dynasaw Donating Member (606 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 11:45 AM
Original message
The Absurd Taboo in Discussing Family Size
With the arrival of their fourth child the Beckhams have been called "a bad role model" and envronmentally
irresponsible.
Critics of the Beckhams cite: " "We need to have a far greater public debate about population, whether it focuses on improving family planning or reducing global inequality – and looking again at how we address the strain on our natural resources. The absence of an open and honest discussion about this issue means most people don't give much thought to the scale of global population growth in recent years. In 1930, just one or two generations ago, the world's population stood at around two billion. Today it is around seven billion, and by 2050 it is projected to rise by a third to 9 billion.
"We live as if we have three planets instead of just one. It is interesting that public figures, environmental groups and NGOs in general have tended to steer away from population to the extent that it's become a taboo issue." Rather than seeking to restrict family size as in the cast of China, the Greens in U.K. emphasize " "Policies that focus on increasing access to birth control for all who want it, reducing poverty and inequality, improving food security and tackling environmental degradation are where we should be focusing our attention."
This is an issue that doesn't seem to strike us in the U.S. American culture seems to glorify having babies, thanks to the right wing, and the subject (even more so than in the U.K.) still pretty much taboo.
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/population-...
Refresh | +11 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1508209Did I read this right? Did this article pretty much say the world should adopt China's one child policy?
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Population growth in the US has nothing to do with families.
Edited on Sun Jul-17-11 04:52 PM by lumberjack_jeff
Or any other selfish breeders.
A fertility rate of 2.06 is sub-replacement. Non-Hispanic whites in the US have a fertility rate of 1.9.
Population growth in the US has less to do with the Duggars and much more to do with those who rely on cheap arugula.
So if you get pregnant and don't have the doctor suck the clump of cell's brains out, you are selfish?
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Your body, your choice - unless we have decided we don't like that anymore (nt)
That's exactly why we say you goons are pro abortion.
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. vs: Children Starving to death in 3rd world countries
kind of changes perspective when discussing "Choice"
Yet killing the unborn baby is just fine in your world.
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. But Birth Control is ILLEGAL in many countries
were not talking abortions - just a simple plain pill
and God forbid anyone ever offer Free Vasectomy for men who already have 2 or more children and can't afford to feed the children they already have
Shouldn't we just take money from the rich to feed those kids?
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Yeah, funny how it's ok to tell women what to do with their bodies when we agree with it
I don't see much of a distinction between shaming a woman for having an abortion or shaming a woman for having 4 or more kids. Either way it is NOT ANYONE ELSE'S ****ING BUSINESS.
Liberalism is full of contradictions. Libs say they love freedom, unless that freedom goes against how they think people should behave.
JackDragna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Actually, at some point, it becomes everyone's business.
The planet can only support so much human interaction and population. We're already draining its resources at a dizzying rate. You can frame it as "choice," but the right to choose carries with it responsibilities. If everyone decides to have four children and thereby causes the environmental damage being done to the planet to rise to catastrophic levels and further increases the percentage of our population living in privation, then it's something we must consider as a species.
JackDragna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
48. The world population grows tremendously, however..
..and all nations have a responsibility to keep it at a level where it does not result in the destruction of our planet and of our species.
Then why are you anti war? Does not war kill people and thin out the population?
hughee99 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. I guess "my body, my choice" only applies to those who make the "right" choices. n/t
Exactly!
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. There are legislative solutions to this
Limit personal exemptions and child tax credits to only the first two children. We already do that with child care tax credits.
You might make an exception for adopted children, and multiple births, but that would affect only a small number of people. You'd still have the freedom to overbreed, but you just wouldn't have as much of a government subsidy for doing so.
I never thought I would see a DUmmy call for a cut to welfare.
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-17-11 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
50. I think that families should only be allowed to have one child.
Do people need two or three children anymore? Absolutely not. The more kids equals more strain on our finite resources.
This is an issue that's going to have to be addressed soon.
The DUmmies are selfish as hell, they want to limit population so they can get more money from the rich handed to them, and not have to share it.
