Two children should be limit, says green guru

reply to post by pynner


I appreciate what you're saying Pynner regarding self-control. However, where does the line end? It starts today at two children and abortion... where next?

I also appreciate that population control is a concern as maybe the need for personal responsibility. I honestly don't know what route would be best to achieve these; but IMO the recommendation of abortion and two kids rule by a Commission is not the right one.

There are significant issues that need to be resolved; for example, the recent trend of certain people having children as simply a means to an end (e.g. Council funded accommodation, benefits etc). I just think that these avenues should be explored and addressed before the whole nation is told as a blanket statement how many children they should have and whether they should have an abortion.

From a personal perspective, it just feels like yet another case where the TPTB seem to feel they have a right to recommend what choices I make with my life. Whilst it may seem the correct action in this instance to many, I just wonder where these influences/recommendations will end - and how many choices I will no longer have as a result.

For the record, I have no children and will not be having any either.

Anyway, just my 2p

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by pynner
the government should have the right to "pull the plug" on your baby

That's disgusting.

I've got nothing else to say to you.

well if your gonna make statements like that, you should use the full quote and not just cut words to suit your views.

I said nothing of pulling the plug on babies directly.

weirdo.

Abortion as birth control due to global warming?
First of all the global warming thing is a scam and most know it.
Next, TPTB know that abortion as birth control is repugnant and being forced to do it because you already have too many kids is worse.

What they are leading up to is mass sterilization.
This is the better answer.
If you reject abortion, in the face of obvious overpopulation you will accept sterilization.
Not everyone should reproduce, and those that do should limit that reproduction.
Leave room for nature so that we can all enjoy it.

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by nyk537

 

I think it's more important to have a two parent limit.

A mother AND father (together) will provide less of a burden on the environment regardless of how many children they have.

Two single parents means more homes, more cars, more everything...

I agree with this totally..

and that's the problem nowadays though... no parents.

kids being raised by kids..
kids giving birth to kids.

horrible.

Originally posted by lizziejayne
reply to post by pynner

 

I appreciate what you're saying Pynner regarding self-control. However, where does the line end? It starts today at two children and abortion... where next?

I also appreciate that population control is a concern as maybe the need for personal responsibility. I honestly don't know what route would be best to achieve these; but IMO the recommendation of abortion and two kids rule by a Commission is not the right one.

There are significant issues that need to be resolved; for example, the recent trend of certain people having children as simply a means to an end (e.g. Council funded accommodation, benefits etc). I just think that these avenues should be explored and addressed before the whole nation is told as a blanket statement how many children they should have and whether they should have an abortion.

From a personal perspective, it just feels like yet another case where the TPTB seem to feel they have a right to recommend what choices I make with my life. Whilst it may seem the correct action in this instance to many, I just wonder where these influences/recommendations will end - and how many choices I will no longer have as a result.

For the record, I have no children and will not be having any either.

Anyway, just my 2p

I agree.. and as I stated near the begining...

it's a serious conversation that needs to take place.
it won't be an easy one either.

I think starting with education should be the first and foremost endeavor.

reply to post by lizziejayne


Usually i would agree but on this issue I can't.
I feel we are at a point that this stuff needs to be taken seriously.
If what has been said is true about not having enough resources to feed everyone etc. then somebody has to put a stop to it out of neccessity.
I don't like TPTB sticking their nose in my business but if I was harming the planet then yes I agree they need to take control.
It bugs me to say that I would like them to take control but I don't see alot of responsibility coming from the general public.
People have kids without thinking about the rest of us and for that reason I get angry and would appreciate something done.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
In a world with 4 billion people I wonder why people have kids to begin with.

Why not adopt??

Having kids seems like a selfish decision in my opinion.

There is not one un-selfish reason for bringing a child into this world.

Some animals stop reproducing when conditions are not favorable for their offspring to survive.

Some animals only mate with the strongest/healthiest male - to assure future generations are given the best chance for survival.

Humans are just really dumb sometimes.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Thanks for your reply DrumsRfun

It bugs me to say that I would like them to take control but I don't see alot of responsibility coming from the general public.

I think my concern comes in with the fact that IMO it's not the whole of the general public who are failing to be responsible - and yet, this is something that will affect the whole of the general public.

An example of what I'm trying to say (without being inflammatory) is - there are sectors of society that are essentially a drain on multiple resources. They live lives paid for by the tax payer and have multiple children who are raised entirely on tax payers money. Whilst many of these are people who have their children for the sake of having children, there are also many who have children as the key to a resource (whether it be additional benefits, guaranteed housing etc).

I'm in no way saying such sectors should be stopped from having kids. I am however suggesting that if the core issue of people having children as a means to a resource was addressed, then the Commission's suggestion could possibly cease to be relevant.

IMO the Commission seems to have come in gung-ho with a blanket recommendation, which is extreme in its solution, has significant consequences and potentially affects everyone. They then pay reference to other contributing factors (teenage pregnancy etc). However, addressing these factors - for example, the issue of people having children for resources - is IMO a logical step for society, impacts only some of the population and addresses more issues than just environmental concerns.

It just seems odd that such (IMO) extreme recommendations were made while mentioning other contributory factors (e.g. teenage pregnancy etc). I just would have thought a two child recommendation and advocating abortion would have been a last resort - after all other avenues for solution were completely explored.

Again, just my 2p

[edit on 2/2/09 by lizziejayne]

It should be up to the government to establish a test for parents to be.
pass the test and your able to have kids. Get them chipped and be on your way.

Originally posted by pikypiky
It doesn’t matter if environmentalist or TPTB suggest that two children per family is the limit. Bottomline: If babies are not wanted and the family cannot afford to take care of more babies and if making more babies entitle baby makers welfare, then yeah no more than two is a good start.

Would you like to hear a real horror story? Okay, picture this:

'A woman, pregnant with her third child, is reported by one of her neighbors because she has made public comments about how she refuses to get an abortion and this conflicts with the two-child rule.

So while this woman is out and about, she is stopped by armed military men who usher her into a waiting vehicle. She is forced unconcious in the vehicle. She awakens, some time later, in a government-run hospital bed. She tries to get up but a sharp pain runs through her belly-area. She looks down and notices bandages and pads and some blood. She freaks out and the machines hooked up to her begin to beep loudly. A nurse enters and the woman begins to scream "What happened to my baby!?"

The nurse injects her with a shot of tranquilizer and then informs her that because of the law, her child was forcibly removed as per government mandate. '

Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario, but how's this: enact such a law and what will it be - receiving mail from the local government informing you or your wife to report to the nearest "enviromental care by birth suppression" facility? What happens to women who resist? Prison and forced abortions?

Or what about a proactive solution - does the government require that a woman's uterus be removed after the second child is born so there is no chance of a third conception?

You still think that's a good start? I don't.

reply to post by lizziejayne


You bring up some very thought provoking points I can agree.
A blanket statement is usually a copout for the truth.
Yes maybe other avenues were ignored I can agree with that as well.
I definately agree that some sectors are a drain on others.
The abortion and 2 child rule I disagree but will agree to disagree respectfully.

The point I was making was kinda like yours but I will admit I didn't read the article...I saw the name of the thread and gave my 2 cents right away as it is something I think about but never get to have a conversation about it so I mighta got a tad quick on my approach.

I do think the way the world is these days that we need to address the tough issues like these sometimes and quit candy coating it so we can be politically correct.
Taboo defines a weakness sometimes.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by pikypiky
It doesn’t matter if environmentalist or TPTB suggest that two children per family is the limit. Bottomline: If babies are not wanted and the family cannot afford to take care of more babies and if making more babies entitle baby makers welfare, then yeah no more than two is a good start.

Would you like to hear a real horror story? Okay, picture this:

'A woman, pregnant with her third child, is reported by one of her neighbors because she has made public comments about how she refuses to get an abortion and this conflicts with the two-child rule.

So while this woman is out and about, she is stopped by armed military men who usher her into a waiting vehicle. She is forced unconcious in the vehicle. She awakens, some time later, in a government-run hospital bed. She tries to get up but a sharp pain runs through her belly-area. She looks down and notices bandages and pads and some blood. She freaks out and the machines hooked up to her begin to beep loudly. A nurse enters and the woman begins to scream "What happened to my baby!?"

The nurse injects her with a shot of tranquilizer and then informs her that because of the law, her child was forcibly removed as per government mandate. '

Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario, but how's this: enact such a law and what will it be - receiving mail from the local government informing you or your wife to report to the nearest "enviromental care by birth suppression" facility? What happens to women who resist? Prison and forced abortions?

Or what about a proactive solution - does the government require that a woman's uterus be removed after the second child is born so there is no chance of a third conception?

You still think that's a good start? I don't.

yeah.. or not.


this is the kind of non-sense that stops constructive conversation.

what if? what if? what if?

reply to post by nyk537


As far as I am concerned it is a family preference whether they want 1-10 children as long as they can provide, care and maintain their upbringing until they are 18 along with a stable foundation - if in doubt, forget it!

Originally posted by DrumsRfun

I do think the way the world is these days that we need to address the tough issues like these sometimes and quit candy coating it so we can be politically correct.

Taboo defines a weakness sometimes.

Nicely put. Yes reality sucks sometimes - - but sometimes ya need to get real.

In China - you have to apply to the government for permission to have a child. You have to be married and show you can support and provide for the child.

People of China are fighting the above event of physically forced abortions. I've read that article before - and although it happens - it is not the norm. YET.

I don't agree with the forced abortions.
I don't understand why China has not set the rule that after the birth of the alotted child, that the woman be sterilized. It is a simple enough proceedure. And the men too.
That way there would be no need for abortion.

I think only men should be sterilized.

Before anyone starts shouting Sexist!

Its from a logical standpoint of - it is far simpler - and women's reproductive organs are far more complicated.

reply to post by nyk537



I think one should be the limit.

I'm proud to say I have NO kids. Ni ego here, I feel no selfish need to carry on the species.

The world is too screwed up to be bringing kids into.

Again, no offense to the pro-life folks, but if people cannot control themselves in making all the babies they want at the expense of the mothers' health and of the taxpayers' money (via the government welfare system), then the government can do whatever it wants to make sure that people bear no more than two children, who may or may not ultimately pollute the world into extinction with more poo!

Since our rights to say 'no' to the bailout bill and whatever stimulus economic plan will pass anyway, what makes y'all think that our rights to reproduce 'at will' won't be taken away too?

reply to post by sos37


Well, now that scenario is quite unreal and graphic, too. I don't think America will go down that path. We've come too far along in freedom and democracy to let the government dictate the will of the people. I really pity the mother and child.

Originally posted by pynner

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I'd say that this statement was made in a HUGE vacuum.


I'm more concerned about the fact that the birth rate of Western Civ is seriously on the decline.

We need many more babies produced... not less.


Come on now folks... the more people we have, the more resources we have, the more "heads" to put together...

And the more kids to work the land if society completely breaks down.

so cities/towns around the world are running out of clean water and food.. running out of space for living/growing...and your big brain storm is to have a larger population? have more kids..

yikes!

Exactly... because the more people, the higher chance the person who can solve the problem is born.

Also, sure, there is overcrowding.... but not over population. Have you seen all of the land in this great nation that goes unsettled by humanity?



[edit on 2-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]