law on how many kids a household can have?

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]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... Scoob64

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?

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]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?

watch a video on the falsely accused in guantanamo and then tell me that.there a couple on youtube. i'd rather be killed than spend my life in slavery.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="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.

Scoob64

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.

Yeah, I'd say a little regulation might be ok if it saves billions of lives.

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]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... [/QUOTE]I fully expect this to happen, I live in a rich country though, so I'll be fine, and I'll be telling the nay sayers "I told you so"

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"][QUOTE="Scoob64"]

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?

Scoob64

watch a video on the falsely accused in guantanamo and then tell me that.there a couple on youtube. i'd rather be killed than spend my life in slavery.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Well, the world supply of phosphorus and water are really low as is, that's not just a scare that's the hard truth, and reality is that if the population keeps growing at the rate it is, and we can't keep up on production up, billions will, die, yes, that's with a B. Food production is expected to hit a peak within 30 years, and that won't be pretty.

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.

CaveJohnson1

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.

Yeah, I'd say a little regulation might be ok if it saves billions of lives.

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"] i'd rather feel the govt's wrath than nature's wrathSTAR_Admiral

watch a video on the falsely accused in guantanamo and then tell me that.there a couple on youtube. i'd rather be killed than spend my life in slavery.

no, history tells us they will... that is far from a slippery slope. saying the government will be fair and just is a slippery slope.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

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.

Scoob64

Yeah, I'd say a little regulation might be ok if it saves billions of lives.

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Well, realistically, the way things are headed, there needs to be regulation, that's the hard truth, otherwise we're going to see consequences that will make the holocaust look like a joke. Like I said, the worlds supply of phosphorus is running out and will be out in about 30 years, when that happens say bye people from most undeveloped countries, because they won't be affording food.....on top of water problems we're already having and is already creating conflict.

Yeah, I'd say a little regulation might be ok if it saves billions of lives.

CaveJohnson1

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

but what you are advocating, despite how good the intentions may be, isillegal and unconstitutional... our government simply does NOT have the authority to tell us exactly how to live on every issue, despite the fact that we may be moving closer and closer to that... sorry to break that to you... but there is no authority there... its like me putting on a cop uniform and trying to give people speeding tickets... if i don't have the authority i can't do it. its simply unconstitutional.

if the world gets overpopulated, then sadly it will put itself back in balance... but i don't think we are yet to the dire point of enacting breeding laws. the US population growth is slowing, and is projected to continued to slow down for quite sometime now. its on the census.gov site.

if this were a dictatorship, then what you are advocating would be totally legal, since all authority is granted to that dictator... but our government still doesn't have ultimate authority... yet.

the problem with enacting such laws is they will lead to more and more laws, and those running the country in the future will demand more and more control in the name of keeping us "safe"... just like they did with the acts following 9/11. do a bit more reading about world history before you become so eager to hand over authority to a world power.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Well, realistically, the way things are headed, there needs to be regulation, that's the hard truth, otherwise we're going to see consequences that will make the holocaust look like a joke. Like I said, the worlds supply of phosphorus is running out and will be out in about 30 years, when that happens say bye people from most undeveloped countries, because they won't be affording food.....on top of water problems we're already having and is already creating conflict.

Yeah, I'd say a little regulation might be ok if it saves billions of lives.

CaveJohnson1

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

The west is not the problem. Fertility rates in the west are already lower than they ever have been. Africa and the Middle East are the ones that would need to cut back. And don't forget that there is rising politicalpressure in China to over turn the one child policy. It's a terrible idea (the law) and Ifail to see how a child cap is better than increasing the use of birth control.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

Scoob64

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

but what you are advocating, despite how good the intentions may be, isillegal and unconstitutional... our government simply does NOT have the authority to tell us exactly how to live on every issue, despite the fact that we may be moving closer and closer to that... sorry to break that to you... but there is no authority there... its like me putting on a cop uniform and trying to give people speeding tickets... if i don't have the authority i can't do it. its simply unconstitutional.

if the world gets overpopulated, then sadly it will put itself back in balance... but i don't think we are yet to the dire point of enacting breeding laws. the US population growth is slowing, and is projected to continued to slow down for quite sometime now. its on the census.gov site.

if this were a dictatorship, then what you are advocating would be totally legal, since all authority is granted to that dictator... but our government still doesn't have ultimate authority... yet.

the problem with enacting such laws is they will lead to more and more laws, and those running the country in the future will demand more and more control in the name of keeping us "safe"... just like they did with the acts following 9/11. do a bit more reading about world history before you become so eager to hand over authority to a world power.

you're basically advocating the deaths of billions over people being prevented from being born.

The slippery slope theory has never been right, ever, dangerous thinking at best.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

thats a "little" regulation? telling us how we can and cannot reproduce? why don't we just save time and emulate China's government verbatim... they have a 1 child policy that you are advocating for.it would save so much time, lots of money, and billions of lives along the way. hehe. but then again, our country isn't so much the problem- we have about a third of the population of India...it is the Asian countries that are over-populated. oh, so I guess to solve this ciris we should invade India and establish our government there and tell them how to live? :P

we could always rename it the People's Republic of America ?

limpbizkit818

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

The west is not the problem. Fertility rates in the west are already lower than they ever have been. Africa and the Middle East are the ones that would need to cut back. And don't forget that there is rising politicalpressure in China to over turn the one child policy. It's a terrible idea (the law) and Ifail to see how a child cap is better than increasing the use of birth control.

A child cap would help reduce people being born, and obviously cut the pop.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Ironically China has been hoarding phosphorus in recent years for exactly the reasons I mentioned.....

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

CaveJohnson1

but what you are advocating, despite how good the intentions may be, isillegal and unconstitutional... our government simply does NOT have the authority to tell us exactly how to live on every issue, despite the fact that we may be moving closer and closer to that... sorry to break that to you... but there is no authority there... its like me putting on a cop uniform and trying to give people speeding tickets... if i don't have the authority i can't do it. its simply unconstitutional.

if the world gets overpopulated, then sadly it will put itself back in balance... but i don't think we are yet to the dire point of enacting breeding laws. the US population growth is slowing, and is projected to continued to slow down for quite sometime now. its on the census.gov site.

if this were a dictatorship, then what you are advocating would be totally legal, since all authority is granted to that dictator... but our government still doesn't have ultimate authority... yet.

the problem with enacting such laws is they will lead to more and more laws, and those running the country in the future will demand more and more control in the name of keeping us "safe"... just like they did with the acts following 9/11. do a bit more reading about world history before you become so eager to hand over authority to a world power.

you're basically advocating the deaths of billions over people being prevented from being born.

The slippery slope theory has never been right, ever, dangerous thinking at best.

man you are blowing over-population waaay out of proportion... why is it today that everytime something in the future *could* become a problem, people go crying to the federal government for help... more regulation!!!

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

but what you are advocating, despite how good the intentions may be, isillegal and unconstitutional... our government simply does NOT have the authority to tell us exactly how to live on every issue, despite the fact that we may be moving closer and closer to that... sorry to break that to you... but there is no authority there... its like me putting on a cop uniform and trying to give people speeding tickets... if i don't have the authority i can't do it. its simply unconstitutional.

if the world gets overpopulated, then sadly it will put itself back in balance... but i don't think we are yet to the dire point of enacting breeding laws. the US population growth is slowing, and is projected to continued to slow down for quite sometime now. its on the census.gov site.

if this were a dictatorship, then what you are advocating would be totally legal, since all authority is granted to that dictator... but our government still doesn't have ultimate authority... yet.

the problem with enacting such laws is they will lead to more and more laws, and those running the country in the future will demand more and more control in the name of keeping us "safe"... just like they did with the acts following 9/11. do a bit more reading about world history before you become so eager to hand over authority to a world power.

Scoob64

you're basically advocating the deaths of billions over people being prevented from being born.

The slippery slope theory has never been right, ever, dangerous thinking at best.

man you are blowing over-population waaay out of proportion... why is it today that everytime something in the future *could* become a problem, people go crying to the federal government for help... more regulation!!!

This isn't hard to comprehend to be honest. I'll put it simply if water and food gone, people die. If "freedoms" are more important that "mass numbers of people in the billions dying of thirst and starvation, economic crises, and war" then I guess you don't have much perspective.

Finnally, how am I blowing billions of people dying out of proportion, I don't think enough could be said about that ever.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]I think you need to read the constituion...lol

you're basically advocating the deaths of billions over people being prevented from being born.

The slippery slope theory has never been right, ever, dangerous thinking at best.

CaveJohnson1

man you are blowing over-population waaay out of proportion... why is it today that everytime something in the future *could* become a problem, people go crying to the federal government for help... more regulation!!!

This isn't hard to comprehend to be honest. I'll put it simply if water and food gone, people die. If "freedoms" are more important that "mass numbers of people in the billions dying of thirst and starvation, economic crises, and war" then I guess you don't have much perspective.

then heres an idea... first, don't have children. second, start a campaign where you go to colleges, etc where you talk about the world population crisis... take some personal responsibility and do your part... thats all you can do... what you are advocating from the government is not going to happen anytime soon and its unconsituational, therefore illegal.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

man you are blowing over-population waaay out of proportion... why is it today that everytime something in the future *could* become a problem, people go crying to the federal government for help... more regulation!!!

Scoob64

This isn't hard to comprehend to be honest. I'll put it simply if water and food gone, people die. If "freedoms" are more important that "mass numbers of people in the billions dying of thirst and starvation, economic crises, and war" then I guess you don't have much perspective.

then heres an idea... first, don't have children. second, start a campaign where you go to colleges, etc where you talk about the world population crisis... take some personal responsibility and do your part... thats all you can do... what you are advocating from the government is not going to happen anytime soon and its unconsituational, therefore illegal.

Tell me how it's unconsitutional exactly?

and don't worry, when we run out of phosphorus in the next 30 years, there will be regulations....and deaths.....lots of deaths.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Ironically China has been hoarding phosphorus in recent years for exactly the reasons I mentioned.....

There needs to be a global cutback on childbirths, India should force it as much as we should, otherwise, the consequences will be much much worse, they'll make the spanish flu look enjoyable, and trying to paint my ideas as tyranical doesn't change the fact that they would divert much more serious problems.

Sometimes the right thing is hard to do fyi....

CaveJohnson1

The west is not the problem. Fertility rates in the west are already lower than they ever have been. Africa and the Middle East are the ones that would need to cut back. And don't forget that there is rising politicalpressure in China to over turn the one child policy. It's a terrible idea (the law) and Ifail to see how a child cap is better than increasing the use of birth control.

A child cap would help reduce people being born, and obviously cut the pop.

The government should not regulate how manychildrena family can have. I am not really following your thought process on this issue. Lets just look at the US: The birth rate is at about 2 children per family. Want do you want to do? Cut that to one child? Do you have any facts or reason to believe this will help? In what ways? You posted a link about how cities are running out of water. I am guessing you also support greatly reducing immigration as well, seeing as immigration plays a part in the growth of many if not all of those cities. Do you? There has been doom and gloom about the world's population since the 1700's (Malthus comes to mind). This is nothing knew and has been over exaggerated before. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

Tell me how it's unconsitutional exactly?

and don't worry, when we run out of phosphorus in the next 30 years, there will be regulations....and deaths.....lots of deaths.

heh- i have taken a governmentclass. what happened to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness? like i said, do your part, and do your best... don't rely on the government to make everything right in this world... time and time again they have shown us they are incompetent ... just look at FEMA.. heh, there are few things the government does that well, outside of our military. they have inflated our currency, and really hurt our economy because of all this ridiculous regulation. we don't need more of it.

Scoob64

Tell me how it's unconsitutional exactly?

and don't worry, when we run out of phosphorus in the next 30 years, there will be regulations....and deaths.....lots of deaths.

heh- i have taken a governmentclass. what happened to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness? like i said, do your part, and do your best... don't rely on the government to make everything right in this world... time and time again they have shown us they are incompetent ... just look at FEMA.. heh, there are few things the government does that well, outside of our military. they have inflated our currency, and really hurt our economy because of all this ridiculous regulation. we don't need more of it.

Where does it say in the constitution that you are not limited to a number of children?

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

The west is not the problem. Fertility rates in the west are already lower than they ever have been. Africa and the Middle East are the ones that would need to cut back. And don't forget that there is rising politicalpressure in China to over turn the one child policy. It's a terrible idea (the law) and Ifail to see how a child cap is better than increasing the use of birth control.

limpbizkit818

A child cap would help reduce people being born, and obviously cut the pop.

The government should not regulate how manychildrena family can have. I am not really following your thought process on this issue. Lets just look at the US: The birth rate is at about 2 children per family. Want do you want to do? Cut that to one child? Do you have any facts or reason to believe this will help? In what ways? You posted a link about how cities are running out of water. I am guessing you also support greatly reducing immigration as well, seeing as immigration plays a part in the growth of many if not all of those cities. Do you? There has been doom and gloom about the world's population since the 1700's (Malthus comes to mind). This is nothing knew and has been over exaggerated before. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

The big threats right now are reaching peaks with food and water production, and not having any real solutions with either right now, the time line is about 30 years for food right now, I don't know about water, but I would guess that it's less since conflicts over water have already occur ed.

China has seen a drop in births since it applied the one per family rule.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]you need to take a gov't cl@ss I don't think you know what's in the consitution.

Tell me how it's unconsitutional exactly?

and don't worry, when we run out of phosphorus in the next 30 years, there will be regulations....and deaths.....lots of deaths.

CaveJohnson1

heh- i have taken a governmentclass. what happened to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness? like i said, do your part, and do your best... don't rely on the government to make everything right in this world... time and time again they have shown us they are incompetent ... just look at FEMA.. heh, there are few things the government does that well, outside of our military. they have inflated our currency, and really hurt our economy because of all this ridiculous regulation. we don't need more of it.

Where does it say in the constitution that you are not limited to a number of children?

so basically it has to be outlawed word for word in the constitution for it to be unconstitutional?heres an example of something deemed unconstitutional that wasn't strictly forbidden in the constitution.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

heh- i have taken a governmentclass. what happened to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness? like i said, do your part, and do your best... don't rely on the government to make everything right in this world... time and time again they have shown us they are incompetent ... just look at FEMA.. heh, there are few things the government does that well, outside of our military. they have inflated our currency, and really hurt our economy because of all this ridiculous regulation. we don't need more of it.

Scoob64

Where does it say in the constitution that you are not limited to a number of children?

so basically it has to be outlawed word for word in the constitution for it to be unconstitutional?heres an example of something deemed unconstitutional that wasn't strictly forbidden in the constitution.

You need to take a gov't cl@ss, pay attention next time, or just read it online, it's free.

You need to take a gov't cl@ss, pay attention next time, or just read it online, it's free.

perhaps you should study some history and see what happens to countries with citizens who are under government control? maybe a world history class is in order? :P

Here is an intersting article from the washington timesin case you are interesting in hearing the other side of the argument...

"The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1."

If overpopulation becomes a problem, then yes, definately. I used to be a major supporter of such measures but I have heard that global population growth is begining to stabalize.

perhaps you should study some history and see what happens to countries with citizens who are under government control? maybe a world history class is in order? :P

Here is an intersting article from the washington timesin case you are interesting in hearing the other side of the argument...

"The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1."

Scoob64

Stop deflecting, you made a statement, back it up, or admit that you're wrong.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

perhaps you should study some history and see what happens to countries with citizens who are under government control? maybe a world history class is in order? :P

Here is an intersting article from the washington timesin case you are interesting in hearing the other side of the argument...

"The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1."

CaveJohnson1

Stop deflecting, you made a statement, back it up, or admit that you're wrong.

EDIT: never mind, that one is not ratified yet, so i'll not use that one. but i would say that it violates the 10th amendment of being denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. as having children would in court, at least in my opinion, be part of one's reasonable achievement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

also, i'm still surprised that you are so willing to hand over something as critical as population control to something so imperfect as the government... seriously, this could open up a whole mess of things... think of the consequences. be activist in what you believe and don't trust the government to handle it properly. plus i showed you evidence that overpopulation is not the crisis you think it is.

Yes, there shall be zero kids per household! :twisted:

Yes, there shall be zero kids per household! :twisted:

gamerguru100

lulz

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"]

Yes, there shall be zero kids per household! :twisted:

Scoob64

lulz

In the UK at least I think the first step should be limiting the number of children a household receives Government income support for.

For example say only a person's first two children receive child benefits, maternity leave and paternity pay, influence tax credits and have an impact on the type of council housing required. Families would be more than welcome to have more than two children but they would entirely without monetary support in that endeavor - I believe in this case most families would only choose to have more children if they were certain they had the space and money to raise them.

I'm already born (youngest in a 3 kid family), so I don't really care :P.

Yes. There should be a license before you are allowed to have a child. You should have to prove you are capable of raising the child well and have enough income to support them. This will never happen, of course, so I might as well throw in, there should be a minimum score on an IQ test as well.

Yes. There should be a license before you are allowed to have a child. You should have to prove you are capable of raising the child well and have enough income to support them. This will never happen, of course, so I might as well throw in, there should be a minimum score on an IQ test as well.

Jph625

Heavens, no. We can solve a few problems by enslaving the extra children. We should be taking the extra children from their families and put them to work in labor camps over saw by the government to pay off national debt. This way illegal immigrants won't have any jobs and we'll be generating money from the children who do those jobs instead. Our slave labor class will be orphans raised by the state. We can cherry pick the best of them to join our elite military force and conquer the world. We'll teach them they had no parents and that they should be entirely committed to their country because without the love of their homeland they'd never have been allowed to live.

[QUOTE="Jph625"]

Yes. There should be a license before you are allowed to have a child. You should have to prove you are capable of raising the child well and have enough income to support them. This will never happen, of course, so I might as well throw in, there should be a minimum score on an IQ test as well.

ferrari2001

I'm just stunned at how many people here are willing to let the gov rule over them like that, and in such a personal way. It's a God given right to have many children, people can't just take that right away... *shakes head*

I'm just stunned at how many people here are willing to let the gov rule over them like that, and in such a personal way. It's a God given right to have many children, people can't just take that right away... *shakes head*

BATTOSAI76

I'm just stunned at how many people here are willing to let the gov rule over them like that, and in such a personal way. It's a God given right to have many children, people can't just take that right away... *shakes head*

BATTOSAI76