USFG should adopt a Childbirth Limitation policy

I agree that we should look to utilitarian framework. His first point is that once a country becomes wealthy and prosperous, birth rates eventually decline, so the US need not worry about overpopulation. However, just because birth rates supposedly decline, it does not change the fact that there is still a net growth in population every year. What he doesn't tell you is that while birth rates decline slightly, death rates decrease dramatically because of these improved medical technologies my opponent spoke of. The natural decrease of birth rate is not enough to overcome the dramatically decreased death rate, however a mandatory limiting of child birth would be, as I showed in round 1. His Reason Magazine evidence is flawed for the same reason. It does not account for decreased deah rates. He then says that with a lower population caused by childbirth limiting, it causes less people to take care of the elderly. However, 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. This means we wont need as many people, thus a decline in population is only helpful. C2 talks about technology increasing food production. However technology can only get us so far. Increasing populations will eventually cause us to need more technological improvements, which will further population growth, causing a shortage of food and leading to another need for technological improvements, and the cycle repeats. 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. C3. He talks about Catholics and right to make your own decisions. However, I was under the impression that we were looking through a utilitarian viewpoint, not a rights one. Since we are looking through Utilitarianism, we acknowledge that not giving people the "right" to have tons of children is acceptable because it will provide the greater good for everyone else, by ensuring that we dont have overly dense cities, and protecting our resources from being gulped by all these people. Imprisoning the parent or killing the child is just one (bad) way to ensure the policy is followed. 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. Onto the defense of my points. He says fertility rates are declining. First of all, recognize that a 1% decline in ten years would be very subjective as to whether to call that a true "decline". But the main thing, extend my argument from above where I show you how a natural decline in birth rates is not enough to overcome the decreased death rate. Only a childbirth limiting law can keep up with the constant net gains in population. Finally, he mentions again that with a lower population there will be fewer people to take care of the old. But again, there would be less people to take care of in the first place. But then he claims that having less people will stagnate the US economy? There are several countries in the world that have a much lower population than the US, but have a better economy than we do. For instance, Ghana has less than a tenth of our population, but has the strongest economy in the continent. That shows you that population is in no way related to the economy. I urge a prop vote.