Overpopulation is a serious problem. Millions of children are either abandoned by their parents or confiscated by the state when the parents are determined to be unfit. My question is in two parts:
1) Should there be any limit on the number of children a person can have? Should one couple be allowed to have 20 kids?
2) Should ANYONE be allowed to have kids? Currently ANYONE is allowed to get pregnant and have a child, because it is considered wrong to force a person to be sterilized. BUT it is not considered wrong to wait for the baby to be born and take it away.
So if a woman is a convicted pedophile, homeless crackhead prostitute with no means to support a child, who is a threat to children AND will produce children with health defects due to her drug addiction, she is STILL allowed to have as many babies as she wants. The state will just wait for the baby to be born and confiscate it.
Should reproductive freedom be considered more important than the lives of the children?
2007-07-05 05:38:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
1) I think there should be a limit on how many kids a couple can have. Not sure what the limit should be though maybe 5.
2) I wish we could regulate who is allowed to have children. Though it would really be no different then the idea of a master race. It is against peoples civil rights. I think every parent-to-be should have to take a class/test to learn what it means/takes to be a parent though. ( at least that would be legal)
2007-07-05 05:43:58 · answer #1 · answered by GoldenButterflyKisses 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sexual behavior has fallen into the category of protected privacy. It comes from the sacred notion that government should not interfere with our private lives. We do not want government overstepping its bounds. As a result, we have drawn the line of sexual conduct as being too far for government to go by way of personal interference.
That said, there is plenty of logic behind the notion that many men and women should not have children simply because they have no concept nor disposition to raise children into productive and responsible adults, being basically irresponsible themselves.
In a perfect setting, the number of children we have should only be limited by the conscience of the parents themselves. The parents should be capable of supporting and raising those children without state assistance except in cases of unexpected emergencies. The traditional nuclear family used to stick together to help each other out and take care of the growing youth. As the family unit has disintegrated over the years, this has become a much more difficult task. Those that are dedicated to the proposition that family is still the most important unit in society, have managed to continue this tradition. My parents have six children, 30 grandchildren and 20+ great-grandchildren. My wife's family is even bigger. Currently I have six children and five grandchildren.
As you can surmise, I am not for putting a limit on familial procreation. This should remain a private issue for the parents.
2007-07-05 06:14:40 · answer #2 · answered by rac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I come from a family of six, and I know many families with many more children than my family. They have some of the best families ever. I actually feel bad for the people that are only children, they're missing out! Putting a limit on how many children you can have is wrong. The government, nor anyone else should have any say on how many children you can have. You're not God.
2007-07-05 05:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by whisper 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The carrying capacity of this planet is open to debate and change by improvements in agricultural technology. Further, we are coming into an age where colonization of outer space and the moon are options for the American economy, especially for those with an eye for serious, never-ending profit. America will always need more future taxpayers... just ask any AARP member expecting to collect a social security check.
By the way, MEN are never allowed to become pregnant.
2007-07-05 05:50:29 · answer #4 · answered by a2zresource 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know how this would be enforced, but you cannot ignore the fact that that the planet is being over populated. things are becoming way out of balance. i read that the only way for the planet, in terms of providing food, to keep up was for each family to have two children. this way the population doesn't really grow because the two children replace the two parents when they die.
2007-07-05 06:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by A W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) No. Economics, normally, determines the number of offspring. That should suffice in a democratic and free society.
2) As long as we consider ourselves a civilized and law-abiding society, we have to accept certain aberrations of a generally accepted definition of humanity.
2007-07-05 05:46:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wait how do you know how many people this planet can handle?
Did I miss the sign that says "Earth Occupancy Limit=?"
2007-07-05 05:41:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't know what country you are speaking of but of course none of your concepts would work in the US. Unless of course we were to first toss out the constitution.
2007-07-05 06:08:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your crazy. Tell some people they can't have kids and they might get a gun out. Why do you think you are God?
2007-07-05 05:41:55 · answer #9 · answered by John Galt 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
repubs. should not be allowed to procreate
2007-07-05 05:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋