USFG should adopt a Childbirth Limitation policy

Thanks for the prompt response BlackVoid. As before, *'s will denote an argument my opponent made. ==Defending my case== C1) Demographic Transition Remember, my argument here was that the U.S. needs people to have the same number of kids or MORE kids than they currently do to keep the U.S. population stable (above replacement levels). We need to avoid the "demographic winter" that Reason Magazine says is already happening in most of Europe and Fareed Zakaria says will happen in China. *just because birth rates supposedly decline, it does not change the fact that there is still a net growth in population every year* 1. From the previous rounds, population growth is good because: a) It is necessary to support an aging population, especially to compensate for the large uptick in the elderly that will occur with the graying of the Baby Boomer generation. b) Bigger populations are associated with larger, stronger, and more dynamic economies. c) Most innovators make major discoveries when they are young, so having a young population is critical. 2. The U.S. population is barely above replacement levels, meaning it is barely staying constant. Without large influxes of immigrants, the U.S. population would not be above replacement levels (the Reason Magazine evidence), and we would be in the same situation as France, desperately trying to bribe people to have more kids to keep the population levels stable. *death rates decrease dramatically because of these improved medical technologies my opponent spoke of* 1. Not true, death rates in the U.S. are not decreasing in any meaningful way. No evidence is provided of this. 2. The demographic transition of drastically decreased death rates occurs in phase 2, BEFORE the transition to decreased birth rates. Death rates declines are due mostly to the introduction of water purification systems, waste disposal systems, and antibiotics. I argued that population growth is necessary to support the elderly and keep Medicare/Social Security solvent as the Baby Boomers retire. *this is only a short term loss. He fails to account for the fact that over time, there will be less people that will need to be taken care of in the first place* 1. Under this logic, the U.S. should have zero kids because over time there will be far fewer people to provide for. We obviously acknowledge there are benefits to having a larger population. (Note: this is not really the "short term" – we're talking about around 2050.) 2. Unless there is a solution in the "short term" of keeping Medicare/Social Security solvent while also decreasing our population size, then utilitarianism would say that we cannot adopt a childbirth limitation policy if it results in either a) bankrupting the government or b) leaving the elderly out to dry by canceling Medicare and Social Security, even though they paid into it their whole lives. C2) Technological improvements My argument was that technology growth has always outpaced population growth. *At some point we will be unable to make any more improvements to food production and will succumb to the limited resources of the Earth.* 1. This is the most recent in a long line of doomsday prophecies. Technology has always managed to outpace population growth, the most recent revolution in food production being the Green Revolution (selective crop breeding for high yields and better fertilizer). 2. This will continue with the Gene Revolution, as crops are genetically modified for higher yields, to need fewer inputs (nutrients, water), to live in harsher climates, and to withstand pests (like locusts). 3. People will not have kids if their environment cannot support them. Numerous studies show that mammalian animals don't go into estrus when resources are scarce. For proof in the human case, that we lose fertility under extreme conditions of food deprivation, see studies regarding loss of menstruation in bulimic/anorexic girls. 4. That was the biological explanation, but people will also CHOOSE not to have kids if they cannot support them based on current resource levels (the social explanation). My Harvard evidence from the previous round proves that people forgo having kids as living standards rise because each child further divides the family's wealth, but the child does not contribute to the family's wealth in any meaningful way in an industrialized society. Compare to an agricultural society, where children are assets because they can tend the field. 5. The Reason Magazine evidence proves that the trend on Earth is actually towards a demographic winter, where population size will begin decreasing, so this is actually not a worry at all. C3) Constitutionality My argument was a double bind: either a) the law will be overturned by the Supreme Court, rendering it ineffective or b) the government will be allowed to violate the Constitution whenever it wants. *I was under the impression that we were looking through a utilitarian viewpoint, not a rights one* 1. It is not the case that utilitarianism doesn't believe in rights. In fact, one version of utilitarianism says that we should determine which rights exist based on whether the "right" would do the greatest good for the greatest number. 2. Even ignoring rights, if the law is immediately overturned, it does no good. The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (which was about contraceptive use) literally concluded that the government must stay out of decisions made in the bedroom. This child limitation law would be immediately overturned, based on court precedent. 3. If the law weren't overturned on privacy grounds, the Constitution would be meaningless. Utilitarians also care that there are protections against tyrannical forms of government control. Extend the arguments about the 1st Amendment as well. The law would violate freedom of religion, since Catholics don't believe in contraception. Also, if a woman accidentally got pregnant with a third child, she would need to get an abortion to avoid punishment. Forced abortion would also violate religious freedom. I brought up that most methods of enforcement are evil or bad for society, such as killing the child or imprisoning the parents. *There are many, more acceptable ways to enforce the law, such as fines, or mandatorily giving the child up for adoption. I know my opponent will have a hayday with that last one, but its an option.* 1. My opponent must choose an enforcement mechanism or else he cannot prove his law in enforceable, and also so he can't keep shifting his advocacy position. 2. Fines aren't really a punishment. They could also be viewed as a tax on having more than two children. Fines also violate the equal protection clause, since parents of twins are taxed double for something they cannot control. 3. Giving up the child for adoption just shifts the burden of paying for the child onto another couple or to the state. Many children sent to foster care are never adopted. Foster care is also horrible – 75% of children there experience sexual abuse. [1] ==My opponent's case== *recognize that a 1% decline in ten years would be very subjective as to whether to call that a true "decline"* The source I cited for this was my opponent's, and it was to show that his own source (about families with 3 or more kids) disagrees with his conclusion that the population is growing dramatically in the U.S. *Ghana has less than a tenth of our population, but has the strongest economy in the continent* 1. The strongest economy in Africa? Not saying much… 2. South Africa and Egypt definitely have stronger economies. 3. Ghana average income = $1500, U.S. average income = $46,000 4. Current U.S. GDP = $14.26 trillion; current Ghana GDP = $50 billion [1] http://www.hg.org...