We have so many people making kids, and the system is supporting them. I had enought of this. Some don't care if they have many children by different mothers and fathers.
2007-11-26 06:07:22 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
no.. hello.. this is the land of the FREE!!!!!!!!
2007-11-26 06:11:57 · answer #1 · answered by ♥cutemamma♥ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There will be answers but we WILL have to choose one eventually. To keep on curing the ill, granting long lives to physically and mentally handicapped, allowing the best of us to put off having kids while the least of us have 5 or 6 times as many, all of that creates a downhill spiral.
Im not saying Im against any of that but yes something eventually will have to be done.
You are discussing the advantages of Eugenics to fight the effect of Dysgenics.
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.
Dysgenic is a term describing a progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
The interesting thing is that this question, posted here, and the responses.. all point out the problem. The subject will be understood by the minority so any fix is likely to come very late.
2007-11-26 11:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by Gandalf Parker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically, impossible to enact. You're really commenting on the lack of responsibility people are showing about unintentional procreation and adequate time spent parenting. In several more generations, unintended kids will be raised in creches until they're turned over for work force training. Also, not unlikely, mothers of such children will be sterilized immediately following delivery. That's how the law will work.
2007-11-26 06:21:01 · answer #3 · answered by bardmere 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think the population law will solve the problems. There are a lot of girl babies getting killed over there because people are limited and want boys to carry on the family name. Go figure, it is something wrong with everything. Only 1percent of your tax dollar goes toward social programs, but the money spent on "corporate welfare" (Kickbacks and tax breaks for the large corporations) dwarf that figure.
We have increased enforcement of child support laws and work programs for the low income program enrollees, but we have seen corporate welfare increase by billions of dollars so it neutralizes any benefit from those actions. Find a real culprit and target IT.....
2007-11-26 06:19:35 · answer #4 · answered by quienbee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The more evolved countries do not have to adopt such laws. All we have to do is look at the costs of a 4 year college education, and we tend to limit the number of children that we chose to have. Many countries have declining populations. If not for immigration, America would probably be in the same boat.
2007-11-26 06:15:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO! We need to stop supporting the people who are having kids they can't take care of, not limit the population!
I say if a man Fathers a child and isn't paying support and quits working, he should be in jail, forced to work and send part of his paycheck to the Mother for child support! The rest should go to the government for supporting him in jail! That should put an end to these guys running around Fathering kids and not supporting them. It should work the same for women as well as the men!
2007-11-26 06:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. This would continue to take away freedoms from us. There shouldn't be a law against how many kids you may have. Suppose you are a capable couple wanting six children. Should you be barred from having two of them because the law says four is the max? I think this decision should lie on the individual decisions of people. Not the government.
2007-11-26 06:11:34 · answer #7 · answered by Mr Geek 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is a GREAT movie called Idiocracy. Well actually its kindof a bad B movie but its worth remembering. It starts out by showing a smart well-to-do couple who keep coming up with reasons to wait before having kids, and a pair of redneck morons who keep cranking them out. Anyway this really average guy gets frozen and when he wakes up he is smarter than everyone else on the planet who are still running things but forgot how anything works.
From the creator of Beavis and Butthead, and the movie Office Space. Check it out here....
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Idiocracy-1775.html
2007-11-26 06:45:27 · answer #8 · answered by ????? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the population law in China is cruel beyond words. I believe that some people should be paid to not have children. Then, if fully reversible sterilization was available, that would help those who can't make up their minds.
2007-11-26 06:13:57 · answer #9 · answered by correrafan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. But we should not encourage having many children on welfare either. It should be peoples choice if they feel they are mature enough and financially stable enough to have as many kids as they can. But sometimes women get pregnant and should give it up for adoption.
2007-11-26 06:18:38 · answer #10 · answered by Neil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Flip side of the coin...
What about those of us that have large happy families with several children and work hard to support ourselves and take care of our families.
A population law would restrict this for me...
I don't think that is what we need... we need some realistic politicians to go in and fix the haphazard welfare and other similar type laws that are in effect. If we'd quit paying for mothers without jobs to have kids, then they'd stop having kids.
2007-11-26 06:13:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋