Society Debate: Should families be limited to 3 children?

The proposed policy is viable Isn’t it ironical to debate on whether the proposed policy, limiting Rwandans to three children is viable? Any realist can see facts for facts; Rwanda needs not more than three children, per family at least. A - Rwanda is as big as 26,338 square kilometers, not increasing, no matter what B-the more than 10 million population increases daily owing to new births, C-the vision 2020 target would be next to impossible with the overwhelming multiplication of children, especially in the remote. I beg to differ from remote doctrines that suggest family planning or having fewer children is a violation of rights. It takes no rocket science to understand that a country still prone to poverty, can’t encounter development unless family planning measures are taken. The patriotic way to go is embracing the idea of three, even for those with resources to support more children. After exploring all the possible reasons why people prefer more than three children, the road leads to three, here is why the proposed policy is practical. Spontaneous births have overstayed their welcome; sad that instead of seeking an immediate solution, some Rwandans still clap for such! Since time in memory, ancient Rwandans would call reject any family planning advances. That’s was the birth of lame excuses like; few children are meant for leopards not people, one child is as useless as a match stick, and so on. This dynamic and civilized new Rwanda needs freedom from such brain-wash, even two kids would be great, depending on the available resources, per family. Speaking of resources, it’s traditional that parents leave inheritance, in form of land for their children. What becomes of a big family left with only a few yards of land? Domestic violence, land wrangles leading to death will be evident. On the contrary, even the poorest parent could equally divide the smallest piece of land amongst his three children. While the government works tirelessly to eradicate poverty, the practical way would be ensuring that poor families have limited births. To hell with “mungarere, habyarimana meaning, “its God’s responsibility to care for children,” and all other impractical expectations. Weird that unemployed people, with no resources are the very ones littering our beloved country with kids! Those little street kids are results of accidental births. You have seen street women begging with a throng of children. Even God was mindful of the then available resources when He told Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the world. The world was empty then, it’s filled to capacity now. Our ever helpful government is doing a great deal, but its high time citizens became more responsible; imagine families that can’t afford yearly medical insurance of 1000 francs but bringing more burdens to the country, in form of children. Three children is a reasonable number, to take cater for, in all aspects of life. Rwanda needs healthy, responsible and educated citizens, the sensible way to achieve this is nothing but embracing the policy. I would rather a population of average elite healthy people than millions of fragile sick people. Life expectance is another aspect that random population increase tampers with. Those with all it takes to breed more than three children, should be patriotic enough to share resources with the less advantaged. What would be amazing like having three healthy biological children and three more, from a poor family? After all these children would regard you as father or guardian angel. Three is the way to go, let’s stand out as always, the fewer the number of children, the higher chances of development. If developed countries have done it, why not Rwanda? lillianean@yahoo.com