Would you support a one child policy in this country?

[AngryAmish]

Assuming any constitutional problems were dealt with, would you support a one child policy in this nation. Or maybe, like China, have large fines for the second child and thereafter. That way only those person who could support a child would have a child.

[JVS]

1. No.

[artfan]

2. no

just no

[noamnety]

3. No because I'm not a misogynist. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

153. Out of curiosity is it misogynistic if you punish the father equally?

I honestly haven't thought much about this question nor the reproductive rights implications.

[rcrush]

4. I support keeping them on farms and letting them roam free range

No factory farms though that would be cruel.

[Synicus Maximus]

129. I agree totally

[AzDar]

5. So... if one has children, then loses their means of support, the children are, what... cancelled?

Jeebus. :eyes:

[virgogal]

6. No.

[treestar]

7. Constitutionallly impossible though

A more possible thing might be doing away with the tax deduction. That's a way to encourage the behavior - to not have kids.

But then it would result in more kids living in poverty as people would have them anyway.

[stray cat]

8. If you can't support a child but they have one anyway do we kill the child?

[Synicus Maximus]

130. no we kill the parent

[havocmom]

9. A nation of first borns? NO

And since we are about choice... HELL NO

[SalviaBlue]

120. LOL... I didn't think of this aspect..

We need middle children to calm everyone down.

[Withywindle]

145. No, a nation of only children.

Being an only child myself, of course I think this wouldn't be too bad! :thumbsup:

(Only children are both first-borns AND youngest--and also all the middle children at once.)

[tabatha]

10. This country is going to run out of jobs as

Earth's resources are depleted. There are going to be a lot of unemployed youth.

And since we are probably going to taken over by China soon, there will probably be no choice - one child or less.

[AngryAmish]

14. Actually, before the resources are gone robots are going to take a lot of low skill jobs

And robots are going to take some high skill jobs too.

[FreakinDJ]

29. I agree

[mitchum]

11. It's a start

I kid!

[Fire1]

12. Hell no! n/t

[cali]

13. fuck no.

[TheCowsCameHome]

93. OK, that eliminates having any........

[CreekDog]

15. Nope

besides, who is going to pay of our retirement?

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Nnnnnnnope

[rd_kent]

17. A license is required for just about everything in this country.

You need a license to fish, hunt, drive a car, carry a concealed weapon, own a business, own a pet, the list goes on and on and on....

Why do you not need a license to have a child?


While I would not support a program where the government tells you how many children you can have, I would support a program that issues licenses for people to have a child after they show they have the means to support that child. (the USDA has posted what the minimum cost per child per year is. They have been doing that for decades).
If one chose to have a child without a license, one would not be eligible for government assistance programs.

[noamnety]

18. And the women who don't have a license

would have government-mandated unnecessary surgery against their will?

nice.

[rd_kent]

27. what surgery are you talking about?

who said anything about that? (FYI, thats called a strawman)

[noamnety]

28. What are you going to do with "unlicensed" pregnant women?

No surgery ... then what, forced drugs? How are you going to force them NOT to give birth once they are pregnant?

[rd_kent]

31. Why don't you reread my post. The answer is right there.

Never once said that anyone COULD NOT HAVE A CHILD.

For fucks sake, its called reading comprehension.

[noamnety]

82. Ah, I see now - apologies. We let the poor children starve.

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

[rd_kent]

98. UH, you really are dense, huh? Where did I say that?

[noamnety]

113. No, I am not the dense one.

I'm not the one suggesting women should have to get a "license" in advance of having sex, or you know, getting raped, in case they get pregnant.

I'm not the one pretending penalizing women for giving birth isn't misogynistic.

Feel free to go on in great detail about you would penalize women (and/or their children) for being sluts-while-poor, though.

[cali]

21. no, a license is not required for "just about everything". No licence

to own a gun and where I live, no license to carry a concealed one.

And the idea that you're pushing that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children is fucking disgusting. It's wingnut ugly. congrats.

[rd_kent]

30. Never once did I say that ANYONE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN.

And the gun reference was just to underscore my point, that a license is required for many things, even the most mundane. Since a CCW is not required where you live, you can omit that one. Feel better now?

[ret5hd]

37. But you did say that an "unlicensed child" should be starved to death.

[rd_kent]

41. Really? I did? Please point out where I said that.

[cali]

51. here, have a little reminder:

I would support a program that issues licenses for people to have a child after they show they have the means to support that child. (the USDA has posted what the minimum cost per child per year is. They have been doing that for decades).
If one chose to have a child without a license, one would not be eligible for government assistance programs.

YOU said you are pro NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE for those that have children if the government deems that they're not financially able to. And yes, that would mean some children would die from such an idiot wingnut stone hearted law.

[rd_kent]

54. Ah, I see, your reading comprehension is low.

Here is what I posted: If one chose to have a child without a license, one would not be eligible for government assistance programs.

Please show me where I said I want children to starve?

[cali]

58. hey, genius, what do you think would happen to those children born

to very poor people who wouldn't qualify for any gov't asssistance? Those children wouldn't get medical care or have their nutritional needs met. And though you don't say you want children to starve to death, dearie, you do say you don't want them to receive any fucking assistance whatsoever. That's typical callous freeper type dogshit, honey.

[rd_kent]

60. hey, dummy, ther are ways to care for the children

without giving money to the parent(s) that had them knowing they could not fully support them.

[Incitatus]

88. such as?

You say you are against them receiving government assistance programs. Food stamps would be one.

So if the parents can not afford to buy the food their kids need, what are these other ways?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

115. Maybe HE just means the women would be allowed to starve.

government assistance for the kids, starvation for the women. That seems like an appropriate punishment for having a uterus while being poor.

[verges]

112. Jeez, you're dense. nt

[Incitatus]

67. .

[NMMNG]

75. From the movie "Parenthood"

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father. "

While an actual license may be a bit much, I'd strongly advocate some form of classes/training for teens. Seriously; raising a child is one of the most significant things you can do, and if you do it wrong you can f*ck a human being up for life, yet we send people off to do it with absolutely no formal instruction or support whatsoever. :wtf:

[rd_kent]

79. Yup. Agree 100%

I responded to this post as it was presented, hypothetically, with a hypothetical response. A license would NEVER be a practical solution, I thought that would be assumed (but apparently some did not get that, as judged by the responses I got), but yes, child rearing SHOULD be a high school course......as should basic personal finance and personal responsibility.

[sarge43]

86. Only the poor would be hurt by the lack of gov't assistance.

The rich and well to do couldn't care less and which group is the greater consumer of resources?

[Book Lover]

95. A better question would be why do we need a license to fish, hunt, drive a car, etc? (nm)

[RC]

124. To regulate the amount of fishing and hunting so as not eliminate whatever wildlife

in whatever areas. Drivers licenses to hopefully keep the worse drivers off the road.
With almost 7,000,000,000 (Billion) people on this planet right now, we are outstripping the ability of this planet to supply the resources needed to support us.
We, in our arrogance have become a weed species, short shortsightedly eliminating most other plants and animals to grow our food and paving over their habitat for our cities.
We are an arrogant species and our arrogance will be our extinction.

[Dorian Gray]

143. That's

chilling.

[bighart]

160. What about unintended pregnanceis,

especially teenage mothers? Do you just propose we say too bad you are on your own?

[pnwmom]

19. Who says everyone who gets pregnant once has the means to support a child?

By your logic, income should be the variable determining how many children each family would be allowed. I can't imagine that idea getting any popular support.

[Incitatus]

20. How would you suggest it be enforced?

[calico1]

107. Sex police n/t

[arcadian]

22. Yes

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Hell no.

[Texasgal]

24. Absolutely NOT.

You keep your hands OFF OF MY UTERUS. PERIOD.

[emulatorloo]

25. NO!

[glen123098]

26. I got myself a vasectomy because I don't want any children.

I don't want to contribute to the current global disaster coming up known as overpopulation. I agree people need to have less children, but force is not the solution.

[customerserviceguy]

32. The costs of having children

pretty much operate as a tax on them. The only people that don't see this are those who use procreation as a way to mollify their deities.

Industrialization invariably produces a drop in the birthrate. We've already got a sufficiently low one in this country, as it is. If personal exemptions and child tax credits were limited to two kids, with exceptions made for adoptive families, you'd probably have a tiny influence on the birthrate, but you'd hand the right-wingers a major election issue.

[mike_c]

33. yes, absolutely....

I'd prefer it was voluntary, but Garrett Hardin was probably right about the futility of that. There is no hope for the future unless we relinquish the freedom to breed, to paraphrase Hardin.

[glinda]

34. I would support charges for education, health care, etc.... to be covered by parents over one child.

[tbyg52]

35. >>only those person who could support a child would have a child

Ah, but I think every adult in the country should be able to get a job that pays enough to support the adult and one child - otherwise we're in the position of saying only certain people are allowed to reproduce, based on money.

[JFN1]

36. No - but I do support ZPG

Replace your own life with a new one - but that is it.

[chandler2]

38. Yes - sorry Pope, food co's, consumer co's, landlords etc. nt

[Goldstein1984]

39. No, but I would support a...

one child POLICY with financial incentives to limit reproduction to one child (e.g. only one child being deductible for tax purposes). I would not support restrictive laws to limit reproduction.

What I would support wholeheartedly is legislation creating efficiency. While legislating limits on the number of children would bother me, limiting the size of passenger cars or homes, or taxing fuel to encourage use of more fuel efficient vehicles doesn't bother me at all.

The problem really isn't the number of Americans, but the resources consumed by Americans.

[tabatha]

45. Actually it is.

The most effective way to stop AGW is to limit the number of children - so say a number of studies.

And anyone who says no to that, is not really an environmentalist.

[Goldstein1984]

81. A little more complicated than that

Americans are 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 25% of its resources and produce 25% of CO2 emissions.

It's a fact that population is the root cause of nearly all of our environmental problems--6.8 billion people is too much, especially if they all intend to live like Americans currently do--only that Americans have a larger impact on the planet per capita than any other people, and we could accomplish a great deal more, with far less controversy, by more efficiently using energy and other resources.

Here's where America can lead, rather than just defend the status quo. First, we can work intensively to develop more sustainable sources of energy and more efficient ways of using energy. Second, we can support every effort to educate women around the world. When women are educated, they are empowered. Birth rates drop when women are educated an empowered.

Here's an example of how those fortunate enough to have the financial ability can make a difference without the government having to be part of the process. A financial contribution to organizations like the Central Asia Institute, which builds girls' schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, would also go a long way toward promoting peace in one of the most unstable parts of the world.

[endless october]

40. no. nt

[rollin74]

42. No

[notadmblnd]

43. no

[Silent3]

44. Why would this country have to bother with such a policy anyway?

If it weren't for immigration, the US population would be shrinking. We're already having children at a rate lower than people are dying.

[Progressivism]

48. No.

I believe we should be more restrictive on economic freedoms in general,though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. Not true; the US birth rate is still well over its death rate

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Birth rate:
13.82 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)

Death rate:
8.38 deaths/1,000 population (July 2009 est.)

Net migration rate:
4.31 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.)

So the increase in population is still more due to the net birth-death rate than to immigration.

Total fertility rate:
2.05 children born/woman (2009 est.)

which is just about stable, in the long term, but since the population is weighted towards younger people, and life expectancy still slowly increasing, the birth rate is still significantly higher than the death rate.

[Silent3]

96. Thanks for the info

I was either misremembering something, or correctly remembering bad information then.

According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Most of the "western world", however, as well as China (enforced as per the OP) and Japan, is in a mode of sub-replacement fertility.

[Silent3]

97. self delete - dupe

(Weird. DU gave me a completely blank page after I first submitted my reply, so I didn't think it went through.)

[pipi_k]

46. On the fence on that issue, but I do believe in one thing...

anyone proposing to become a parent should have some sort of psychological testing done.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see children born to people who can't even be marginal as parents. People who abuse and torture their kids...abandon them in favor of drugs or, as I've seen from so many women, for some man who abuses them, but whom the mother won't leave "because I LOOOOOVVVE him".

Bullshit.

People want to cure the ills of the country? How about starting with something as basic as ensuring that innocent children aren't beaten and abused by people who THINK they're "good parents".

And I say piss on the "rights" of people to become parents when they're not even fit to own a pet. As far as I'm concerned, they have no rights. People do not have the "right" to inflict their own severe mental or emotional issues on another generation of innocents.

[tonysam]

47. Absolutely not

Many parents who could and did have enough income to support children find themselves out of work and are having hard times supporting their families. Should we throw their kids into orphanages?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. China is running into problems that anyone could have predicted

aside from the gender imbalance and a generation of young men who can't find women to marry

That is, a nation of pampered only children

One couple responsible for two sets of parents and four sets of grandparents in a country that still doesn't have much of a safety net

The fastest graying population in the world

But that's China for you. The guys at the top get some half-baked idea (The Great Leap Forward, the Kill the Birds Campaign, the Cultural Revolution), and the whole country has to follow, whether it makes sense or not.

Anyway, family sizes are shrinking throughout the developed world. The best way to lower population growth is to raise the educational level of the country's women. Throughout the world, there is a direct relationship between a woman's educational level and the number of children she has. Afghanistan and other countries where most women are illiterate, have very high birthrates. The developed countries of Western Europe and East Asia (Japan, Korea, Singapore), where men and women have equal chances for higher education, have very low birthrates.

The U.S. would be on the same level with other developed countries in terms of average family size if it weren't for immigrants from the Third World who skew the statistics. Thirty years ago, when all the Vietnamese refugees came to the U.S., I heard people expressing horror at the fact that so many of them had ten or twelve children. However, those children are now old enough to become parents themselves, and most of them have no more than one or two children.

[madokie]

50. I'm from a big family 13 kids in all

scattered over 30 some odd years and I decided that I wouldn't father any because there is so many out there who are already here who need a dad. been a stepdad going on 20 yeas now and loving every minute of it.

[pipi_k]

55. My dad was one of seven kids and when we kids would spend holidays

at my grandparents' house it was so neat to have the whole family of aunts and uncles there.

So I grew up thinking I would want to have at least that many children myself.

In actuality, I only had three, one of whom died in infancy.


As I look back, I'm really not sorry that I never did have as many kids as I wanted to when I was a child.

[madokie]

105. as a kid growing up I always wanted to adopt

as there were plenty of men in my family to carry the name on so why couldn't I take someones who for whatever reason weren't taking care of theirs.

[pipi_k]

121. I didn't know how babies were made until I was embarrassingly older

so the whole issue of adoption vs "natural" wasn't even a concern to me at that point.

All I knew was that people got married and then they somehow got kids.


:shrug:

[Taverner]

52. I would - but don't ask me

I'm far too "anti baby" as some would describe me....


But yeah, if we could find a way to limit that, life would be much better

[pipi_k]

57. I'm not a big fan of babies either, to tell the truth

My three grandkids are 8, 6, and 5


They're wayyyy more interesting and fun now that they're older. :)

[Taverner]

87. I have two kids myself - and yet I think the only folks who should be having kids...

Are those that want to have kids

Any other situation will not work

[DefenseLawyer]

53. No, but I do think people who have too many kids should be rounded up and put in camps. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

56. No. I support reproductive freedom.

That works both ways.

[hlthe2b]

59. Two children, or 2. one child and three dogs or 3. no children & 4 dogs

Those who have no children and instead take in shelter dogs get "child" tax exemptions for each dog up to four.... :evilgrin:

[whosinpower]

61. We only had one child

Reasons of which are personal and will not be discussed.

Having said that - there are almost 7 BILLION of us on this little marble.

Interesting how many quickly stated no. Having children, the deep dark instinct of reproducing does not arise when a person thinks they can afford it or not. Government interference in choosing who "qualifies" and who does not raises all sorts of moral issues that will tear the very fabric of society.

If you think that the chinese people are content with this policy - I would suspect that highly unlikely. But, China HAD to do something, or else watch in horror as its own people starve. That is the cold hard truth.

The earth can only sustain so many people - our resources are not unlimited. Overpopulation has to account for some of global warming - but how a person addresses this without the moral hazzard - I cannot begin to see. But the biggest contributor of global warming is not chinese bodies or Indian bodies - it is our lifestyle excesses. It is our overwhelming addiction to fossil fuels - energy consumption.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. No, but free contraception would be a good idea

including to those under 18, with complete confidentiality and with no conditions (half the states make conditions, like the minor being already married - strange, most people worry more about pregnancy outside marriage than inside it).

With many unwatned pregnancies in the world, and those who can least afford to be able to bring up a child being those most likely to be put off using contraception by cost, it makes sense to prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Hekate]

74. Excellent point. nt

[NJCher]

63. yes

Cher

[movonne]

64. Yes...

[MoralSyncretism]

148. Saying "yes" is just mean...

mean spirited, selfish, etc. You would limit other people's freedome of choice? I thought this discussion site was DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Maybe you need to re-evaluate your values.

Yes, a lot of stupid people have too many children, but there are better alternatives than to limit EVERYONE's freedom of choice.

Read why other people on this thread say No.

[rucky]

65. No, but the tax credit needs to be reexamined. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

66. Yes.

That's all I gotta say.

[Hekate]

68. China deals with it by forced abortions, "orphanages," and at times, overseas adoptions of girls.

Great example to have.

We can do better with behavior-modification incentives.

IIRC the following: Japan has a problem on its hands of aging population and an emptying out of rural areas. European nations achieved zero population growth -- and actually a decline among native-borns --and are now infilling with immigrants.

I only have two kids myself, and recommend the same to others, but for the most part mainstream Americans are actually limiting their families pretty well for economic reasons. Exceptions abound, of course, but they tend to not be on public assistance, afaik.

"The average number of children per all families was only .90 child."


> According to the 2000 Census, the average US family size was 3.14 persons.
> The average number of children per all families was only .90 child.
> The average number of children in families with children was 1.86 children.
> So families with children tended toward 2 children, but not significantly if you allow for the number of families with MORE than 2. The number of families with 1 is likely close to the number of families with 2. More than half (52%) of ALL families had no minor children at all.
> With changing demographics, this number could be larger in the 2010 Census. Larger families would weight both averages upward.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_children_are_in_the_average_American_family

Hekate

[FreeJoe]

69. No

I'm a freedom lover.

[Aviation Pro]

70. No.

....Try China for that nonesense.

[RedCloud]

71. When Empires are at "war" they need more bodies; ergo family values prevail.

[Paladin]

72. Nope. (n/t)

[Hekate]

73. In 2000, "The average number of children per all (US) families was only .90 child."

"The average number of children per all families was only .90 child." That's UNDER ONE, on average.

> According to the 2000 Census, the average US family size was 3.14 persons.
> The average number of children per all families was only .90 child.
> The average number of children in families with children was 1.86 children.
> So families with children tended toward 2 children, but not significantly if you allow for the number of families with MORE than 2. The number of families with 1 is likely close to the number of families with 2. More than half (52%) of ALL families had no minor children at all.
> With changing demographics, this number could be larger in the 2010 Census. Larger families would weight both averages upward.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_children_are_in_the_average_American_family

How low do you want to go? Seriously. We are heading back into eugenics territory again, not to mention cold-hearted Scrooge territory where society/the government has no obligation to help its citizens.

I believe there are much more benign ways to make the point -- education, primarily. Government-run advertising about the benefits of small families. That kind of thing -- and it works.

Hekate

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. That's "children under 18"

The figures are:
Total families 71,787,347
With own children under 18 34,588,368
Total children under 18 64,494,637
Average per family 0.90
Average per family with children 1.86

From http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html Table ST-F1-2000

So that's a snapshot of children under 18 at that moment. If you have 1 child that's 19, and 1 17, and they're both living at home, that's just 1 child, for this count. And if all your children have reached 18, then you're a 'family with no children'.

[Hekate]

140. "Average per family with children 1.86" --is still under replacement of 2 point something kids

I believe US population may be growing more by immigration than by births at this point.

In a free society the options of our government to influence our behavior for our own good are limited by certain things, including the Constitution and public resistance. To hear the bellyaching about the supposed nanny-state at DU over something as simple as wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets, you would think we had no freedom to do stupid things at all. On the other hand, a fairly simple advertising campaign or two got the message out to *most* citizens about the efficacy of seat belts, and the result was a dramatic drop in traffic fatalities even before airbags. So advertising works, as anyone who has ever tried to sell hamburgers, cars, or Viagra knows very well. The same concept might well be applied to family planning.

Any discussion about limiting the size of people's families should surely start with their economic and educational status. Women and men without adequate access to birth control and abortion, boys and girls without adequate and accurate sexuality education, may find themselves with more babies than they intended to have. People who see nothing but a life of poverty *regardless* of what they do may decide that the pleasures of having a family outweigh any probability of economic advancement when the only available jobs pay sub-optimal wages.

Poor people having children of their own is not *the* major problem in the US. The causes of poverty are many and complex, and forbidding people the opportunity of having children is not *the* answer.

Hekate

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. See #89

the total fertility rate is 2.05 children in a woman's lifetime. As I said, the limitation of "is the child under 18 at the moment?" (and "is the child born yet?", for that matter) means that 1.86 figure tells you about the current household average of children under 18, not the sons or daughters for a woman over her life.

[Cleita]

76. Hell no!

Studies have shown that when you give women control over their fertility, population growth goes down. What we really need to do is make the separation of church and state happen, keeping the religious right from interfering with women's reproductive health by increasing family planning clinics, and making them available to all women regardless of their ability to pay. We also need to neutralize the power of the pro-life jerks and expose them for the women haters that they are.

[NMMNG]

77. I wouldn't support a "one child policy", as in China

But I'd support ending tax breaks after the second child. Replacement is fine and good. Rampant spawning like rabbits on speed isn't.

[H2O Man]

78. No.

Being Irish and all.

[varelse]

80. How would an amendment to the Constitution allowing this policy to be created or enforced

ever be ratified?

[anonymous171]

131. You could probably get the fundies on board if you made it vague enough

Allowing the government to interfere in people's reproductive choices might see like a good idea to them.

[varelse]

147. A vaguely worded amendment allowing the government to limit births per family

would somehow get ratified by 2/3 of the states?

I don't think people realize just what an undertaking that would be: here are outlines of the two methods by which the Constitution could be amended.

The most recent serious attempt to amend the constitution (the E.R.A.) has been under way for 86 years and counting.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.

I cannot imagine that we would see popular support for an amendment that would permanently take away or limit one of the most widely recognized fundamental human rights. In fact, recent developments in US politics seem to indicate a trend away from limiting births and toward restricting access to birth control.

And no - I would never support a one child per family policy enforced by the government. I would, however, support any government funded non-punitive and positive measures to curb population growth, such as adequate sex education in schools, subsidized birth control for both sexes (a male version of the pill would be awesome - why not fund R&D?) publically subsidized abortion, universal health care, and publically funded higher education (educated people all over the world tend to have smaller families voluntarily).

[Lyric]

83. No.

[bigwillq]

84. Yes. As long as there as groups

who keep telling us that two men or two women cannot raise a child, then I am all for limitations on the number of children people can have.

[WeDidIt]

85. What I would support is no tax exemptions for children beyond three.

An exemption each for mother and father.

Exemptions and tax credits for children one through three.

No exemptions or tax credits for children beyond three.

[TheCowsCameHome]

90. I'll ask Mrs. Duggar. She'll know the answer.

[Solly Mack]

91. Nope

[The Straight Story]

92. Her body, her choice - unless we want to abandon that even more than we have already (nt)

[readmoreoften]

94. No.

[calico1]

99. Not just no but

HELL NO!


Honestly, some of the ideas that come from some of the posters here scare the hell out of me.

[marshall]

100. One child per person? per woman? per couple? per married couple?

It is at least somewhat feasible in a country like China, where "traditional" marriage is still the only socially accepted way to reproduce, and the concept of same sex couples is not tolerated--much less same sex couples having children.

How would it be instituted in the US? If it was limited to one child per woman that would be considered sexist because it excludes men. And with some demographics reproducing more often outside of marriage rather than in marriage, it would be considered unfair.

It just wouldn't work here.

[jgraz]

101. No way. It would distract from the No Child Policy I'm advocating.

[LWolf]

103. I'd support a one-child policy if it included the whole planet.

Maybe. At least, I think it would be the responsible thing to do. I'm not really comfortable with that kind of authoritarian ruling, though.

I wouldn't support it for one nation alone, because that would be ineffective.

For this nation, I'd rather do this:

Turn tax exemptions upside down.

Give a generous tax deduction to every adult who has no biological children. Give a smaller deduction to every adult who has one biological child. 2 children? No deduction. A carbon tax for every child past 2, increasing exponentially.

Biological children that you are not raising for any reason count, tax wise.

[undeterred]

104. I don't want one, so I could sell it to someone who wants two.

:shrug:

[calico1]

109. You could put the baby up on

Ebay.

;)

[jmm]

116. Carbon(life-based) credits?

Companies with names like Karbon Kredit Kids™ would be popping up all over if a one child policy was seriously being considered here.

[theophilus]

106. Yes. Then tax heavily and encourage adoption.

If we don't cut down our population then the ol' Earth will do it for us.

[IRemember]

108. never.

[NYC_SKP]

110. Better to pay people to not have children.

I haven't thought that over fully.

I know I'm subsidizing others' kids, so why not get a break?

[RB TexLa]

111. I practice a no child policy, what others do is not any of my concern or business.

[theophilus]

118. It might not be any of your business but you should be concerned, imo. n/t

[bighart]

164. Well stated

[shanti]

114. no

china has an overabundance of males. it's not turning out so well for them :(

[HughMoran]

117. no.

[SalviaBlue]

119. No... but I personally chose to have only one.

[Terra Alta]

122. No, but maybe a two-child policy.

One of each sex. That way we won't have an overabundance of one gender like China has. There does need to be some kind of a limit; the world is overpopulated enough without people like the Duggars adding to it.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. I guess you don't see the irony in having that quote in your sig line.

Here's a brief primer on the "overpopulated enough" world: in developed nations where people have access to contraception and are free to run their own damn lives, people manage their reproduction perfectly on their own, thank you very much.

This idea that government needs to dictate the terms of peoples' personal lives to them- it's fucking offensive, I don't care what the supposed justification is.

Some people like to jib-jabber about the supposed "population problem" but don't want to get into where it actually is taking place, and why. It's not here. The United States is running approximately a replacement birthrate. Western Europe is negative. This is happening without laws, somehow. Happening because people have the freedom and the tools to make their own choices.

Get it?

[jwirr]

123. no.

[The Gunslinger]

125. How about we work on getting more jobs and better pay

so people can support the children they have.

[ZombieHorde]

126. No. I can not think of a humane way to enforce this law.

What would happen if a poor single woman becomes pregnant for the second time?

Fine her? That would be pretty fucked up.

Poor, single mothers are not the enemy. They are not what is wrong with this world.

[anonymous171]

127. Only the rich should be limited to one child.

Any attempts to circumvent the law should result in castration (for females, forced hysterectomies) and abortion of any conceived fetus, no matter the stage of development. The rich consume much more than the rest of us. Their numbers should be kept as low as possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Jesus Fucking Christ.

What an incredibly fucked-up post. That's gotta rank in the top 10 most fucked up things I've seen written here, ever.

[cali]

139. you are a sick

person. sick as the teabaggers. sick as anyone consumed by hate. just sick.

[saltpoint]

163. What if one of the couple is quite wealthy and the other is dirt poor?

Does the child of their union enjoy full benefits? Which of the two parents should be castrated? Who will monitor who copulates with whom based on income levels?

How about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels? He seems well-suited for that job.

[tammywammy]

166. That's pretty disgusting. n/t

[Liquorice]

128. No, I support a woman's right to choose. nt

[juno jones]

132. Why?

We already (despite octomom and Duggars) are averaging about 2 point something-barely replacement numbers. There's no pressing need for us to go to one only.

Making one child more socially acceptable and chic, that's one thing, but legislating it would only create a shitstorm.

[proteus_lives]

133. Hell no!

:thumbsdown:

[IdaBriggs]

136. No. What kind of idiot question is this? Sign me: Mom of Twins. nt

[Contrary1]

137. Only in restaurants, and sometimes that's one too many. n/t

[Touchdown]

138. That's an easy one. NO!

The only way to bring population under control is to provide full equality for women. Statistically, in those countries where women are integrated into leadership roles and the barriers to their advancements are removed, the country's population stabilizes.

Thom Hartmann has said this many times.

[Dorian Gray]

142. Nope...

never. No way.

[Withywindle]

144. No, BUT

I have a strong aching desire for none at all, which I've so far managed to maintain. If this policy ever came to pass, I'd gladly trade my one-child pass to someone who wanted more for a lot of cash. :D

[Withywindle]

146. I thought for a minute you were proposing a policy that would force me to have one!

And I was like, oh HELL no.

I wouldn't want to have any even if I were paid a six-figure salary for it. So somewhere out there, some couple with two or more kids has bred my share. I'm fine with that.

[tabbycat31]

150. no but

I would support putting a cap on the number of children that would be eligible for the child tax credit ($1000 per child). No reason why the taxpayers need to subsidize families like the Duggars or Octomom's spawn

[Hippo_Tron]

To what extent is the sacrifice worth the survival of the species?

If humanity really is going to go extinct due to finite resources (and I'm not convinced it will) then why make ourselves miserable trying to make what is inevitable happen at a later date? Might as well live the way we want to while we still have a chance.

[Hippo_Tron]

152. Dupe n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

154. no

[Jamastiene]

155. Yes

I'd even support 2, but not anything higher. If we are going to try to control our overpopulation, 1 or 2 would be good enough.

[TexasObserver]

156. No, but when you get to THREE, count me in.

We need fewer children, fewer pets, and more seniors having the right to choose the day of their departure, without stigma or threat of prosecution. We are a world with limited resources, and we can't have more kids than we can feed, or more pets that we can feed. That's not just soy beans the dog and cat are eating. It's ground up herbivores like horses.

We have to use less resources, and that starts with population control.

We need to completely revamp the way we look at death for seniors. It should be an occasion one can plan, an end one can achieve painlessly, and with family nearby and watching. Why shouldn't I be able to decide when I've had enough of whatever disease has got me? Why should I have to suffer horrible pain and wither away before I can check out? Do I not own my life? We need to cut off this death tradition we have, and move toward something more sane and reasonable.

[jmowreader]

157. I don't support it in China, either

Chinese custom dictates that the parents are taken care of in their old age by the son and his family. If your kid is a girl, when she marries she will help take care of her husband's family, not yours--meaning if all you have is a daughter, you're basically SOL. Naturally, everyone wants a son. They fortunately have ultrasound so they don't have to resort to leaving the little girls on the sides of hills to freeze to death, but you can't keep a country intact if you're aborting most of the females like the Chinese do. Everyone can't HAVE a son, if you want to have a Chinese population in a hundred years.

They're going to eventually have to modify that policy to "if your first child is a girl you can get a license to have one more baby," if they can't figure out how to reengineer five thousand years of tradition to have the man and wife support both his parents and hers.

I don't know. This sounds pretty dictatorial to me.

[blueamy66]

158. No, I wouldn't support a one child policy...

but I would support something that restricts govt benefits for couples that continue to procreate, while on govt support at the same time.

Um, if you cannot afford to feed 2 kids, why would you have 2 more?

I WANT a new car, but I cannot afford it. I would LOVE to live in a 4 bedroom home, but I cannot afford it.

Slam away....it's just common sense.

[Robyn66]

159. Absolutely NOT (nt)

[saltpoint]

161. No can do. Virtually impossible to enforce and fines for

couples having more than one child would be cruel and pointless.

I think it would be more useful, environmentally speaking anyway, to get Tire Kingdom to turn off their goddam signs that glare along freeway exits all night long. We are incredibly wasteful and could be less so with a few basic steps.

[Tailormyst]

162. No- the results would be very bad

The only way to cut population growth is to educate, educate, educate. Especially newcomers from countries where they think large families are a cultural norm.

[WolverineDG]

165. No

:eyes:

God, you fascists never sleep, do you?

dg

[tammywammy]

167. NO. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

168. I'm pro-choice.

If people want to limit themselves to only one child, that would be their CHOICE. Anything else is dictating to a woman how many children she can/cannot have (if any) and that, of course, is the antithesis of pro-choice.