The Republic of Heaven

Just found this on the BBC and wanted you all the read it, because the comments in it scared me.

Ms Freegard says it is "crazy" to think the impact on the environment would even figure in the family planning process.

No, it's not crazy, it would be crazy not to. I hope all of you here would consider what impact your babies would have on the environment and would only consider replacing yourselves. In the planet in the state it is, any crap about 'human rights' or something doesn't apply, not when the human race is growing so large that we're outstripping food supplies, killing other species and polluting the earth so badly. Not to mention the more children you have the ~*pineapples*~ you are making the world for them, which I wouldn't call responsible parenting.

I'm not starting this thread to have a debate on the subject, because there isn't anything to debate, it's just that the article has shown that somehow, there are people out there who wouldn't factor this in to their family planning. I just want you all to please think about this when the time comes for you to have kids.

Yes, I read that article and it tickled me too.

I agree I would feel a little selfish to have more than two children, although I don't feel that strongly and it depends on how many more. I feel more strongly against people who keep having kids, but can't financially support them and are dependent on government aid to maintain their family, which is antagonised by thinking about the extra kids' environmental impact.

I would support reducing the tax breaks for additional children after two, so that you got less and less support for each additional child until it went down to the bare minimum (food stamps, health care and education) after five or so and you were on your own, with the emphasis on protecting the environment. It needs to be done sooner or later, but it's a political minefield so it's bound to be put off for as long as it can be feasibly avoided.

when i first read the name of this thread, i thought it might be about nadya suleyman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleman_octuplets but i was suprised to find it wasn't... but i think the backlash at the mother of fourteen could be fair with the same criticisms. i will read the article more carefully later.

I agree with Krebbe, I always thought that having more than two kids was irresponsible in that it was more than replacing youself and your partner, but not so opposed that I confront people or anything!

Its very strange though, does anyone else on this thread actually have any children themselves so far?
I was the least maternal person ever but after my first one I can see why people chose to carry on having children, maybe even past the point of being able to support them because there is something quite addictive about holding a tiny, cute baby and I've heard people who have trouble giving up breast feeding talk about the kind of power trip of being in control of a life.

I'm one of four and its not the environment that used to upset me about it; its the fact that a mother can only divide her time so far, the quality time and interaction you can have becomes poorer if you have more children.

Perhaps the problem could be mitigated somewhat if we make sterilization a condition for adults to receive sustained public assistance, including United Nations food aid. I think it has the potential to force populations into equilibrium (ecological and economic) with minimal suffering.

Tangentially, I think reproductive assistance (including eugenics-lite sperm and egg donor selection) is fundamentally unethical. I respect difference of opinion on the subject and wouldn't try to impose my view by ballot or otherwise. I don't think children who are products of reproductive technology are tainted or anything like that. Dr. Bashir was my favorite character in Star Trek DS9 partly because of his product-of-science angst. For my part, however, I will never participate in such shenanigans. If my future wife wants IVF or something, she'll have to make a choice between me and her vanity. There are plenty of kids in foster care who need homes.

While I certainly agree that something should be done, and that we shouldn't indiscrimately breed like some of our species do (I really do not like these fellow moms I meet that just spit out kid after kid cuz they 'love being a mom') and it IS the height of irresposiblitity,no doubt. But as a woman I also realise that to make laws that restrict the reproduction rights of another also would also be a bad thing. Forced sterilization was something the Nazi's wanted to do...... It is a tricky subject, with no safe answers. Many cultures honor huge families, and many people around the world do not have the lifestyle luxeries we have, especially areas of sustained, continued violence (such as in the middle east) where death is far more common for the average individual and it is quite possible that only 2 children would not secure your 'bloodline', so to speak, as the death rates tends to be higher.

I am certainly one that does not turn a blind eye to the problem of the overpopulation of our species, but to pass laws and to force sterilization seems hardly an evolvement either.

While I would never support laws to force sterilization and/or put some legal limit on childbearing, I WOULD support that governement financial assistance be very restricted to individuals that choose to overbreed...........

I am certainly one that does not turn a blind eye to the problem of the overpopulation of our species, but to pass laws and to force sterilization seems hardly an evolvement either. . . .

I WOULD support that governement financial assistance be very restricted to individuals that choose to overbreed . . . .

I'm with you against forced sterilization. My proposal would make sterilization a condition of accepting help from the state. Nobody puts a gun to your head and tells you to go on the dole.

Simply restricting the payments for people who overbreed is unworkable. It's not the children's fault their parents can't support them. I would prevent more children from being born in the first place. Note that Ms. Suleman was on welfare before her latest brood.

i dont think its selfish at all. in fact it would be hardest on the parents coping with that many kids-if anyone has seen 'Outnumbered' on BBC, it would end up a little like that-although the parents would definitely have a degree of control rather than letting aqbsolute and utter chaos erupt.

sometimes i get under the impression that there are some people out there who do nothing but complain.

speaking of families, did anyone else hear about that 13 year old father?

That is very true. Plus, some people's religion forbids even birth control, and this contributes to the problem as well.
I can see where you can mandate sterilization UP TO A POINT in order to recieve state aid, in fact that has been suggested before, but usually shot down. I think there should be that made for state paid abortions as well, for those who seem to use it as a state-paid-for birth control. But that is only when you have passed a certain number, as the entire populace need not be punished for the indiescretions of the few.

Yeah, I heard about that. Made me shake my head, and have another Guinness I hadn't expected to drink...... :drink:

i think abortion is getting too common-i mean, fair enough if it would put the mothers or its own life at risk but some people are getting them just cos they dont want a baby. they clearly never heard of human rights-the baby is human, right?

i think abortion is getting too common-i mean, fair enough if it would put the mothers or its own life at risk but some people are getting them just cos they dont want a baby. they clearly never heard of human rights-the baby is human, right?

a) if a woman doesn't want to have a baby she shouldn't have to carry it for 9 months.
b) fetuses don't have legal rights in most countries.

also, your point is tangential and not pertinent to the debate on whether it is selfish to have more than twoish children as no one is advocating this degree of state intervention (such as sterilization) in reproductive rights.

I can see where you can mandate sterilization UP TO A POINT in order to recieve state aid, in fact that has been suggested before, but usually shot down. I think there should be that made for state paid abortions as well, for those who seem to use it as a state-paid-for birth control. But that is only when you have passed a certain number, as the entire populace need not be punished for the indiescretions of the few.

i think could be very valid... especially in the context of the united state where some states severely limit sex ed to the point where youth are not aware of better methods of birth control and thus have decreased access to it. i believe the states that have abstinence-only sex ed have higher abortion rates. i think learning about birth control (as a method family planning as well as in the context of safe sex issues) is incredibly important...

Note that Ms. Suleman was on welfare before her latest brood.

indeed. her mother has also expressed in the press that she makes no contributions to housing or food, and her retired father has also had to return to work to support his daughter and grandchildren. i can't see how that could not be understood as selfish, not only to burden the state but also your parents? also, i wonder who paid for the IVF. also big issues in ms. suleyman's case is that the doctor who performed the ivf procedures could have considered the situation of the mother and potential children before he proceeded with fertilisation. in another case, he implanted seven embryos in a women who expressed the desire to have one child only. he is now being investigated by the medical board of california for potential violation of standards of care.

from this case and onto selfishness... does that make having children a luxury more a fact of life?

Octomom's three-bedroomed house is also currently undergoing foreclosure. So she was living in a three bedroom house with six kids, on welfare and somehow has the money to pay for an unorthodox, high-risk of multiple pregnancy IVF and ends up with 14 kids.

It should be illegal for anyone to get IVF who can't afford to support the resulting children just as it wouldn't be allowed for someone to adopt a child that couldn't afford it.

I have to say, having read this thread, that the idea of compulsory sterilization, even if only temporary, as some processes can be reversed, is good, if the parents start using children as a way to get easy money, then one of them at least should be sterilized, and if it is clear that the benefit money isn't going to the children, then the children should be taken away, along with the benefits.

What times we do live in...

I was glad to hear the fertility doctor is being investigated as well. She cuddn't do it on her own.... Technology brings a resposiblity no one seems ready to take..... (money, take that yes, but responsibility, heck no.)

If my future wife wants IVF or something, she'll have to make a choice between me and her vanity.

I was really confused by this sentence, would you mind explaining it? I don't see how wanting your own children could be considered 'vain', although I do understand that there are a lot of adoptable children already about.

I don't see how wanting your own children could be considered 'vain', although I do understand that there are a lot of adoptable children already about.

If a person is unable to have children naturally, I think it would be vain to call on science to make up for his or her deficiency. It's a desperate bid for false self-actualization, like taking performance enhancing drugs to overcome limitations in sports. A disease of entitlement.

There's nothing wrong with wanting one's own children. I just disapprove of insisting on them when one's body won't oblige.

I don't see how wanting your own children could be considered 'vain', although I do understand that there are a lot of adoptable children already about.

If a person is unable to have children naturally, I think it would be vain to call on science to make up for his or her deficiency. It's a desperate bid for false self-actualization, like taking performance enhancing drugs to overcome limitations in sports. A disease of entitlement.

There's nothing wrong with wanting one's own children. I just disapprove of insisting on them when one's body won't oblige.

That could risk sinking into a debate about performance enhancement etc.

But on that point, surely if you think that just because of bodily limitations you shouldn't be able to issist a child upon yourself, then that issyin that, we shgouldn't improve ourselves at all, if you can't become pregnant with a little help, than surely you cannot cure diseases because your body can't do it, or cure paralasyis because that is how you are. I know these are extreme cases, but i am just stressing the pount of, what is the limit?

I don't see how wanting your own children could be considered 'vain', although I do understand that there are a lot of adoptable children already about.

If a person is unable to have children naturally, I think it would be vain to call on science to make up for his or her deficiency. It's a desperate bid for false self-actualization, like taking performance enhancing drugs to overcome limitations in sports. A disease of entitlement.

Or wearing performance-enhancing swimwear? The whole business of sport at the highest level is so artificial that I don't think a few drugs would make things any worse. Bring 'em on! Then at least nobody would have anything to hide any more.

There's nothing wrong with wanting one's own children. I just disapprove of insisting on them when one's body won't oblige.

I'm the same with headaches. I won't take performance-enhancing aspirin.