They are both pretty bad. I say drop the big one!
2007-09-26 10:16:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither. I agree that the world is over populated, but you can't let people die without at least trying to help them, and for various reasons (human nature, religious beliefs, etc.) limiting the number of children a family can have is wrong and would not work (btw, it doesn't work in China).
2007-09-26 09:04:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by my brain hurts 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
China's one child per family policy. While it's not something anyone would like, to die from aids has to be to horrible to be imagined.
2007-09-26 09:02:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lacy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really do not like either of your choices but hands down it would be a limit on children. AIDS running its course can take years to kill someone, and they suffer greatly due to complications from the disease. Most people with AIDS die from pneumonia, and other diseases, NOT the AIDS virus itself. The virus just makes you more susceptible to getting sick.
2007-09-26 09:27:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by omorris1978 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you're asking which is more humane - than 1 child per family
2007-09-26 09:02:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by =^..^= kittie_kaat☺ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
one child per family
2007-09-26 08:58:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by sunshinebabe1799 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither...killing baby girls because you want a boy and are only allowed one is wrong
Aids is a horrible way to go and you infect so many more before you die...
2007-09-26 09:17:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by gr8ful_one 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first one, of course.
2007-09-26 09:40:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by french7suzi 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd go back to the drawing board on that question. I'm sure you can think of something better.
2007-09-26 08:58:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Alien invasion! At least we won't be after each other.
2007-09-26 15:19:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by nursesr4evr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋