A lot of people believe in the statement about having kids ' If you can't take care of them don't have them' or something in that order. If you believe in this statement then do you believe that the same statement applies to a nation and the world as a whole?
Why is population management such a taboo subject for public figures to talk about? It seems to be the case in most all countries. Wouldn't a smaller population be more manageable and so better for all? Wouldn't it raise the value of all lives?
If we can't take care of them shouldn't we be encouraging people not to have them worldwide?
2007-09-23 15:43:29 · 7 answers · asked by Beertha 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
If America was not giving medicaid and food stamps to all these illeagle aliens, we would have more than enough funding to take care of all americans in need. I tried to get foodstamps when things got bad, I had 3 kids and was only making 8 dollars an hour with 38 hours a week , I got told that I make too much money to have assistance, but there was a huge family of mexicans in there at the same time driving brand new cars, getting food stamps, and medicaid , and who is paying for them to get all this? WE ARE!!!
2007-09-28 05:48:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's the problem -- as soon as we acknowledge a govt interest in keeping the population down, that opens the door to govt regulation of birth to a much greater degree.
Under current laws (in the US) -- the govt is very limited in terms of how much it can control who gets pregnant and whether they stay pregnant or not -- but if reproductive choice is no longer a fundamental right, that could all change.
If the govt is allowed to regulate pregnancy -- and reproductive choice is no longer a fundamental right -- then the govt can start mandating abortions, or mandating sterility -- and opens up a whole can of worms.
Not to mention that almost the entire anti-gay-marriage debate is hinged on the concept that only a heterosexual couple can have kids -- and that ensuring kids is a valid reason to limit marriage. Take that away, and more of the argument crumbles.
As long as it's solely a matter of choice not to have kids -- that's fine -- but it's a slippery slope from there.
2007-09-23 22:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's being done to some extent and some of those who are are having problems. Is it one of the Asian countries that allow only so many girls and now there are so many men and not enough women? In America where we have a welfare system and look out for the kids we do need to be more responsible.
2007-09-23 22:52:55 · answer #3 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
alot of people in america abuse our welfare system by making babies a lifes choice carrer. after the second child all benefits on other children should be zero. that would tame them a bit.
2007-09-23 23:23:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't have enough faith in the government to be willing to give them that type of power.
2007-09-24 01:31:39 · answer #5 · answered by dolmyyr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could always colonize other planets.
2007-09-23 22:50:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
people get drunk and it feels good,wear protection
2007-09-23 23:13:18 · answer #7 · answered by honeysuckle 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋