Should there be a limit to the amount of kids you can have?

They aren't allowed to keep the children if they legitimately can't afford to take care of them.

How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?

With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?

Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.

And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.

Originally posted by cdtm
How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?

With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?

Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.

And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.

Yeah, tbh, all the ideas here really sound like a Great Leap Forward...

Originally posted by krisblaze
They aren't allowed to keep the children if they legitimately can't afford to take care of them.

Which I believe is a policy that already exists.

Giving anyone the power to force someone else to gst fixed, though (Because there aren't a lot of other ways to make sure someone doesn't breed), is a different story. That's one slippery slope we don't want to go down, as history proves.

Originally posted by cdtm
Which I believe is a policy that already exists.

That was my point. 😄

Originally posted by krisblaze
They aren't allowed to keep the children if they legitimately can't afford to take care of them.

So you either have put the children down, you deny their parents the welfare effectively starving the children to death, you place these children in a state orphanage which will require the same amount of money as the parents would to raise the children, or you spend the money on improvising the adoption system—which is more likely to be an overall financial burden on the nation than the welfare system considering the circumstances.

Originally posted by Astner
How would this even go about? Some people are going to have children whether they can support them or not.

So you either have put the children down, you deny their parents the welfare effectively starving the children to death, you place these children in a state orphanage which will require the same amount of money as the parents would to raise the children, or you spend the money on improvising the adoption system—which is more likely to be an overall financial burden on the nation than the welfare system considering the circumstances.

Though they could just take the child away so they could make Apple products.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Let's call spade a spade: this is fascism we're talking about. Heinlein wrote damn good sci-fi, but he was also a dumb prick who advocated for a military-worshipping fascist state. May he rot.

This is all just theories (on my part anyway). Nothing is going to be accomplished
If you answer "yes" to the OP, without the government having a hand in things, to one degree or another.
The honor system isnt going to cut it.

In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.

In order for something like this to work properly, the government would have to keep strict tabs on the population. People would have to castrate themselves like they do to their pets, and then we would have to factor in all of the people that die on a daily basis. I don't think that people should go around having 7-10 children because of how expensive it is to raise just one, but placing hard restrictions on people would be horrible. If this came to be, I'd be waiting for the thought police to be enlisted next. However I have no doubts that our world could soon be run under an iron fist due to our irresponsible natures.

Originally posted by Astner
How would that even be managed?

"Congratulations ma'am, it's a girl! I see here that the legal documents state that you already have two children. So this one is going to have to be put to death and harvested of its organs. So don't get too attached."

And if you get anymore they should have to starve to death. 👆

Can you even harvest baby organs or would you need them to grow a little before you demolished them?

What could you use babies for besides stem cells?

@Astner

They're put into foster care 😐

Real talk:
Limiting the amount of kids per family isn't a real issue. As more countries become more civilized, rich and educated, people have less kids per home.

The current trend is that all notions are becoming more rich, civilized, and educated. To say otherwise is the same as saying the world isn't what it used to be. This is to say things are getting worse( which is absolutely not true).

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Can you even harvest baby organs or would you need them to grow a little before you demolished them?

What could you use babies for besides stem cells?

Originally posted by krisblaze
They're put into foster care 😐

There's no limit that makes sense, so I'd say no. Very, very, very few families in America have more than 5 kids, and putting some arbitrary limit on family size wouldn't stop unfit parents from having kids than child protective services does now.

Originally posted by Astner
What if no foster family is available?

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
The organs would be highly undeveloped, lol, so it wouldn't work. But on part of Astner (what he was actually trying to convey) it was a great exaggeration for the purpose of disagreeing with the notion proposed and on my part, I thought it was a good joke.

We have the funds, building, and tools already but we just need some sort of marketing. Not sure "We harvest babies" would fly.

There's small rural towns in Australia that suffer from under population or simply not enough of the younger generation to sustain the various trades needed.

Sometimes the government or rural council will offer subsidies to encourage folk with families (ideally with a trade background) to relocate to the town to maintain its growth.

Real estates have been known to offer $1/wk rent to attract people to move in.

I'm just saying this could be an incentive if you have more children & are on public assistance.