Re: Digest for apes-doucette@googlegroups.com - 9 Messages in 2 Topics

[st4ph...@yahoo.com]

I have to agree with everyone too that controlling the number of births is unconstitutional.  It's deprives people of their rights and as for women I don't believe anyone should have regulation on what a person can do with their bodies.   If human population is a problem maybe the government, media, elected officials should inform the public more how it's a problem. The only thing we can do try to take the future earth into consideration when choosing how many children they should have.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:07 PM, apes-douce...@googlegroups.com wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/apes-doucette/topics

• Philosophical Chains for Thursday [8 Updates]
• October 17 Kayaking Trip [1 Update]

 Topic: Philosophical Chains for Thursday

Helen Tran <helen...@gmail.com> Oct 11 07:55PM -0700 ^

 
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?
 


 

"Nicole.U" <princessp...@yahoo.com> Oct 11 08:39PM -0700 ^

 
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.


 

Priscilla Tran <priscilla...@gmail.com> Oct 11 09:00PM -0700 ^

 
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.
 


 

"Jenniee (:" <fueledb...@gmail.com> Oct 11 09:36PM -0700 ^

 
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 <h2on...@gmail.com> Oct 11 11:55PM -0700 ^

 
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"
 


 

"Lauren!" <laurenmi...@yahoo.com> Oct 12 04:35PM -0700 ^

 
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 <meger...@gmail.com> Oct 12 06:48PM -0700 ^

 
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 <nov...@yahoo.com> Oct 12 07:05PM -0700 ^

 
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?
 


 

 Topic: October 17 Kayaking Trip

laurenmi...@yahoo.com Oct 12 09:42AM -0700 ^

 
sounds awesome.