Population Control Bill - Page 5

[Poddi]

I don't understand. I thought the average number of children a North America woman has is very close to 2 already. It takes 2.1 children for every couple to replace themselves. When you count those who don't marry, who don't want kids, who can't have kids, somebody has to make more than 2 kids to replace the population, right? Or do they think we have too many people in North America already and really need to decrease our population? I thought North America is doing just fine and can definitely have more people.

(Sorry if I sound clueless. I grew up in China. US has more natural resources and about 1/4 the population of China. Do they really need to worry yet?)

[Arduinna]

Personally I think cancer is the appropriate term here. Because cancer is a cell that replicates but doesn't die. I understand that it offends some. I guess seeing it up close and personal as I have it doesn't bother me anymore?

[TiredX2]

Well, here is something that says just the opposite:

Population Growth Rate Slowing
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pd082801b.html

Many who are concerned with this issue are actually concerned with the fact that the white middle/upper class population growth rate is slowing (which is more than cancelled out in the US by minority population growth and immigration).

[Daffodil]

Or do they think we have too many people in North America already and really need to decrease our population? I thought North America is doing just fine and can definitely have more people.

Well, I certainly think there are already too many people in North America. Look at the huge amount of space in the U.S. that's covered by noisy highways, acres of parking lots, ugly strip malls, huge boring housing developments, giant ugly apartment buildings . . . Even in relatively attractive suburban neighborhoods, most people aren't able to walk in the woods, find solitude, see interesting wildlife, or go cross-country skiing or fishing or horseback riding without having to drive somewhere else (maybe somewhere pretty far away.) Most people don't have space around their houses for a really big vegetable garden, or a pasture for livestock. Most kids don't get to play in the woods or wade in creeks. Some kids don't even have a safe place to play outside.

Sure, North America can probably contain a lot more people without us all starving, but I want more for myself and my daughter than survival. I want peacefulness and beauty and open space and lots of plants and birds and animals all around us, and as the population grows, there's less and less of all those things.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of mandatory population control, or even handing out informative pamphlets about overpopulation. I just wish more people would at least recognize that overpopulation really is a problem, and not just in some distant third-world countries.

[EFmom]

The National Center for Policy Analysis (link above) is a pretty conservative think tank.

[cappuccinosmom]

>Look at the huge amount of space in the U.S. that's covered by noisy highways, acres of parking lots, ugly strip malls, huge boring housing developments, giant ugly apartment buildings . . . Even in relatively attractive suburban neighborhoods, most people aren't able to walk in the woods, find solitude, see interesting

Those are all space/resource issues, not people issues. And simply a result of people moving *towards* crowded areas and making them more crowded--that's where all the convenience is. We could do with a lot less, but the American way is "More and Bigger" you know. I do wish we could get rid of the highways and have a well developed train system instead. And design cities and towns to be more convenient for walkers, as in Germany (wish I lived there!). Our town is in no way overcrowded, but designed in such a way that you have to drive to get anywhere.

[barbara]

I'm thinking that using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty would be unconstitutional, however, I'm not a bit surprised that the push is on. It is really a very bigioted idea as the wealthy, and those in power, are generally aren't having large families.

Sounds like The Brave New World to me!

[EFmom]

Funny how for the population issue, there seems to be so little support for the crunchy maxim usually embraced by the MDC crowd, "Think globally, act locally."

For US and world population clocks see http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/clock.html

[PurpleBasil]

Originally posted by barbara
I'm thinking that using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty would be unconstitutional, however, I'm not a bit surprised that the push is on. It is really a very bigioted idea

barbara, what exact civil liberties are limited by taxpayer money in this example?

what is 'unconstitutional'?

You are leaping to conclusions ('brave new world').

I'll say it again: if you want a religiously biased health department funded by tax payer monies, that would be in violation of the seperation of the church and state.

it is NOT the job of the health department to cater their pamplets to a specific religion! If a religion encourages large families as a sign of God's blessing, that is not the health department's concern, nor should it be.

Science, not religion, folks. If the US (for example) has a resource problem and ONE (repeat: ONE) strategy toward sustainable resources for everyone is to consider smaller family size, that is a statement about resources, family size, NOT God. And I'm glad it's not about anyone's God or what he/she/it thinks about numbers of children!

Will this pamphelt render infertile those who wish to have large families? No. Will it make it impossible for large families to obtain state funded programs? No. Will this pamphlet make a large family a veritable pariah in the community? No.

The comments those of you with large families have received are sad. But that is not the fault of the health department either. Stupid, big mouthed people exist. People will always talk. That has nothing to do with this pamphlet on resources and family size.

[cumulus]

"Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children." ~ Tatanka Iyotanka

Within a couple deciding on whether or not to have a child, would it be appropriate for either the female or the male to insist on their individual rights and adopt or have a child whatever the other felt? I don't think so. And so it goes for the family of man wherein as who we are and how many we are affects those around us and the earth itself. I think it's time to move beyond individual rights and expand our considerations beyond our immediate environment to consider our place in the family of man and all the children of that family.
The signs that there are too many of us are everywhere.

"My daughter is every mother's child and every mother is the mother of my child." ~ Glen Close

[TiredX2]

The problem with this idea is, I don't know ONE person who it would sway even slightly in their decision of how many children to have. It might make them feel a bit better if they had already decided to have 1 or 2, or a bit worse if they had decided to have 3+ but it wouldn't alter their decisions in the least.

Maybe if we started teaching about the problems of overpopulation at a younger age it would help. And, I don't think the best solution is encouraging smaller families--- I think it lays in encouraging only those people called to have a child to have a child. I think one of the best steps our country could take for improving marraige & family is to DISCOURAGE people from getting married or having children unless they are 100% sure they want, not just because its the "next step."

[cinnamonamon]

My problem with the gov't handing out pamphlets, is that I'm afraid it would encourage an attitude towards those with large families.

I see it as somewhat similar to breastfeeding. WIC doesn't discourage breastfeeding, but they ask about/offer formula constantly, and those who aren't sure, having trouble, etc. are ultimately being encouraged to use formula instead. I'm not saying that large families are good and small bad, but I am saying that the gov't can and does influence public opinion, and the existance and distribution of such a pamphlet would influence the public not necessarily against having more children (as intended), but against those who have large families.

After the public opinion is swayed toward smaller families, (as it once was toward ABM), it will become strange/unwelcome to see larger ones. Insurance companies may limit the size of families it will cover, or drastically raise premiums beyond the second child (as it used to refuse to pay for breastpumps, etc...). Talk of mandatory sterilization of women/men with at least 2 children who want/need gov't assistance will begin...

See, it's really the snowball effect I'm concerned about. The occasional person would become much less "occasional," and you would be often hearing comments such as: "two children are plenty; they will take all the love and time you have." Which means, of course, that myself and my sister were well loved and cared for, whereas my 4 youngest siblings were not -- as there isn't enough time in the day or space in a mothers heart for more than two. :

Now that comment doesn't really *hurt* me, but have it repeated over and over by different people (teachers, neighbors, "friends," etc. ) throughout my children's lives, and I'm afraid it would be hurtful to them.

That is why I don't think the gov't should make a stand in the fashion it is proposing.

[lilyka]

If the government makes the descision to support one life styl;e ver the other (small family over large family) first it is just a pamphlet, but what is next? You can only claim the first 2 you had? If you are on WIC or Medicaid you can only cover the first two? Pressure to not have more than two? it is snowball effect.

Also with just a pamphlet I don't know anyone who would actually read it much less be swayed by it. I would be so offended that I recieved somehting from the government that said I needed to limit my family size would send me into a moral outrage. How dare they stick thier nose into this area of my life.

there are lots of ways to make people less of an impact on the earth. How about pamphlets about breastfeedig, cloth diapers and recycling. How about rebates for appliances and cars that use less enrgy (they actually were doing that here for a while for HE washers and toilets). The problem isn't over population. it is lack of resources which effects our ability to reproduce as we are naturally inclined. so why not pick the part of the problem that is less invasive? It is so much easier and useful to talk about and use taxpayer money to encourage recycling and conservation.

[Greaseball]

Cash assistance already won't cover additional children. Maybe soon it will happen with food stamps, WIC and Medicaid.

(It's a little different with the welfare example...they won't cover any child who is born into a family already receiving benefits...but I think they will still cover a family who has 4 kids at the time they apply. Still, it's a way they attempt to limit family size among certain populations.)

[barbara]

Originally posted by playdoh
barbara, what exact civil liberties are limited by taxpayer money in this example?

I was responding to the op that quoted the following article:

Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- A Washington state lawmaker isproposing a bill that even some veteran pro-life activists describe as shocking. The legislation would urge parents to have no more than two children.

State Rep. Maralyn Chase, the measure's sponsor, is calling it
the "Two-or-Fewer Bill." The lawmaker claims the measure will
promote population sustainability.

While the bill stops short of setting Chinese-style limits on the
number of children a couple can have, it would require a
taxpayer-funded pamphlet from the state health department to talk about the alleged benefits of having no more than two children.

I think there is a difference in publishing a pamphlet that encourages birth control and in requiring a taxpayer-funded pamphlet that encourages no more than 2 children per woman, which in turn encourages women to abort. IMO that is a religious belief and should not be the reinforced as the "Government belief." Let the pro-choice folks pass out the pamphlet, it is not the function of Govt.

[barbara]

How dare they stick thier nose into this area of my life.

ITA Lilyka!

[barbara]

I think it's time to move beyond individual rights

Cumulus, that is a nice sentiment, but it is not reflected in the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps you are not a US citizen and so this does not pertain to you, but this is a thread discussion a proposed bill in the US, and therefore it is pertinent to the discussion to point out that the "pursuit of happiness" is a corner stone of our civil liberties in this country.