Should people be allowed to have large families?

Are you claiming we are currently unable to produce enough food to feed everyone, and that being the reason for asking the OP question?

 

forced abortion for those that do not earn enough?

 

As a matter of fact, sterilization would be less costly in the long run. Would it be more acceptable if it was applied to both males and females?

 

so you think if someone is poor they will always be poor?

and who is gonna pay to prevent those potential children via sterilization

why not just offer free BC to the poor?

.

 

1. Did I say that?

2. Taxpayers of course.

3. Who should pay for that? And suppose it isn't used?

 

No. It's politics that is starving the children in Africa not over crowding. They can't or won't develop their country due to agreements with the UN or the government themselves.

 

so your against free birth control for the poor, but for forced sterilization? maybe you could explain better what you mean?

.

 

Education or force?

 

So you're now claiming that governments are created to allow people to have large families and to provide their needs?

 

What I said was "As a matter of fact, sterilization would be less costly in the long run."

When we speak of things which are produced by, or requires human action, there is always a cost involved so government cannot provide 'anything' for free as the cost is passed on to others without giving them a choice.

I'm against government spending wastefully and/or beyond the means it has available.

How do you identify and make irresponsible persons responsible? Is it more or less likely to be accomplished by Centralized Federal Government Agencies who employ and provide funding for many local agencies based on their claims of need?

 

Can you force someone to become educated?

 

Good point.

 

yes, but the cost of free birth control could be a savings in the amount spent on welfare, child care, public schools, ect... thus a savings

when you spend $2 to save $10, that is basically free

.

 

Birth control only works when it is used properly.

While spending $2 is less costly than spending $10 it is not free. Acquiring something at no cost at all is free.

 

Not exactly sure your point is but my point is that certain governments prevent progress like India's caste system. If certain government allow free enterprise, capitalism, etc then they would grow and starvation would diminish. It's the reason why western civilizations are so prosperous.

 

I have no complaints with free enterprise or capitalism.

 

The OP question brings to mind another way we might question population growth.

How many children do people need?

 

It depends on wealth distribution. more labor is necessary when less capital is involved.

 

That's a really interesting way of phrasing the question. How many children do people really need? I'd love to see some responses.

 

Would you please elaborate on that in some meaningful way?

 

It is meaningful; you merely need a clue and a Cause. Not having money usually means doing things by hand instead of by machine.

 

This is dependent on who the people are. A couple in primitive conditions might require several children to provide the resources need by a family unit while a more advanced society would simply require eventual replacement of the individuals.

 

And in another thread we, you included, have posted the thread topic is "Solutions to Automation". Machines are here and doing much, even most of the labour humans once did and some even claiming automation will soon eliminate most all, if not all human labour.

So are you just saying that those without money should be performing much more labour than those with money?

 

Yes, if a Person can only afford a hand drill instead of a bench press or workshop.

 

And that requires a large family?

Maybe I should have asked how many poor are needed to screw in a light bulb?