Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ok. i think for the irresponsible people of the world who have kids and kids and kids.. for the welfare (free $) they are all going to hell, BUT they are also distroying the world with kids who ae brought up in broken homes who then in return have kids and kids and kids and are on welfare themselves... it NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!! if u can't support them DON'T have them.
Actually most first world countries' populations are starting to level off or slope to a negative.
You are 100% correct:
Probably all First World (and former Communist Bloc) countries are at 2.1 children per woman or less with more and more Third World nations either there or have dropping birthrates.
ok. i think for the irresponsible people of the world who have kids and kids and kids.. for the welfare (free $) they are all going to hell, BUT they are also distroying the world with kids who ae brought up in broken homes who then in return have kids and kids and kids and are on welfare themselves... it NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!! if u can't support them DON'T have them.
Not so sure about that; at least here in Arizona.
Using Hispanics as an example; about 15-20 years ago it was quite common to see 3-5 kids per mother-------today, the norm seems to be 1-2 children with anything above 3 highly unusual.
If it were up to me I'd let people "replace themselves" and that's it.... which means 2 kids per couple, tops. Maybe some sort of "cap and trade" system whereas people who only want one kid can sell off the right to have the other to a family that wants more?
But of course I can't imagine allowing a government ever dictate that!
Already moot: the birthrate here in the USA is 2.1-----the replacement level.
And that is counting immigrant birthrates as well------as a group: native born Americans are probably below that magical 2.1 level.
Am sure this has already been mentioned, but to me the bigger picture is the extinction of the European populaton. They are the ones having only 1.2 kids, not even replacement. The irresponsible third worlders and impoverished minorities here in the US are having the many children they cannot provide for and afford. The thinking is that these children will one day be able to take care of them, and so looked upon as an economic "benefit". I do think there is a push from some sectors of society now to have more children, so we are not wiped out. Don't know if it will be the answer though.
Nope, I don't think there should be a limit. I'm not a fan of welfare queens...that's for sure. But to do otherwise would be to infringe on our freedom. All of my maternal gradparents and my father grew up in poverty. Yet I'm glad they're parents had them hence how I'm here today.
That is unless you wish for the United States to become like communist China
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
