Well, I guess u r volunteering not to have children, or rather to be told you can’t have children. What do you want the police to do, when u do get pregnant? Should they tie u down and perform an abortion against your will? Should they put u in jail? Should they hang you and let someone else have a child to take ur place?
Now, since you skipped a generation, there is not a generation to have that baby.
Oh, yeah, who in your community are you going to submit to tell you not to have a child? Who are you willing to have check you to see if you are pregnant? How often will they examine you to see if you are pregnant? Do they spay you and neuter your husband, like a dog ?
Comment by paigespirate — March 4, 2005 @ 10:11 am
“One every second generation” is nonsensical. Also, some 70 years ago, America bought into a ponzi scheme called Social Security that can only remain solvent so long as population increases. Were it not for immigration, we would need a law requiring every couple to have at least 3 children, just to keep that one entitlement going.
If you really wanted a policy that’d help out the country in the long run, restructuring the tax codes to give the rich encentive to have many children (like confiscatory inheritence tax, with a per-child exemption), and the less wealthy encentive to have only one child per couple (a flat tax break for having ‘one or more children’), would be sensible.
No. there are plenty of resources, and we are constantly finding more efficient ways to use them.
And I don’t understand what you mean by having a child every other generation. If a couple does not have children, there will BE no future generations in that family to reproduce.
Well, I guess u r volunteering not to have children, or rather to be told you can’t have children. What do you want the police to do, when u do get pregnant? Should they tie u down and perform an abortion against your will? Should they put u in jail? Should they hang you and let someone else have a child to take ur place?
Now, since you skipped a generation, there is not a generation to have that baby.
Oh, yeah, who in your community are you going to submit to tell you not to have a child? Who are you willing to have check you to see if you are pregnant? How often will they examine you to see if you are pregnant? Do they spay you and neuter your husband, like a dog ?
Comment by paigespirate — March 4, 2005 @ 10:11 am
“One every second generation” is nonsensical. Also, some 70 years ago, America bought into a ponzi scheme called Social Security that can only remain solvent so long as population increases. Were it not for immigration, we would need a law requiring every couple to have at least 3 children, just to keep that one entitlement going.
If you really wanted a policy that’d help out the country in the long run, restructuring the tax codes to give the rich encentive to have many children (like confiscatory inheritence tax, with a per-child exemption), and the less wealthy encentive to have only one child per couple (a flat tax break for having ‘one or more children’), would be sensible.
Comment by B.Kevorkian — March 7, 2005 @ 8:34 am
Nope. Now that’s hilarious. One child every second generation…bwahahaha.
Comment by VoodooPunk — March 10, 2005 @ 3:30 am
No. there are plenty of resources, and we are constantly finding more efficient ways to use them.
And I don’t understand what you mean by having a child every other generation. If a couple does not have children, there will BE no future generations in that family to reproduce.
Comment by cvq3842 — March 12, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
The reason we have dwindling resources is because of the government confiscating and privatizing everything
Comment by Mr. Smartypants™ — March 18, 2005 @ 2:52 am
That would never happend Many women depend on welfare to live and that is based on the number of children in the household.
Comment by Lou — March 18, 2005 @ 7:53 pm
How would you have a second generation if the first generation couldn’t have kids? :)
Comment by Barry C — March 19, 2005 @ 9:28 am