Democracy is the evocation of free speech and independent thinking, built upon a foundation of inherent family values. In accordance with this, large and growing families are a feature of liberal civilizations, as adults have the choice to procreate and raise children without any restrictions or limits to their number. This is considered by many to be a basic right of adults within a civilized and democratic society, and one that should be trusted to an individuals discretion and decision making capabilities.
This way of thinking is not prevalent globally, and other cultures and government regimes have taken steps to restrict the rights of procreation in their respective countries. China is the most notable example, who reacted to their vast population increases with the implementation of a one child family policy. This applies legislation and guidelines as to how many children a family can have, and though conceived in the wider interests of society, it is often devalued in western culture as being both draconian and unnecessary.
Are Governments doing Enough to Curb Rising Populations?
However, as the US population soars towards 310 million at an average increase of 250,000 people per year, there are is an increasing concern with the pressure that is being placed on natural and financial resources. This population rise is part of a global trend, and its escalation is often linked to the prominence of poverty in both poor and wealthy nations. With this in mind, it would seem that a more balanced equilibrium needs to be found between maintaining human rights and the welfare of society at large.
Of course, the US government have taken some steps to deter families to growing to an unmanageable level. Their policy of family caps is one that has been often debated, and has both staunch supporters and opposition, as it restricts the welfare dividends available to families and does not grow as families increase their number. Welfare and benefit in the US used to be calculated per child within a household, however this was changed towards the end of the century to remain rigid once a family has a certain number of children.
The viewpoints of each side are diverse. Objectors to the policy suggest that it is a basic infringements of human rights, and that it actively promotes child poverty within the US. In contrast, its supporters claim that all the policy does is encourage households to give deeper and more structured consideration of their family planning, forcing parents to base their family unit on their own incomes and financial situation. The argument is intense, although more and more states have consented to employ various degrees of family capping over a period of time.
The Balance Between Rights and Welfare
It is an interesting quandary that faces a democratic government like the US. They are required, by their own definition, to deliver a regime that is fair minded and serves the wishes of their society. However, as population soars, they are forced to make a difficult decision between maintaining these values to their letter or taking more drastic steps to protect their citizens welfare. The idea of family caps is an excellent example of this, as it asks governments to adapt their values to a specific and contemporary environment.
One of the key points in this debate is the perceived infringement of human rights. Many claim that the act of introducing a family cap is undemocratic at its very core, and has no place within a civilized society. The problem with this is that many interpreted democratic principles and rigid and unwavering, but this cannot be the case in an ever changing and advancing environment. Realistically, the interpretation and implementation of democratic values and legislation must be adaptable, in order to account for modifications in the world and specific problems that subsist within it.
Secondary to this, the concept of child poverty is also a concern. Critics of the family cap policy argue that the government is denying children access to finance that can help to keep them fed and warm, and this is an act of an uncaring regime that actively encourages poverty. Although this has a basis in logic (especially as poverty continues to rise in the southern US states) it absolves an individual household of responsibility to take control of their own family planning. Families should not rely on governments to feed their children and fund an existence, and should take great care not to expand their number beyond realistic means.
Governments Must Act to Protect Their People
Although 2011 may see further developments or modifications to the family cap policy, the debate is sure to rage on indefinitely. However, governments must surely be forced to act in instances where their citizens display ill considered and irresponsible behavior, as it is there duty to protect the whole of society rather than a few distinct members who scale their families disproportionately. This is a policy that is now being discussed and championed in the UK, and one that at least recognizes the importance of curbing an escalating population. Without it, the wider interests of society are being ignored and providing potential risk to natural and financial resources.
Contrarian Shop
I have got 1 idea for your web page. It seems like right now there are a handful of cascading stylesheet issues while launching a selection of web pages within google chrome as well as firefox. It is working fine in internet explorer. Probably you can double check this.
Heard about this site from my buddy. He pointed me here and told me I’d find what I require. He was correct! I acquired all the questions I had, answered. Didn’t even take lengthy to seek out it. Love the truth that you produced it so easy for individuals like me.
when i was searching yahoo just for this issue, I feel that its no answer for me , but thanks god , your article save me from this,3$
Thank you and Yahoo.
CO2pOW mwospcnernyr, [url=http://ldvfjmkmdgqa.com/]ldvfjmkmdgqa[/url], [link=http://fvzfuxkacjln.com/]fvzfuxkacjln[/link], http://nlxsoerotbif.com/