Limit on number of children.

Limit?

  • Yes, the should limit # of children.

  • No, they should not.

  • Other, cause I guess there's always an other.


Results are only viewable after voting.
So should the government give these women free birth control?

Even if they did (and some places do), there's no guarantee that they'd use it. Some of those women have kids on purpose to get more money. And then you get people (like the Duggars [and why do I keep going back to them!?]) who think birth control is wrong.
 
Um, why shouldnt you have your kids help out once in a while? Maybe not every day, but it isn't wrong that they help with their younger brothers and sisters. Plus, camera's dont show alot of stuff so we dont really know how much the older kids are delegated.

If you have the love, support and finances, why not have 25 kids?:confused3

Exactly.
It wouldn't be fair for people who want big families [and have all the support, money and love] to take away that right.
It's not what I personally would want to have, but I know people who do and that's fine by me.
But I agree that people who don't have those things don't deserve to just keep having kids by living off the government. It isn't fair.
 
No way. Couples should ba able to have as many children as they want.
The Government should have no control over that.
 

I guess it depends on a number or different factors.

The only example I can think of is China's One Child Policy because of the rapid population growth in the country. The government pays for things like child care, education, etc. if a family has one child. If they have more then one, then the family have to pay everything for themselves. I think the only exception is a family living in rural areas can have another child if their first born is a girl, because the guys work in the fields.

I'll just choose other because I don't really have an opinion on it.

That example is exactly the reason why I chose no.
I mean, in theory the idea of the government regulating the amount of children people has doesn't seem too bad. A little invasive, but nothing harmful.

Until you look at China.
Due to the fact that families would have to pay SUBSTANTIALLY more for another child, there are tons of orphans. Especially due to the fact that culturally, boys are wanted more, because they stay with their parents in old age to care for them, whereas a girl will take care of her in-laws with her husband.
Thus, parents can have like 3 girls and give them all up and keep trying until they get a boy.

It's just. Awful.
And it would be TERRIBLE if this started in America.
It could never, there would be an uprising.
 
No way. Couples should ba able to have as many children as they want.
The Government should have no control over that.
So, what's your thoughts on octomom?
That example is exactly the reason why I chose no.
I mean, in theory the idea of the government regulating the amount of children people has doesn't seem too bad. A little invasive, but nothing harmful.

Until you look at China.
Due to the fact that families would have to pay SUBSTANTIALLY more for another child, there are tons of orphans. Especially due to the fact that culturally, boys are wanted more, because they stay with their parents in old age to care for them, whereas a girl will take care of her in-laws with her husband.
Thus, parents can have like 3 girls and give them all up and keep trying until they get a boy.

It's just. Awful.
And it would be TERRIBLE if this started in America.
It could never, there would be an uprising.
Yes, I partially agree that that is a real possibility. But our culture and norms are much different than China. So you have to factor that in as well.

I think that it might be the straw that break's the camel's back, in the since that most American's have been tolerant of the government control so far. But if they started forcing a limit and making standards of who can and cannot have as many children as they like, it might push it over the edge.

Like I said, I'm for it, but I don't think politically or..practically it could ever work.
 
Um, why shouldnt you have your kids help out once in a while? Maybe not every day, but it isn't wrong that they help with their younger brothers and sisters. Plus, camera's dont show alot of stuff so we dont really know how much the older kids are delegated.

If you have the love, support and finances, why not have 25 kids?:confused3

The people I have a huge problem with are the ones without the finances so they rely on the government. Who gets to pay for those kids? You and me.

ITA.
 
Honestly, if the government cut all the programs that support mothers in need, there wouldn't be conniving women who play the system by popping out children left and right.

I'm sorry, but it's psychologically damaging for children to be raised in a household where the mother hands off motherly duties to her older female children because she can't take care of all of her children at once. To the people who say, "If they can support, care, and love for all 25 of their children, so be it" but nobody can do that. There isn't enough time to properly care for 25 children, or even 14. I think what the Duggars are doing is emotional child abuse, and it's wrong.
 
Honestly, if the government cut all the programs that support mothers in need, there wouldn't be conniving women who play the system by popping out children left and right.

I'm sorry, but it's psychologically damaging for children to be raised in a household where the mother hands off motherly duties to her older female children because she can't take care of all of her children at once. To the people who say, "If they can support, care, and love for all 25 of their children, so be it" but nobody can do that. There isn't enough time to properly care for 25 children, or even 14. I think what the Duggars are doing is emotional child abuse, and it's wrong.
But that's like blaming the children. They're the ones who would no longer get medical care, food, etc.

And I agree about the Duggars. You simply cannot care for 18 children at one time. There's no way to give them all the emotional support and bonding that they need.
 
I don't really think there should be limits on the amount of children one can have, legally... but maybe they should put limits on procedures such as the one the octomom had done, because that clearly is not a good thing.
 
But that's like blaming the children. They're the ones who would no longer get medical care, food, etc.

And I agree about the Duggars. You simply cannot care for 18 children at one time. There's no way to give them all the emotional support and bonding that they need.

I just meant we shouldn't be giving out free money to the parents. Like WIC, the money that is given to them should have strict regulations. Sadly, a lot of the time money the parents are given to take care of their child doesn't even go to their children.
 
I just meant we shouldn't be giving out free money to the parents. Like WIC, the money that is given to them should have strict regulations. Sadly, a lot of the time money the parents are given to take care of their child doesn't even go to their children.

WIC does have regulations...you can only buy eggs, cheese, peanut butter, etc. with it. Then you have food stamps where people can buy all the junk food they want. :rolleyes:

I'm going to sound bad for saying this but if you are on food stamps and other government assistance and pop out another kid you shouldn't be able to keep the kid. It should be given up for adoption to a couple who has been waiting for a child to love and can FINANCIALLY support it without the assistance of Uncle Sam. It pisses me off to no end, especially when I know a ton of people who milk the system for all it's worth. :mad:
 
I dont think thats even possible.
Like if the limit was like 6 kids or something
would the octomom get two taken away?

i think it sounds reasonable, but it takes away rights (in the U.S.)
 
I dont think thats even possible.
Like if the limit was like 6 kids or something
would the octomom get two taken away?

i think it sounds reasonable, but it takes away rights (in the U.S.)

"Octomom" actually has 14 kids. She had six before she had 7 embryos implanted (one split and thus, 8 babies).
 
I just meant we shouldn't be giving out free money to the parents. Like WIC, the money that is given to them should have strict regulations. Sadly, a lot of the time money the parents are given to take care of their child doesn't even go to their children.
I definitely agree that welfare (specifically food stamps) should have more regulations.
WIC does have regulations...you can only buy eggs, cheese, peanut butter, etc. with it. Then you have food stamps where people can buy all the junk food they want. :rolleyes:

I'm going to sound bad for saying this but if you are on food stamps and other government assistance and pop out another kid you shouldn't be able to keep the kid. It should be given up for adoption to a couple who has been waiting for a child to love and can FINANCIALLY support it without the assistance of Uncle Sam. It pisses me off to no end, especially when I know a ton of people who milk the system for all it's worth. :mad:
Okay, I partly agree. I'm going to say that if they've been on government assistance for more than a year, that they shouldn't be able to pop out another kid.

But especially during these times, people are having it rough. Just because the parents might've gotten laid off doesn't mean they should have their baby taken away. They've just fallen into hard times and will likely get their feet back on the ground.

Now, bringing a kid into this world when you CLEARLY know that you have no way to support it, that's a different story. That's selfish.
I dont think thats even possible.
Like if the limit was like 6 kids or something
would the octomom get two taken away?

i think it sounds reasonable, but it takes away rights (in the U.S.)
Lol, you mean she would've had 8 kids taken away. Since she already had 6 and all.
 
"Octomom" actually has 14 kids. She had six before she had 7 embryos implanted (one split and thus, 8 babies).

I definitely agree that welfare (specifically food stamps) should have more regulations.

Okay, I partly agree. I'm going to say that if they've been on government assistance for more than a year, that they shouldn't be able to pop out another kid.

But especially during these times, people are having it rough. Just because the parents might've gotten laid off doesn't mean they should have their baby taken away. They've just fallen into hard times and will likely get their feet back on the ground.

Now, bringing a kid into this world when you CLEARLY know that you have no way to support it, that's a different story. That's selfish.

Lol, you mean she would've had 8 kids taken away. Since she already had 6 and all.


i meant people who have multiples in general, i know she has 14 kids.
 
Mixed feelings. I guess more no though, because you should be able to do whatever you want with having kids. I just think its so stupid to have more than you really need, if you love kids, why have them grow up without having food for them because you dont have enough money for all of them? If you can support them and all, then I guess go ahead and have 50 lol.
 





Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE



New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom