Should we put a cap on how many children per family is allowed?

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (42 posts)
  1. one2get2no profile image82
    one2get2noposted 4 years ago

    Should we put a cap on how many children per family is allowed?

    This could be decided by earnings, or perhaps religion political views maybe.

  2. cam8510 profile image95
    cam8510posted 4 years ago

    Several different thoughts are taking form in my mind as I consider your very interesting question. 

    First let me mention the worker to beneficiary ratio for Social Security.  In 2005 it was 3.3 workers for each person receiving SS benefits.  In 2040 that ratio will be 2.1 to 1 (U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Policy).  That is without the cap you have mentioned.  With such a cap, it is possible that we could easily get even closer to a 1 to 1 ratio or even 1 to 2 or more.   

    Constitutional rights would definitely come into play on this issue.  Birth control and abortion would necessarily be used to enforce such a cap on the number of births allowed per family.  This would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because many oppose birth control and abortion on religious grounds.

    In China, about 36% of the population is subject to such a cap.  It is estimated that this resulted in 200,000 fewer births between 1979 and 2009.  This policy has created what is called the 4-2-1 problem.  One child will eventually/potentially be responsible for the financial support of two parents and four grandparents.  Again, this only applies to the 36% of the population strictly held to one child per family. 

    These are just a couple of red flags that pop up for me as I consider this idea.  I'll be interested in reading what others have to say on the matter.

    1. cam8510 profile image95
      cam8510posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Correction to the above comment regarding China:  It is estimated that this resulted in 200,000 fewer births between 1979 and 2009.  It should read 200 million.

    2. aesta1 profile image91
      aesta1posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree. China is having a problem beyond the 4-2-1 because of their preference for boys. The one child policy resulted in choosing to forgo baby girls. Nowadays, in some villages, there are so many young men unable to find partners.

  3. freecampingaussie profile image59
    freecampingaussieposted 4 years ago

    No . I was one of 4 Children, Have an older brother + 2 younger sisters and loved growing up  having them to play with . My Brother had 3 sons. One of my sisters & I have 3 daughters & the other one stopped at 2 girls. I love the fact that my daughters had 2 sisters to spend time with. My daughter has a daughter + son . I feel sad for only children growing up without a sibling or 2 to play with-grow up with etc. As adults they have not got used to sharing and can be a bit more selfish than children having to share all their life. It is cruel putting a number on a family if they can afford to have them.

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hogwash, only children are happy. They also have MORE educational & cultural opportunities than those w/siblings.  Only children are the ones must likely to pursue tertiary & higher levels of education.  1-child families have the LOWEST stres

    2. freecampingaussie profile image59
      freecampingaussieposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Higher education etc doesn't always bring happiness . Many big families are very happy having lots of family. As parents get older having siblings share responsibility takes the stress of just one person. Everyone has different ideas tho.

  4. gregas profile image83
    gregasposted 4 years ago

    In my opinion this is something people should consider for themselves for the sake of the world before the government has to start making that decision for us. China already does it. 2 to 4 children is a good average size family, but when couples have 10, 12 or 18 children, it is going beyond ridiculous. As I wrote in my hub about this same subject, back in the days when families had farms and family businesses it was a popular thing. But these days, with the cost of living as it is, most of the time the children don't have the opportunities they might have in a smaller family. There is really a lot to be said about this subject from food and water supplies to places to live in the future. A lot to think about. My opinion, Greg.

    1. AlexK2009 profile image91
      AlexK2009posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In a country with no social security system a large family is your social security.

    2. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But large families can also be the downfall of a country, if not the world. Greg

    3. Old-Empresario profile image81
      Old-Empresarioposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      gregas, China has practiced infanticide for 2,500 years since before the days of Confucius. They have always feared over-population. Aside from on TV, I have never seen families with 12 or 18 children. The most I have seen is one w/ 9 and one w/ 10.

    4. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have taken the words out of my mouth.  Large families are ridiculous.  It denotes an obsessive psychosis.  What are such parents "thinking"? NOT!

  5. lisavollrath profile image97
    lisavollrathposted 4 years ago

    So, rich people can have more children? Or Christians can have more children? In the US, that would never fly.

    I also think this would never make it into law in the US because it would cause a potential increase in the use of the morning after pill, and abortions. The Christian Right would never stand for that.

    I wonder, though, if society isn't reducing the birth rate on its own. If you look at the birth rate data from The World Bank, it's declining in almost every country. As countries become more developed, the trend is to have fewer children. In the US, the birth rate per 1,000 people has declined since 1980, from 16 to 13.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are on to something there, re: people lowering the birth rate on their own.  Familes are having less.  Many are opting to no kids at all, or one or two if any.   Ive heard teens talk about with this crazy world, why have kids at all?

  6. Salty Tanned profile image62
    Salty Tannedposted 4 years ago

    With a birth rate of 1.8 why would you propose to limit births?

    1. cam8510 profile image95
      cam8510posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good point.  Wish I had thought of that approach before i wrote my dissertation above.

  7. Say Yes To Life profile image81
    Say Yes To Lifeposted 4 years ago

    Rather than put a cap, I believe in a HUGE education program teaching birth control and parenting skills.  That way, people can make informed decisions on the size of their families, or even whether or not to have one in the first place.
    In the US, many people have babies through ignorance.  Girls get knocked up in their teens, adults have kids with no thought of what they have to offer them, they are ignorant about birth control and get skittish about it, and they give absolutely no thought about what sort of backgrounds they come from, which means they simply pass abuse and dysfunction to the next generation.  There has been talk about a law putting drug-addicted women on the Implant; some people protest that as Nazi-ism!  But is it really better to bring crack-addicted babies into the world? 
    Yes, we need earners to support social security, but quantity does not equal quality.

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      GREAT answer HERE!

  8. Hannah Elise profile image81
    Hannah Eliseposted 4 years ago

    Deciding how many children someone should have based on their earnings, their religion, or their political views? No, that's horrifying and immoral. Horrible.

    1. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, none of those reasons. It is really depending on what the world is going to support in the future and if we the people don't start thinking about that someday soon, our future children will suffer. It might be in the distant future, but it

    2. cam8510 profile image95
      cam8510posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's been said already, but I'll say it again.  The birth rate in the US is at 12.6 per 1000 people.  China's birth rate is 12 per thousand.  We are matching them without any cap. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN

    3. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They don't have the immigration influx that we do either. Greg

  9. LoisRyan13903 profile image80
    LoisRyan13903posted 4 years ago

    Well I guess I wouldn't have been born.  9th out of 10 children.

  10. oceansnsunsets profile image86
    oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago

    I would say no, we should not put a cap on such a thing. I can't see any good or sufficient reason for doing so.  We should, as a community help our fellow man and like another person said, help in education programs, etc.  Life is precious, and we have enough government oversight as it is.  To take away this freedom seems harsh and over reaching in my opinion.

    1. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If people don't control themselves now, or at least in the near future, there will come a time when some kind of control will have to be implemented. Not in our lifetime, and probably not even in the lifetime of our grandchildren, but somewhere down

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I hear what you are saying, but I think that we see enough problems like geological ones, atmospheric ones with severe weather, pandemics, etc, that I just have  a hard time seeing us hitting true overpopulation..  What limit do you suggest?

    3. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks to, if we should even refer to as thanks, plagues, wars and world tragedies we aren't over populated already. But these days we do come up with ways to avoid some of these and the ones we don't avoid don't take as many. Greg

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is a true ethical issue, a moral one I think.  Its very serious & implications are bigger than people realize.  I think the idea alone needs to be put on a back burner, for all the other current big problems we have.  Too dangerous I think,

  11. Learn Things Web profile image89
    Learn Things Webposted 4 years ago

    It annoys me when people have more children than they can afford but a cap would be impossible to implement without draconian policies.

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I find it abusive/selfish if you ask me.  Yes, policies re: family planning should be implemented on such people!

  12. Old-Empresario profile image81
    Old-Empresarioposted 4 years ago

    I honestly don't know many people that want to go to the trouble of raising more than two kids. It's a lot of work for one household. I don't think it's a problem.

    1. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Old" Empresario, you haven't been around very long. There are many families with 5 and more kids, some with as many as 10 and 12 and one in the news a year or so ago that had just had their 18th. There are more of those than you might think. Greg

    2. freecampingaussie profile image59
      freecampingaussieposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I loved having 3 girls and didn't' find it a lot of work.Having 2 sisters is awesome ! It was very sad losing our 4 child and we would have coped fine .With love + discipline well behaved children are a joy to have. I am amazed at how many struggle

    3. Old-Empresario profile image81
      Old-Empresarioposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      gregas, for the record I have five children plus a step-child. I can afford them. That said, I am clearly an exception. I know, because I interact with parents all the time. You're getting your information from television; not reality.

    4. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      For the record, I have no problem with having children. I had 2 girls and a boy myself and raised them just fine. And it isn't a matter with the ability to afford them. I am just thinking of what most people don't think of, and that is the future.

    5. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Old Empresario, with 3-4 children, parents still have the reins. The problem is when there are 5-6 or more children. The parents DON'T raise them at all it 's the OLDEST/OLDER children who raise the younger siblings. Smart people have small families.

  13. profile image0
    SirDentposted 4 years ago

    Sure, let's tell people how many children they can have according to income.  Maybe my income cannot even support one child.  Let the government come and make sure my wife and I have no children.  Of course I am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ also.  That would take care of two problems at one time.

    I am not a liberal, so that makes threee problems solved with one fell swoop.

    I think a better idea would be to outlaw sex completely.   No more sex for anyone at all.  If they get the urge, let them play monopoly or rummy. 

    You know, I have read many times that there is no such thing as a stupid question.  I have to disagree with that because this one is pretty stupid. 

    The world can handle more people that many think.  There is a lot of land that is uninhabited in the world.  The US alone could grow enough food to feed the whole world.  We have gotten so far away from God that it is not even funny. 

    The population of the world will decrease, but not in the way you suppose.  The next world war will take care of much of the world's population.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good points, hard to rebut.  Acres and acres of empty land, we are not even close to becoming overpopulated on the planet.  Its just an idea that is tossed about a lot, without a lot of thought to the morality of it.  It leads to dangerous places.

    2. gregas profile image83
      gregasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have to think about food and water for all of those people that you are putting on all that open land. Especially water. Greg

    3. profile image0
      SirDentposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The US govt pays farmers not to plant certain crops.  Farmers could grow enough food to feed the world.  Greed is the problem.

  14. lone77star profile image84
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Or decided by the whim of Big Brother.

    Never!

    The problems of the world have nothing to do with population, but with selfishness (ego, self-concern). The psychopathic elite would love to have this control.

  15. gmwilliams profile image82
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/11949572_f260.jpg

    Definitely!  Anywhere from 1 to 4 children per family is fine for couples granted that they are prepared socioeconomically, emotionally, & psychologically for parenthood.  I believe that socioeconomic factors play a very important part in having children.  Poor people SHOULDN'T have children as they are unable to provide their children w/a high quality of life.  For a poor person to have children would be the utter height of selfishness & abuse.  Children born into socioeconomically poor environment are doomed from the start.

    Small & medium sized families(1-4 children per household) provide the idea environment for children to grow up in.  There is more monies allocated per child.  Children in such families received more parental attention & love.  Each child is treated on an equal parity.  There is opportunity for each child to enjoy a normative childhood/adolescence.  There are also more educational/cultural opportunities in small/medium-sized families.

    No couple should have more than 4 children.  In medium large(5 children) & large families(6-more children), children will not receive the prerequisite parental attention.  Also parents could not effectively raise such a large number of children which means oldest/older children will assume parenting duties forfeiting their own childhood/adolescence.  Poverty is rife in such families as there is little monies for each child.  That means children will have to work p/t & weekend jobs in childhood to get the things normal children have.  It isn't unusual in large families for children to forgo secondary& tertiary education to work to help support parents & siblings. Children in medium large& large families end up to be the LEAST educated while children in small/medium sized families end up to be the MOST educated because they have more opportunities to pursue their education.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)