Gov't forced number of kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
Do any of you think that the US government will ever “force” a certain number of kids a couple may have? They would need to have a “logical” excuse, so they might call it the “prevention of child abuse” or something like that.
 
If they ever attempted to try such a thing, I would feel that it would be a moment in which I must begin acting in civil disobedience, as that’s definitely unconstitutional (It’s either amendment 9 or 10…which is the one that says rights not outlined in the constitution belong to the people, and are not to be infringed?)

Assuming the government would start repressing dissent over such a thing (at that point, the government would be proudly disregarding the Constitution), I would deem it necessary to oppose the government in any moral way, in accordance with the right to re-establish a good government if need be that was outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
 
They already do in cases of severe deadbeat parenting and abuse.
 
Sadly, I think it’s a very real possibility. On one hand we have extremists who say that having kids is bad for the environment and we are overpopulated as it is, and on the other side we have people like “octo-mom” (sorry, I can’t for the life of me remember her name) who had 8 kids on top of already having several others. These “super-moms” only reinforce the ideas of those seeking to limit population, and are exploited as examples of how the government should limit births, and presented to the public to shock them into “doing something about it”. I also have personal friends who think that the government should be getting more involved with population limits or even “breeding permits” where only those decided by the state who are willing and able to have a child (or another child) can have one.

To be honest, I see the move for socialized medicine as a step in that direction. No, the current health care plan won’t do such a thing. However, I see the steps taken towards universal healthcare enables the government to choose who and what they pay for. If they say “we will only pay for each couple to have 2 children” they have just instituted population control.
 
presidentjlh said:
If they ever attempted to try such a thing, I would feel that it would be a moment in which I must begin acting in civil disobedience, as that’s definitely unconstitutional (It’s either amendment 9 or 10…which is the one that says rights not outlined in the constitution belong to the people, and are not to be infringed?)

Assuming the government would start repressing dissent over such a thing (at that point, the government would be proudly disregarding the Constitution), I would deem it necessary to oppose the government in any moral way, in accordance with the right to re-establish a good government if need be that was outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it is the 10th Amendment that reserves rights not in the Constitution to the States or people

“Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

Source: archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

But this amendment is outright ignored or glossed over often by citing the “Necessary and Proper Clause” so it would not surprise me at all if the federal government did something like this that was so blatantly unconstitutional. So much that they have done in the past and are doing currently is blatantly unconstitutional.

I would hope and pray that the uproar from and angry national should any such mandate be enacted would be such that it would be quickly repealed. I do not want to live in China and I am pretty sure a large number of American’s share that sentiment.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
To be honest, I see the move for socialized medicine as a step in that direction. No, the current health care plan won’t do such a thing. However, I see the steps taken towards universal healthcare enables the government to choose who and what they pay for. If they say “we will only pay for each couple to have 2 children” they have just instituted population control.
Click to expand...
Sadly I think you are correct. This also ties into the constitutionality argument. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government should have ANYTHING to do with the health care of the general population?
 
I read somewhere recently that with that debacle environmental summit they held a few months ago, that someone suggested following China’s one child policy for the benefit of the planet.

There’s a movie with Christopher Lambert in it, The Fortress, it deals with an American govt. preventing people from having more then one kid per couple, its kind of creepy. Especially what they do with “illegal breeders”.
 
Yes it was brought up, China wanted carbon credits for it I believe. Large familys tend to have less of a carbon credit per capita though, this is due to recycling, bulk purchases, and more passengers in vehicles.
 
No, I don’t think the US government will do that. Lots a paranoia going around. If a couple wants 3 or 10 it is up to them.

vera…who is the “someone”…site source please.

Ah wikipedia…the end all be all of “truthful” information. The internet…the vast wasteland of useful information.

Jermosh: “They already do in case of deadbeat parenting and abuse”
Ok…exactly “WHO” is “THEY”

And yes…it is a great thing for a child to grow up with a deadbeat abusive parent. :rolleyes:

Whitacre_Girl:Sadly, I think it’s a very real possibility. Bandwagon of paranoia, anyone? 🤷

presidentjlh: *Assuming the government would start repressing dissent over such a thing (at that point, the government would be proudly disregarding the Constitution), I would deem it necessary to oppose the government in any moral way, in accordance with the right to re-establish a good government if need be that was outlined in the Declaration of Independence. *

This is the most “logical” statement.

How about this. Go to your nearest maternity home…where there are young women who are lost, confused and need your assistance…whatever you are able to give. Let them know how precious life is and that the child they are carrying needs their full attention, love and nurturing. If the young woman decides she cannot parent…there are thousands of couples praying for that child. Teach her the sanctity of her body and how it must be respected. Encourage her to seek out education, job skills to provide for her child should she decide to parent. If she chooses to place the child, show her the options of Open, Semi Open and Closed adoption.

Arm chair quarterbacking about the paranoia surrounding this current administration, gets us no where. It spreads fear and is is far from pro-active for the cause of life.
 
Julianna said:
Ah wikipedia…the end all be all of “truthful” information. The internet…the vast wasteland of useful information.
Click to expand...
Ah, but the US government really did sterilize people it didn’t want to have children (the mentally in this case, but not everyone who was sterlized was actually mentally ill/unfit to have children) it’s real… I learned it this semester in genetics class (It’s in the textbook, Human Heredity: Principles and Issues)

But I highly doubt the US government will start restricting children again any time soon… there isn’t a good reason to, and of course it would cause immense outrage, maybe even rebellion.
40.png
julianna:
Arm chair quarterbacking about the paranoia surrounding this current administration, gets us no where. It spreads fear and is is far from pro-active for the cause of life.
Click to expand...
I agree… I don’t see any evidence that this will happen
 
As a reproducing Mom who has had a couple of babies that spent days and weeks in the hospital/NICU, I know the actual medical costs of having babies. I doubt very seriously that the government would ever do something as overt as what they do in China with forced sterilizations and abortions; but I do see them using China’s subtler tactics.

Ok, lets take health care. No one worth their financial salt thinks that private insurance companies will be able to operate profitably under the current HC legislation. People are saying five to seven years tops before the government steps in to “save” health care by offering a single payer plan. But even if that doesn’t happen, there is nothing stopping the government from adding to current legislation in order to accomplish this limiting of children.

How? How about refusing to cover more than the births of three children? How about offering financial incentives (in terms of cold, hard cash) for sterilization? $5000 if you do it after one child, $3000 if you do it after 2, $2000 after 3, etc. How about limiting the number of births “allowed” to high-risk women? If you have one baby that cost more than $250k upon birth, you will only be “allowed” one more before you have to pick up the entire tab for medical expenses incurred., etc.

This is also why it was sooo durned important that abortion be a part of the HC bill by the way. It turns out medical costs are way reduced if you kill babies early on or prevent their conception in the first place.

There are a lot of reasons I’m worried about this so-called reform, the above being one of the first things that occurred to me to be a possibility.
 
I admit I like the idea of having to have a permit to have kids. But not sure how the government could really make that work fairly.
 
Calliso said:
I admit I like the idea of having to have a permit to have kids. But not sure how the government could really make that work fairly.
Click to expand...
Why do you like that idea? You don’t think it’s your God given right to "be fruitful and multiply’?
 
I would not be surprised. I am also worried that eventually women will be forced to have their unborn babies tested for “defects” and then have the unworthy ones aborted.
 
If the government were to enforce that most horrible “one-child” law, I would definitely have to begin to promote ways in which we could remove all the members of the government and go back to the way the government was in its origins: A noble, limited, just government.

(I have to be very careful how I phrase anything. Mr./Ms./Mrs. Federal Agent reading this post, I am not at all calling for open rebellion against the government. That would be the last thing I would want to do.)
 
aball1035 said:
Do any of you think that the US government will ever “force” a certain number of kids a couple may have? They would need to have a “logical” excuse, so they might call it the “prevention of child abuse” or something like that.
Click to expand...
Without forced abortion, the government could not even approach the success rate today’s drug companies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top