|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jun 12, 2012 17:21:23 GMT -8
By coincidence, Phae and I have had some discussions on China. I read many of a Catholic Vote blogs, and this was brought to my attention. It's rather serious for this realm of our lives, but regardless. Whether or not you are pro-choice, I know you all realize this is most definitely not. www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=31282. Take a read. Pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by elitecanada on Jul 15, 2012 8:03:25 GMT -8
Is that even legal? I didn't even know that sort of thing was allowed anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 15, 2012 8:31:29 GMT -8
"Officially," it's not in China. But it's the terrible byproduct of favoring a culture of death.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Jul 15, 2012 10:17:12 GMT -8
This is a pretty terrible extreme Max, and you know I agree with you there. What I reject however, is that mandatory population controls are completely unnecessary.
China exhibits this one extreme, where again, my biggest concern is the manner in which they police one child (murder is in fact bad), and the fact that male children are favored over female children.
The U.S. exhibits another extreme, in which people who have 5 or more children are lauded with gifts and support and their own television shows as if somehow using fertility drugs is a magnificent accomplishment.
I actually find both practices to be equally selfish and distasteful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 15, 2012 10:29:46 GMT -8
I completely agree. People should have large families because, for me, they should. The family is, in the purest sense, the first and most basic unit of society. It's a society's itself. My mother and grandmother came from large families and they have a bond completely unique. Families aid in the advancement of society.
But that doesn't meant you should have large families for a TV show. It's rather disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Jul 15, 2012 13:24:24 GMT -8
Yaknow the larger the family, the more hands there were to help the household/farm/business back in the day. If I wasn't so much against having kids of my own, my house would be SPOTLESS.  ::flee:: |
|
|
|
Post by BigKif on Jul 15, 2012 14:47:11 GMT -8
I agree that big families are great. As long as you can support them yourself!
But I also think we need to look at the overall world population. If we keep growing as we are, we will have starvation on a massive scale.
I do agree that what the China gov is doing is horrible. But realize the male child preference is the people, not the government. The father and/or mother who are showing their preference with infanticide is a big part of their problem. That is a personal choice that I find abhorrent.
Like Phae, I think China has the right idea to limit population growth. I just don't like the way it is being done. (And no idea how to do it humanely/ethically myself.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 15, 2012 15:00:04 GMT -8
There is no way to compel population control. It is a inherent human right to have children, I believe. Whether or not you are capable of raising that child IS a matter of the state.
Population control can only be done with the decision of abstinence. It is the surest way, and that is a personal choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigKif on Jul 15, 2012 15:53:52 GMT -8
Population control can only be done with the decision of abstinence. It is the surest way, and that is a personal choice. And a choice that most won't take unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 15, 2012 16:40:33 GMT -8
Depending if that's unfortunate to you or not. I find the burst of life exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Jul 16, 2012 11:00:09 GMT -8
Or you know... birth control w/ condoms, lol.
Max, as much as big families can be wonderfully fulfilling on a personal level, as this world approaches 7 billion people, I think you'll find that this planet does not have infinite resources for us all to live. If you want a world in which people aren't starving to death by the hundreds of thousands if not millions on a annual basis, you're going to have to sacrifice your personal desires for the greater good. That's a mathematical fact.
I agree that population control is antithetical to basic human biological drive, and would be exceedingly difficult to police without creating a system as problematic as China's, but the alternative is quite literally going to be increasing population over time until we eventually hit a crisis point with natural resources, and another world war kills off 1/4 or so of the global population.
Given the bleakness of the only alternative, I think we need to legitimately consider population control in a humane, equal, and scientific manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kippa Tarxien on Jul 16, 2012 11:56:11 GMT -8
I doubt population control on a forced way can achieve a lot, unless it is forced upon them.
In my opinion, people should "desire" a number of children. How many should depend upon their own wishes.
The ideal number of children depends of course on the advantage more children give and the cost more children give.
Okay, suppose you are a rich family, high income. You will want your children to have birthday parties, a car at 18, a university study. Their "income" towards the family will be ZERO.
You have a high income, your children cost a lot and many children don't increase your income.
Your ideal number of children won't be low, because you can afford some, but it won't be high, because you can't afford a lot, due to the cost.
Your ideal number of children will be low, because they cost a lot and don't bring in any money.
Okay, suppose now you are a poor family, 3rd world. You will want your children to start a beggar carreer, making an income. They can look after grandma, thus avoiding costs of elderly homes,...They won't need uniforms for school, no school skiing vacations, ...
Their "income" towards the family will be HIGH, their costs will be low.
Your ideal number of children won't be high, because you can't afford them.
Your ideal number of children will be high, because they do support (income) your family.
Your ideal number of children will be high, because they don't cost you a lot.
Your ideal number of children will be a lot higher than in the rich simulation.
So, you will want a lot of kids.
Conclusion: if you want to control population, take away the motivator of getting many children. Translated: make sure we all get an equal income.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 16, 2012 12:05:33 GMT -8
I can agree to that. Influence decisions, but don't force them.
Population control can never be enforced without violating basic human rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by elitecanada on Jul 16, 2012 20:09:20 GMT -8
There is no way to compel population control. It is a inherent human right to have children, I believe. Whether or not you are capable of raising that child IS a matter of the state. Population control can only be done with the decision of abstinence. It is the surest way, and that is a personal choice. I have to disagree. Population control should be left in the hands of the people who are smart enough to determine what is a sustainable population in my opinion. . |
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 16, 2012 20:30:24 GMT -8
Then you enable those people to make decisions for you tht have been, since forever, individual choices.
|
|
