2 Children should be the limit says green guru

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece

I find the idea of forced family planning to be something that people would be justified in reacting violently against. Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with taking away peoples freedom.

UN Declaration on Genocide:

"Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

© Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide."

unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

And the liberal agenda continues.

Indeed. In his book Earth in the Balance Al Gore suggests limiting families to only two children. I think that book was published in the early '90’s.

Why is it that none of these so-called “population experts” volunteers to die so that he or she won’t be using any more of the Earth’s resources? Why do they think that their lives are any more important or valuable than someone else’s, no matter how young or old?

:rotfl: :rotfl: I have 2 kids who are glad this idiot was not the last word in our house. Of course they think they are more important than other people!

I’m conflicted on this…I would certainly never want to interfere with a family’s choices regarding children. However, I also don’t like it when things start getting crowded (urban sprawl).

Wish I had a solution,

John

Pro death folks see people as a problem.

Yep! Just listen to Nancy Pelosi!

:amen:

Doesn’t he have four?:confused:

Yes, several sources state that Al and Tipper Gore have four children. Now, how would he go about determining which two shouldn’t have been born? It’s easy for someone to talk about these types of issues in an abstract sense, but when you put names and faces in the debate, I bet that many of these “population experts” will begin to backpedal when their own families are included.

Guess what? Nancy Pelosi is the youngest of six children and has five children of her own! Now isn’t she glad her parents didn’t abort babies three through six? Why is she telling others to have fewer children when she has five? It’s amazing how the self-righteous in Congress don’t live according to their own dictates.

Maybe this is her little way of saying she wishes she hadn’t had so many kids:shrug:

So, when can I expect to see Blue Helmeted soldiers arriving to take away Kennedy, Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

I do not think they will be in blue helmets. Rather, they will be in white coats.

You all must remember, the rules made by the weatlhy do not apply to the weathly, the elite, or the privilaged classes of society.
And the blue helmet or white coats won’t be coming after them, if you get my drift.

I don’t think it’s so much crowding as lifestyle.Families are smaller but have larger homes.Each divorce creates another household.
Folks used to live with at least three generations under one roof.Now we have single folks or couples occupying 3,0000 sq. ft. homes.
I hate sprawl, too, but it’s more of a county/city planning commission issue than due to larger families.

I don’t think it’s so much crowding as lifestyle.Families are smaller but have larger homes.Each divorce creates another household.
Folks used to live with at least three generations under one roof.Now we have single folks or couples occupying 3,0000 sq. ft. homes.
I hate sprawl, too, but it’s more of a county/city planning commission issue than due to larger families.

You make some good points and I agree with everything you say.
However, I can clearly remember when LBJ stood in front of an electronic board and celebrated the US going over the 200 million mark. We are now over 300 million.

That has to leave a mark.

Whether or not smaller families would be beneficial is certainly debateable. However, as I said earlier, I would never want to see that legislated.

John

Most of the population increase in 1st world countries is due to immigration; we’re holding even or dropping from births alone. The world-wide population increase comes from 3rd world countries, not 1st world. Give them the same options that we have, and they will have their populations drop, too. Sadly, they will then drop too much (like us) because in addition to the natural drop from greater opportunity, education, self-sufficiency, etc. which will result in later marriages, more single people, etc. most likely - people are also going to probably push contraception & abortion.

The rate of increase world-wide is slowing already, and expected to cap around 10 billion with current trends, then decrease again. If you’re still worried, here’s my plan for reducing population further:

  1. Honor and revere vocations outside of marriage (religious, single, etc.). This may help open those called to other vocations to their callings.
  2. Get rid of our sex-obsessed culture and obsess over something more worthy (ideally, Jesus or other faith-related things, but building communities and friendships are steps in the right direction for those without strong (or any) faith).
  3. Encourage young people to take their time in discerning marriage, encouraging them to wait until they are ready to have children before taking their vows.

These steps will decrease population growth in healthy, prudent ways without turning children into a disease.

By the way - a fun piece of math to do every few years is calculate the area of Texas divided by the world’s population. Yeah, the sq. ft. per person is shrinking - but this is just Texas, and we have apartments and such to make better use of space. Even with roads and everything, there’s plenty of room. Then use the rest of the world to grow crops, etc. Obviously, things aren’t quite that simple - but it’s illuminating, nonetheless.

I do worry about carbon levels, but those could be handled by a reduction in selfishness and some effort. But hey, I guess blaming large families is easier than changing uber-consumerist lifestyles for people who didn’t expect to have more than two kids.

One point about 2 kids per family - these families use more resources per child than families with more children. Since large families are more efficient, maybe we should make public policy support fewer but larger families? Supporting one family out of 5 having ten children and the rest being childless has the same result as two children each.

Or, for heaven’s sake, why don’t we just leave things where they are: Right in between, a hybrid, some families big and some small and some childless, without even requiring dehumanizing laws about birth control! Funny how that works.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.