of the ph in the drinking water
because overpopulation is becomong a strain on natural resources
farmers are forced to farm unstable erosive lands to try and keep up with the demand for food ,
in 50 years the world population has doubled the most since ever.
2007-02-15 19:45:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly, you may desire to no longer have been paying interest whilst Rick Scott, the Governor of Florida, ordered each and all of the welfare recipients examined for drugs. in trouble-free terms 2% of them examined advantageous, as antagonistic to eight% of the non-welfare inhabitants. except you're prepared to offer endless infant care, lots of the folk on welfare can't get a job, and on a similar time as quickly as they do, they do no longer make adequate money to pay for infant care, that's why I say endless. And in case you chop back off welfare whilst the youngest youngster is 10, then what's going to it accomplish? Our present day welfare equipment is specific to fasten human beings into welfare. It must be scrapped and thoroughly remodeled to paintings amazing. as long as all we do is throw 1 / 4 in a blind guy's cup, we are in a position to't be shocked whilst he continues to be there begging day after today.
2016-10-02 05:45:06 · answer #7 · answered by whiteford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋