One baby per family?
- Thread starter kihira
- Start date
vancouver24
Banned
YES, isn't china already doing that
BlueDays
1
I think only 1 is a cruel limit because what happens if that child is killed or dies in it's teenage years and the couple are then too old to successfully concieve again.
That could result in parents becoming unnaturally overprotective with the 1 child. Severely limiting it's life to ensure it does not die in an accident or contract an illness from others etc.
That could result in parents becoming unnaturally overprotective with the 1 child. Severely limiting it's life to ensure it does not die in an accident or contract an illness from others etc.
Good idea. And while we're busy evening things out, why don't we ban birth control and abortion in all the blue countries for a few years just to make sure everyone is on an equal footing.:
:
vj288
not actually Fiona Apple
Yeah. And they are so many other things that need to be considered. What if a woman with a child is raped and gets pregnant, will she be forced to get an abortion? Forced to pay a fine if she doesn't. (In china having a second child can cost up to a years salary in fines.) Will she have to give it up for adoption? What about religious sects that don't believe in contraception, will they be forced to stop having sex completely in order to serve their religion and their government? Will woman who have already had a child be forced to have a surgery to prevent them from getting pregnant again? What about men, are they allowed to impregnate more than woman?
My sociology teachers promoted a government plan controlling pregnancy, that would force all people under the age of 18 to have a reversible surgery that would prevent them from getting pregnant, in order to prevent unplanned teen pregnancies. I thought it was a preposterous idea. It would be "good" for "society," but it removes so much freedom from the individuals. She also talked about giving this surgery to certain groups of people, like drug addicts and mentally retarded individuals. It's such a slippery slope. Eventually it would get to the point in which only a select few could become parents.
coyote
Well-known member
overpopulation seems more to be a problem caused by people living longer lives than they used to live, rather than people having more babies than they used to have
in ages past, people had much larger families than they do today, but they died early due to diseases that have been eliminated in modern times
so rather than limit the number of births, shouldn't we just begin an aged-based euthanasia program?
anyone over 45 - start lining up
it'll only sting for a moment
in ages past, people had much larger families than they do today, but they died early due to diseases that have been eliminated in modern times
so rather than limit the number of births, shouldn't we just begin an aged-based euthanasia program?
anyone over 45 - start lining up
it'll only sting for a moment
vj288
not actually Fiona Apple
Or you could take the Utilitarian approach and take out all the depressed people who are bringing down the overall level of happiness in the world. They're going to die some day anyway, why not just take them out of their misery now?
coyote
Well-known member
even better - we could just euthanize everyone with any mental or emotional problems
for a start
then we could move on to anyone with a physical imperfection
we could really improve the human race then
it's for the good of society
vj288
not actually Fiona Apple
Yeah, you know I think there was some famous European leader who had a similar idea. H-something? For some reason people don't like him very much
coyote
Well-known member
Yeah, you know I think there was some famous European leader who had a similar idea. H-something? For some reason people don't like him very much
he must have been ahead of his time
coyote
Well-known member
the trouble with such an idea is
that in order to implement it
one group of people must be judged to be better -or more fit - than another group
from there, it all goes downhill