law on how many kids a household can have?

Do you guys think there should be some kind of law on how many kids a household can have? I mean I see household have around 4 or 5 and they can't even take care of theirself. Plus, you see family on welfare with 5 kids, and they b****because they have no money because I have 4 kids and can't take care of them. I just wondering what you takes on this.

Yeah, because the fed doesn't control our lives enough as is.:roll: Stuff like that is bull-s***

Not in the USA

No there should not be a law.

I am on team Chinarawsavon

I guess that makes us teammates.

How can there be a limit on how many children a household can have that's just ridiculous.

We have a huge issue with scum outbreeding us in the UK and living off the state, I'd elaborate but it would only end in me being modded :(

No... That's a terrible idea.

First of all, the government has no right to dictate reproductive rights.

Second, developed counries should be trying to raise the birth rates, not lower them.

Second, developed counries should be trying to raise the birth rates, not lower them.

BuryMe

Why do you say this?

I don't think there should ever be a law on how many kids someone can have. Although, people that are on assisted living should not be allowed to have anymore kids than they already have and if they do they should lose that assistance. My only reason behind that being that a lot of people just abuse the system and have tons of kids and expect everyone to pay for them. Just my opinion, move along now.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Second, developed counries should be trying to raise the birth rates, not lower them.

1nf4m0us

Why do you say this?

Unless you want to live in a totalitarian police state where the government dictates what you have for dinner you're not going to see any control over who has kids, when they have them and how many they have. A household "should" have as many kids as they can provide for, but we know that even families with money don't always raise "good" kids and that even poor families can have good kids who are "happy" whether the environment is the "best thing" for them or not. Like all things in life it's a case by case matter that needs to be looked at.

[QUOTE="1nf4m0us"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Second, developed counries should be trying to raise the birth rates, not lower them.

BuryMe

Why do you say this?

As long as they're both able and want children, even if it's an unexpected pleasure, why place limits. I'd hate to be the one to say no to a potential new life in the world.

If anything every country in the world should have a 1 child per household law. The human population is already too large to sustain, and I'm not talking about food or living space but rather things we depend on for society to function like oil and rare metals. The sobering reality is that the world really can't sustain more than 1 billion people, and we're already nearly at 8 billion. What we need to do is start halving our population every generation, but that's going to take a couple of centuries before we see an effect even if we started right now.gameguy6700

I'd support it if the limit was 5 or something. I've seen cases where a lady will have 9 illegitimate kids and just lives of the money she gets for them from the gov't. On top of that, any amount of money says kids coming from that family will be useless to society.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]If anything every country in the world should have a 1 child per household law. The human population is already too large to sustain, and I'm not talking about food or living space but rather things we depend on for society to function like oil and rare metals. The sobering reality is that the world really can't sustain more than 1 billion people, and we're already nearly at 8 billion. What we need to do is start halving our population every generation, but that's going to take a couple of centuries before we see an effect even if we started right now.BuryMe

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]If anything every country in the world should have a 1 child per household law. The human population is already too large to sustain, and I'm not talking about food or living space but rather things we depend on for society to function like oil and rare metals. The sobering reality is that the world really can't sustain more than 1 billion people, and we're already nearly at 8 billion. What we need to do is start halving our population every generation, but that's going to take a couple of centuries before we see an effect even if we started right now.trick_man01

Losing 4 billion people in 1 generation would do nothing positive. There just wouldn't be enough people around to support our way of life.

when you first think about it, it sounds like a good idea BUT when you think about it, government is controlling your life and if they got that power they surely would abuse it. So no, also i still have faith in humanity that people are smart enough not to have kids they know that can't take care of.

yes!!

I can't run my own life!!

I need to government to outlaw drugs (especially that deadly marijuana), prostitution, tell me what to eat, drive, wear, drink, and what I watch on TV and at the movies.

and especially how to manage my family...

because if they didn't, I MIGHT have to take a tiny bit of personal responsibility... couldn't handle that.

Only if they can afford to take care of their family.

That law would be far too restricting on the average American's life.

I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....CaveJohnson1

but its not governments place to 'protect us from ourselves' as it were..

they try to do that with the war on drugs, prohibition, and so many other ridiculous laws...

the role of government is to provide a national defense, and secure our freedoms... not run our lives and be our daddies... that type of government is what the US is indeed becoming, but nevertheless, thats not what they are there for.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....limpbizkit818

.. Where are you getting these figures? Because every one I have seen has it exploding.. Mankind is already negatively affecting large parts of the environment, not to mention draining fossil fuels at a frightening rate thats only GROWING..

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....Scoob64

but its not governments place to 'protect us from ourselves' as it were..

they try to do that with the war on drugs, prohibition, and so many other ridiculous laws...

the role of government is to provide a national defense, and secure our freedoms... not run our lives and be our daddies... that type of government is what the US is indeed becoming, but nevertheless, thats not what they are there for.

So reality is either people need to have less kids now or settle with the fact that they'll die of lack of food and water later.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Over population is kind of a serious issue. We're already running low on key resources.....

sSubZerOo

.. Where are you getting these figures? Because every one I have seen has it exploding.. Mankind is already negatively affecting large parts of the environment, not to mention draining fossil fuels at a frightening rate thats only GROWING..

we are running low on fossil fuels, but a lot of that has to do with how/what/and how much we consume... just look at how much more energy friendly some other parts of the world are... especially much of Europe.

the world does have a heck of a lot of people... however, its mostly that large populations are heavily grouped into a small number of areas... cities like Tokyo and Mumbai are extremely over-populated. yet, you can go to so many places in Canada and literally drive forpractically foreverand never see sign of another person.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I cannot believe people advocate government involvement in such personal aspects of life...then again they think it's okay for the government to tell them what they can eat. Can't wait until government proposes taking something they like away though....limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Over population is kind of a serious issue. We're already running low on key resources.....

CaveJohnson1

but its not governments place to 'protect us from ourselves' as it were..

they try to do that with the war on drugs, prohibition, and so many other ridiculous laws...

the role of government is to provide a national defense, and secure our freedoms... not run our lives and be our daddies... that type of government is what the US is indeed becoming, but nevertheless, thats not what they are there for.

So reality is either people need to have less kids now or settle with the fact that they'll die of lack of food and water later.

then if you want government involved then perhaps they could subsidize more money for non-profit organizations to promote birth control... however, stripping people of their freedoms to procreate should never be the role of this government... that power would be ridiculously abused.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Over population is kind of a serious issue. We're already running low on key resources.....

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Over population is kind of a serious issue. We're already running low on key resources.....

sSubZerOo

.. Where are you getting these figures? Because every one I have seen has it exploding.. Mankind is already negatively affecting large parts of the environment, not to mention draining fossil fuels at a frightening rate thats only GROWING..

Yes I do agree. Overpopulation is becoming a serious problem and will greatly affect our futures and our children even more. Believing a couple can have as many kids as they want is selfish. They should be considerate to the other people of the world. 3 kids max. If we do not reduce birth rates then nature will do it for us via starvation... STAR_Admiral

heh, i can't believe how many people just want to hand over their freedoms left and right to the federal government in the name of keeping us safe... i don't think people realize that if you give the fed an inch they will take a mile. patriot act, anyone?