Child Limit Law

I'm going to address my opponent's counters in the order he's presented them; then address what he has missed and then provide a summary of the round. 1) "Child Limit Laws are unjust" My opponent effectively misses the point of this argument. I argue that it's unfair to force any kind of moral jurisdiction over another; like forcing a parent to have only two children. But just because 1.89 children is the average, doesn't mean it's the case for every family. For example, I come from a family of 4 siblings, as does my mother. My father comes a family of 7. Both my mother and my father are the youngest in their family; so basically with this child limit law, they would never exist. Thus, I would never exist, which is unfair to my existence on-face. My opponent just says that "families are having a lot of children, and these are things that should be stopped" but doesn't really support any reasoning to this. Sure, his case might back him up, but I've already refuted these points. 2) "Child Limit Laws Would Cause Higher Abortion Rates" My opponent suggests the idea of giving a child away, should they accidentally give birth to more than two children. This isn't true for three reasons. First, who would actually be able to accept this adopted child? If the average in America is two (rounding up) children per family, they won't have any room in their family to accept the child. Thus, the only option is to abort the child, or put it in an orphan house, of which are already over-populated, under funded, and rarely create any new families. Second, BY LAW the parent can't have a third child by birth or adoption; so that right off the bat shows that a third child isn't even allowed to be born. Finally, the mother may be reluctant to just hand the child that she just labored into life to another family. We all know the dependence a mother has on her child, and vice versa. A mother is more likely to raise the child up in secrecy than just admitting to her unlawful actions. 3) US Sets An Example This point doesn't really hold any ground, for the fact that we're not the first to do this; China has had this law since 1979. And what incentives do other countries even hold to follow the United States? A lot of countries are rather displeased with us based on foreign affairs and other matters. 4) The Claim of Solving Starvation So let me re-iterate what I said before. Basically, this claim is false because with more people equals more production of goods, so the balance is constantly maintained. It's a ratio that increases on both sides. Look at it like this: Number of people in the world X a fixed number :: Number of people X a fixed number These two always raise in proportion to another. Because of this, you'll always have the same ratio of people to provide for each other. Disease spreading can stop because now you have more people to fight against it. Again, the idea of ratios. But to further my response, as the DEMAND (bigger population) rises, the SUPPLY (those who create the items for the demand) rises in exact proportion. This is what American Capitalism is founded on, and carries out with more population. These arguments goes un-refuted, but I'll mention more on that later. 5) The Earth Has Limited Resources First, this argument is unfair to the debate because my opponent never brought it up in his first speech, so there's no proper way for me to address this. But second, I'm going to negate this completely. The earth contains bountiful renewable resources, and while they haven't been fully utilized yet, we will in due time. For example, corn not only provides food but it also provides for our vehicles like ethanol. More importantly, it's renewable, and with proper farming it can last forever. Neither option my opponent makes is ethical for any reason, so therefor we have to solve the problem rather than stop it. ------------ The points my opponent fails to address. It's unfair for him to present any arguments against these in his next speech, because they've already been ignored. So disregard any attacks made on these. 1) "Child Limit Laws Will Collapse the American economy" You can read more on this in my first speech, but basically because a parent has to raise a third child in secrecy without the support of American capitalism, you're creating a sort of "black market" of which NOTHING goes to the American economy, effectively crashing it. 2) "Child Limit Laws Solve Nothing" Like I brought up before, mothers will go to other countries to raise their children, which not only will collapse our economy more, but will cause a decrease in population and strength in the American government. Effectively, you're pushing everyone out of the country who wants to have more than two children. 3) "Nothing Is Wrong With The Current Population" What I argue here is that there's no need for a child limit law because we're already under that limit as an average. So no real reason to have a child limit law. Those who are above average, like myself, are negated by those who are under average, like having no or only one child. This is called the "Law Of Averages". 4) "Supply And Demand" I argued this in response to my opponent. Basically, because the demand rises for goods, so will the supply. Likewise, the number of well-off people rises proportionally with the people in poverty. But, because we have more population to solve for those in poverty, we can actually decrease the number of people in poverty and heighten the well-off side of that ratio. --------- So what do we see in this round? I'm going to wrap up the two biggest arguments on either side. Keep in mind, I've already refuted these points so there's no need to attack my summary. Just to save us both some time :]. On the PRO side is the argument that over-population leads to starvation. Basically, because there's more people creating more demand, the supply can never match it, so we lead to more starvation. I've responded in a number of ways, such as saying that supply will match demand like it always has, the well-off have more opportunity to supply the poor, etc. I also propose renewable resources that we never really can run out of. -- On the CON side, we see the argument that Child Limit Laws are unjust, unfair, and unethical. Basically, because we're forcing our moral will on others, you're infringing on their rights as American citizens. The PRO argues in response that Child Limit Laws don't infringe on anything because the average is already under the law. Remember that I respond to this by stating that there are still extremes that would be infringed on, and that it doesn't matter because we're still infringing, whether or not it actually occurs.