Poll of the Day > Should it be illegal to have more than 5 children?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mandatory abortions if you go over.
---

No, because my dad would not have been born
---

no, this topic is stupid
---

Eventually it will have to be. Honestly, what do people expect is going to happen when we're literally out of room?
---

DevilSummoner1 posted...

no, this topic is stupid

Humans, a renewable resource.

Even if they don't produce as much methane as cows.
---

LynyrdRocker posted...

DevilSummoner1 posted...

no, this topic is stupid

---

JamieTheWhite posted...

Eventually it will have to be. Honestly, what do people expect is going to happen when we're literally out of room?

Space isn't a problem at all, in the slightest. It's over consumption that is screwing things over. Most people in countries like the U.S. use (and out right waste) literally dozens of times more resources than than people in third world countries.

As for the topic question though, no. We just need to stop being so wasteful, however that goes contrary to human nature, so... Yeah the world is going to just keep on spiralling down the drain.
---

instead of static amount, keeping children should be based on IQ. that would better control the quantity and quality of offsprings.
---

only for poor people
---

The chief problem is often the people who have the most children are poor and uneducated (as one of the reasons they had that many children is because they didn't use birth control, not because they couldn't get it, but because they couldn't be bothered to use it). They don't have the means or ability to raise the children they are having, so even if they are born, these children are born into a life of hardship.

So either children past the second one should be limited based on your income to ensure you actually can support those children, or government handouts should cease if you have more than 2 children that you can't support to discourage you from doing it further.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYsMjEeEg4g

0:54

No because my parents had 12 together (and my dad had one from his second marriage).
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

LynyrdRocker posted...

DevilSummoner1 posted...

no, this topic is stupid

That'd be nice, but it would never get approved.

Best case we can hope for is a reform of the social safety net to make it more punishing to have more kids rather than more rewarding, and requiring every kid learn about contraception as part of health class plus taking steps to make condoms cheap/free to obtain.

TyVulpine posted...

No because my parents had 12 together (and my dad had one from his second marriage).

Jesus, talk about excessive.
---

Providing you can provide for said children there shouldn't be a limit on how many you can have. The government however should only pay out for a set amount of kids. I believe the UK is heading that way anyway with a benefit cap now in place. Being out of work, claiming benefits and constantly popping out kids is irksome to say the least.
---

Not if you can afford to support them.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

The chief problem is often the people who have the most children are poor and uneducated (as one of the reasons they had that many children is because they didn't use birth control, not because they couldn't get it, but because they couldn't be bothered to use it). They don't have the means or ability to raise the children they are having, so even if they are born, these children are born into a life of hardship.

So either children past the second one should be limited based on your income to ensure you actually can support those children, or government handouts should cease if you have more than 2 children that you can't support to discourage you from doing it further.

The problem with that is that it's the kids that suffer in that scenario.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Providing you can provide for said children there shouldn't be a limit on how many you can have.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Not if you can afford to support them.

And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...

streamofthesky posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Providing you can provide for said children there shouldn't be a limit on how many you can have.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Not if you can afford to support them.

And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...

Then you're S.O.L.? I don't really think the chance that you're going to suffer some catastrophe that causes you to lose your job is reason to impose a limit on everyone. I mean you could say that about people that have only one or two kids too. What if the parents die and don't have the adequate life insurance to provide for the kids until they're old enough to make their own money? That's not a reason to tell people they can only have a certain number of kids.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

streamofthesky posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Providing you can provide for said children there shouldn't be a limit on how many you can have.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Not if you can afford to support them.

And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...

Then you're S.O.L.? I don't really think the chance that you're going to suffer some catastrophe that causes you to lose your job is reason to impose a limit on everyone. I mean you could say that about people that have only one or two kids too. What if the parents die and don't have the adequate life insurance to provide for the kids until they're old enough to make their own money? That's not a reason to tell people they can only have a certain number of kids.

If it's only one or two, the cost to society is limited. When all of a sudden you're dumping the financial responsibility of six or so kids on the taxpayers just from one person's unlucky turn of fortunes, that's a much bigger impact.
If parents expect the government to have their children's backs should they fail to provide for the kids, it's not asking much to at least not let them excessively draw from the taxpayers' money.

This isn't the 1800's, kids aren't dying to Tuberculosis at 8 years old or getting mangled in factory work. No one needs half a dozen freaking kids to make sure some actually reach adulthood, anyone who chooses to is just being selfish.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

TigerTycoon posted...

The chief problem is often the people who have the most children are poor and uneducated (as one of the reasons they had that many children is because they didn't use birth control, not because they couldn't get it, but because they couldn't be bothered to use it). They don't have the means or ability to raise the children they are having, so even if they are born, these children are born into a life of hardship.

So either children past the second one should be limited based on your income to ensure you actually can support those children, or government handouts should cease if you have more than 2 children that you can't support to discourage you from doing it further.

The problem with that is that it's the kids that suffer in that scenario.

If this is your concern than the first option, it's illegal to have more than two children if you don't have the income to support more, is preferable. Honestly, having even 1 kid if you can't actually support (with both time and money) is pretty irresponsible.
---

CountessRolab posted...

Mandatory abortions if you go over.

No, but you'd think it would be a self-imposed ban, since the penalty is having that many damn kids.

Per person or couple? My parents together only had me but each have like 4.
---

easiest way to count would be per woman
---

If you're completely inferior, one is too many.
---

Of course not.
---

My ancestors have repeatably had more than 5 kids and as far as I can tell, grew up to be productive members of society. It's not about the quantity but the quality of the upbringing.
---

VeeVees posted...

easiest way to count would be per woman

Or just per person.

You have 3 kids from one relationship, you can only have 2 more. If your new significant other only has 2 kids from prior relationships....to bad for him/her, if s/he wants to stay with you, his/her limit is now effectively 4.

I'm fine w/ erring on the side of less. If it's people who are bouncing around between marriages and baby mamas, erring on the side of less kids is probably for the best.

Related thought: Kids you adopt shouldn't count against the limit. You want people to adopt the orphans / abandoned.

CountessRolab posted...

Mandatory abortions if you go over.

If you can't afford to have kids, it should be illegal to even have one. Good luck getting that past the ACLU, though.

JamieTheWhite posted...

Eventually it will have to be. Honestly, what do people expect is going to happen when we're literally out of room?

Will likely never be an issue since people would starve first. And the existing population would be a lot smaller than it is today if we weren't paying single moms to get pregnant via multiple men.

Dreaming_King posted...

JamieTheWhite posted...

Eventually it will have to be. Honestly, what do people expect is going to happen when we're literally out of room?

Space isn't a problem at all, in the slightest. It's over consumption that is screwing things over. Most people in countries like the U.S. use (and out right waste) literally dozens of times more resources than than people in third world countries.

As for the topic question though, no. We just need to stop being so wasteful, however that goes contrary to human nature, so... Yeah the world is going to just keep on spiralling down the drain.

Not even a waste issue.

streamofthesky posted...

That'd be nice, but it would never get approved.

Best case we can hope for is a reform of the social safety net to make it more punishing to have more kids rather than more rewarding, and requiring every kid learn about contraception as part of health class plus taking steps to make condoms cheap/free to obtain.

Or just pull the incentives. As it is, condoms already ARE cheap so that's not a real issue.

streamofthesky posted...

And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...

If you lived your life based on worst-case "what ifs" you'd never get anything done.
---

Only if you weren't born in the country and i'd lower it to 2-3
---

You shouldn't be allowed to have more than 2 children
---

streamofthesky posted...

And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...

Take that into consideration before having many kids. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
---

People should be required to prove notable savings after their first child.
---

VeeVees posted...

only for poor people

---