Everyone has the right to have as many kids as they want as long as they have the financial means and other necessary support. This not the case.
I think you made the cartoonist's point for him... because Mother Earth does not have the means to support a population of six billion.
Even with education and professional employment, there is not a working class person on this planet that could ever support 8 babies. It took every penny I had to support one child, even with an excellent salary at that time. If one of the 8 has even mild health problems, she has now set her and her children up to be dependents.
As a mother, I find this women's behavior as irresponsible, and believe that she will continue irresponsible decision making into her parenting skills.
... and don't forget, she had six kids before the octuplets were born. That puts her total at (let me get out my calculator)- 14
The sad fact is that in this country, you can have as many children as you want, even if you CAN'T personally support them, financially or otherwise.
But as someone else pointed out, and as Clay Bennett has so eloquently illustrated in his work of art, there is going to come a time, if we don't begin to control the population of this country and the world, that mother earth will have it's hands full trying to support us all.
We already live in a society that economically disposes of the elderly by denying them all but a minimal amount of financial assistance and health care. Some might desire to blame them for their own demise, but the fact is that people are conditioned by our own Government to play the game the way they set it up.
It's sickening to me to realize that some people will fight with every last breath to to force a mother to carry to birth any conceived child, yet most of those same people will never ponder the quality of the lives of those who are equally incapable of fending for themselves or who are no longer able to alter their qualities of life due to their aged conditions.
Quite honestly in my opinion, it has long since passed the time when Americans should have been required to apply for a permit to have a child.
We already have to prove financial stability to obtain the material possessions that we collect when we want to pay for them over time, so why not have the same approval requirements for something as costly as the raising of a child?
Although, I heartily agree with assessment of the world and the burden of overpopulation, I cannot sign onto your proposal to permit parenthood.
The fact that it would be totally unenforceable aside, it just reeks of a government that is far too controlling of our personal decisions.
As much as I would like people to act in moderation, raise their children lovingly and responsibly, and conduct their lives ethically, I realize that it's not my place to say. I do believe that our government has a large role to play in regulating behavior, but only when that behavior effects the lives, health or property of someone else.
When a parent is a danger to his or her kids- protect the children. But if their behavior MIGHT be a hazard to the family, stand down. Laws can't be based on what may happen or what might result. Those determinations are best left to a psychic reader.
Certainly, economics should never be a benchmark for allowing someone to reproduce. Someone with all the money in the world might be incapable of raising a child, while someone without a cent to their name might well be the best equipped to handle such a role.
This brought to mind one family named the Duggars.
Would it be any different if one of their children had a health issue?
In response to the comment about the Duggars--
they are financially independent. They have a house that is big enough to accommodate the entire family comfortably. The kids seem extremely happy and well-adjusted. Yes, the Duggars have 18 children, but they can support all of them! Comparing the Duggars to the octuplets' mom is comparing apples and oranges.
... or, in this case, comparing an apple orchard to an orange grove.
Well I guess if you get enough T.V. appearances and a church behind you anyone could afford 18 kids.
Global overpopulation is a myth.
The ENTIRE WORLD's population would roughly fit inside Montana and each person would have a 30-foot by 30-foot square to themselves. That's less crowded than the property my family of 4 (plus 2 dogs) live on here in Chattanooga.
Sure there are spots of local overcrowding: Mexico City, New Delhi, etc., but overall, the planet could support a MUCH larger global population with no problems.
Wow. Mr. Crumley, that is about the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
The population crisis, is not about having enough room to stand, it's about having enough resources and food to support the numbers.
The argument that global overpopulation is a myth... is the myth.
aae1049 must have one pampered child if it took "every penny" of her "excellent salary" to support her. Perhaps she doesn't manage her money well. I've had six children and on my meager salary could have supported many more.
Only MrCrumley has a clue. We have not BEGUN to tap the vast resources of this gargantuan globe. The few billion of us are as mites feeding off a resource pile the size of Everest. And the same goes for man's ability to create climate change. We just have a grossly overinflated view of ourselves.
dtadadoff, I would suggest you go look at the satellite view of much of the world on Google maps. We are not mites on Everest, we are making huge impacts on the environment. You can see these cities from space. They take up a lot of room. On all the arable land, you can see farms. You can zoom in on the forests and see the clear cuts. You can measure how much is cut down every year and figure out how long it will take before they're all gone. And yes, you can compensate for regrowth. The unoccupied areas are wastelands-arctic, desert, etc.
Sure, Nebraska could support many more people on its own, but its farms feed millions around the world.
Seriously, just go scroll around on these satellite views, and you can see how much we impact this planet.
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities. When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population, it's a big problem. In short, if the long-term capacity of an area is clearly being compromised by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soil and forests are rapidly being depleted along with its capacity to support its own population. Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated. And since they don't live solely off the land, so, not only are they depleting their own resources, but those from around the world