With exceptions in cases like when a couple loses a child
Edit: in a scenario where everything is good. No wars, no famine.
nope but I don’t think we should subsidize having kids with tax brakes and such. 100% public education and meals at school and we should have universal healthcare. so if children are born provide for their needs as we do for other members of society but no tax breaks or such.
I’d happily pay more taxes for all of those things, absolutely agree.
Literally zero way to enforce it without being cruel.
As an upper limit? As a lower limit? What do you mean?
Forcing people who don’t want kids to have two is insane. Who will make it happen? Is there a conception agency where agents just go a rape women in this imagined scenario?
Forcing a third pregnancy to terminate is also pretty insane. Suppose the mother doesn’t even know she’s pregnant until pretty far along. Suppose a mother hides her pregnancy and gives birth in secret; is that baby getting killed?
In either case, what is the punishment for violation? Suppose a woman is incapable of having kids when you mandated 2; is she to be executed for being unable to fulfill this societal requirement? Suppose a woman intentionally had more than her government-permitted 2 children; what is her sentence for providing extra mouths to feed?
It’s unethical, it’s not reasonably enforceable, and frankly, I’m not sure I understand what such a policy would even be attempting to accomplish.
I meant as an upper limit.
Forcing women to terminate pregnancies is as cruel as forcing them to be inseminated.
What’s your point with this question?
What’s your point with this question?
I wanted to know what people think and what could be the pros and cons etc. That’s why people ask questions, don’t they?
There’s no pros to controlling women’s autonomy and bodies.
I never said that. Why’re you soo intent on putting words into my mouth?
Population could also be controlled by neutering men.
Not when it is a two child policy - women still birth those children.
Fundamentally this is a question centered around controlling women’s bodies because it’s women that bear and birth children.
And men still produce sperm. If we neuter them after 2 children we can still do it. Not that I like that. Just saying there is something else
That was already performed in China.
Kids were born outside of hospitals and either were ghost people without proper paperworl or registered as children of other family members like the sister.Omg, that’s awful
Yeah and it’s cruel. I’m still curious what OP was thinking when posing this question to the community.
There’s no answer here that isn’t a disgusting look at how women and fertility and birth is treated.
I’m still curious what OP was thinking when posing this question to the community.
Its not a forbidden question. Nothing about my post said I support it. Should I explain to you why people ask questions? Are we simply not supposed to ask controversial questions on Lemmy?
I said I was curious, not that it’s forbidden.
If you were actually curious as to why I asked, I was just wondering, nothing more deep. I’m sorry.
It’s just too many people get ‘curious’ as to why you’re asking the question in the first place when you ask a slightly controversial question. I got 2 of these for this post alone.
The one child policy was tried. It was a disaster.
The real question is why you would possibly think it’s a good idea to try.
Absolutely not. There’s no scenario where I would agree with forcing people to have children.
I think with the cost of living, wars etc, the world population will begin to slow, then eventually lower. With or without a one/two child policy. Shit fucking sucks and I think people won’t be be able to afford kids soon. I am just grasping at straws here, and this is just personal opinion.
Due to economic, environmental, and cultural state and trends, my wife and I are choosing to not have children. Our dog is lovely. I will not spend my time and energy to give capitalists another generation of cheap labor just in time for this class to flee from rising sea levels, suffer malnutrition, and choke on contaminated air and water. I believe that it is inhumane to bring life into this world with the knowledge that they will endure the hardship and suffering that is so obviously coming.
We will sooner see throuples become socially acceptable in order to make rent than offer any real help to the working class. There is a pedophile running America and the American people are still policing bathrooms to protect against imaginary pedophiles. The priorities are beyond fucked.
might i suggest adoption? There are lots of kids who need a home. Just a thought :)
Yes.
People shouldn’t come in litters. Ever.
The current trend on world population has us hitting 10.3 billion in 2080, and then it starts to recede. The idea of an overpopulated world comes from a book written in 1968 called “The Population Bomb”. The actual problem we’re facing in the west is a rapidly aging population, and birth rates that are falling off a cliff.
There’s no such thing as rapidly aging, there’s exactly one year per year, we don’t age any faster nor slower. Declining birth rate, sure, but no such thing as rapidly aging.
Rapidly aging refers to the trend line of average age rapidly increasing over time. Not people rapidly aging.
The total population will be rapidly aging; I.e. a larger portion of that population will be over 65
no
Are you asking if it should be a thing, or if it exists?
Ah, I missed the ‘should’. Thanks :)
