[learner_dancer]

(Original post by Hibz123)
Discuss

In China, yes.
But if you're referring to Britain specifically then it definitely is if you can't afford it. If the mother will be scraping by on benefits to make her children survive, then it definitely isn't ethical. They will be fed badly and given a low standard of education, and it will put even more pressure on social security. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "poor people shouldn't have kids", I'm just saying they shouldn't have more than they can cope with. As long as you can morally/pecuniarily afford to give the right love, parenting, and education to your children then it isn't unethical.

[neigh]

'unethical' for who? the kids, the parents, the babysitters, teachers, grandparents...???

i don't think 'unethical' is the right word, although not sure what is

[neomilan]

it's unsustainable

[politicaleconomist]

i view one child as unethical if you are able to support more than one

if you can support more than 2 than fair enough, if not than yes it is

[Apfel]

(Original post by politicaleconomist)
i view one child as unethical if you are able to support more than one

So we should all overpopulate the world? We should give our kids fewer things and a worse-off life so we can afford to have more and more other children?

Right....

[DarkWhite]

(Original post by Hibz123)
Sure

Population growth
Finance
Responsibility
Earth's resources
Long term implications

However I am only stating these points to develop a discussion

Population growth's an issue, granted, but that's not restricted to humans alone, and disease will undoubtedly kill some of us.

If you have the money to finance 3 kids, it's not an issue. If you don't have the money to finance more than 2 kids, then don't have more than 2. But this applies to any number i.e. if you don't have the money for 1 kid, don't have one.

I've no idea what you mean by responsibility in this context. Having 3 kids is responsible if you've taken everything into account!

Earth's resources are pretty damn good to be fair. Anything that's an issue for more than 3 kids is kinda an issue for 2 or less too. Thinking in terms of energy, we should be trying as much renewable energy as possible regardless. In terms of food, there's plenty. In terms of water, there's plenty. Some 3rd world countries do struggle however.

The only real issue I see is population growth.

[Annie72]

We have 2 children and are not planning on having any more purely because we cant afford anymore.Although, having said that, we dont want any more children anyway, money or not. Its only unethical to have more than two if you cannot afford them.

[spex]

They should bang on a tax for people who have more than 2 kids, which accounts for the cost to future generations of overconsumption of resources. It wouldn't be a popular policy, butsustainability is very important if we want to secure our future on the planet.

[Apfel]

(Original post by DarkWhite)
The only real issue I see is population growth.

What about the issue of giving all the kids enough attention and care?

[roubiliac]

If every couple were limited to 2 children the human race would die out because of those children
a percentage would die in infancy
a percentage would be sterile
a percentage would be gay
a percentage would not want children

[miss_snm]

If you can afford to look after more than two children why not have them?

If you can't..well don't have them

[spex]

(Original post by roubiliac)
If every couple were limited to 2 children the human race would die out because of those children
a percentage would die in infancy
a percentage would be sterile
a percentage would be gay
a percentage would not want children

Well obviously i think something would be done well before it got to near extinction.

[DarkWhite]

(Original post by Apfel)
What about the issue of giving all the kids enough attention and care?

What's to say that you can't do this with 3 kids? I know families with 3 kids which are absolutely amazing. The lad is an officer in the Navy, the eldest daughter is studying at Cambridge and the youngest, well, she's young, but she always seems happy! None of them are overweight, unfit, unhappy or psychologically scarred.

Like I said, if you're responsible with the matter, you take everything in your own personal circumstances into consideration, and remember always to put the kids first, then I see reason why not.

I understand though, that not all families would be suited with 3 kids. But then, not all families are suited for 2 kids, or any kids.

[Apfel]

(Original post by DarkWhite)
What's to say that you can't do this with 3 kids? I know families with 3 kids which are absolutely amazing. The lad is an officer in the Navy, the eldest daughter is studying at Cambridge and the youngest, well, she's young, but she always seems happy! None of them are overweight, unfit, unhappy or psychologically scarred.

Like I said, if you're responsible with the matter, you take everything in your own personal circumstances into consideration, and remember always to put the kids first, then I see reason why not.

I understand though, that not all families would be suited with 3 kids. But then, not all families are suited for 2 kids, or any kids.

I was rather more talking about where you said 'Anything that's an issue for more than 3 kids is kinda an issue for 2 or less fewer too', when clearly if Mr and Mrs Doe have 2 children, they are going to receive more attention (and I don't mean whiny attention, I mean for reading, learning etc) and live more comfortably than if they had 5 children, for example.

[nigel_s]

There's also a lot of "DINKs" (dual income no kids) and it's a popular way of life these days. If you don't have kids you can retire young and travel the world while you're only middle-aged. So, no, I don't think having more than 2 children is unethical, providing you can provide for them and don't expect the state to pay for them for you.

[DarkWhite]

(Original post by Apfel)
I was rather more talking about where you said 'Anything that's an issue for more than 3 kids is kinda an issue for 2 or less fewer too', when clearly if Mr and Mrs Doe have 2 children, they are going to receive more attention (and I don't mean whiny attention, I mean for reading, learning etc) and live more comfortably than if they had 5 children, for example.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. I generalised a bit by grouping them as >3 and < 2 lol, but I still feel as though the point still stands that it's perfectly reasonable to have 3 kids and give them all the attention they want and need, in terms of looking after them, caring for them, giving them the life skills and key skills that they need and so forth. Obviously if 2 parents have 15 kids over the space of 10 years, then it's going to become an issue, but I don't see an issue with say 3 or even 4 kids.

You can't put a number on it; it's not a quantitative matter.

[Absinth]

(Original post by nigel_s)
There's also a lot of "DINKs" (dual income no kids) and it's a popular way of life these days. If you don't have kids you can retire young and travel the world while you're only middle-aged. So, no, I don't think having more than 2 children is unethical, providing you can provide for them and don't expect the state to pay for them for you.

Being a DINK sounds appealing.

[nigel_s]

(Original post by Absinth)
Being a DINK sounds appealing.

It does!

[the wolf at the door]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mz7Ob4fNwE

[FatFridge]

It depends on your financial status really. If you cant afford 2+ kids, why put yourself and your children through it?