• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

How many children should people have?

Aurora

seven years here and i finally figure out how to d
859
Posts
10
Years
I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't really be a 'limit' on how many children people can have and that it should be left up to the parents to make the decision as to the amount of offspring they'll bear. If they realistically feel they can only support two kids, let them have two kids. If they realistically feel they can support ten kids, let them have ten kids.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Lots have said people should only have as many kids as they can support, which I agree with, and that we need to really encourage sexual education and contraception use, which I also agree with, but what do we do when someone has more kids than they can support? Let's sat you've got someone and, oops!, they suddenly find they're having another kid. Maybe they were careless, maybe they were careful but it still happened. Do we stay strict and say "No, you weren't supposed to have more than you could take care of. You get no help." or do we say "Well, it's not the kid's fault. We'll help, but don't let it happen again."

On a side note, I was reading around and learned that every new mother in Finland gets a maternity package with a bunch of things a newborn baby would need. For free, care of the government, as long as you get checked out by doctors. It helps to keep women healthy by ensuring they've got extra incentive to see the doctor. I know this kind of thing would seem to encourage more people to have kids, but if there was some kind of reverse program, one that tied contraception education to something else people wanted, like, I dunno, a small tax break or something, do you think that would be a good idea?
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
It seems like there is this assumption that these parents are together and sitting down to make rational decisions. I am not sure if the encouragement and education will deter younger people from having more children.

Further, laws actually support women in having multiple children given the child support and welfare laws. Essentially, a woman can make a living by producing children. Even with the education what is to deter her from producing more children given that she doesn't have to work for the next 20 years of her life?

I agree completely that men and women should have easy access to birth control and abortion clinics need be. But this still doesn't address the issue posited above.

My proposal would be to address welfare laws in culmination with education and easy affordable access to birth control/abortion clinics. Those receiving welfare should receive welfare as any employee receives a check. You get paid for your services. Those who receive welfare have two responsibilities: household financial manger, that must conform to guidelines to ensure the child(ren) receive adequate care, and they must perform civil services such as public works projects (clean-up, garbage, infrastructure improvement) or some other type of work in exchange for receiving funds. Essentially, you give a person both a job and money rather than just money.

This, I believe would discourage women that seek to produce children as a career. Thus, lowering the birth rate among the indigent. Again, I am not saying that all or most women do this. Even men and women who do receive welfare did not choose to do so. They may have lost a job or spouse and cannot afford to provide care for children. Nevertheless, providing these people a job and pay (welfare), is both a helping hand and act of self-reliance, and therefore this form of welfare would not feel like a "hand-out", and rather, give a person a sense of pride.

On the other hand, I know of several families (both single-parent or nuclear) with low-income that work and provide adequate care for their children. In this case, the parent(s) need not be penalized, since they are exercising personal responsibility without costing the state, and other hard-working tax payers for raising their children.

Therefore, the laws need to be amended to fit this principle:

"The number of children one can have should be limited to the number of children the parents are willing and able to provide adequate care for"...and if circumstances change, the government can provide you a temporary job to supplement job loss or unemployment to parent(s).
 
Last edited:

Nakuzami

[img]https://i.imgur.com/iwlpePA.png[/img]
6,896
Posts
13
Years
The number should equal the amount you can support and only that. I hate, hate, hate that the government give child support to people who clearly have no interest in spending on the kids. I just don't like the child support system in the first place, because the reality is, if you can't support a child then, well, you should have really thought about it better; you made your bed, so you lie in it, is my pretty blunt attitude to it.​

And the people that had the money/ability to support their child when they had them, but eventually lost their source of income? There's so many things to consider in such a matter . . . I agree that people who had to be on it from the get-go because they're idiots that just keep having children shouldn't get such benefits, but of the regular, everyday people that can't make ends meet after a while? There are exceptions to every rule . . . and in cases such as these, you just can't look at it with one general glance. And I take this personally, to be honest.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I think people should be able to have as many children as they can handle and support in every aspect. Although, more than half a dozen is certainly pushing it.

On the other hand, I do think there needs to be less people on this planet, but that's a whole other topic. . . . Lol
 

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
17,521
Posts
13
Years
Rather than laws that limit the amount of children someone can have, I think that birth control should be encouraged, free and readily available. Especially in areas where abortion is discouraged or illegal.

The child policy in China has resulted in gender-selective abortion and infanticide as I'm sure everyone's aware, I believe there was something like 115 boys per 100 girls born in 2010. I don't think it's the correct thing to be doing.

People shouldn't have their right to reproduce taken away, especially if it forces abortions or sterilization, they are invasive surgeries.

Gentle encouragement to use birth control and awareness of the overpopulation would be helpful. And free birth control should just be the law everywhere, in my opinion.
I agree, those are the things I hate about China's one child child policy, that it's invasive and forceful. Governments of nations with high population density should try to enact population policies with the things you've mentioned on here, birth control, that's prevents pregnancy but is also healthy for the user.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Essentially, a woman can make a living by producing children.
I think you've got a skewed perception here. All the people I know who have kids have had a harder time getting by because of it. Kids are expensive. Even before they're born you have to buy lots of baby supplies, make lots of doctor's visits, take time off work, pay for tests, and potentially stay in the hospital for a while before the kid is born. One of my friends is in debt because of having two kids. The help she gets just takes some of the bills away, but not all of them, and whatever else she gets in assistance doesn't cover all the other expenses like rent and food and gas for the car, etc.
 

Powerserge

The Imminent Victor
461
Posts
10
Years
Yup...kids really aren't worth it. I can't wrap my head around the sentiment needed to have them.

I'd have no problem telling a country that they can't have more than 2 kids a couple, and enforcing the heck out of it. It's the 21st century; privacy and individual freedoms are just idealistic novelties at this point, haha. And our planet really doesn't need the extra strain of all those extra mouths to feed, especially since the countries with booming birthrates can't even support those kids' basic needs.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
I think you've got a skewed perception here. All the people I know who have kids have had a harder time getting by because of it. Kids are expensive. Even before they're born you have to buy lots of baby supplies, make lots of doctor's visits, take time off work, pay for tests, and potentially stay in the hospital for a while before the kid is born. One of my friends is in debt because of having two kids. The help she gets just takes some of the bills away, but not all of them, and whatever else she gets in assistance doesn't cover all the other expenses like rent and food and gas for the car, etc.

No one is going to either recognize or admit how much assistance they receive from welfare. These anecdotes are highly subjective in nature. There are just as many stories on the other side that indicate welfare recipients with plasma screen tv's and new vehicles. It is best to look at the data rather than anecdotes.

"the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011...If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation's households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 ," - Senate Budget Committee note.

For those who don't work, they can receive free health benefits, state/federal welfare, food assistance, housing assistance, free higher education for children, tax-breaks, among other benefits. Many welfare recipients are better off financially than those who do not receive welfare. Thus, given that one is SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to receive such benefits with children without acquiring or seeking a job, it incentivizes having children without seeking employment.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
No one is going to either recognize or admit how much assistance they receive from welfare. These anecdotes are highly subjective in nature. There are just as many stories on the other side that indicate welfare recipients with plasma screen tv's and new vehicles. It is best to look at the data rather than anecdotes.
Are there? Or are there just the same stories repeated more often because they seem more outrageous to people? Or are they made up? How many people who are poor, on welfare, say in their own words how good they have it? It always seems like the stories about people living up in welfare are told by other people complaining about them.

"the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011...If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation's households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 ," - Senate Budget Committee note.
I'd like to know who said this, and when, and what the rest of the quote this was taken from is.

Many welfare recipients are better off financially than those who do not receive welfare.
I flat out don't believe you. Or at least I don't believe what you're implying from this. I'm sure there are token cases of people being better off, but for the majority I don't believe it is true.
 

danks_

NOCH EIN BIER, BITTE!
106
Posts
10
Years
I personally don't think there should exist a limit to how many children a couple should produce but I do believe we need to start making people a little more aware that having a lot of children = lot of stress...

It's been scientifically proven that in the recent years, couples with lower IQ's have more children than couples with higher IQ's. It's a fact, you can search it up. (Look I'm not saying big families are stupid, it's just a %)

I think parents should know when to stop procreating, it's not just about the money, it's about the quality of their life, you are not talking about cattle that'll be chopped up eventually, kids are a piece of work. You need to treat them all, teach them all, clothe them all, feed them all, play with them all and if a person is already in it's limit with the current number of children, they have to start using condoms ASAP. Your kids might have to take care of you in the future, I think it's wise to remember that, if you treat them like **** through their childhood, I hope you have no problems living at an old people's home.
 
20
Posts
10
Years
I think you should have has many kids as your heart desires, so long as you can financially and emotionally sustain them. I mean, if you are a low income family who wants more than two kids (let's say an outrageous number like five or something - more than the normal children you find in a family household), I would make some changes in your desires, so your child doesn't have to live a "poverty-stricken" or "low-income" family life. Coming from a family who has enough money to survive (barely), I believe you should have as many kids as your wallet and heart allows you to. Also, over population is a concern in other nations and countries outside of the United States, which could move over to the US in the future, making the US over-populated also. Even though I highly doubt that the US will get over populated, it is a smart idea to have no more than two kids a household for awhile. Or you should not have more children than there are parents (single parent: one child; two parents: two children or less). While the US is in a economic strain, I think we should all have children responsibly. :)

But there should not be a limit or restriction on how many children you have. If you want the kids, no matter how rich or poor you are, it's not my decision to make. Right? and, usually, whenever you restrict someone from doing anything, it ultimately makes them want to do it more often.

I also think they should give out birth control products (for both males and females - like birth control pills/shots or condoms, for guys) for free so we can all have sex responsibly.
 
Last edited:

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
If you're financially or mentally incapable of supporting another child, you should be required to put it up for adoption. I oppose any further restrictions than that, however. I also staunchly oppose restrictions on abortion because, among other reasons, I do not believe a woman should have to suffer through a childbirth they do not desire.
 
Back
Top