Opinions on abortion

[Greenday]

Even if the government tries to enforce a 1 child per family rule (which I wouldn't mind seeing), God knows how many people will claim this is against the freedom of religion.

[tendomentis]

Even if the government tries to enforce a 1 child per family rule (which I wouldn't mind seeing), God knows how many people will claim this is against the freedom of religion.

The government wouldn't be able to force couples to restrict themselves to one child without violating various human rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union would have a field day with it if they tried.

If you read my earlier post, you would understand that the "one child law" would only go so far as to limit tax credits that parents receive to one child and one child only. The couple would be free to have more than one child, but they would no longer receive tax credits for the other children as they do now, thereby giving an INCENTIVE to couples to keep to only one child.

Many (not all) large families in the USA have as many children as they do specifically to take advantage of the tax credits afforded by having many children to claim as a tax deduction (particularly lower income households). From a fiscal standpoint, the tax credits received from having multiple children could outweigh the minimum financial requirements of actually having that many children to care for......which is why we have so many large families in the USA where the children exist in a perpetual state of neglect.

This particular "one child law" applies only to tax credits, and only exists to offer families with one child more of an incentive to stay small as opposed to the current system (which is essentially the antithesis).

I don't have the links to the studies to back up my comments here at work, but a quick google should provide you the necessary references.

[AFPheonix]

While our current fertility rates are at their highest since 1970, they're still only at ~2.13 births per woman. Not very high at all. In fact, if there had been no incoming immigration in this country since 1990, our population would have actually declined.
It's not really the US or the rest of the 1st world that's contributing to overpopulation. It's countries who are coming out of the third world that are experiencing lower infant mortality, but still haven't quite figured out that they don't need to have three gazillion children in the hopes that a few make it past childhood.

[tendomentis]

While our current fertility rates are at their highest since 1970, they're still only at ~2.13 births per woman. Not very high at all. In fact, if there had been no incoming immigration in this country since 1990, our population would have actually declined.
It's not really the US or the rest of the 1st world that's contributing to overpopulation. It's countries who are coming out of the third world that are experiencing lower infant mortality, but still haven't quite figured out that they don't need to have three gazillion children in the hopes that a few make it past childhood.

I'm sure it wasn't always as bad in China as it is now either. It would set a good example, and demonstrate a possible move towards more forward thinking on the part of the United States (something we as a nation generally lack). Would it make a huge dent in and of itself on the overpopulation problem? Not so much.

But if other nations followed suit, it would. And that's the point.

[Seshat]

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child, and if this is true there would be little to create legitimate opposition to this kind of legislation.

I believe there are. There are certainly cultural reasons: many cultures view the number of children a man sires to be a mark of his masculinity.

The Roman Catholic Church has an injunction against contraception. I've never fully understood the Pope's reasoning there, but the injunction exists.

Islam has limits on when contraception is permissible. Again, don't ask me for details - I just did a quick Google search and double-checked my results on several sites. It looks like the interpretations of Sharia law may vary depending on which school of Islamic thought you're working from.

The Mormons encourage large families, and while contraception is permissible, it's a religious duty to have many children.

There are probably other religions where it's a religious duty to have multiple children. I only researched the ones that came to mind immediately.

[tendomentis]

And, AGAIN, this change in policy would not prevent people who felt it was their duty from having more children, it would only remove the tax credit rewarding system that currently awards those (IMHO selfish) people with tax credits for doing so, thereby giving a financial incentive to keep families small.

It wouldn't make 1+ children/family illegal, just not as profitable as it is now.

[linguist]

are you honestly calling raising children profitable? a $1000 tax credit is nothing compared to what the average family spends yearly on raising a child. i know families who are spending that much or more every month just on child care, let alone all the other costs associated with raising children.

and what about multiple births? would your system penalize parents of twins (or triplets, etc.) since they'd be having more than one at one time?

[tendomentis]

As I said in an earlier post, SOME parents intentionally "pump out" as many children as they can to take advantage of welfare and tax deductions while essentially allowing their children to live in neglect, so in those cases they are doing it in the interest of profit.

I'm not making this up. Even in relatively upscale areas around DC, I know a handful of people personally who either are or know someone else who is doing this very thing.

Obviously, if a woman is naturally having (stress NATURALLY, taking fertility drugs to increase the chance of multiple births shouldn't apply) multiple children in one pregnancy, that couple would be exempt for the +1 children as a result of that pregnancy if one of the children in that birth was that couple's first child. This could be easily proven via medical records.

Just as individuals must have proof of other tax deductions, they would have to have the medical records to prove that the other children were the result of a single pregnancy. Easy as sleep.

Turning a blind eye to the population problem is just another example of the "boiling frog" mentality that humans in 1st world nations tend to exercise in issues like this. This would START to correct this inescapable issue before it becomes a larger problem. In past human civilizations, overpopulation of some cultures lead to resource wars and resulted in more deaths and damage.

[rahmota]

Well to jump in I'll say that your plan might complicate the tax laws quite a bit more than they already are. One reason a nice simple flat tax would be the best as it wouldnt "reward" people for haivng more kids.

Which to be perfectly honest I have never felt rewarded by having multiple kids. What tax relief I get for having more than one kid (which does have limits and strict requirements to get already) is spent/exceeded by the amount of upkeep and costs associated with the kids. To put it in strict business terms.

Kids have a daily maintenece drain on your resources. They (at least in America) do not contribute to the main income of the family until they are teenagers and then only for a few years before they become adults on their own and move out or whatever. And usually during the time they are working and living at home they are spending their moeny on themselves so at least the parent doesnt have to spend as much of their own on them, but the bad thing is teenagers have a whole nuther set of expenses too and usually big ones.

I'll agree that not paying attention to the population problem is not going to solve anything. However the solution is going to be somewhat complex and difficult to implement.

Seshat: One of the things about the roman catholics prohibitions against contraception that I've heard/read about the most is that it intereferes in the divine will of god to either impregnate or not the woman.

[tendomentis]

While you may take good care of your multiple children, I know many families where that isn't the case and the parents are using the children to bleed more money from welfare and claim the children as tax deductions. They contribute to the overpopulation just to profit, and the neglected children suffer.

I agree that the tax law would get complicated if any exceptions were allowed, but without the exceptions for natural multiple births, the new law would be unjust as natural multiple births aren't planned and are more or less a product of chance. If progress was easy, we would have already done it.

[DesignFox]

I don't really see a tax break or lack there-of doing anything to offset the problem with population.

People who want a bazillion children are going to go forth and multiply. That's just the way it is. The groups I notice who typically breed like rabbits, aren't always the most well-off. I don't think taking away the tax-break will stop them from breeding; I think it will just hurt them more because they will have an even harder time financially. Children are a huge drain on resources. I watch some of these moms do the absolute best they can for their kids, and I see others who are obviously struggling and shouldn't have those kids. I simply cannot see how they are making any sort of profit out of the tax break.

I think another big problem has already been mentioned- cultural or religious upbringing. It is engrained in some people's minds that they HAVE to have large numbers of children, or else they aren't being a good [insert religious/culture type] here.

So, I don't see taking away a tax break keeping those types of people from having more children- they will only feel punished by our government for being a "good" [insert religion/culture]. And their children will only suffer further.

The United States is too culturally and religiously diverse to enact any such limitations. Unless we have a clear cut crisis like China, you'll be hard pressed to convince some groups of people that they should be limiting the size of their families.

[tendomentis]

It doesn't speak well for the United States if nothing will be done about a population crisis until the situation is critical.

What I'm proposing would slowly start to turn the reigning mentality of "have as many children as you can" to a more efficient and responsible mentality. No, it wouldn't happen overnight, and no it wouldn't work on everyone, but it would little by little make a difference, especially if other nations started enacting similar policies.

It's preferable to waiting until the situation is critical and then using state sponsored abortion and penalization of the parents to accomplish the same end result, at least in my opinion.

[DesignFox]

It would be preferable. But I don't see it happening.

[Seshat]

What I'm proposing would slowly start to turn the reigning mentality of "have as many children as you can" to a more efficient and responsible mentality. No, it wouldn't happen overnight, and no it wouldn't work on everyone, but it would little by little make a difference, especially if other nations started enacting similar policies.

Cultural, rather than financial, change is what's needed. I know you're trying to make a cultural change through financial means, but there are people using art and religion to make a cultural change through other means. Some of them are having great success, especially in the third world.

There are small but growing areas of the third world where the women now have the right to insist on their husbands wearing a condom, and where there are trained maternity and pediatric nurses improving the child mortality figures. (One of the cultural pressures for having multiple children is high child mortality - having many kids increases the chance of child survival. Reduce child mortality and you reduce the pressure to have many kids.)

The problem with using financial means is that it increases the stress on already-poor families who are genuinely trying to raise their children properly. Yes, it reduces the incentives for the people who do use children as a form of income, but it penalises those who are making a real effort.

[AFPheonix]

And furthermore, it will have an economic effect as the total population of the US grows older, since there will be fewer young people to assist with monetary care of the old.
The US needs to set a better example to the world not by totally undercutting our ability to take care of our elders later on, but perhaps by doing a better job with developing nations who have a higher birth rate.
Hell, the US could set a great example by instituting decent sex ed in schools and promoting condom and contraceptive use better amongst its citizens, and helping to spread the message and the materials abroad.