system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I think couples should limit themselves to having no more than two children. CMV.

I think that every human being has the right to live a quality life. However, the more human beings there are, the harder it becomes for them to live such a life : territory, food, water and other resources are obviously limited. We already consume more resources than the Earth is able to provide.

On one hand, it seems to me that having children is selfish : there are already children who have no food to eat and no shelter, why create more?

On the other hand, having children is a fundamental aspect of our nature : I do not believe that anyone should be forbidden from having children. (Actually, in some cases I could understand forbidding someone from having children, but this isn't relevant here.)

Because of this, I believe that, from a moral standpoint (not necessarily legal), every couple (2 people) should limit themselves to having no more than two children in order to counteract growth of population.

Obviously, some cases are a bit more complicated (couples breaking up after having one child, children dying at a young age, etc.) Those cases would need further attention.

Unplanned pregnancies would obviously be a problem, but those can be solved by contraception means. If a couple has a third child because of negligence, they should let a couple with fertility problems adopt it (I would not vouch for infanticide).

Anyone care to change my view? Why should it be okay for couples to have more than two children?
gpt
> We already consume more resources than the Earth is able to provide.

This is false. We have more than enough arable farmland and uninhabited space on Earth to support between 9 and 16 billion people. We don't have a resource problem: we have a distribution problem. Citizens of Western societies consume a disproportionate amount of resources, relative to their population. There is no reason to take away the fundamental right to procreate just because Western societies are profoundly wasteful and greedy. 

>  If a couple has a third child because of negligence, they should let a couple with fertility problems adopt it 

What difference does it make? If two people have three children, there is +1 child in the equation. If four people (two couples) have 3 children, there is -1 child in the equation. If the couple with three children is better able to provide for those three children than the childless couple could provide for one, it would be in the child's best interest to stay with its parents. There will always be couples who are voluntarily childless. Should couples who wish to have more than two children be allowed to do so if they obtain permission or a waver from a childless couple? What about people who never marry or gay couples? 

Fundamentally, the problem you're attempting to address is both non-existent and impossible to address in the current geopolitical climate. The areas of the world where overpopulation is having serious health, resource-consumption, and poverty consequences lack both the strong  central governmental authority to enforce such a mandate and the legal and social status of women that would allow them to control their fertility. 

Perhaps, in a One World Government scenario, we could use the power of the state to enforce birth-rate standards on every human being on the planet. But for First World countries (which are the only areas with sufficient access to contraception and governments stable enough to enforce birth-rate standards) to make an impact on global overpopulation, those countries would have to undertake *negative* population growth to compensate. Negative population growth is devastating to an economy, as the elderly are not cared for, unemployment plummets (raising the cost of labor and the cost of goods), and the tax base shrinks. Nations would be unable to service their debts, and global capital would come to a standstill. 

Economies must grow to survive, and to do so, they need more (not less) people. Look to the rising global prominence of India and China for your examples. Humankind *does* need to work toward more sustainable energy and resource management methods, and a more equitable distribution of global resources, but limiting population in 1st World countries where such a solution would be feasible is a ham-fisted and backward way of addressing these problems.