law on how many kids a household can have?

[QUOTE="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*

UniverseIX

[QUOTE="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*

UniverseIX

They come from God as well, you just choose not to believe it, which is also a God given right.

this thread reminds me why I hate liberal douchebags.

Zorgax

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

Yes, 0 for the next decade, then 1 for the next decade, then 0, then 1, ect.

Until the world population dies down to less then 5 billion this should be implemented.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="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

They come from God as well, you just choose not to believe it, which is also a God given right.

Which God are you talking about? There are so many after all.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="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

They come from God as well, you just choose not to believe it, which is also a God given right.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="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*

dsmccracken

[QUOTE="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*

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="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

They come from God as well, you just choose not to believe it, which is also a God given right.

ha.

this thread reminds me why I hate liberal douchebags.

Zorgax

Well it just annoys the **** out of me in the UK to see a family with something like 10 kids, living solely on government benefits and driving mercedes. Only have kid's if you can support them and yourselves financially by yourself.DeX2010

[QUOTE="Zorgax"]

this thread reminds me why I hate liberal douchebags.

mattbbpl

[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.

:lol: I'm sorry but this is turning funny really fast. You're basically saying that if it doesn't explicitly state somewhere in the constitution that the government can't do something, then they can just go ahead and do something? EVEN if such a law got passed, I doubt it would live very long with the Supreme Court. And the whole time you were telling Scoob to read up on some government, :lol: oh man, I just don't even known.

Yes, 0 for the next decade, then 1 for the next decade, then 0, then 1, ect.

Until the world population dies down to less then 5 billion this should be implemented.

parkurtommo

Now how would you enforce that?

[QUOTE="Zorgax"]

this thread reminds me why I hate liberal douchebags.

mattbbpl

Yup. Keeping government where it belongs - out of your wallet and into your reproductive organs.

I think there should be a law where how many kids you can have is based solely on income.... Then again, the government is in our lives enough. Don't know if I want them to have more power over our lives...tocool340

The problem is that income isn't static. I know a guy who was making $70,000/year. Then the company he worked for went under due to financial mismanagement. Suddenly he found himself making $0/year and living off his savings for the next couple of years while he searched and searched for a job.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Yes, 0 for the next decade, then 1 for the next decade, then 0, then 1, ect.

Until the world population dies down to less then 5 billion this should be implemented.

worlock77

Now how would you enforce that?

dictatorship

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Yes, 0 for the next decade, then 1 for the next decade, then 0, then 1, ect.

Until the world population dies down to less then 5 billion this should be implemented.

parkurtommo

Now how would you enforce that?

dictatorship

Great. Now how would you enforce this?

Maybe a law that allows a certain number of children given a household's income. But not a fixed number on everyone.sthadji

Again, income is not static. It can change in a single day.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Now how would you enforce that?

worlock77

dictatorship

Great. Now how would you enforce this?

Mass murder as intimidation.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

dictatorship

parkurtommo

Great. Now how would you enforce this?

Mass murder as intimidation.

And you seriously think this is a brilliant idea?

[QUOTE="sthadji"]Maybe a law that allows a certain number of children given a household's income. But not a fixed number on everyone.worlock77

Again, income is not static. It can change in a single day.

If I can support them by myself then what @%!!#$!$ right do YOU or any government have to tell me how many kids is 'acceptable'?

And here's a question for you non-Americans. How many of you are from countries that have a fertility rate above replacement?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="sthadji"]Maybe a law that allows a certain number of children given a household's income. But not a fixed number on everyone.sthadji

Again, income is not static. It can change in a single day.

I was mainly referring to people getting laid off. Over all I really don't think income is a good factor to judge by. Well, I think the whole notion of dictating who can breed and how many is appalling, but if we're going with the notion then income itself isn't a good example.

[QUOTE="sthadji"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Again, income is not static. It can change in a single day.

worlock77

I was mainly referring to people getting laid off. Over all I really don't think income is a good factor to judge by. Well, I think the whole notion of dictating who can breed and how many is appalling, but if we're going with the notion then income itself isn't a good example.

Here's another question for you guys. How many of you are demanding population control here, but if this was an abortion thread you'd be championing 'reproductive rights' for women.

So a woman should havethe right to choose except when she shouldn't. Amirite?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="sthadji"] Are you talking about income fluctuations due to macroeconomic factors? Or just isolated cases of people getting laid off?sthadji

I was mainly referring to people getting laid off. Over all I really don't think income is a good factor to judge by. Well, I think the whole notion of dictating who can breed and how many is appalling, but if we're going with the notion then income itself isn't a good example.

I dunno man. Incidents of people getting laid off are far from isolated. Especially these days. Job security doesn't exist anymore.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Great. Now how would you enforce this?

worlock77

Mass murder as intimidation.

And you seriously think this is a brilliant idea?

Here's another question for you guys. How many of you are demanding population control here, but if this was an abortion thread you'd be championing 'reproductive rights' for women.

So a woman should havethe right to choose except when she shouldn't. Amirite?

Storm_Marine

Not me, abortion FTW!

[QUOTE="sthadji"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I was mainly referring to people getting laid off. Over all I really don't think income is a good factor to judge by. Well, I think the whole notion of dictating who can breed and how many is appalling, but if we're going with the notion then income itself isn't a good example.

worlock77

I dunno man. Incidents of people getting laid off are far from isolated. Especially these days. Job security doesn't exist anymore.

The obvious method to go about that is offering tax credits and the like.. Both the private and public sector "reward" people all the time for certain behaviors.. ITs a tough situation because looking down the road, the greatest threat to human survival outside of a natural diseaster, nuclear war.. Is our overpopulation as a speices.. We are already have extreme negative effects with the environment and the ecosystem not to mention our addiction to fossil fuels is GROWING rather than shrinking..

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Here's another question for you guys. How many of you are demanding population control here, but if this was an abortion thread you'd be championing 'reproductive rights' for women.

So a woman should havethe right to choose except when she shouldn't. Amirite?

parkurtommo

Not me, abortion FTW!

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Here's another question for you guys. How many of you are demanding population control here, but if this was an abortion thread you'd be championing 'reproductive rights' for women.

So a woman should havethe right to choose except when she shouldn't. Amirite?

Storm_Marine

Not me, abortion FTW!

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

Basically I'm calling you a hypocrite, in case you don't understand.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Not me, abortion FTW!

Storm_Marine

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

Basically I'm calling you a hypocrite, in case you don't understand.

Who are you calling ahypocrit? How bout instead of blanket statements you start pointing out people and cite the hypocrisy?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

sSubZerOo

Basically I'm calling you a hypocrite, in case you don't understand.

Who are you calling ahypocrit? How bout instead of blanket statements you start pointing out people and cite the hypocrisy?

I already did.

No that law will be totally pointless, and do nothing but harm. 1) in places like the US and other 'first world' nations, the brith rate is already lower than the death rate, so the population growth is already negative (not accounting for immigration) and 2) This would ruin the developing countries.

I'm all for limiting the number of kids people have. I know this will never happen, but I also think that some people just shouldn't be allowed to procreate...

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Not me, abortion FTW!

Storm_Marine

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

Basically I'm calling you a hypocrite, in case you don't understand.

Thank you ;)

Unconstitutional? I think so.

Unconstitutional? I think so.

AgentA-Mi6

Immoral is more like it.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

What?

Reading and understanding FTW.

parkurtommo

Basically I'm calling you a hypocrite, in case you don't understand.

Thank you ;)

You're welcome.

[QUOTE="tocool340"]I think there should be a law where how many kids you can have is based solely on income.... Then again, the government is in our lives enough. Don't know if I want them to have more power over our lives...worlock77

The problem is that income isn't static. I know a guy who was making $70,000/year. Then the company he worked for went under due to financial mismanagement. Suddenly he found himself making $0/year and living off his savings for the next couple of years while he searched and searched for a job.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

Unconstitutional? I think so.

Storm_Marine

Immoral is more like it.