ChaoticKnuckles posted...
streamofthesky posted...
wwinterj25 posted...
Providing you can provide for said children there shouldn't be a limit on how many you can have.
ChaoticKnuckles posted...
Not if you can afford to support them.
And what if something happens and you no longer CAN provide for your giant brood spawn? Stuff happens, people get injured, lose their high paying career and never reach nearly the same income potential, etc...
Then you're S.O.L.? I don't really think the chance that you're going to suffer some catastrophe that causes you to lose your job is reason to impose a limit on everyone. I mean you could say that about people that have only one or two kids too. What if the parents die and don't have the adequate life insurance to provide for the kids until they're old enough to make their own money? That's not a reason to tell people they can only have a certain number of kids.
If it's only one or two, the cost to society is limited. When all of a sudden you're dumping the financial responsibility of six or so kids on the taxpayers just from one person's unlucky turn of fortunes, that's a much bigger impact.
If parents expect the government to have their children's backs should they fail to provide for the kids, it's not asking much to at least not let them excessively draw from the taxpayers' money.
This isn't the 1800's, kids aren't dying to Tuberculosis at 8 years old or getting mangled in factory work. No one needs half a dozen freaking kids to make sure some actually reach adulthood, anyone who chooses to is just being selfish.