[Hebba Homemaker]

I feel rather sorry for Kid #8, named after at least 3 cars!

When it comes down to it I would have to say... when the family have no means of their own to support themselves I don't think its right that they should continue to have more and more children that will require state funding, however I don't think it is the state's right to tell anyone that they can or can't have children so this leaves me in a bit of a conondrum/conundrum(?)

I think it comes down to the fact that I think there should be a cap on benefits available per family and better education on what it really means to have such a large family when you cannot financially support it. (of course I think there should be better education in relation to reproducing in general)

/latenightramble

[Mem Marmite]

[Gaz]

HJCotW Spacemonkey, on 16 September 2011 - 09:46 PM, said:

So, that debate ended. It was nice and lively and that. Here's a new one:

Should there be a cap on the number of children families can have? If so, what should it be?

I ask due to this story. With the country in the financial state it's in, should people be allowed to just keep spewing out babies without any thought for the consequences?

MoT
HJCotW

That depends on the consequences. If all those children enter gainful employment when they grow up, then the contribution to the economy of that family overall will be considerably more than most. You could even consider the cost of childcare now as an investment against future return.

[Joinee Michelle]

Inclined to agree but it would be nice if everyone just thought of their own accord that stopping at 2 might be reasonable. As opposed to anything being inforced.

RANT AHEAD - The bit I dislike about the story is 'worried about money since the family relied completely on benefits'. I have 2 kids and as a working mother can't really afford to have any more without the cost of childcare being more than my wage. Which would mean me giving up work and staying at home with the kids. All fine and well if I wish to do this but I don't agree that the woman up there wanting baby number 9 is in the right. Effectively living on benefits means she is being PAID to stay at home and pop out babies. Why is the dad not working?

[Joinee Simitebrong]

It's a bit totalitarian as an idea, sadly, it might be necessary in the not too distant. There isn't the resources for humans to keep multiplying. It's a ghastly notion to tell people how many children they can have.

Then in developing counties, you get what happens in China to poor little baby girls. No one wants that.

Again, finite resources... it's tricky.

I do wonder though, if it were enforced globally... you'd have a whole bunch of old people too old to work and look after themselves and not enough younger people working and paying taxes to support the cost of it. Economic disaster. Then we'd have to make a choice where to spent ever-dwindling government dosh... expensive care for the now huge proportion of society who are elderly?

[joinee_doug]

No Sex, Please, We're British

or

Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em

?

[Joinee Hathorn]

Cap the number of babies... yes. My own personal rule is that you can replace yourself but no more.... so if you want to replace more, you have to get into an agreement with someone else, to replace them. Then you can have 3... or more, depending on the number of agreements you make. You can of course adopt as many as you like.

The world population is too high as it is. Sod the economics of it, it needs to be sustainable and at the moment it isn't.

[Rachel Parkin]

Quote

“We had our hopes raised by the thought of using a sperm bank. But when we found out it would cost £600 a go, we were devastated. There was no way our benefits would stretch to that."

Love, if your benefits won't stretch to the £600 to get you knocked up in the first place, how the hell do you think they're going to stretch to bringing up a kid for 16 years?

And talking of being stretched...

My simple, very illiberal theory (but all that I'm capable of at this time of night) is that child benefit, tax credits etc be capped after the 4th child. The same of which may be said for the prospective parents.

This post has been edited by Rachel Parkin: 22 September 2011 - 10:29 PM

[PJ Hannah B-R]

re the "replacing yourselves" bit. Explain how that would work in a "second" family such as Jamie and I intend to have? Should I not be allowed a child cos Jamie has already done that with an ex?

[Hebba Homemaker]

GJ Hannah B-R, on 23 September 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

re the "replacing yourselves" bit. Explain how that would work in a "second" family such as Jamie and I intend to have? Should I not be allowed a child cos Jamie has already done that with an ex?

by the reasoning above I would suggest that

Jamie = 1
ex = 1
Hannah = 1

so it does take you into account, it would be after that point that the logic fails.

[PJ Hannah B-R]

But the boys are 8, i won't behaving children for another couple of years. I don't want to have a child with no siblings near its age.

Just being awkward

[Lethal Biddle]

GJ Hannah B-R, on 23 September 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

But the boys are 8, i won't behaving children for another couple of years. I don't want to have a child with no siblings near its age.

Just being awkward

I didn't have any siblings near my own age & I am extremely well adjusted!


The problems with forcing a cap like that are the complicated logistics involved in enforcing it. What if someone just has a 3rd child anyway? Do you just deny them any support, as it's more the child that will suffer than the "rule breaking" parent. Or do you take the child away & rehome it? Same problems. What if someone gets pregnant for the first time, but has quintuplets?
Or do you enforce it by forced sterilisation after the 2nd child? In which case, what if like Hannah says, one of them starts a second family? You'd be denying their new partner from conceiving with them. Or what if they have 2 children, are sterilised & then lose their children in a tragic accident? Too bad, no new children for you?

Lots of loopholes & flaws that ultimately are harmful to children. Human rights minefield.

This post has been edited by Lethal Biddle: 23 September 2011 - 11:47 AM

[Lethal Biddle]

My preference is this (& it's a new debate really):

Personally, the older I get, the much more (controversially) comfortable I get with the idea of killing adults. I think it needs to be a so very much tighter system than it is, but the world is overpopulated & I wholly disagree with the idea of a punitive justice system. A justice system should be either rehabilitory, or to remove threats. If people can be rehabilitated, great. That's choice number 1 & it should be worked hard at. If not, they should be removed & who's to say that the most humane way to do that isn't to just quickly, calmly kill them (it also helps that it saves a lot of money).
It's a compromise that I would never have agreed to years ago, something I could only see as a necessary evil & I wouldn't support the death penalty as it currently exists, it would need a massive overhaul.
There are arguments of "what gives anyone the right to decide whether anyone else gets to live?" well, what gives anyone the right to decide anything? We do things because we can, because we want to &/or because we think we should. Those things apply to all decisions on any scale as far as I'm concerned. And while I don't leap at the opportunity, I'd make that decision regarding another human life if I felt I had to.
Even then, while I would feel able to personally judge who deserved to live & die, I squirm at the idea of putting that power in the hands of a majority selected authority.
... But I'm open to the idea these days.

[Joinee Hathorn]

Like I said, it's my own personal rule... not a generic for everyone cap. It's specifically not selfish in an over populated world and if widely adopted should result in a general reduction in the populous. There are obvious exceptions such as triplets which can't be avoided and situations like HBRs where 'new' families crop up and there I can see a relatively rational argument for allowing a 3 for 2 deal! These will be offset by large numbers of people having no kids. To ensure some form of global stability I just think that 1 or 2 kids should be seen as the norm in the developed world rather much larger families.

[Poohbah (Gsq)]

As the 3rd child of the family, this conversation makes me feel a bit weird.

Sorry for draining the world's resources and that...

[Joinee Hathorn]

Well seeing as you're here now best make yourself useful

[Poohbah (Gsq)]

No chance

[Worm]

I actually find that sometimes the judgement swings the other way.

Those of us without children, through choice, are seen as a bit odd.

[GJ Drought]

not read most of this, but it reminds me of this...

[PJ Hannah B-R]

GJ Drought, on 30 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

not read most of this, but it reminds me of this...

I thought I was the only person in the world to have seen that dreadful film!!! That opening is the best bit, and has left me terrified for the future of the human race ever since!!!

[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

I really liked Idiocracy

MoT
HJCotW

[joinee_doug]

Poohbah (Gsq), on 28 September 2011 - 10:03 PM, said:

As the 3rd child of the family, this conversation makes me feel a bit weird.

Sorry for draining the world's resources and that...

I was #4, but that was before there were too many people.
Besides, I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN!!! *runs to bedroom, slams door*