| Jul 5, 2006 @ 7:54 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
As anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you, overpopulation is the true cause of virtually every environmental problem that we face now. China has been grappling with overpopulation for centuries and enacted and enforced a strict policy of one child per every married couple. In America, birth control is considered the responsibility of the individual and the predictable consequence is that nothing is accomplished. In some cities and states, birth control is readily available and people are actually taught how to use it. In other areas, you literally have to drive to a different state in order to obtain birth control. In the small town in which I grew up, for example, there are over twenty different types of liquor and beer available at the convenience store, yet we cannot buy condoms.
I grew up with two brothers and three sisters and hence understand the benefits of siblings: It forces you to become more resourceful and considerate of other people. I do not think that families should be restricted to a single child, but I would support a law that limited a couple to two children. What do you think?
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 7:58 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
Would forced abortion be a means of enforcing this one child law? American birth rates are down, the only thing driving our birth rate up is illegal immigration but we don't enforce those laws either.
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:06 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
I am not interested in how it would be enforced per se. Any system will be subject to abuse and incompetence. I am interested in determining whether people would support such a law. Incidentally, my younger sister's best friend (whose family has lived in America for generations) just gave birth to her fourth child.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:13 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
My vote is no then.
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:14 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 12,605
|
I agree with sponge but to take it one step further and stop even legal immigration.We dont have the large families ourselves anymore and with the Asian countries well over populated they want out and to be over here.It wont be long and if you combine whites,blacks and Spanish people in our country we will all be a minority to Asians.
We dont need to restrict ourselves with a one child law,restrict foreigners.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:20 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
I should clarify that I raised this subject in order to address the problem of overpopulation and not the usual bickering over race and immigration. Since the law would apply to ALL Americans, the subject of immigration is null and void.
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:32 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
EvoPsych
Posts: 390
|
Why am I reminded of the book "Natures End" from the early 80's where the Indian Doctor Gupta Singe...comes up with the plan for half the world population to commit suicide.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:41 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
I should clarify that I raised this subject in order to address the problem of overpopulation and not the usual bickering over race and immigration.
Then you would be ignoring the problem. American birth rates aren't enough to sustain present populations as it is. It isn't even remotely restricted to one race either. I recently read about a Ukranian couple who came here with two children and now have 15.
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 8:47 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 12,605
|
OK,if you think the problem of overpopulation has nothing to do with immigration,no we shouldnt have a one child per couple law.
Tell me,which state doesnt have birth control available?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 9:33 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
Tell me,which state doesnt have birth control available?
Utah? 
I do not know if the law was repealed in the courts, but I heard that South Dakota recently made abortion illegal.
I am sure there are other example. As I noted, the town that I grew up in so conservative that the convenience store cannot even sell condoms. In fact, none of the towns within a 15 mile radius has a store which sells condoms. 
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 9:43 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
Spirit76
Posts: 537
|
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
No.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 9:49 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
Jankia
Posts: 12,605
|
OK,thanks 
I suppose this could be considered off topic but I dont consider abortion as birth control,I consider it a killing unless its done to save the life of the woman.Thats just my opinion and its not based on my religious beliefs
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 9:57 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
I'm not a supporter of Abortion but I'm not 100% opposed either. I do think it should be up to the individual states like the death penalty.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:20 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
Then you would be ignoring the problem. American birth rates aren't enough to sustain present populations as it is.
Just out of curiosity, why are you so fixated on whether our population can "sustain" itself? Our nation is already overpopulated as it is. Lest you forget, there are six billion people on this planet--and an additional 300 million people are born every year. In other words, the equivalent of the entire population of the United States of America is added to the world's population every year. That is three hundred million people who need food, water and shelter and jobs - in addition to the six billion people who already require those resources. We have been able to reduce the birth rate of our species during the past few decades, but the size of our population is already so large that any increase is going to be a burden. We cannot emigrate anymore. We are already exhausting the resources that we have. We don't have the capability to move our manufacturing and waste disposal off of this planet. We cannot even rely on warfare or starvation to reduce the population because modern weaponry has become so deadly that a major war could destroy all civilization. In other words, drastic measures are required. A law limiting the size of families to two children seems to me to be most politically feasible and painless way for our country to tackle the problem.
[Edited on 7
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:22 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 4,886
|
I've visited Moline, Illinois and was married to the daughter of a son of Moline, Illinois.
Moline is the last place on the North American continent that will suffer the effects of over population.
However, if you really want to minimize over population, or STDs, stay twenty feet from all female humans. Condoms, vascetomies, diaphrams, etc are not 100% effective. Abstinence is.
My father came from a big family in the old country. To my best calculations, I'm related to 50% of Tehran.
Not that I want to match my grandfather's proclivity with a comparable number of wives, but I really look forward to the hopes of paying for medical school as many times as I feel like it.
Population control is the most communist thing I've heard. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:23 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
Spirit76
Posts: 537
|
Hi Rare,
Actually, you do have a good point in all of this with 4 billion over on the populationO'meter. I just think that *compelling* people to keep family sizes down isn't the right answer... So... what is the best way to sell people on remaining childless? Tax breaks?
Spirit
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:24 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
Bj864
Posts: 4,238
|
Since the law would apply to ALL Americans, the subject of immigration is null and void.
Since illegal immigrants are not americans, that subject would have to be part of any real debate about this. We are enforcing very few laws regarding the illegals, so how could we possible enforce a law like this?
I think the overpopulation is a problem, but even our tax system rewards larges families, by giving the taxpayer more off their taxable income for every child.
I don't think I could support a law for 1 child only, but I would support changes in current laws (tax laws among others) that would discourage large families. I would also support changes in the way the government is handling illegal immigrants to handle the population in this country.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:32 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 3,069
|
Moline is the last place on the North American continent that will suffer the effects of over population.
* snort *
You should rethink that statement. We have already suffered from overpopulation. China and India have so many people that labor over there costs practically nothing, so every company that once manufactured tractors and other agricultural implements moved overseas. Moline and the surrounding cities have lost more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs since 1980. 
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:40 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 12,605
|
Yep,even the most American company of them all...John Deere has moved much manufacturing overseas, Europe.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5, 2006 @ 10:41 PM |
Would you support a "one child per couple" law in the USA? |
|
Spirit76
Posts: 537
|
Interesting CNN article on this very subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/300.million.growth.ap/index.html
U.S. about to have 300 million Americans
Some countries have growth headaches, others beg for babies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the U.S. population speeds toward 300 million, the growth is producing headaches for Americans fed up with traffic congestion, sprawl and dwindling natural resources.
But the alternatives are pretty scary, too. Just look at Europe and Japan, which are on the verge of such big population losses that several countries are practically begging women to have babies.
"Europe and Japan are now facing a population problem that is unprecedented in human history -- declining population over time with an increase in the percentage of old people," said Bill Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington think tank.
Countries have lost people because of wars, disease and natural disasters but never -- at least in modern history -- because women stopped having enough children, Butz said.
The U.S. is the fastest growing industrialized nation in the world, adding about 2.8 million people a year. That's a little less than 1 percent, but enough to mitigate the kinds of problems facing Japan and many European countries.
Europe, with 728 million people, saw its population shrink by 74,000 since the beginning of the decade, according to the United Nations. By 2050, it is projected to lose a total of 75 million people.
That ought to give motorists on Germany's Autobahn some extra room to change lanes. But experts warn it could cause labor shortages while straining retirement and health programs, ultimately threatening economic competitiveness.
The problem is that birth rates are so low there aren't enough young people entering the work force to support an aging population, said Hans-Peter Kohler, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Presumably, many people would not be so concerned about the numbers declining if it wasn't combined with an aging population," Kohler said. "I think it's more the age structure that gives rise to these concerns, and these concerns are well justified."
Russian President Vladimir Putin is so concerned he recently proposed paying women to have children. Last year, France increased monthly stipends to parents who take time off work to care for a third child.
When Japan announced in June that its population had shrunk in 2005 for the first time, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, "The data must be accepted gravely."
On Friday, Japan announced that it is now the world's most elderly nation, with more than a fifth of its people 65 or older. Italy is second.
On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. Only one country in Europe -- Albania -- has a fertility rate above 2, according to statistics gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency. Russia's fertility rate is 1.28. In Japan, it's 1.25.
"We're going to have the chance to learn from Europe," Butz said. "For better or worse, they are leading the world into something that has never happened before."
John Seager, president of Population Connection, predicted that any adverse affects of shrinking populations will be temporary.
"It may be the only good crisis we ever had," said Seager, whose group, formerly known as Zero Population Growth, advocates lower birth rates.
America is getting older, too -- the oldest baby boomers turn 60 this year -- and there have been consequences. Private pensions are failing at an alarming rate and Social Security, if left unchanged, is projected to drain the money in its trust fund by 2041.
Twelve percent of the U.S. population is 65 or older, a share that is projected to grow. But two factors keep America younger than Europe: higher fertility rates and immigration.
The United States has a fertility rate of 2.05, about enough to maintain a stable population. The U.S. also adds people through immigration, something many European countries have shunned.
About 40 percent of U.S. population growth comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the Census Bureau. However, if the fertility rate remains unchanged, all of America's population increase will eventually come from immigration, Butz said.
The immigration issue has preoccupied Washington and much of the country for the past year, with Congress working on legislation that would tighten borders and, perhaps, create an avenue to citizenship for many of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants.
Advocates argue that immigrants take jobs that would go unfilled by people born in this country. They note that the number of immigrants in the U.S. has nearly quadrupled in the past 40 years, to about 36 million, and unemployment remains low.
Opponents accuse immigrants of driving down wages and adding to an increasingly crowded country.
"Population growth kind of cuts both ways," said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tighter restrictions on immigration.
"If you are someone who sells cars for a living, you've got more people to sell cars to," he said. "But if you
|
| |
|
|
|
|