Should there be a one/two child policy in the UK ?

failte1950

No
They have taken almost all our civil liberties, its becoming more and more of a nanny state everyday.
If you wish to controll the population far better to educate and stop teen pregnacies.
I have 6 wonderful children and no one will stop me having more.
My body
My choice

ascoile

A better law would be that you can't have a child unless you can afford to bring it up yourself, without the taxpayers paying for it.

.

Eski.Jack

Ummm NO.
sorry do we want to be like china? no.

what happened to freedom maaan?!
srsly, why dont we all have numbers and refer to ourself with those numbers instead? NO ******* SORRY NO

maca

what about every one` s human rights

ÑÏƒÑ•Î¯Ñ”

No, I understand your point but there are better ways of dealing with it.

Thats an infringement of human rights. yes, people should be able to support children properly but to deny people the right to have children ! And anyhow look in China, they kill baby girls etc as they dont carry on the family name!

Tell me you are joking.

dumdum

No, they've (Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc.) been advocating population control for over 60 years (the UN loves China's brutal policies and holds them as an example for what they want the rest of the world to be). No one has the right to tell people how many children they should or shoudn't have! What happened with the right to choose what people do with their own bodies--how hypocritical!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QKjHuSOAmw

Scouse

Your real issue here is the tax not global warming. Do you not realise that these too many children will be paying for your pension and health care as you get older. The real danger here lies in an aging population. I think one or two people will go onto the "it stands to reason argument" if they agree with you. It doesn't stand to reason at all.

JZD

Hi Jenn

I'd keep reading, if I were you.

You might come across the chapter dealing with population, education and poverty.
In the UK, the 'average family' has 1.45 children and falling. This is because we are a rich county and we do not rely upon our children (on the whole) to support us as we get older.
The stats are skewed slightly by those in the C2DE category who have larger families.

In sub-Saharan Africa, India and large parts of Asia, they have little by way of contraceptive education and children are their insurance policy for a fruitful old age.
High infant mortality means larger families 'just in case'.

Therefore, if more people were better off, more secure in old age and better educated, the world population would gradually decline - or at elast remain static.

In the Uk, the impact of low childbirth is a population which is gradually getting older, which then requires greater expenditure of pensions and healthcare.
That is paid for by the working population which is declining.

Your proposal would accelerate that trend.

Anyway, unless all immigration was banned, simply having a lower birthrate here would have minimal overall impact on the numbers living in the UK.
No doubt the BNP would be delighted.

stanthemansmum

If you limit the number of children in society, who is going to pay your health care and pension when you are older? If you get ill and are not able to live independently any more, who is going to look after you? You will not be able to rely on the state.

The majority of people who are having problems are not feckless morons who carry on having kids for the sake of it. Many are ones who have suffered some misfortune - death of a wage earner, divorce, redundancy or an accident which means they cannot carry on with the life they had. This could not have been forseen when they had kids. Are you suggesting we start punishing people for not having the gift of hindsight?

When I had my daughter, I was working. My mother's illness meant that I had to become her carer - could I have seen this coming? Maybe I should have given up my child then. Good thing i didn't have 2 or 3 isn't it? Financially, we are still one of the most secure countries in the world. We spend more on an illegal war than we do on child benefits!

sammy

I am disgusted with most of these answers.
To save resources why not stop wasting electric switch of your PC and cut down on Nazi propaganda.

Mr Abba

No because that's up to couples. It doesn't mean you produce babies like mad but that's an individual decision. People need to look at their life's before bringing babies in this world because its not an easy job to be a father or mother.

Animemadness

Well at least put it up to 3 children i think.
British people are having less and less children actually but immigrants come in and have about 8...
Also what about human rights and i don't want kids being abandoned cos they want all girls or all boys or something like that...

geoffsmith4

Some limit 1 or 2 or 3- like that. If you think seriously, when it comes to population and society, it is hard to justify "my body, my personal rights, I do whatever I want "-type extreme liberal arguments. Also hard to justify, extremist exhortations in several religions to have very large families like with - 10, 12 or 15 kids.

I am not supporting abortion, but do not condone thoughtlessly making more babies, married or single, poor or wealthy, educated or country hicks...Just ask some of the younger children in the large families, even in a great country like USA, how much parental attention, love care and teaching they receive. For these children, Physically and Emotionally and Materially, the soup gets thinner and thinner,....

1. Except in some limited cases, as a rule, in every country, there should be a qualifying exam for would be-parents, even for first child.

2. And there should be limits on the number of children no matter the ability of parents to raise.

3. And parents should be taxed heavily after the limit has been reached, except in some limited cases (for example medical conditions)

Yellabowley

It would be simpler to reduce child benefit per child.

1st child 100% of the benefit
2nd child 66%
3rd child 33%
4th child and all subsequent children 0%.

Simple and effective. It is not morally right to stop people having children. It is morally right to stop people having children just because they want the extra benefits. The above solves that.

keeley

No, instead we should just put the lazy bums who refuse to work into a large pit which would save us having to pay out benefits. To save money, we could just pay MPs etc a lower wage as they do naff all but ride around in large, gas guzzling cars

Mr Rosenkrantz

I agree completely. All of our problems with pollution, global warming, food shorages, etc. are not because we have too few resources but because we have too many people.
A two child rule is fair and sensible.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: