• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Population Control

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • No

    Votes: 43 75.4%

  • Total voters
    57
apparently since there is a misunderstanding/miscommunication...let me clear it up.

my position is and has been that the govt should not force us to support poor people who make stupid decisions and have kids that they cannot support. being raped and having a child is not a stupid decision on the part of a poor woman. therefore, the fact that such rapes occur is in no way a flaw in my arguement.

now, unless someone would like to argue that poor woman choose to be raped..the issue is irrelevent.
 
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic
Sorry, but the onus is on you, dude. Have you check the population increased through immigration (including illegal)?
 
And how is allowing children to suffer punishing the "stupid" behavior of thier parents? Also how do you account for accidents? You know...condoms breaking, contraceptives failing. Or how about women that are raped? Should a child born via a raped woman be allowed to suffer just because his mother is poor and his father raped his mother?
Your trying to make exceptions the rule is a specious argument.
 
Perhaps instead of population control we can, you know, deport the 20 million illegal aliens in our country?
 
Perhaps instead of population control we can, you know, deport the 20 million illegal aliens in our country?

:2bigcry: but...but..but...what about their innocent children who were born here? :2bigcry:
 
Actually it was quite deliberate. ;)

ah. so you meant to destroy your own argument by pointing out that non-competitive species get destroyed.

Depends on the situation. I give my money out based on situation not a percentage. I also give my time. Your 10% actually sounds like it is done due to a tithe because of your religion or because of some sort of socially acceptable amount to give out mentality...kind of like tipping a waitress.

:shrug: well you are correct - God says give away 10%, and so I give away 10%. So you do not regularly donate to charity?

As for the rates of giving...don't really care as I'm neither solely conservative or solely liberal in my thinking. My claim to being an Independent is about more than just a political stance.

well it impacts the discussion here. for all the charges of heartlessness thrown at them; those who believe the state has less of a role to play in redistributing wealth to the poor actually give significantly more to them than those who disagree.
 
:2bigcry: but...but..but...what about their innocent children who were born here? :2bigcry:

I think Bruce Hornsby said it best, "You can't go where they go because you don't look like they die (or think like they do)." Ah, but don't you believe them :).
 
:2bigcry: but...but..but...what about their innocent children who were born here? :2bigcry:
They get to go with their parents, no worries. We wouldn't separate the family.
 
They get to go with their parents, no worries. We wouldn't separate the family.

:2bigcry: but that's not fair...the anchor babies are US citizens :2bigcry:
 
I wonder if people would think "anchor baby" was a racist term. That'd be a new level of stupid.
 
I wonder if people would think "anchor baby" was a racist term. That'd be a new level of stupid.

I'm sure those folks who would rather not discuss the subject would deem it a racist term, and attempt to have it blacklisted. After all, how can one make an objection to the "anchor baby" phenomenon if they are denied the words needed to express the concept, let alone an objection to the phenomenon?
 
No, for several reasons.

1. The US doesn't have a population problem. We're a geographically huge, resource-rich country with a fraction of the population density of most other developed countries. There's no population problem. What we have is a resource over-use problem. And because population control is a slow, long-term approach, it will have no beneficial effect in the immediate or even midterm future, which is what we need - we need something that will help right now. While it certainly wouldn't hurt for us to bring our population down, it is not enough of a problem to even begin to justify the fact that...

2. ...It is impossible to enforce population control without violating people's rights. I'm pro-choice. That means I don't believe in coercing a woman into aborting any more than I do coercing her into continuing a pregnancy. Not ok. People have a right to bodily sovereignty. And besides...

3. ...There's other stuff that works better. Namely education. China trying to force their populace to limit their families has been less successful than the efforts of education, highly available birth control, opportunities for women, and good health care. This works better. Countries that have those things have lower birth rates... sometimes lower than China. And it also avoids that pesky problem of stomping all over people's right to their bodies and lives.
 
Last edited:
The United States is not overpopulated. There is no need for population control here. Very few, if any, industrialized (first world?) nations suffer from overpopulation. An aging population, with a shortage of young people, is a much more substantial problem. If there is any population control to be had here, it would be killing off the old people, not preventing births of new young people. Not saying that exterminating the aged is necessary, moral, or recommended, just that preventing more people from being born is even less necessary or recommended.
 
The United States is not overpopulated. There is no need for population control here. Very few, if any, industrialized (first world?) nations suffer from overpopulation. An aging population, with a shortage of young people, is a much more substantial problem. If there is any population control to be had here, it would be killing off the old people, not preventing births of new young people. Not saying that exterminating the aged is necessary, moral, or recommended, just that preventing more people from being born is even less necessary or recommended.

That may be a problem in the short term, but it will balance out and I don't think it's a problem worth correcting (and I would really debate whether it's as much a problem in the US as it is in Europe). While we may not be over-populated, I don't think it'd be a bad thing for us to reduce our population given our extremely heavy consumption. I don't think that's the only thing we should do by any means - and it's probably the least important. But it's worth the temporary imbalance, to my mind.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom