Population Control: For or Against?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Do you believe in state-enforced population control? Whether in the style of China and their one-child policy, or some other method entirely? The Roman Catholic Church argues that it is unjust to exterminate millions of unborn children, whilst David Attenborough argues that if we do not institute our own population control, nature will do it for us and the poor people will be those who suffer the most.

What are your thoughts on this fairly controversial issue?

I work in an environment where I regularly see single parents with numerous children, who cannot afford to support themselves let alone the next baby they are going to have, yet the state supports them with tax payers money. It angers me that these people receive handouts, when they could just as easily have had free contraceptives to stop them having babies in the first place. It's not even like a large portion of the country would be able to use religious reasons to argue against this (as I expect would be more common in the US), since so few people attend church.

[Xavier Synik]

My first instinct was to vote no... Then I paused and thought about it for a moment. And now I'm not sure, and thus voted undecided.

I guess I have an issue deciding on the context.

I mean I totally understand the reasoning behind China's population control. But at the same time, if you removed it, then it would only be a matter of time before the population ballooned to such a size that some form of humanitarian crisis (most likely famine or disease) occurred putting the law of natural selection back in order.

Living in a country where there is the ability to support a population 5 times larger then the one we currently have (in terms of space and agriculture, social programming is a different issue altogether), I can't wrap my head around the need to control how many children each family is allowed, but on a global level I can understand how some may see it as necessary.

[Droo]

People should require a lisence to breed, first and foremost, and secondly, yes, common sense dictates that if we're having more sprogs than we can handle, then stop.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm against population control but I'm not against birth control/contraceptives/voluntary vasectomies or whatever you choose to do.

[Emelie Shadowstar]

Part of me wants to boil it down to common sense - Don't have more children than you can comfortably provide for/support/etc. And seriously I've run in to too many people who can't apparently wrap their head around that one with whatever various factors to blame (stupidity and religious beliefs jump out at me there). Some strange part of me wants to say that people should limit themselves to two just to replace themselves but I can't say I have a valid reason behind that concept other than it just seems like sound reasoning in my head. But what the hell would I know? I'm one of those people that swears to everything and anything that they'll never have kids. :lol See? I'm helping to control population and didn't even realize it.

Okay enough on that line...

As far as government dictated population control...I really don't know. Not having been raised in an environment where it could be perceived as dreadfully necessary really makes it hard to understand the other side of it. Just to be cliche, using China as an example, I can see why that might be an issue there but at the same time I can't relate to that scenario to go and even begin to guess what that must be like. It's like I can understand the concept of why...but the hows and the whole "but won't nature just take over eventually?" and so on and so forth. I guess it just boils down to the specific situation as to how I'd feel on it.

Guess that throws me somewhere between the undecided and the "yes - but..."

[Dasquian Belargic]

I'm against population control but I'm not against birth control/contraceptives/voluntary vasectomies or whatever you choose to do.

I would be in the same camp if I didn't regularly see people who don't use birth control etc, yet who are unable to support themselves and their families. I saw one woman this week who was in her early 30s, unemployed and had 7 young children. She had no history of working. I know this is a possibly extreme example, but every day there are so many people in my place of work like this. I don't know how child benefits work in the US, but it just feels like they are paying people to have more children here :headache

[Figrin D'an]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit here...


We require a license to drive automobiles.
We require a license to hunt most types of game animals.
Many places require licenses for people to own pets.
We require a license for two people to be married or in a civil union.
We require a license for people of various professions to practice their trade (medical doctors, professional engineers, etc).

Why not require a license to have a child, which is just as great, if not a greater responsibility as what I have listed above?

And before anyone throws out punitive fallout from this type of system... how would such a structured requirement system really be any different from the generally widely accepted social norm examples that I listed, and why should one be disallowed while the others are acceptable?


It's an interestingly complex topic.

[Droo]

She had no history of working.

I misread this... you government agencies know too much! :o

Back on topic, I'm all for the rights and freedom of the individual, of the couple, of the family, but what about the rights of the children? They don't get a say into which family they are born and consequently have no control over the kind of upbringing they will recieve. I feel it is our duty to protect them within the confines of the law, and presently, I feel they are not. Look at Baby P (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P) for example. Look at the countless other examples of abused infants who suffer and die at the hands of the very people who brought them into the world.

Any parents-to-be or couples wishing to have children ought to be screened to check their employment status, financial situation, criminal records(if any) and possibly, when in doubt, a psychological profile. This sounds invaisive and extreme, I'm sure the masses would talk of big brother and denounce such totalitarian terrors but frankly, if you're a scumbag who shouldn't be trusted with a child, then you don't deserve one. Neither does an infant deserve such a parent.

This isn't all about the child's interests either: poor parenting can result in delinquent children who grow into young adults unfit to walk the same streets as human beings. You see it everywhere around where I live and I wonder, with no small sense of dread, what their children will be like. It's a vicious circle and one which doesn't particularly bode well for future generations.

I feel like I'm rambling at the moment so I'll refrain from waffling further until I can convey my point with more clarity but after a few years living as a responsible adult and bearing witness to the morally bankrupt vermin pushing prams and spitting hateful abuse at their teary-eyed grubby-faced four year olds, I certainly know how it makes me feel, and frankly, in those moments I find my eloquence in clenched fists.

[Redik]

I am for population control through a program of structured breeding permission or licensing, however this tramples on so much that is seen as an inherent civil liberty and would require such rigorous enforcement that I doubt it will come to pass. I am against any other type of population control. Given how narrow my views on the subject are, I have not voted in the poll.

Why do I think the way I do? That's easy.

From my own perspective, I see a need for a structured form of population control. This need comes in the form of a number of factors: limitation on human habitat vs other species habitats, ecosystem preservation, economic and social stresses, etc. Since it would be far better to institute population control in a humane way and as something we all agree to, licensing or somesuch seems preferable to me.

Also Jenny, I recommend you google or wikisearch Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its predecessor Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) if you want to know about US welfare programs.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I think the government rewarding people who have kids they can't support by giving them money is wrong.

Of course, I don't want the kids to starve, either. Its a complex situation. But I feel very strongly that the government/my neighbors don't have a right to tell me and my husband what to do with our reproductive organs, nor do they have the right to tell others.

Then there are people like the Octomom who artificially have waaaaay too many kids than she can handle - she's crazy. There will always be crazy people, and her doctors should have told her no instead of just taking her savings and implanting as many embryos as they could inside her uterus.

[Xavier Synik]

While I can say that as I read the thread I am comfortable with licensing, I feel the need to play devils advocate.

I mean it's one of those things that are easier said then done. Just a few things.

1) Who decides what makes you a fit parent?
2) Who decides whether it has to be a couple or if an individual can have a child on their own?
3) How do you ensure that only licensed individuals have kids? You get a fine if you have a kid without a license?

And that's probably only the tip of a very large iceberg that is this conversation.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm undecided on the issue. I partly feel that I don't want to be told what to do, but I also feel that it could be a massive problem when push comes to shove regarding the planet's resources.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Great questions, Xavier... and yes, as Figrin says this is a complex issue.

I suppose my main issue is with people having a lot of children they can't support. If someone can support eight children, by all means give birth to them, turn them into upstanding members of society. Not everyone has children, after all, so one of your eight to replace the child that was never conceived by another couple.

Licensing seems like a sensible idea. I believe one of China's conditions was that births be spaced a certain amount of years between one another - so a couple would have to wait a certain amount of time before having a second or third child, at least until the first was secure and such-like. Particularly for some of the parents I see daily, it makes me feel as if by only giving them the chance to have one child would encourage them to dedicate more time to the kid instead of just wheeling it around in a pram and telling it to shut up whenever it speaks :/

[Shadow Storm]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of licensing, that to me is putting too much control over the people into the hands of the goverment, but putting forth guidelines on parenting and figuring out how many children you can safely sustain is a good first step, along with stepping up child neglect enforcement laws for those who choose to ignore the guidelines and have too many to sustain properly without seeking help or other means.

EDIT: Actually, eh heh, some people have children just to use them as tax credit deductions. To make it to where people will only give birth to children that they will love and be commited to sustaining, you could remove the tax deductions, and actually add like a birth tax (EDIT2: With the money from the birth tax going into Education to help those who are born be educated.EDIT3: The tax would start off small for the first birth, then double for every birth after that for a person). That'll control the population in one heck of a hurry...

EDIT4: And if your comitted to the license idea, then IMO two big factors in controlling as to who has a license would be:
1) Calculated sustainable income needed for raising a child from age1 to age18. A couple meeting the minimum calculated amount needed to raise a child yearly would be eligible.
2) The parents complete a basic course on parenting.

Any who have children without the license can either get one through the class in order to keep the child, or forfeits the child to a foster family, which could either be another licensed family, or a couple meeting the licensed requirements without the ability to give birth to a child (gay couples, couples with diseases or are sterile, etc).

[Lykaios]

We require a license to drive automobiles.
We require a license to hunt most types of game animals.
Many places require licenses for people to own pets.
We require a license for two people to be married or in a civil union.
We require a license for people of various professions to practice their trade (medical doctors, professional engineers, etc).

Why not require a license to have a child, which is just as great, if not a greater responsibility as what I have listed above.
Couldn't agree more with you, some people are just not fit to be parents then again, that's debatable for what I think is the definition of "unfit" will be someone else's definition of "fit" and which then raises the questions Xavier posed and which I really think it boils down to.

I'm all about for freedom and liberty, but those are rights that carry certain obligations in them and most people seem to forget that second part. So, sure be free to have as many kids as you want, just prove that you can handle the load. Heck, people are free to drive their vehicles as long as they pass the test, right?

[Blade Bacquin]

The simple answer No. Also hell no to the the china does it and it has nothing to with them being socialists. Simply put if you do the way China does you are breeding yourself out of existence. I Can't remember the number years it will take but eventually China will breed itself out of existence do to the one child rule as well with the high stigma on having a male child to carry on your name.

Simply put to many countries have that same stigma and we would eventually breed areselves out of existence. As much as hate those stupid people who breed uncontrolably and expect the goverment to give them money for it I would never support goverment control over how many kids someone can have.

When I find the right woman and when we descide it's time to have children I don't want anyone one telling me how many kids I can have other then the woman I'm having them with. I mean i know personally the max I would want and I would try dam hard not to go over that number. I can regulate myself I don't need the goverment do it for me.

Also as far as Numbers go I'm not my great grandparents who had 18 children and i'm not even my grandparents who had 8 children. My parents only had two even though they where shoting for three my mom and dad decided no more after several miss carriages and techincally my dad has three. As for me, my max would be five but my Ideal number would be two or three which I don't find unreasonable. I don't need an outside iffluence telling me the number. Then again you all could say because my mother is catholic that i might be biased. lol

[Redik]

Simply put if you do the way China does you are breeding yourself out of existence. I Can't remember the number years it will take but eventually China will breed itself out of existence do to the one child rule as well with the high stigma on having a male child to carry on your name.

Not likely to happen. Their current population control system is based around having over 1 billion mainland Chinese. If they actually reduced that down below manageable, all they have to do is lift the one-child policy and things will stabilize. Remember, the policy was instituted to reign in population growth, which a number of things have caused to happen. As things stand, the policy sees some hefty relaxation in rural, or at least non-urban, areas.

As things stand, China has a roughly 1.06 male to 1 female population ratio. The US has .97 male to 1 female population ratio, but that's mostly due to women outlasting men in old age. We're comparatively pretty close, ratio-wise, until you get to the 65+ age group and then everyone dies except US women. :)

To be quite frank, were I in China's shoes, I would be more concerned about their aging population than their incoming one. The effect of the one-child policy is becoming more relaxed over time, but its initial effect will probably be to create the Chinese equivalent of baby boomers. When that cluster of people then hits non-working age and has a reduced population to support them, it won't be pretty.

Similar to Social Security here in the US. Interesting similarities, eh?

[Blade Bacquin]

Hey I'm quoting science there and those scientist are never wrong. lol

You maybe right though and you make a good point Redik. There is no telling if they will keep with the program they have put in place.

Here is a random fact for you all on population. Despite popular belief women so far do not outnumber men. 50.24% of the worlds population is male.

[Redik]

You maybe right though and you make a good point Redik. There is no telling if they will keep with the program they have put in place.

That actually raises another good point. One-child doesn't have to be one child forever. I'm pretty sure that, if Chinese population starts to shrink and if it becomes apparent that they have their economic and social service situations under control, they could change the program to two or three children for the sake of seeing how their country handles it. Being in control gives the government... well, control. They can experiment with the tightness of policy as they see fit.

On the subject of taxes, I am not for a birth tax, nor would it necessarily work the way Shadow intends. A great many low-income people do not pay taxes. Excluding the child tax credit (and the additional child tax credit which you can get as a tax refund) there are various other ways a low income person may be exempted from paying taxes. The people who you are trying to target are low income, multiple child-bearing families. If said family is exempted from paying taxes in one way or another, who have you actually hit with your implementation of the tax?

What I don't like tax-wise, and what I think should be removed, are things such as the additional child tax credit which allows a taxpayer to have more money refunded to them than they paid towards their taxes to begin with. I am fine with relieving someone of their tax liability as a form of support, but I draw the line when you cross the bridge from passive support to the active payout of money they didn't have in the first place.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Iirc, there are some areas of china where the govt encourages parents to have more than one child - more rural areas, for instance, that aren't overpopulated.

[Crusader]

Dear Citizen of Naziland,
in order to breed uber humans we require you to stop being part of our genpool. We are sorry for your inconveniance but your genpool sucks so please stop breeding with the hot tall, blue-eyed, blond chicks.
Your Reichs' breeding minister

^^This is the kind of population control I would hate to see again but in my opinion the next step from population control is gen control and this will be a topic for this whole century.
Right now we are using medicine and technolegy in order to pause human evolution. How many of you have birth or genetic defect that would have meant death instantly or only a short life expectancy 150 years ago?

So I am between two chairs in this matter: Morals and ethics tell me that any control about life is wrong but the rational me tells me that humanity's first world countries are on a crash course with their gen pool.

[Shadow Storm]

Of course, there are more aspects to population control than just birth control. Which gives me an excuse to post this hilarious e-mail snipped from another message board -



Dear Mr. President:

I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.

We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.

I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.

So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

14. I want to receive free food stamps.

15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.

16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $ 4,500 to help me buy a new car.

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!!!

[Captain Untouchable]

I'm gonna look at things from a different angle - not so much from the "if I think its a good idea" perspective, but more from the hypocrite angle.

Lets say, as Em arbetrarily suggested, we imposed a system where you were limited to two children. How many of the people who have actually posted thus far in this thread would actually be alive based on that system? As a third child, I know I certainly would be. I wonder how many people who have made a benefit to society would also be excluded from existance based on that logic, as well.

How many families do you know when one of the elder children has suffered from some kind of birth defect or disability, but their younger siblings have no such ailments? Do you kill off those children, so that you can ensure that the two or so kids you're allowed are healthy (as nature would do), or are you forced to raise and support a disabled child, and thus "sponge off the state" for that reason?

I'd be intregued to see, by comparison to the results of the poll, how many people want children of their own, how many don't, and how many are undecided - is it genuinely a case of people wanting what is best for our species and society, or are you just disgruntled about having to pay tax for child support? How fair is it for people who have no interest in procreation to dictate terms for how things should function for those that do? Sure, you can argue that if you pay for it, you get a say; but if we're going to talk about "the good of the species", then surely its the continuation of the human race - something you aren't contributing to yourself - that you're paying for?

I suppose I'm not really qualified to comment on anything but my own personal opinion or experience. All I can say is that I know a lot of bright and brilliant people who would probably have never existed if population control had existed when we were born. I'm sure there are pleanty of similar people who've come from the sorts of struggling families that Jenny mentioned, too. There are people who have kind, friendly, and supportive parents but ultimately amount to nothing; there are people who have turbulent and troubled upbringings but turn out to be some of the most intelligent and creative minds of our generation.

I don't disagree that population control is required. I just fail to see any way in which a flawless system could be imposed... and on this kind of issue, it needs to be pretty darn flawless.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Anything that could or would involve forced abortions of 'unnecessary' children (too many, or might have genetic problems, or whatever) is unethical and horrible.

And in my opinion licensing, or trying to enforce a one or two child policy will lead to that. Or forced sterilizations. I can't believe some of you people are actually serious.

edit: Something to think about - its all well and good to say "someone should stop those people from breeding, they're creating a problem." But when they want to tell you how you are allowed to breed, you may think differently. Its like, they started with the white trash people who live in trailer parks and made them stop having so many kids. Yay! Then they moved on to another group. And then when they come for your rights... there's no one left to stop them.

edit edit: Just Google "effects of China's One Child policy" and read some articles. Its horrifying.

[Dasquian Belargic]

We're human... we're always going to be flawed :mneh

In the interest of transparency, at this point in my life I have no interest in having any children. I don't see myself ever being a biological mother, but I am only 22 and who knows what I'll want in the years to come. I am my parents first and only child, and I was born outside of marriage so perhaps under a more strict system I wouldn't have been born at all. If I was unable to support myself financially, i.e. had no job or a low income job that did not realistically provide enjoy income to support a child, I would (in my current frame of mind) say that fair enough, don't allow me to have a child.

My primary problem with the current state of population control, at least in the UK, is one that I think I've already explained well enough: the government is paying people to have more children than they can realistically support, without government hand-outs. I would be happy to allow people to have as many kids as they want, so long as they could support them. This wouldn't infringe upon any rights they may have (although the amount of these that we still possess in the UK has been eroded so shamefully and insidiously under the current government that I am hestitant to argue for them).

I appreciate the 'foot in the door' arguement, that allowing the government the deciding say in what you can and can't do with your life is a dangerous matter, but that is essentially what the government does already. They provide a framework for you to live in, which you fund through your taxes. They already make so many decisions which are out of your control, unless you are directly involved in politics, so the idea that you have "freedom" from their sphere of influence seems kind of... false to me.

For some more distressing reading (and please don't take this as an attack on the US, I just picked this one at random):
http://www.savethechildren.org/countries/usa/facts-and-figures.html

* The basic needs of over half the children in Mississippi (51 percent) are not met.
* Mississippi has the third highest child poverty rate in the country: 24 percent.
* Twelve percent of children live in extreme poverty.

As far as this goes:


Anything that could or would involve forced abortions of 'unnecessary' children (too many, or might have genetic problems, or whatever) is unethical and horrible. And in my opinion licensing, or trying to enforce a one or two child policy will lead to that. Or forced sterilizations. I can't believe some of you people are actually serious.

Just use contraceptives and there will be no need to abort. Not exactly rocket science.


But when they want to tell you how you are allowed to breed, you may think differently.

Assuming I was a US citizen, I couldn't even get married to my partner of choice in the majority of US states, so I'm dubious that I'd be allowed to 'breed' at all. Please don't assume that I wouldn't already be denied priveleges that other people are freely afforded. What you accept as a god-given right is forcefully withheld from thousands of other people for no other reason than because some people think they 'aren't fit' to deserve this 'freedom' and 'right'. Supporting this frame of mind on one hand whilst saying that everyone is free to do whatever they want, irrespective of government interference, on another is just doublethink.

[Captain Untouchable]

Assuming I was a US citizen, I couldn't even get married to my partner of choice in the majority of US states, so I'm dubious that I'd be allowed to 'breed' at all. Please don't assume that I wouldn't already be denied priveleges that other people are freely afforded. What you accept as a god-given right is forcefully withheld from thousands of other people for no other reason than because some people think they 'aren't fit' to deserve this 'freedom' and 'right'. Supporting this frame of mind on one hand whilst saying that everyone is free to do whatever they want, irrespective of government interference, on another is just doublethink.

Sorry to put it bluntly, but your dubiousness is completely wrong. There's nothing to prevent a lesbian in America from becoming pregnant: you just go down the same sperm doner route that a single mother would pursue. If we were talking about adoption and gay couples, that would be a different matter entirely, of course.

Its also worth noting that gay rights is a progressive issue, and people are striving to gain those rights on your behalf. You're fighting for rights that you don't already have (and frankly, should; but that's an issue for another discussion). In this instance however, you're taking away rights that people already have. And what's more, its a core biological function of the human race. We're here to eat, breed, and then die; thus ensuring the survival of our species.


Just use contraceptives and there will be no need to abort. Not exactly rocket science.

Unfortunately, it is far more complicated than that, as I'm sure you know. Contraceptives aren't without risk, and aren't without cost. They aren't without drawbacks, either. Condoms aren't foolproof, and they kinda dampen the experience. If you're in a relationship with someone, you want to be completely intimate with them; glorified cling film doesn't always facilitate that, and its something you have to consistantly buy, remember to have at hand, etc; in the heat of passion, its possible to forget. Likewise, the pill has problems; if you skip a dose, it can actually throw the whole cycle out of whack for a month.

Sure, there are a couple of other slightly more reliable options, but again none of it is perfect. You can play the "It'll never be perfect" card as much as you like, but that's sorta been my point: if we're going to install a (hypothetical) totalitarian system that robs people of their liberties and what not, it needs to be watertight, both morally and legally. If there are any holes, then you'd have a massive headache of court cases.

Also, regarding the licencing issue... okay, so that qualifies a person to concieve a child, based on their ability to support said child. What happens if one of them is made redundant? What if one of them dies, or develops a serious injury? What if they divorce? Circumstances like that change all the time. If parents suddenly become unable to financially support their child, what happens then: nothing? Or does the child get taken away? What about what the child wants, in that instance? Or is it okay to provide funding to parents who have screwed up after they got their licence, but not those ones who didn't quite make the cut but continue to be better than Couple A have become?

Oh, and also... I assume you would argue that if you choose not to have children, you shouldn't pay for them via tax. Sounds like you want to abolish Child Benefit, and such. But if we're trying to control the population as a means of stabalising our species, isn't that the responsibility of the *entire* species, not just the responsibility of those who "could be bothered"?

I'm just nit-picking. We should totally include it as an event in the 2012 Olypics. :lol

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I understand the problem with people having too many children and collecting the government's money. Our money.

There is an 'easy' solution - get rid of the incentives, aka welfare. Private non-profits already provide many helps and solutions for the poor, and they would simply step up more.

[Morgan Evanar]

There is an 'easy' solution - get rid of the incentives, aka welfare. Private non-profits already provide many helps and solutions for the poor, and they would simply step up more. Just like we have affordable healthcare.

[Dasquian Belargic]

In this instance however, you're taking away rights that people already have. And what's more, its a core biological function of the human race. We're here to eat, breed, and then die; thus ensuring the survival of our species.

My point was that it's ludicrous to argue for complete freedom and human rights on one hand, whilst the government/church/so on supports a system which deprives an entire section of the population from having a 'basic' human right. Whats more, marriage is arguably not as big a responsibility/right as child-birth. You are tying your life to someone elses, yes, but you are not bringing an entirely new life into the world and becoming responsible for its own health, development, and so on.


Oh, and also... I assume you would argue that if you choose not to have children, you shouldn't pay for them via tax. Sounds like you want to abolish Child Benefit, and such.

No, I want to abolish benefits for unlimited numbers of children. If I haven't said it already (thought I had), I am happy for a couple to receive benefits to assist them with their first child and perhaps even second, providing these benefits are to help them get on their feet when the child is young - not to sustain its existence for years and years and years. Although the age in the UK is being reduced gradually over the next few years, currently single parents are eligible to receive child benefits (and avoid taking a job) so long as their youngest child is 10 or younger. It's frankly offensive to me to think that people aren't willing to work until this point, because they are so much more comfortable on benefits.

I'm not against supporting those in need - my problem is with people who are willfully feckless when it comes to their lives and the lives of their potential offspring. If anything, I am thinking from the point of view of trying to help future generations by limiting the amount of breeding that takes place for people who don't want children so much as they want the lifestyle that comes with being an unemployed, state-supported parent.


You can play the "It'll never be perfect" card as much as you like, but that's sorta been my point: if we're going to install a (hypothetical) totalitarian system that robs people of their liberties and what not, it needs to be watertight, both morally and legally.

Basing something like this on what is 'morally right' isn't an option I'd pursue, and this would realistically never happen, because morals are subjective. Obviously what I think is good and right might be a hundred miles away from what someone else does.