Should there be a limit imposed on how many children people are allowed to have?

Question

The reason to reduce the growth of population and therefore reduce the strain on the environment to produce enough food and energy, and reduce the amount of pollution.

This would increase quality of life for everyone would it not??

Answer 1

Yes but it wont happen untill people stop taking it personally and look at the big picture. Maybe in the future when the population is larger and strain on Earths resources is past its peak. We seem to wait till it's too late to do anything about problems and then complain that something wasnt done sooner.

Answer 2

You're getting into a contraversial topic here. You're talking about taking away someone's personal right to raise a family. Of course less population growth would be better for the planet, but there are many ways we could go about this, none of them appealing. For example, if we were to stop sending aid to 3rd world countries, a lot more children would die in places like Cambodia. This would keep population better under control, but as a human it's hard to justify just letting innocent children die. Also if we stopped researching cures for diseases, more people would die at a younger age, but then again how do to take the value of one life and put it against another? And again, if you DID limit family sizes, how do you punish those who have too many children? Kill the child, forced abortions? There really is no good way to go about this.

One thing that would lead to a better method of population control in America is to stop "rewarding" welfare recievers for having more children. Every child they have raises the amount on their checks, and increases the strain on our economy. Also, we should change the laws making any child born in America a legal citizen. Illegal immigrants come over here, have a child, and the mother and child get to stay forever, and are qualified for public assistance (such as welfare) and can recieve free medical help. You can probably see the very contraversial issues with this subject.

Answer 3

Why wait why don't we perform some retroactive abortions and reduce the population right now. Then the survivors could start to enjoy the increased quality of life right away.

How do we accomplish this. Elect a grand decider to decide who has to go and who can stay.

If getting rid of some of the people would improve our quality of life just imagine how great it would be if we got rid of most of the people. Say leave 100,000 or so. Or maybe just 100.

I guess the only complication is determining who gets to do the deciding.

Answer 4

How would limiting people on the number of children they have affect anything?? And how in the world would you plan on even attempting putting this into practice?? The only possible way would be to force people to either have abortions or visectomies (sp?)...and that would lead on to a type of govermental control that is never good. The world is nowhere near over-populated, and I really don't believe having less children than are already being produced would help the environment in any way. In fact, the number of children people have should be increased, in order to re-populate the earth. People are barely having enough children to replace themselves if you take into account the number of children who die at an early age, the number of people who are incapable of having children, etc...

So in short....no.

Answer 5

If you consider that the population of the earth would fit into New Jersey if packed at the density of Los Angeles or New Delhi, and that there's a lot of unused land that could still be farmed, overpopulation isn't the problem.

It's the interference with the incentive to not have more children than one can afford, coupled with government interference with distribution systems (tariffs and embargoes).

More government regulation won't work anywhere if it isn't working in China, and it's not.

Answer 6

Yes, I think there should be a limit on how many children you can have. Also, I think anyone who is already on welfare should not be allowed to have any more children and if they do, their kids get put up for adoption. Too many people just go around casually making babies because it seems like a good idea at the time and they don't care if/how they will care for them.

Answer 7

It sounds like an ideal plan...BUT you are talking about forcing people to take birth control pills or have tubal ligations and a lot of people (including myself) do not like the idea of using some synthetic drug to prevent pregnancy. They have been used for years, I know. But they can't be good for the body. They stop the natural process of your reproductive system and this just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I definitely wouldn't like to have surgery unless it was absolutely necessary. Anesthesia is dangerous sometimes. So...how are we to limit childbirth ? It would be nice if our bodies had their own limits, huh ? Some do... some are never able to have kids. Maybe this makes up for the people out there having 5 and 10 kids each ? Think of how overpopulated the world would be if ALL women were able to have kids.

Answer 8

yeah? where would you set the limit?
at one... then we'd creat our own version of China. (in a way)
at two.... sucks for some of my friends who are third and fourth children.

basically, no.
i think that you should have the good sence not to have kids you dont have the capabillity of raising properly and healthily.

some of my best friends come a a family of 8. they are great. and their quality of life is fine.

Answer 9

I wouldn't necessarily limit the number of kids people have, but I'd limit who should and shouldn't be having kids. There are too many idiots out here breeding.

Answer 10

yes for population's sake
no because that's taking away freedom
whichever u value higher i guess
Freedom > Over Population
or
Over Population > Freedom