Should people be allowed to have large families?

2 kids per family

 

And for what purpose are 2 kids needed by each family?

 

In some cases, not being able to afford labor saving devices, means it requires more labor to accomplish the same thing.

 

Based on your reasoning a larger family should receive less government assistance than a small family.

 

Why do you believe that? It could mean a large family merely needs more money to do more and perhaps achieve a cottage industry with all of that labor available.

 

More labour should provide more money, or production of their needs eliminating the need for money.

You seem to frequently misuse the term labour when all you are really referring to is a person who may or may not provide any labour at all of value to the society in which they exist.

 

More labor can do more. And, it could do that eventually. However, without being able to use the latest technologies, it is still, "old fashioned".

 

It comes down to, if you can't afford the technology you probably even more so can't afford maintain a large family as a replacement.

 

not really; getting back to basics requires a lot of labor.

 

Slavery is against the law.

 

special pleading much? Agriculture is an example in modern times. At one time, it took around a fourth of the population to produce enough agriculture.

 

1. None at all.

2. An example of what?

3. And it doesn't today, hence few people bother when food sources can be acquired at a much lower cost than could be expended by their own labours.

4. It takes many years for a child to become capable of providing any helpful labour.

5. How many people actually have children with the intent or hopes of those children providing assistance for their support? Have you any supporting factual data?

 

I thought women had the right of privacy of their own reproductive rights. ???????

 

While I agree, should there not be responsibilities associated with those rights?


“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

Have we?

It's The Economy Stupid!!

It is.

 

SCOTUS did not assign responsibility it just said that women have the right to privacy of their own bodies. Responsibility is a moral issue. Secular humanists tend to adjust morals to suit their individual wants and needs. The religious typically have a set of moral standards that they and their fellow worshipers abide by and those morals and standards are typically unchangeable.

There is no way to legislate the legal reproductive rights of women.

 

And people have a right to drink, smoke, not use a safety belt or wear a motorcycle helmet and eat fatty or other foods harmful to their health and legislate taxation or imposition of fines on those rights based on the premise that not having such restrictions to our rights would be costly to society as a whole and therefore the taxes and fines attempt to make those who partake or ignore such laws are held more responsible for their costs than those who do not partake and obey the laws.

Is government the new religion? Should government, or even a democratic process be the method by which all societies are brought mandatorily to live and be forced to take collective responsibility regardless of their individual needs and wants to provide and pay for irresponsibilities of others?

 

Our government is too corrupt so no we do not want them to dictate our lifestyle.

 

Of course not, but most everyone wants government to dictate the lifestyle of others.

 

Our, War on Drugs, does just that; but in a more arbitrary and capricious manner.

 

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the topic of "Should people be allowed to have large families?" and not try to lead it into discussing something entirely different.

Although posted in another thread, I think the below post is quite fitting to this thread as well:

Problems, when not solved at their source usually result in creating more problems which only make it much more difficult to find a solution that doesn't create hardships for a great many more than would have been affected at an early stage dealing with the source.

 

so, why isn't simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment being solved for?

 

The post of lynnlynn from the thread titled "Current welfare system ruining our economy" that I included in my post answered that question.

 

no clue and no Cause? this solves the problem:

so, why isn't simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment being solved for?

 

Did you see any claim of the problem being solved in the quote of lynnlynn?
The source cause was clearly pointed out.

I and others have answered your exact same question more than once already. Try looking at each threads topic title and the OP forming replies and questions that remain on topic.

 

I have rebutted your claim; you have no answer or rebuttal to mine.

Why not post it here to clarify.