Introducting Restrictions for No. of Children / Family

**selenius4tsd** · February 18, 2007, 01:34 PM

Ive been charged with the task of doing a debate tomorrow, with the motion THB that legislation should be introduced restricting the number of children per family. (My team is proposing.)

Do you agree? More specifically, why is legislation the best method (instead of, say, offering unwritten benefits)?

It would be interesting to know your guys' opinion on this.

**vikrant** · February 18, 2007, 01:47 PM

i would opt for a public awareness program than a legislation. parents should have right [one of primary right of living things] to decide how big their team should be, passing a legislation will force the parents to limit their no. of their children . on the other and a public awareness program can 'enlighten' the parents and make them to limit there no. of children voluntarily.

**selenius4tsd** · February 18, 2007, 02:24 PM

Unfortunately I am supposed to argue against your view vikrant. Which sucks.

**Tom Paine** · February 18, 2007, 02:30 PM

I advise you read Brave New World, which has a section on the matter, as does Brave New World Revisited, both by Aldous Huxley, if you can get your hands on them...

**RusskiSoldat** · February 18, 2007, 03:42 PM

If anything, having children should be encouraged in Europe and America.
I agree with child restrictions in China and they would be good in India as well.

**Elric von Rabenfels** · February 18, 2007, 04:02 PM

I strongly disagree with this one. I am against any control of how many children a family can have. Having children is a right humans got from nature, and we already interfere way too much in this matter. Also, think about what could follow such rules... what could come after a "Birth Rate Control"? The "Right Partner Control"? Going this way will lead to a horror scenario of a controlled humanity.

**Gwendylyn** · February 18, 2007, 04:11 PM

Disagree. Education has been shown to be very productive in decreasing birth rates among a population. As opposed to other options, education has many positive benefits past birth control.

Beyond concerns of the government legislating who have have children, and therefore issues of government sponsored discrimination, I ask one question: if a woman can no longer legally have children, and gets pregnant, what does the government do? Force an abortion? Or would you have the government forced sterility instead? Either way, its a forced medical operation on an individual, regardless of their will.

Arguing in favor of legislation puts you in a very bad place. Unless the other side in incompetent, you're going to get pwned

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

I advise you read Brave New World, which has a section on the matter, as does Brave New World Revisited, both by Aldous Huxley, if you can get your hands on them...

I will second this. Lacking time to read, look up analytical essays on them online.

**Tom Paine** · February 18, 2007, 04:15 PM

Education of women is the most effective factor, alongside good "family planning" (ie lack-of-family planning) facilities.

**Gwendylyn** · February 18, 2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Education of women is the most effective factor, alongside good "family planning" (ie lack-of-family planning) facilities.

Truly, does sexual education for males not effect the birth rate, or do so insignificantly? I had thought the opposite.

I brushed past family planning facilities since I consider them very close to education centers, as in when in need they are used as the educational source.

EDIT: To elaborate, an educated populace will have better policies surrounding their family planning centers.

**Tom Paine** · February 18, 2007, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gwendylyn

Truly, does sexual education for males not effect the birth rate, or do so insignificantly? I had thought the opposite.

I brushed past family planning facilities since I consider them very close to education centers, as in when in need they are used as the educational source.

EDIT: To elaborate, an educated populace will have better policies surrounding their family planning centers.

It has very little effect; a lot is to do with the woman, really, in terms of childbearing, and their education about condoms and the use there of, and so on, is essential; educating the women is the single most effective way to reduce the birthrate, and I don't just mean educating them about it but educating them at all.

**Elric von Rabenfels** · February 18, 2007, 04:22 PM

Another Argument against this restrictions:

Let´s look at a possible scenario:

In some Land with these "Birth restrictions", are too many babies already, so no family is allowed anymore to have children. Now think of a happy couple, who has been together for years, and want to have children to complete their love. Imagine the pain of this couple, especially this women when they are not allowed to children. Imagine how hard it must hurt them, being not allowed to have a baby, what would be the best thing in their life. This couple, will maybe get unbelievable sad, or get angry and revolt against the state (Which I can understand). And they won´t be the only ones starting to hate this state. It is cruel and inhuman to forbid a loving couple to have children.

**LoZz** · February 18, 2007, 07:53 PM

Disagree if anything birth should be incoraged to combat shrinking populations which will leader to more immigration.

**bigfootedfred** · February 19, 2007, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by selenius4tsd

Ive been charged with the task of doing a debate tomorrow, with the motion THB that legislation should be introduced restricting the number of children per family. (My team is proposing.)

Depends how good you opposition is.
If it were me, id be tearing into it with how it will affect parents who simply had to many kids being sent to jail, who knows, condom splits, shes gets pregnant, what then? forceful abortion? Do we really want to be jailing people for having more than the 'allotted' number of children?

So if i were you, id go for proposing benefits for up to say 2 children, then beyond that no benefits.

And even then by the way id be arguing against that, on the grounds of discrimination, why should a child be made to suffer for being 3rd born ect..

**Freddie** · February 19, 2007, 08:56 AM

There’s plenty of people who have kids which in all fairness shouldn’t be allowed to, yet in the UK we have a situation where if you want to keep a dog you must apply for a license yet when it comes to bring up children you can have as many as you regards of how well they will be brought up.

However if you follow that route to its logical conclusion you end up in a situation whereby you have a restrictive breeding programme in place which I’m sure violates every human rights law that we have.