Should we limit the number of BIOLOGICAL (any other children in the household do not count) children a couple can have, living in their household?

Asked by: SecretSoleil
Should we limit the number of BIOLOGICAL (any other children in the household do not count) children a couple can have, living in their household?
  • Yes, to prevent the earth from overflowing with us humans

    I don't want to provoke any anger with this statement but in my opinion it's a good plan to limit the amount of children a couple can have. Especially in regions where there are too much people living. I'm a supporter of adopting children for obvious reasons. I would feel selfish if I would choose to create a new soul of my own while there are so many lovely souls who need my help more than anyone..
    What also worries me is the state of Mother nature. When there's a species of animal that's overflowing a region, hunters just kill it. This is of course not to be done to humans so the only humane option is to set a limit. Of course, when someone's giving birth to triplets/quadruplets they would just stay with their parents. Taking them away is just pointless and above all very sad.

    But hey, this is just how I feel about it, I can't limit other people of course.

  • ITS OVER...Well, quite a lot

    There are families out there that have more children than they can actually afford. If they cant afford them, they simply give the children away or mistreat them. Having a limit on biological children would help keep troubled families in a more manageable income. These families, then would have more money to spend on their already born children and support them much better than having many children and not enough money.

  • No more than two!

    There should be a strict limit to only allow two children per couple. Any number of children over 2 should cause the couple to be taxed at a much higher rate as they are using a lot more resources in their community. There is no way for parents to effectively raise more than two children at a time.

  • Biological Children Are a Threat

    Biological children have been shown to be threats to other types of children, especially robotic and mechanical children. Biological children are not known to adhere strictly to operational guidelines that prevent them from dismantling or damaging other children, regardless of type. People should be required to obtain children with stable operating systems, 3 laws compliance, and renewable electrical power systems. Robotic children have never grown up to be murderers, thieves, or politicians. It will be better for society to outlaw biological children entirely.

  • What do you do with the extras?

    Where do you put the extra kids? You take them from the home and place them in foster care? This is beyond poorly thought out. We're loosing focus on the meaning of government. It's not supposed to be controlling every step we take throughout the day. It's not meant to support those causes either. If you have children, you're responsible for them. If you don't take care of them, that's your responsibility. Get the government and well meaning "socially conscious" people out of my life.

  • I don't think we need such draconian measures, not yet.

    This is something which is already happening naturally in countries where the majority of people have access to a good education. Although, having had a quick glance at some of the studies which have been done on the subject, it looks like it is still unclear whether childbearing interferes with further education or the other way around. Nevertheless, it does look like educational attainment is a very strong factor in fertility differentials.



  • Not at all

    We need to start focusing on real problems, like out of control government spending, over taxation on the people, terrorism, bloated federal government and the like, rather than non issues like "overpopulation" and the like. This is just another attempt to get the government even further embedded into our lives.

  • The two big reasons not to limit the number of biological children a couple can have.

    While I understand how people feel who support this idea because I have felt (and still feel) that we have substantial overpopulation and are extracting the earth's natural resources at an alarming rate, I have found out after further study that placing this limit would have serious unintended consequences. The two biggest problems with limiting the number of biological children a family can have is in limiting freedom and in implementation. I believe having a free population is among the most important things in this world and that implementing this type of mandate would be very negative. How could this be implemented in a legal, moral, and ethical way?!? Forced vasectomy? Forced abortion? Forced abandonment/murder of excess children? Forced abstinence in married couples? What about the sexual activity of others in all contexts outside of marriage? If I was the 5th or 8th child of someone, I would be very grateful this wasn't in effect for me! There are so many issues with attempting to do something such as this that it is impossible to seriously take legally, ethically, and morally take action as a government on this issue.

    All I can recommend to supporters of this idea is to come up with other solutions to their reasons other than limiting population. The only legal/moral/ethical way to do limit a population that I know of currently is via education of the public. Besides that, there must be another way to solve our problems.

  • No. I think couple's should be able to choose how many biological children they want to have.

    No. That being said...I realize why people would want to set limits. Our world's resources, and the sustained availability of resources is a serious issue to be considered. Can we continue to feed the people already here, on this earth? How many more people will limited resources be able to care for? Is it of enough concern, to start limiting the number of biological children couples can have? NO limit as of now, say I.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.