Philosophical Chains for Thursday

[MD]

Human population growth needs to be controlled by laws that limit the
number of children people can have. If individuals break these laws
then there needs to be some sort of punishment.

[joseph]

we as a human race consume way to much of the earthes resources, due
to over population. And maybe we should have laws to restrict how many
humans a person can have. But that might violate peoples
constitutional rights. Heres a website to show how much humans consume
its startling. http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=7&theme=6

[Shelby Compton]

It seems to me that people are already taking steps in the direction
of limiting the number of people, especially with the development of
more successful contraceptive methods.
This website talks about how more women are going on birth control,
which would reduce the number of births.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2008/08/13/more-us-women-getting-birth-control-services.html

This website shows the astronomical numbers of abortions successfully
done within different time periods.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

[Taylor Weik]

It's no surprise that the human population has been growing at an
alarming rate; the question is how to limit such a startling growth.
The government should endorse human growth limitations, like the
promotion of contraceptives as my colleague Shelby has suggested, but
there is no way our country or our world would agree on laws
prohibiting the number of children couples can produce. There is the
scientific arguments that pose a stance, but it all comes down to the
rights and laws of the people.
Even if we all agreed on such a radical suggestion, there is still
the barrier of the constitutional provisions and rights of Americans.
In the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, Amendment I clearly states,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Laws controlling the birth of children violate the natural freedoms of
speech of the mother as well as the unborn child, and also violate
John Locke's ideal rights of the American: the rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.

Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends
John Lockean philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Arica]

This to me sounds a lot like what they already have in China... i
personally am against this idea because i feel that people have the
right to decide their family size. there is no doubt that people do
have more children than they can support; and although this has
tradgic affect, such as child neglect, i feel that it should not be
the governments' job to regulate the amount of chioldren people can
have. and also how would the government regulate this... more taxes?
what would the punishments be as well?... it seems a little ridiculous
to suggest punishment for giving birth!!! it seem like it goes against
the provisions of the Constitution.."cruel and unusual punishment"?

[Helen Tran]

The human population differs greatly between China and the United
States. I think it would be impossible to regulate the amount of
children Americans can have. Also, like Taylor said, limiting this
number means taking away rights to Americans to pursue happiness. If
there was such a law that was passed, there is bound to be "accident"
babies, which raises the moral question of: would abortion be the
right thing to do?

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nicole.U]

I feel that yes the human population is becoming more populated, but
how would our society react to such laws limiting the amount of kids
you can have. I don't think this law would go over well. I could see a
lot of petitioning and outrage at such an idea. Humans have the right
to produce and it doesn't always happen on purpose. What is a woman
supposed to do if she gets pregnant and has already had her maximum
amount of kids? Get an abortion would be an easy answer but what if
that is against her religion or ethics. Another option would be to
have the kid and put it up for adoption. The US would start to end up
like China and have tons of kids in foster care growing up without
stable parents. Imagine how that would later effect our generations
when those kids become adults. How could we even punish someone for
having too many kids? Do we send them to jail? Our jails and prisons
are already overpopulated. I tink if the US ever tried to enforce such
a law it would be very hectic and hard to control.

>
> On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Human population growth needs to be controlled by laws that limit the
> > number of children people can have. If individuals break these laws

> > then there needs to be some sort of punishment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Priscilla Tran]

It is nearly impossible to control the number of children that people
have. Even with laws that would limit these numbers, people will still
try to have as many children that they believe that they should have.
Not much can be done after these children are born because of the fact
that it is immoral and against the human rights to kill others. It is
better to make people aware of what will happen to our earth if they
continue to have many children, and what natural consequences will
occur because of overpopulation. Therefore there shouldn't be laws to
limit the number of children that people can have due to the fact that
child birth is uncontrollable.

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jenniee (:]

Though I agree that the number of children being born is greatly increasing each year, I believe that laws that would be created by the government would not be followed. Or, they would be followed, but taken with severe actions. Although limiting the numbers of children in a family is unconstitutional, I believe that the abortions that many women will decide on is also unconstitutional, to not give the child the Natural Right to life. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to go against the Constitution to create laws on birth rate (while also going against the freedom of speech) rather than going against one's Natural Right to life ? 

[Vivian P]

Laws that limit the number of births in America would lead us into a
more communist style of government like China. For years America has
been about freedom and creating this law wouldn't reflect what we
stand for. I'd rather not get too technical and repeat what others
have said, but I agree that this kind of law is very controversial and
difficult to control. I cannot say what the best solution to this
problem is, but there are still the options of:
1. getting others to become more aware of the effects of
overpopulation
2. like Taylor and Shelby said, using contraceptives (still a free
choice for women)
3. possibly increasing price on children?
4. promoting safer sex so that there's less "accidents"

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lauren!]

A law limiting the number of children would not go over well with the
american population. An arguement would arise that this law would
voilate the rights of U.S citizens. Although, I do think something
should be done. Many people may not take issue to the effects
overpopulation has created. Many would not care to be honest. People
are more focused on their individual causes and effects. It is safe to
say though, a majority of births may not be entirely planned. I
suggest more money and more emphasis on educating people on
prevention.
Prevention (see taylor and shelby's post) would kill two birds
with one stone. We could prevent bringing babies into this world that
may not necessarily have the best opportunities and we may even touch
upon the problem of overpopulation.

[megan friese]

I agree with pretty much everyone on here. It wouldn't be fair or constitutional to limit such a right. There is also the fact of regulating each household. Who would be in charge of making sure each family only had one child? What would the punishments be? I don't think this is something the government would be in charge of because it would go against our nation's individualistic view. 

[Louis]

some how i feel that there is no solution(s) to the problem of over
population. Perhaps my thought is controversial, and yes maybe it is
crude, but i feel the more we try to prevent disease, poverty, and
other "atrocities" from taking place we then allow for a continued
procreation. If everyone on the planet was given the same type of
opportunity, the same standard of living, the rate in which humans
have sex would dramatically increase. Lets face it humans love to have
sex, and as a result of carelessness, conception is inevitable, which
leaves only one option, do not allow for a higher standard of living.
Allow diseases to ravage and claim victims, fight against a cure for
cancer, allow AIDS to continue spreading throughout the world because
without these epidemics and diseases, there will be more people living
longer healthier lives having more children. Yes, it may be a cynical
way to view population control; cancer and AIDS are terrible ways to
die and most of us know someone who has died of one or the other, but
the truth of the matter is, more than anything else that governments
have tried to do, its the natural causes, the diseases, low standards
of living, that are preventing babies from being born, or people from
staying alive, thus keeping the population in somewhat control. Its
almost Darwinian in a sense; the survival of the fittest, those who
live better should and will outlive those who cannot, and who are we
to stop nature at what she does best?

[jennyma...@aol.com]

The rate of which our human population is growing, and will continue
to grow, is wIthout a doubt a problem. I think that a law should be
made about the number of children someone could have. For example, the
John Eli Miller family in our book. Because of John Miller and his
wife, they eventually brought 411 people into the world, plus all of
the offspring to those future generations. That is completely
ridiclous! if familes continue to reproduce like that, Earth is bound
to run out of resources sooner.
I think it comes down to moral justificaions. Do you care enough for
the enviroment and the future of our planet enough to limit the amount
to children you have, or do you want to put your future generation of
great great grandchildren or whatever in risk.
Acoording to our government, we can't restrict people from having as
many kids as they want. But countries like China have already
recognized this problem and started to fix. I don't really think us
Americans have that big of a problem with having to many kids, because
as research shows, our population increase rate is pretty steady.

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rochelle Weerackoon]

I agree with what mostly everyone said about the human population. It
would be unfair and unconstitutional to limit the number of children a
family can have. We live in a democratic nation where this can not
happen. Putting a limit on the number of children would be morally and
ethically wrong. We must devise another solution. The reason we want
to limit the human population is because our resources are getting
used up incredibly fast than they can be replenished. Instead of
worrying about how to try to stop the human population, we should make
strict laws and regulations that would ensure future generations to
have equal opportunities to access the same resources and ecosystem we
have. For example, there could be laws requiring us to recycle
bottles, paper, etc. and putting likewise limits on other resources.
If our resources and ecosystem are sustainable, the growth of the
human population should not be a problem. Thus in order for this to
work, the laws must be stern and regulated. Moreover, to solve the
population problem, people must be more educated. As people become
more educated, and the rate of literacy increases, the population
growth would ten to decrease. Putting an amount on the number of
children is simply wrong will not help solve the problem. Who are we
to decide the amount of humans that enter this world?

[drew]

back to what Arica said it seems that if we created a law to prevent
further population we would be copying China. Personally, if we made a
law i think it would be flawed because we have to 100% effective way
of preventing pregnancy. if we had a full proof way of preventing
pregnancy then maybe we could make it possible to make a law but since
its flawed it wouldnt be justice. and telling people how many children
they can have goes against freedom. and isnt that what the United
States stands for?

[Melody Somang]

We're not a communist country there is no way we can limit the number of kids a person can have or give birth to.

On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:21 PM, "jennyma...@aol.com" <jennyma...@aol.com> wrote:

> The rate of which our human population is growing, and will continue
> to grow, is wIthout a doubt a problem. I think that a law should be
> made about the number of children someone could have. For example, the
> John Eli Miller family in our book. Because of John Miller and his
> wife, they eventually brought 411 people into the world, plus all of
> the offspring to those future generations. That is completely
> ridiclous! if familes continue to reproduce like that, Earth is bound
> to run out of resources sooner.
> I think it comes down to moral justificaions. Do you care enough for
> the enviroment and the future of our planet enough to limit the amount
> to children you have, or do you want to put your future generation of
> great great grandchildren or whatever in risk.
> Acoording to our government, we can't restrict people from having as
> many kids as they want. But countries like China have already
> recognized this problem and started to fix. I don't really think us
> Americans have that big of a problem with having to many kids, because

> as research shows, our population increase rate is pretty steady. But
> overall, i think that this is a problem and a solution is needed
> .

>
> On Oct 11, 10:50 am, joseph <Phfat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> we as a human race consume way to much of the earthes resources, due
>> to over population. And maybe we should have laws to restrict how many
>> humans a person can have. But that might violate peoples
>> constitutional rights. Heres a website to show how much humans consume

>> its startling.http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=7&theme=6

[melody]

I dont think in the united states anyone can make a law to control how
many children people can have. It all comes to the fact that the US is
not a communist country and if there were limits and punishments set
people will feel like their natural laws are violated.

[Kaitlyn]

I agree with everyone on this as well. It would be extremely hard to
make a law on how many kids a couple could have, and it wouldn't pass
anyways, because it is unconstitutional. And yes, the thought reminds
me of China's laws as well. I think what Louis has said is very
thought provoking and in the real world we do need diseases to help
control our population. I think the best bet in controlling human
population is education, so we need to spread that around in other
less fortunate countries.

[christine Dao]

In my opinion, I agree with what most of my classmates stated, that i think it is impossible to regulate the amount of birthrates we have in this population. Out of the whole population, how can we possibly have laws to limit the number of children people can have? If we did this, I think we would be more of a communist party like in china, because in the united states, we have our own personal freedom and rights. I think it should be up to the family to see how many children they want, and if they could afford having children based on their income. I also do not think that it would be fair if there was some punishment if citizens break these law because sometimes there are also "accidents" or other cases. 

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:24 AM, MD <sdouce...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sherry]

I believe that the government has no right to interfere with
a couple's choice to have a certain number of kids. If the
government imposes laws on the amount of kids
each family can have, I think it would be a great problem.
What would happen if a family had one more kid than they
should have? I don't think it is right to force someone to
abort their child or even force them to put the child up for
adoption. Like everyone else, this goes against certain
rights!

[Emily Lavigne]

I agree with the prior statements about the human population problem.
It is against most people's morals, ethics, and in many cases religion
to limit the number of kids that a family can have. In some religions,
it is required or encouraged for people to have large families. Also
it is against some peoples religious values to use birth control or to
get an abortion. I think having children is basic right. China, for
example, has laws limiting parents to having one child. However, there
are about 600,000 orphans there. Since population IS a problem, we
should strive to educate the people of our world because the more
educated a person is, the less children they usually have. Also we
should strive to make better use of our resources, since that is the
reason that population is really a problem in the first place!

[Kami]

I agree with pretty much everyone else on here. If the human
population continues to grow at the rate that it is now, it is obvious
that there will be major consequences, but the answer to this problem
is not making and enforcing laws that limit the number of children
people are allowed to have. Citizens would never follow such laws
because they go against the Constitution and would be morally wrong.
I know it is kind of off topic, but this issue reminds me of a book I
read in 3rd grade. It was the Shadow Children series, and the first
book was Among the Hidden. It was about a society in the future where
they limit the number the number of children people can have to three.
These books just prove that people would never let the government make
laws about the number of children people can have. Instead, to slow
the human population growth rate, I agree with Emily that we should
focus on educating people because education levels and birth rates are
inversely related.

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nikki Bui]

Hello everyone. I agree that it'd be physically and mentally impossible to controlling how many births our nation can have. Even if a law was made about the certain amount of babies each family can have, no one would listen to it because more than half of the laws we have now are still being ignored and not affective. I would express more about my opinion but i'd like to save it for our discussion tomorrow (=

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:

Human population growth needs to be controlled by laws that limit the
number of children people can have. If individuals break these laws

[katie]

The question is whether we should install a worldwide limit to the
number of children couples can have.
Now the human population as it is today has a huge impact on our world
in a number of negative ways. We as a whole, are overpopulated and
take up our natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Plus the
output of our society harms the environment further, such as
greenhouse gases and oil spill. Increasing the population will
eventually cause our ecosystems to collapse, and without laws to limit
population this is an eventuality. Now here comes the problem, if this
is put into practice it will go against a great number of religious
beliefs (one should not limit the number of children god gives us),
cultures, and our basic rights. It comes down to a question of our
value system, do we support our generation above all else, or do we
strive to better the world for the future and avoid a global disaster
we all see coming? In actuality this would probably not pass on a
worldwide scale because it conflicts with too many peoples beliefs,
yet perhaps if we educate each nation individually as well as on a
world wide scale and set it to a vote for each nation, it may
eventually pass. Educating the public about this potential global
disaster is our best bet. Finally as this is only a question of
whether laws should be put into place and punishments possible and not
if it will actually work, I agree with there being a limit of child
births as it will affect not only us but generations to come,

[aaz...@hotmail.com]

The fact of the matter is if a solution is not found then a serious
problem is inevitable. There are a few ways to handle the
overpopulation issue: do nothing, promote education, allow for disease
and war to do what they do best, or to limit the amount of children
per family. Doing nothing obviously does not work, we already educate
people on contraceptives and other methods of preventing pregnancy but
honestly how well has that worked so far, disease and war while viable
are more controversial than the final alternative which is controlling
the amount of children per family. I honestly believe that the best
solution is to create laws in which the amount of children per family
is regulated. It may not be the most morally pure way to control
population but would you honestly rather have the inevitability of
major diseases and famine placed on future generations. Is protecting
the right to have as many children as you want worth the danger such a
right presents to future generations. Look at the world today, does
it seem like there is an abundance of trustworthy and considerate
people to choose for themselves to hold off on children, I certainly
dont see people like that. This leaves a choice of two and this is a
choice that ours or the next generation will inevitably face, is the
right to choose for yourself the number of children you have worth the
risk of trusting a population that has proven time and again to be
selfish and apathetic towards the plight of others, and a species that
has a history of pushing problems to a later generation. I dont find
the risk worth it, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in the name of
the greater good.

[donald lamy]

I seem to agree with the people who say you can not put a law on
the human population growth. It takes the rights of the individuals. I
agree that something should be done and that the growth is hurting the
planet and its resources. Since laws are being placed in other
countries and the economy is in the dump. The population will level
out and not rapidly increase as it has in the past. There is such
thing as a carrying capacity, and that limit is starting to be
reached. The punishment will be given automatically in a way that
humans will not be able to live comfortably. So we can not really stop
what is going to happen just do what we can to make it the best we
can.

[Shirley]

I agree with what everyone else was saying because if United States
do enforce a law that people can have only a certain number of
children, then
we are just following the steps of China. Just think about it, if a
catastrophe happens
and all those controlled number of people were dead...
then what can we do to bring the population back? Enforce another law?
That wouldn't work..
Yet, a better way of controlling the human
population growth will be like what Emily said about education because
a couple with
higher education would know if they have the ability to raise a
child.

[Chan Kim]

Even though limiting the childbirth would improve the economy, government should not control childbirth by enforcing a new law.  Every person should have a right to have much children as they want, but only if people can afford it.  If  parents can raise their children without any financial difficulties, there shouldn't be any reason to stop them.  Using laws to enforce the birthrate seem idealistic, but it's practically impossible.  What if some parents decide to have kids anyway even though they get punished?  Government can't just "dispose" the babies as punishment.....or put parents in jail when they have to raise the kid.  Some people suggested fining and taxing to control childbirth, but wealthy people would easily ignore the restriction.  If poor family gets fined for having a child accidentally, how would they raise the baby?  The idea of government restricting the childbirth is supported by many people, but there are too many flaws that can't be overlooked.

[Monica Pham]

I concur with most of apes students when they say that they believe enforcing a law to limit the amount of children we have is wrong. This law is wrong on all sorts of levels and violates many of our constitutional rights. I don't believe that the US will be able to control and enforce such a law. However if this law were to be put in place, what kind of punishment could there be?
"China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China's population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies."Such fines and forced abortions would be excessive and cruel punishments which means that it violates our constitution.

Although research has proven that China's one child law has slowed their population growth, TIME magazine's Laura FItzpatrick believes that to be a problem:
"The total number of young people is a problem as well; factories have reported youth-labor shortages in recent years, a problem that will only get worse. In 2007 there were six adults of working age for every retiree, but by 2040 that ratio is expected to drop to 2 to 1. Analysts fear that with too few children to care for them, China's elderly people will suffer neglect.Facing growing resistance to the law, some Chinese officials have turned to harsh enforcement tactics. In 2007, for instance, bureaucrats reportedly took sledgehammers to a half a dozen towns, threatening to whack holes in the homes of people who had failed to pay fines for having too many children. Elsewhere, officials were accused of forcing pregnant women without birthing permits to have abortions and jacking up the fines for families disobeying the law. As a result, riots broke out. As many as 3,000 people demonstrated in Guangxi province, some overturning cars and burning government buildings."

Riots would ensue, much larger than those in China. Like what others have said, the problem is not our population. It is the thinking that the U.S is the land of opportunities and that our resources will never run out. We consume faster that what can be reproduced. What we need to do is create awareness towards children now and future generation by educating them and teaching them how to conserve and place more value in what we have.

[racin jason]

It is true that human population group needs to be controlled by
something, i just don't think laws would be the way to go. We
couldn't regulate ti with laws in America because people are free to
chose things like that for themselves. I feel that the best way to go
would be to give incentives to restrict childbirth. for example,
people who chose to have multiple children would have to apy extra
taxes or fees and those who only had one child or didn't have any at
all could recievediscounts on taxes.

[cynthia cook]

I keep hearing the same idea that creating laws limiting the number of
children would be unconstittutional but what is more important, a
persons happiness from having a plethra of children or saving the
existance of the human species on the planet earth. sometimes we have
to sacrifice for the good of our fellow man.

[Cortney Goodwin]

I also believe that there shouldn't be a law that limits the amount
of
children people can have. Even if a law like this was created it
would
only cause more problems because many people would disagree, and
eventually it would result into protests where people would continue
to have kids to show their hatred towards the government.I agree that
the rapid growth of our population is a major issue where we will
eventually run out of food and space, but making a law that enforces
how many children we can have is unethical. There are many other ways
to create a better society for our future generations, and the amount
of children being born is not the main issue. The issue that we need
to be concerned with is the way we affect the environment including
our limited resources that we use up too quickly. The fundamental
problem now ist that there are so many people and our technologies
are
powerful enough to create global effects on the environment. In
addition, education and the standard of living is significant to the
human population. If more people became literate than the population
will decrease because families will spend their funds and care for
only a few of their children, and it will eventually become a chain
reaction. Overall, I believe that the government does not have the
right to limit the number of children that are being born in this
world, but their concern should be shifted towards the maintenance of
our environment. Even if it means making new laws that enforce us to
keep the environment sustainable for the future.

[Connor]

The idea of laws which would control the population growth through
limiting reproduction sounds like it has some merit on the surface,
but as we talked about in the last philosophical discussion, a law is
only as good as its enforcement. Enforcing a law which would limit
the number of children people could have would not only infringe on
people's right to privacy, it would be impossible. the government
agency
required to handle the enforcement would have to be HUGE. think CIA
times a billion. Does anyone really want an IRS for babies?
I do, however, acknowlege that the population growth has become a
problem that needs attention one way or another. I would support
measures
more along the lines of what we talked about yestarday in class
though,
increasing the levels of education for women and contraceptive
programs.
These programs are already the most effective way of reducing the
fertility
rate, and I think with more funding and time from volunteers turning
population
growth around is quite
plausible.

[saggo...@aol.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: MD <sdouce...@gmail.com>
To: Pacifica APES <apes-d...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 10:24 am
Subject: Philosophical Chains for Thursday

Human population growth needs to be controlled by laws that limit the
number of children people can have. If individuals break these laws
then there needs to be some sort of punishment.

- I think that the human population does need to be monitored, but it will be hard to make decisions 

and follow through with ideas of improvement because many of them will violate our natural rights. We 

have the decision on how many people we add into our families, but the fault in this is that by having 

an unneccisary amount of children we are affecting the lives of others by damaging and overpopulating 

our planet. I think that if we can control the ability of people to have children, then this problem 

could slowly be deminished. The problem however is our lack of power in the entire world. I think that 

we should make the countries that are growing in population to rapidly take into consideration of what 

they are doing. If they fail to understand what they need to do then the world must act as one and control

their rate of growth. We could start by monitering the amount of children families have and try to keep it

at a reasonable level. We must not wait on our actions though, we need to take a stand now. An idea must be 

thought up on how we are going to control this problem, this puts our entire race in danger and it is not to 

mess around with.