Should there be a limit to the amount of children one family should have in the

1. 76

   Rodric29posted 12 years ago

   Should there be a limit to the amount of children one family should have in the US?
   
   We know in some countries like China the government tells people the amount of children to have. Should we look into that for America?

   replyreport
2. 59

   catalyst20posted 12 years ago

   Definitely not.  The government may recommend it but should never become mandatory short of encroaching on matters for parents only to decide.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Rodric29posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. I have seven, six still living and intend to have a least three more--with my wife of course. I would hate to be told that I could not have more because of a law preventing it.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong, there are people who are not capable of making intelligent decisions regarding parenthood.  Why should children suffer because of lack of parental intelligence regarding family planning!

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Having children is a personal decision. If you do not like the government trying to "run" your health insurance, you will not like being told how many children you can have. Would there be a penalty. WIthout a penalty, there can be no enforcement.

      replyreport
3. 60

   MickSposted 12 years ago

   Ah, do you wan't the USA to emulate those countries like China, and become a dictatorship?

   replyreport
4. 60

   Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

   Wow. Why in the world would you want to do that? I see nothing that China has that makes me think emulating their philosophy of family size would benefit us in any way. There;s already to much child killing.

   replyreport
5. 73

   lburmasterposted 12 years ago

   No. If it does happen in America, I will take out the person who put it into law myself.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Rodric29posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oooo, you are 'bout it 'bout it. I agree that we should take them out! of office. 

      replyreport
6. 60

   madmachioposted 12 years ago

   NO! Unless they decide to strip away every other freedom we have

   replyreport
7. 57

   harmony155posted 12 years ago

   I don't think there should be a mandate on how many kids you can have. However, people need to realize that this world is becoming exponentially overpopulated. Overpopulation leads to overuse of resources and causes a toll on Mother Earth. We need to respect our planet and keep it a safe place for our children.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Totally  agree, 1-4 is enough for both the sake of the child, parents, and the environment.  Children need parental attention & best opportunites.  1-4 children per family is best overall for these things.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My wife was one of six. My mother and father were both 1 of six. I was one of three. We have a son, he is adopted. Don't get in the way of things that were not ever intended to be restricted by laws.

      replyreport
8. 71

   MrMaranathaposted 12 years ago

   Well they would like to limit how much money we have... how much land we own... whether we can use something to protect ourselves or not... would like to see our Mariages destroyed through television and changing values through the Sabido Method of systematic programming in television and other media...  It would stand to reason that  what they cannot do by "Reprogramming" us... they will try to do through legislation.. 
   
   Should there be?  No... Its is unconstitutional...  But then they Should Not make other changes to our Constitution either... never seems to stop them though.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Larry Wallposted 12 years ago

   In my last job, a woman approached me about the carbon footprint of each person and wanted support for backing  a proposal that would limit the size of houses that people built. I told her no.
   
   The same is true for trying to limit the number of children.
   
   The same was true when we tried to separate the races.
   
   Social engineering is not and should not be part of our culture.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is not social engineering.  Intelligent/educated people are having small families because they realize the benefits.  Yes, birth control should be mandatory so that all children can have a BETTER quality of life.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Mandated birth control would violate the teachings of several religions, not just Catholics and therefore, since freedom of religion is protected by the constitution, you could not ever have such a mandate.

      replyreport
10. 61

    Dubuquedogtrainerposted 12 years ago

    No. Having children is a human right. We can't legislate how many children people can have. We aren't that kind of government.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Having children should be a privilege, not a right.So many people think this way,having children unthinkingly w/o considering the financial, emotional,& psychological ramfications of parenthood. Our prisons & juvenile systems are filled w/t h

       replyreport
11. 69

    jennzieposted 12 years ago

    Definitely not, though I don't think anyone should follow the path of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There should be reasonable constraints. Many children are born into poverty because people have MORE children than they can reasonably afford.  Birth control should be mandatory.

       replyreport
12. 84

    gmwilliamsposted 11 years ago

    
    
    Yes, intelligent, educated, and logical people know this.  Studies have consistently shown that the larger the family, the more impoverished it is.  There is a higher percentage of poverty in large families than in small.  In addition to socioeconomical impoverishment, parents cannot effectively spend time with each child.  Some children are going to be neglected while others will receive parental care.   In large families (6 and more children per household), monies are stretched to the limit.  There is little or no monies for the rudiments let alone for anything else.  Children in large families oftentimes do WITHOUT the basic necessities.  Many have to depend upon outside charities and donations.   
    
    Children in large families have no monies for medical, dental and other forms of health care.  Again, they have to depend upon outside sources such as charities and schools in order to receive the necessary health care.  They have to consume inferior quality of foods such nutritious food is expensive and beyond the budget of the typical large family.  Because parental care is little to nonexistent in the large family, children have to raise themselves and each other.  In large families, it is the OLDEST CHILD who is the TRUE PARENT, not the actual parents.  Many oldest children have no normative childhood/adolescent, having to spend formative years raising younger siblings.   They also have to curtail their education goals in order to work to support their family of origin.  They are lucky if they complete seconday education. College and other forms of advanced education is out of the question.   Many children from large families DON'T attend college as there is NO monies and they are need to work to supplement family income.
    
    Intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people have the amount of children that they can financially, emotionally, and psychologically support.  They also have the amount of children where they can exercise an effective span of control without enlisting and/or enforcing the oldest and/or older children to assume parenting duties.  Intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people know the benefits financially, emotionally, and psychologically of having smaller families(1-4 children).  However, there are others who refuse to consider the financial, emotional, and psychological ramfications of having more children than they can afford.  Such children suffer in more ways than one. Yes, there should be a LIMIT on the amount of children one has.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If a couple exceeds that limit, what would the penalty be. Would you take the child away, levy a tax, prison--the concept is totally without logic. It takes a lot of work to take care and teach many children, but many families are up to the task.

       replyreport