2 children per household?

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,505
Reaction score
5,289
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
With the NRaas Story Progression Mod you can change the Sims 3 default settings and make it happen in an imaginary world.
The Libertarian in me says people need to mind their own business and take care of their own shit ... Before worrying about what other people do or how many children they have.

.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
With the NRaas Story Progression Mod you can change the Sims 3 default settings and make it happen in an imaginary world.
The Libertarian in me says people need to mind their own business and take care of their own shit ... Before worrying about what other people do or how many children they have.

.
People can have all the children they can feed without welfare.

If they turn to the government, I am all for mandatory tubal ligation and vasectomy.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,505
Reaction score
5,289
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
People can have all the children they can feed without welfare.

If they turn to the government, I am all for mandatory tubal ligation and vasectomy.
I think it is safe to say that would fall under the heading of ... "... mind their own business and take care of their own shit ... "
But personally I don't support the idea of the government taking care of anyone ... Much less forcing someone to get a vasectomy because some dumbass thinks it is our business to provide for their fuck-ups.

.
 

pismoe

Platinum Member
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
37,168
Reaction score
3,768
Points
1,130
geez , I thought , still think that this is America . Leaving though , America is disappearing .
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,242
Reaction score
17,159
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
China did it. Why shouldn't we?
Pros? Cons?

Discuss
Because any measure limiting families to two children would be struck down as un-Constitutional:

'Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
It won't happen. It would be racist.
 
OP
Gracie

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,380
Reaction score
23,366
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
Because it's an interesting question that might get interesting results?
 
OP
Gracie

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,380
Reaction score
23,366
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
What brought the question to my head was looking up desalination plants in California. All that water out there....that is salty. Why are there not more? Then I read about a proposed plant being built in San Diego and lots of gobbeldygoop stuff that I scrolled over until I got to the part where it said "2 something somethings will give a family of FIVE enough water for one year". Family of five. Five.
What happens when we don't get enough rain, our crops wither, it turns into a dust bowl, and people are popping out 3 kids? Each family. Of Five. FIVE. So, those people that are alone or have one kid...they must make do, because someone else decided to have 3 kids.


I dunno. Just looking at different views.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,488
Reaction score
10,555
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Legally it will not happen, Morally it should not happen. It is none of the Governments business how many kids a family wants. It is none of YOUR business either.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
White people are the only ones who are trying to be responsible with reproduction. The result? Mexicans with their 6 or 7 kid families who can't even read are taking over the planet, along with every low IQ welfare sucking baby mama who likes those government checks for out of wedlock kids. I don't see any pleasant outcomes, do you?
 

Esmeralda

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
28,585
Reaction score
21,334
Points
2,415
Location
Washington State
China did it. Why shouldn't we?
Pros? Cons?

Discuss
I don't think it should be enforced but encouraged. China enforces this idea. When I lived in Austria, pretty much everyone did have only 2 kids but by choice because they have a well educated populace. The better the education, the more likely people will not have large families.

Educated people realize that if they have two kids, instead of 3 or 4 or more, they can provide their kids a better life--better economically and more attention for each kid.

Austria has near zero population growth. It makes for a healthier economy, less social problems, and a saner society all around.

I think it's a great idea but should not be enforced.
 
OP
Gracie

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
64,380
Reaction score
23,366
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
China did it. Why shouldn't we?
Pros? Cons?

Discuss
I don't think it should be enforced but encouraged. China enforces this idea. When I lived in Austria, pretty much everyone did have only 2 kids but by choice because they have a well educated populace. The better the education, the more likely people will not have large families.

Educated people realize that if they have two kids, instead of 3 or 4 or more, they can provide their kids a better life--better economically and more attention for each kid.

Austria has near zero population growth. It makes for a healthier economy, less social problems, and a saner society all around.

I think it's a great idea but should not be enforced.
You said it better than I did or could.
I don't think it should be enforced either. But maybe some other solution? Like, not really penalties for larger family but more like rewards for smaller families? Hell I dunno. Just more ideas being tossed.

But the main concern I have is the sea. There it is. Huge. Vast. A lot of it unexplored. WET. There should be plants along every shore if the USA where drought is hitting crops. Those crops feed the USA. No crops, no food. No water, no crops. And more new mouths to feed because people don't THINK.

I want another dog. Or a cat.I do.But I have not gotten one. I want one soooooo bad. The pound is full of animals that want a forever home. As much as I wish I could go get one..I can't and I won't. Why? Because what little Mr Gracie and I have, what little extra "emergency money" we have saved up, is for the two we have now. If they get sick, we can get medical help for them. If one of us need to see a dentist, we can see a dentist (we do not have dental insurance). If we get another dog...and an emergency comes up like Moki getting another lump that needs to be surgically removed...then what? Let him die? No extra money, cuz the new dog got a broken leg or has a bad tooth or has some internal problem. Hundred of money goes to the vet. Emergency funds drop down. But with no extra dog...the ones we have are taken care of better. No worries if a problem comes up. Or any of us have a cavity or need a tooth pulled. So..I do without. No dog. No cat.
If people would consider that, as Esmeralda explained, then smaller families make more sense.

Just thinking out loud. No need for anyone to get peeved for these thoughts. Just..musing.
 

Esmeralda

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
28,585
Reaction score
21,334
Points
2,415
Location
Washington State
China did it. Why shouldn't we?
Pros? Cons?

Discuss
I don't think it should be enforced but encouraged. China enforces this idea. When I lived in Austria, pretty much everyone did have only 2 kids but by choice because they have a well educated populace. The better the education, the more likely people will not have large families.

Educated people realize that if they have two kids, instead of 3 or 4 or more, they can provide their kids a better life--better economically and more attention for each kid.

Austria has near zero population growth. It makes for a healthier economy, less social problems, and a saner society all around.

I think it's a great idea but should not be enforced.
You said it better than I did or could.
I don't think it should be enforced either. But maybe some other solution? Like, not really penalties for larger family but more like rewards for smaller families? Hell I dunno. Just more ideas being tossed.

But the main concern I have is the sea. There it is. Huge. Vast. A lot of it unexplored. WET. There should be plants along every shore if the USA where drought is hitting crops. Those crops feed the USA. No crops, no food. No water, no crops. And more new mouths to feed because people don't THINK.

I want another dog. Or a cat.I do.But I have not gotten one. I want one soooooo bad. The pound is full of animals that want a forever home. As much as I wish I could go get one..I can't and I won't. Why? Because what little Mr Gracie and I have, what little extra "emergency money" we have saved up, is for the two we have now. If they get sick, we can get medical help for them. If one of us need to see a dentist, we can see a dentist (we do not have dental insurance). If we get another dog...and an emergency comes up like Moki getting another lump that needs to be surgically removed...then what? Let him die? No extra money, cuz the new dog got a broken leg or has a bad tooth or has some internal problem. Hundred of money goes to the vet. Emergency funds drop down. But with no extra dog...the ones we have are taken care of better. No worries if a problem comes up. Or any of us have a cavity or need a tooth pulled. So..I do without. No dog. No cat.
If people would consider that, as Esmeralda explained, then smaller families make more sense.

Just thinking out loud. No need for anyone to get peeved for these thoughts. Just..musing.
One thing is taxes. The more children you have, the more tax breaks you get. That may have made sense back in the old times, but with an over populated world today, it does not make sense. There is an attitude in our culture that people who have children are better people, that they are contributing more to our society than people who don't have children. This is a biased and unreasonable idea, especially based on the fact of over population.

IMO People who have more than 2 kids should be penalized as far as taxes, not given tax breaks and other financial breaks, just because they have a lot of kids.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
Legally it will not happen, Morally it should not happen. It is none of the Governments business how many kids a family wants. It is none of YOUR business either.
That attitude has us up to our asses in feral children.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,505
Reaction score
5,289
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
Why "two" children ... Why not just one child or maybe three?

What would you be trying to accomplish?
How exactly would we handle pregnancies that passed the limit?

What if we decided only responsible and smart people can have children?
What if we decided only healthy children from healthy families deserve to live?
What if we decide it makes more sense to get rid of old people than limit the influx of young people?

What if we just mind our own business and take responsibility for what we do?
The government solution or government policy is not an answer to the problem no matter how you feel about it.
The government is the reason the rest of us are held responsible for other peoples' failures.

.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top