In the past 40 years, Over half of the wild life population has disappeared while the human population has more than doubled in the same amount of time. . . . People call themselves animal lovers but they truly aren't if they have multiple kids that results in taking even more habitat away from other species. Just like how the native Americans had their land taken away unfairly, Animals are now having their habitat taken away by us? If you really loved animals, You would sacrifice having kids to save the life of an animal and allow them to have a kid rather than be the cause for their ultimate extinction. How about this? Everyone can have a kid and if you want more kids to take care of, Why don't you take care of your parents instead of sending them to a nursing home. . .
If starting in Roman times when the population of the world was about 200 million, there had been large enough family size so that on average three children made it to adulthood, and this had continued for the 80 generations until today, then the populationwould be enormous - there would be 4 trillion people taking the place of each person alive today. Exponential growth is always unsustainable in the long term
As we know resources are limited and after this action distribution of resources takes place in proper way.Everyone get large share of services.Child gets extra attraction by their parents and parents will be able to provide required things which are useful for their development.Children will be able to fulfil their dream and go ahead in economic development of country.
A one child policy definitely has advantages, such as less population growth and multiple resources and a greater chance for survival for the child. However, this does not justify a one child policy, since only children grow up with many problems, feelings of entitlement and the loss of companionship from siblings.
The most obvious benefit is that it can help with overpopulation. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and if we are unwise about our resources, it can be a spell for disaster.
It can also improve quality of life by allowing us to concentrate our resources. It can also raise some ethical options we wouldn't have previously considered. If we are only allowed to have one BIOLOGICAL child, but we are allowed to ADOPT to our heart's content, perhaps people would be more likely to consider adoption/fostering. This in turn, can really benefit the community. Currently the foster system is overcrowded and of low quality. The children are kicked out when they are 18, often to repeat the same cycle of poverty/abuse. If we could give these kids wonderful homes, perhaps we could help curb the cycle of poverty, abuse, and crime.
However, in practice the implication of this policy is quite horrifying. It all comes down to the fact that the policy is law, but our reproductive systems don't listen to the law. We can use contraceptive, but when those aren't effective, is it ethical to stick by the policy, to force sterilization or abortion on women?
Of course there are no advantages. What a stupid question. Government violence begets suffering and violence.
What if you have twins? What if you want more than 1 child, or are good at nurturing children? Isn't having options, better? What if you find practical or "religious objections" to "birth control"?
Birthing babies is just as natural and proper as breathing or the heart beating. Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred, so large families should be advocated worldwide, regardless or trendy or stupid "overpopulation" concerns.