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."
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.
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.
The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it. We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.
(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.)
|Originally posted by playdoh
barbara, what exact civil liberties are limited by taxpayer money in this example?
|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 it's time to move beyond individual rights|
|52 members and 17,852 guests|
|a-sorta-fairytale , babydoulajo , bananabee , Bow , CricketVS , Dakotacakes , Dovenoir , emmy526 , erthe_mama , girlspn , happy-mama , hillymum , incorrigible , Jessica765 , katelove , kathymuggle , lerlisha , lisak1234 , Lucee , mama24-7 , manyhatsmom , Mayar , Michele123 , Mirzam , momgeog , mumto1 , oaksie68 , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , sciencemum , shantimama , Shmootzi , Skippy918 , smith5ab , Snydley , Socks , Springshowers , sren , SweetSilver , TealCandy , VsAngela , zarine , Zoe Smith|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 01:21 PM.|