- 23 Sep 2005
Rather than state-sponsored kidnapping that favors the rich and tearing apart families, wouldn't it be far more prudent to simply spend more money on sex education in and out of public schools and make condoms and other contraceptives more widely available?
It doesn't favor the rich, it just favors whoever is prepared to look after children properly and can afford to do so. Why, do you think it would be fine to give a child to someone who is homeless and out of work?
In my country we have tons of sex education- you have to be living under a rock in the middle of nowhere not to know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy and STD's. Everyone in school gets sex education and even if you mess up at school, there are dozens of other resources you can go to for free to learn about contraception and even get it for free (NHS).
It is really naive to think that in my country, people get pregnant because they don't know about contraception or don't have access to it. Contraception is unbelievably widely available- its in your supermarkets, pubs, hospitals, schools, newsagents etc. There is no excuse in my country in this day age about not having access to contraception- it is so easy to learn about it and have if you want to.
How would your plan save the government money? It sounds like they would need to increase costs to build orphanages for all the children you advocate kidnapping. Taken away from their families, these children will still need to be fed and clothed. They will also need to have a new home found for them, which will require lots of new social workers and caretakers. This would be a huge expenditure.
By the government enforcing the policy, it would deter people from breaking it- if people obeyed the policy, then less kids would be brought into the world, and so the countries population would be lowered and less kids would need to be taken away from their families etc.
This is just your opinion. I know people who grew up with lots of siblings and had a great time. I also know people who grew up without siblings wishing they had some. These are the sort of decisions that need to be left up to families, since there is no objective way to analyze the issue.
So would you have been happy growing up with 8 brothers and sisters and being considered lucky if your mum got to spend 30mins quality time with your mum a day?
We're not talking about families with a few kids, we talking about parents producing huge numbers of kids.
How does this help the environment? You seem to be advocating that children should be removed from their parents and taken into state custody, where they are processed for adoption. This doesn't serve to decrease the population or reduce the strain on natural resources. All it does is tear apart famlies.
It does serve to reduce population because when the government shows that it means business and is enforcing its laws, people aren't going to want to break the policies laws and so human population/birth rates lower overall.
Your theory that these sorts of child policies don't work at lowering population are silly because we have a huge example of them working, and that is China (their system does have problems, but that isn't the systems fault but rather their corrupt government and outdated culture's viewpoints on women fault).
Honestly, would you want to live in a wold where China didn't have the 1/2child policy to control its 1.3billion people population?
You may think all of this stuff unfair for the individual, but its a necessary evil. If Africa was able to control its population better, then its poverty problems wouldn't be half as bad. You might be against a child policy program being put into a country like Africa, but then do you prefer that children just starve instead because the country and people cannot afford them?
Your theory of people having lots of kids as investments is an outdated medieval one that should not be encouraged or tolerated in this day and age, because it simply just doesn't work for the greater good.