Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
(Post 532912)
I'm not against the idea of population control, it has been used well into prehistoric times, but the issue becomes extremely tricky. In order to have a good population control system, we first need to find a saturation population based on an average standard of living. This works similar to designing a water treatment plant. If we do not know how much water is used per capita, no design will be successful unless by pure chance. Then resource regulation has to come into play. If we are going to start focusing on population control, regulating resources must go hand in hand or else the saturation population will drop and we will resource droughts for some people.
I strongly believe that without regulating both factors, population and resources, we can never produce an effective population control method. Obviously regulation control does not mean that each person can only have so many gallons of gas per day, but a national goal has to be set and met.
After getting our resource use goal, we can then determine how many people can live under that resource goal and make actions accordingly. If the population is not threatening the stability of the community, influential campaigns will be more effective. If the population is threatening the stability of the community, harsher methods should be used. It will be completely dynamic based on the situation on hand.
I greatly prefer this because it should not go against individual rights unless we are in great crisis because we will be looking at birth rates from a national level. If one person has 14 kids and 14 other families have one less kid then the average goal, we do not have a problem on a national level.
That brings me to my opinion on this issue. An increase of 10 children is not large on a global or even national level but the questions are whether she is the norm, we have the resources to handle that increase if it is the norm, and whether she as an individual can support her children.
On the national level, our population (USA) is increasing. For every woman having 5+ children, we do not seem to have 3 families having only one or even no children. But that is a different issue.
If she can not pay for more children, then I am against handing it money to her within our current system. If you are under welfare and show no signs of coming off, no extra money should be given for having an excessive number of children (5+ being excessive). If you are financially stable with 14 kids and then hit a roadblock and need to go to welfare, that is a different story.
All in all, I don't really care. Most people don't have 14 children and the extra money given to her won't effect me but I can see how this can be a problem if this happens to often.
|