The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should there be a limit of the children a parent or parents should have?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SeattleMariners1996 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 100870
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Too many children, not enough parents.
I am for limiting the number of years before a child, or children, are born, before another is born, to give that child, or children, the attention and love they deserve to grow into the best they can be. There are too many people that, when left to their own devices, do not make responsible decisions and do not know when enough is enough. My concern is the well-being of of each child who grows up in a large family where the attention of both parents have to be fought for by multiple siblings, causing children to feel like they have to compete to gain the attention they deserve. Other problems that stem from lack of attention are that children will get away with dishonest actions unseen and uncorrected. This does not happen in every family and not every parent is inattentive of their children, but one has to admit that a majority of parents these days struggle with giving one child the attention they need to foster a healthy, morally conscious individual. Though no one is perfect, we can at least be progressive and make it harder for people to get away with making selfish decisions. I also agree that a parent, or parents, who are on government assistance should not have more children until they can stabilize themselves. If you can't support more, it is irresponsible to have more.
For the sake of the children of the future, the number of children that parents have within a given time should be limited.


Personally, I disagree.

I shouldn't be limited to having children just because irresponsible parents live in this world. Here's why I am against this argument:

--How would we enforce such a policy? I don't believe we can nor should we. If we tried to enforce it by saying anyone who is pregnant but breaking this limit needs to have an abortion, the general abortion debate would become even more divisive. It's not like we can just put the tens of millions of children into adoption services. We already have a big enough problem as is with too many children not growing up in families - let alone their own family. Having this limit would actually worsen that number if we forced these children into adoption. On top of that, what happens to those children who want to be adopted? Are they limited too now? There would be a surplus of children who need a home but cannot go to one because of this limit. Unless of course, you're talking about something similar to China's One-Child Policy. In this case though, infants were killed rather than put up for adoption by most who violated the policy.

--It creates one problem with an attempt to solve another. Surly, the overpopulation argument is valid. Our world is becoming harder and harder to live in everyday (although, I would rather advocate for environmental protection laws over children limits because that gets to the source of the issue rather than sweeping the problem under the bed). If this limitation were a success, then there would be an even smaller amount of pregnancies than we're seeing with the newer generations (already at an all-time low). The chance of success though is low because the resistance to such a policy is high - especially in the divided country of America. Therefore, the chance of failure is high.

--Why should I be punished? If I am an excellent parent and want to have more children, why should I be punished to wait or be denied my right to have children with my partner? Just because some parents are irresponsible?
Debate Round No. 1


There are too many people that, when left to their own devices, do not make responsible decisions and do not know when enough is enough.

I don't believe anyone should be forced to have or abort a child, but too many people are having children irresponsibly without giving enough care and attention to the children they already have. Which causes problems in society. If you need an example, parents unable to have the time to correct their children's errors will leave room for the children to make those errors in the future without conscience that what they are doing is wrong. What is wrong with waiting another 5 years to have another, so that you can spend those years devoting time and energy to raising the one, or ones, you already have? Even if you are rich and don't work, a child is the past of a future adult. All the years of it's childhood will shape the person, or persons, that they will be in the future. Isn't that worth at least 5 years of energy to devote towards the upbringing of the future? It is difficult to correct mistakes after they have already developed as a habit or behavior the older they get.

I don't think every parent is irresponsible, but I think it is irresponsible to have more children than you can support physically, emotionally, mentally, creatively, and spiritually. There exist many parents with only one child that work more often than they spend time with their child. In my view this is not acceptable. People have settled for an superficial life that sacrifices the future of innocent humans with the excuse that they are doing what's best for them; save for the wealthy populations that have plenty of time and money to spend. This is why we need change.

My concern is that we have a lot of troubled youth and adults, who were once children. And their lives have been tough because their parents had so many children, they were not able to care for them or give them the attention they needed. W e have homeless youth and hungry children, only some of which are attributed by large households where they could not get the attention and bare necessities they needed. Having a interval between childbirths can give parents the opportunity to focus on their children's upbringing and organize and plan their finances for the future of that child. It's easy to have a child but what shapes that child is the care, or lack of care, that is provided by the parents.

No one would be forced, but there would be consequences for over stepping the limit. This would fall into another issue involving whether the parent, or parents, have the physical necessities to care for more children. If they can't the child needs to be taken to a more habitable environment until the parent, or parents, have the means to care for them. If they do have the physical necessities, then a child-serviceman can be assigned to the family to evaluate the conditions of living, the parents, and other children to judge whether it is a safe environment for the new child, or children.

This restriction would serve as a opportunity for adults to take bringing a child into this world more seriously. This would be to combat the large population of adults that are risking the welfare of their children by having more when they do not have the time or physical necessities to care for them. One should not feel like they are suffering or being punished because they can't have more children when they want, but they should feel blessed for the time they get to spend and devote to their child, or children, upbringing; teaching, learning, growing, and loving every moment with them, before moving on to having more children and splitting the time between them.

Understand that this would not prevent people from having a dozen children but it would give them time to devote to the children they already brought into this world. Allowing to have more children after the last one (s) have reached a reasonable age.

It is my hope that limiting the time between childbirths will give parents the time to devote the attention that is needed for the upbringing of the children that they already have, before having more, and that this will benefit the well-being of the children we have now, and future generations, by showing the children that they are not an accident or a mistake, and that they will be treated with a love, given the attention they deserve, and that they don't have to compete with or struggle to achieve that love and attention. It is also my hope that this would prevent children, youth, and adults from being homeless and/or malnourished in the future because their parents had too many children they could not support.

I need a clear understanding of why having a limit on the intervals between childbirths would be counter productive. Also would this create more problems and what would they be? I need to hear someone say, that creating an interval of time between childbirths, for the purpose of devoting time and energy to a child's upbringing, is bad for this society and why?, and what is a better option? Because this is a problem, and we need more than rebuttals, we need a plan.

I hope this give a better idea of where I'm taking this. This is a vague debate because it also ties in with other issues, but for the sake of this argument let's keep it focused of limiting the rapid output of children in households and the problems it creates for families, communities, society, the country, the world.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.