(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	luna_hoshino 2007-06-06 04:25 am UTC (link)
	Dude, your car impacts other people. Which is part of why I hate driving unless I absolutely have to, actually. Immigration or not, it's undeniable that the US population is growing at a fairly rapid pace. I just don't see a reason for contributing to that by having 5 or 6 kids, personally. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

velvet_mace
2007-06-06 04:48 am UTC (link)

Well that's the point, the 5 or 6 kids AREN'T having a significant impact. Truth be told very few women want that many kids, so you are talking a tiny minority. Our population is living longer, we have immigration, and our new immigrants have more than the average number of children (but even the group with the HIGHEST number of children statistically only comes out to having 3 kids per family.)

One woman who wants 4 kids or even 15 is not going to cause huge problems, and even population measures for the future assume that our hispanic population (the ones with the "high" fertility rate) aren't going to change their habits and start reproducing less in the next generation.

Upshot, it's not reason to get on someones case. If you really care about population growth rates, you will push for equality for women (since women who earn more statistically reproduce less)and women's health care (because even in the US access to birth control isn't universal).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chester_w 2007-06-08 05:13 am UTC (link)
	While we're pushing, can we put selecting for intelligence on the list? Future generations will thank us. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	velvet_mace 2007-06-08 02:48 pm UTC (link)
	Nope. No we can't. Because the horrors of walking down that path by far outweigh the benefits. I know you aren't being serious -- sadly some people genuinely are on that one. (Reply to this)(Parent)

iwanttobeasleep
2007-06-10 08:56 am UTC (link)

On one hand, you have a good point, a few big families mean nothing in the long run. On the other hand, wanting a big family isn't a defense for having a big family when you can't afford to feed them. And while we're at it, on one hand it's definitely the state's responsibility to make sure all children have food, clothing, and a place to live, but it's also the parent's responsibility not to create more children when they can't or can barely afford the ones they've got now. It's not just about the mother having a right to have a family as large as she wants, it's also about the children's right not to suffer unnecessarily because the mother wanted to have a large family even if she couldn't properly support all of them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

velvet_mace
2007-06-10 03:33 pm UTC (link)

Well, lets put it this way. Do you believe that we as a society should force a woman to have an abortion? Force her to give up her religious beliefs? Force her to give up her children if she isn't abusing them? Because honestly, that's the alternative. Giving up sex entirely is a harsh thing to sentence a woman to as well, especially if she's married.

It's really easy to say "then she shouldn't have these children." But in order for her to not have these children, that means somehow or other you will have to take her right to have children away from her.

I support easy and cheap access to contraceptives (which, surprise, we don't have), and heavily subsidized childcare to help women with children get back to work and off of welfare. I think that's a much more supportive than simply tut tuting and telling these women to stop having sex.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -