Should there be a limit to how many children you can have?
Yes
Side Score: 4
|
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
The world is based upon survival of the fittest. So if by only allowing those with "superior" genetics to reproduce more, in time the inferior genetics will become instinct. Then there will be no "superior", and life can not sustain in equality. It's been proven. There must be big, and there must be small. There must be smart, and there must be dumb. You need both to add balance to the world, otherwise, it doesn't work. You're trying to finish a puzzle with half of the pieces. Side: No
1
point
1
point
"The world is based upon survival of the fittest" How hard do you apply yourself to your statement? There are no perfect people. Only the children of forsaken parents seem to exist and it will keep to obey that system order. Genetics won't influence, it's an exaggeration. - Simple child test. e.g. A mother loves her child, and he learns love. / A mother hates her child, and he learns love. - Even if the mother mistreats him, the child would presume it to be love. And if he would get only fed once a day, he would get used to it as norm. - And it sounded like if it's better if people have love with certain people. Science means evidence, but not like a Holy Bible where the only evidence is that book. You can't decide genetic legacy for everyone. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
Previous attempts to regulate birth rates have had unintended consequences (female infanticide, undocumented children, privileged exceptions, etc.) and encountered obstacles (i.e. if you divorce and remarry whose children limit applies?). Rather than forcibly regulate the number of children someone can have, it makes more sense to address the social pressures contributing to the birth rate. Side: No
1
point
1
point
|