BF2S Forums Limiting kids per family a good idea?

Masques wrote:

Population is going up, but in general, to lower the population you have to increase a country's wealth, particularly the standing of that state's women. Statistically speaking, women have far fewer births and the population drops as a whole when they are less poor and have access to more opportunity.

That's the reason why so many western countries have low or even negative birthrates.

Population growth can be negative, birth rate can't be negative. Supposedly here in Australia, each couple needs to give birth to 2.2 children (i.e. two children and a limb) to maintain zero population growth, which signifies two things:
1. Alot of people are moving overseas
2. People are living shorter (I don't think this one applies, so it must be number 1)
3. Less people are getting married

Vub wrote:

Masques wrote:

Population is going up, but in general, to lower the population you have to increase a country's wealth, particularly the standing of that state's women. Statistically speaking, women have far fewer births and the population drops as a whole when they are less poor and have access to more opportunity.

That's the reason why so many western countries have low or even negative birthrates.

Population growth can be negative, birth rate can't be negative. Supposedly here in Australia, each couple needs to give birth to 2.2 children (i.e. two children and a limb) to maintain zero population growth, which signifies two things:
1. Alot of people are moving overseas
2. People are living shorter (I don't think this one applies, so it must be number 1)
3. Less people are getting married

I meant to refer to population growth. My mistake.

PHPR Hunter wrote:

Eliminate the incentives to have children...populalist welfare.  Eliminate the deduction for children.  Eliminate welfare.  Then we'll see where all the people screaming freedom to breed say.  Fine, if you can support them, pop em out.  If not, well then you have a problem.  We don't.

The problem is that many people are no more than semi-intelligent rabbits. The poor would keep having children, and the crime rate would skyrocket.

I was watching a documentary on video a while back - one of those home made films shot on camcorder in China. They interviewed some nurses at one of the big maternity hospitals in shanghai. These nurses told how the Chinese Government ensures only 1 pregnancy per "couple" (not person). When the babies head crowns, the doctor injects a chemical into the babies head. The result is instant death.

The official Chinese Govt line is that extra pregnancies are aborted where possible, and when babies are born before they can be "aborted" the parents are fined. They mean the parents are black listed and lose their jobs and virtually all means of income.

The reason I say this here - is because the only people who would appear to actually support the Chinese 1 child policy live in safe western countries.

Where do you propose they would draw the line, and how would your suggestion be enforced. Because it would have to be enforced for it to work - and at what human cost.

Lets leave the decision to parents, and why don't we put pressure on wealthy Govt's and Corporations to build wealth in third world countries (not loans which further impoverish them). Some despotic Govt's would have to be deposed and ............. oh thats right - IRAQ. never mind. WW3 is the answer.

jermyang wrote:

An epidemic is likely. Bird Flu. Don't forget it.
Don't touch dead/sick/hurt birds on the ground.

yeah no kidding, we've been beating the population limit that each species has because of medicine, so its bound to happen some time...

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The population of the world was about 6.1 billion people in 2000 and increasing by 1.4 % per year.  Assuming that trend continues and each peron takes up 4 sq ft of space there will be "standing room only" by 2801, which is a long way off but by then all of the resources would be long gone, disease would kill billions. I say we should seriously consider solving the problem before it becomes one (something never seen in government). 

Some could argue "limits on freedom" but who needs 8 kids? Who can support and give the needed attention to 8 kids at the same time?  It seems selfish to me and i think that 2 kids is enough for me.  It keeps the population leveled off, you can provide well for them.. what are your thoughts?

psh. go live in china. communist.

G3|Genius wrote:

that's the ultimate offense to the freedom of choice.

are you "pro-choice"?  You speak as though you are, but if you are, then allow people to make a choice.

The family is the central part of society.  Everything everyone learns is in their family.  Kids who grow up without families are totally screwed up, with few rare exceptions.  I say we work on keeping families with both a mother and a father before we start limiting the number of children we have.

FREEDOM is what America was founded on.  Being free.  FREE.  I love my freedom.  I love not having someone tell me how many children I can have.  I love not having someone tell me what job to get when I grow up or where to live or what to drive.  You have no right to take it away from me, or from any of my countrymen because of your convoluted perception of reality and truth.

Do some research before you put your ignoramus asinine statements on this forum.

You know, im torn on you post. Its like the angel on my shoulder. Seriously. The devil is pointing out the walking baby factories that really have nothing to do with a family so much as getting a source of income from the gov't What then?

Ok this part is half assed so bear with me...i had this question once where it described this totally effed up broad with a liter of kids and it asked 'would u abort the next one?' turns out i woulda 86'd some great composer. I felt like an ass because it pointed out how random humans are and how you cant really put laws on some of their habits?

p.s. will try and find the whole story then update...

For the United States it would be a decent idea that would never fly with all our talk of freedom. But, a lot of countries have a declining population, France for instance... limiting children wouldn't work there either. So, overall, no.

ok, on 2nd review i have come to a conclusion. To the space station and eff this rock!

norge wrote:

and what if they had twins, triplets, quadruplets, or even more! wtf. this shit is just stupid.  if the 1 child policy were in effect, the population would decrease by 1/2 every generation.  this is stupid.  1.4% growth rate is 2.8 babies per couple, which is not the norm anymore. most people have 2 in the US

o really? i could have sworn i've seen an eighth of a child in nearly every family that lives in my city.  Where are you living?

Yes. The world is overpopulated now. We need a negative population growth for the good of society.
Freedom or selfishness, Do you only think of yourself or the community/world/environment. Your so called freedoms are already managed and regulated with laws restricting what you can and can't do, so why not with child birth?
Another major problem is religious beliefs on contraceptives as well as ignorance about the subject.