Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except the individuals are not merely deciding for themselves.  They are deciding for many others.

Basically, you prefer to live in the way you prefer by letting others die who would preferred to live, then to live in ways you don't prefer and let other also live, which they prefer.

No. I prefer to value rights over futile transgressions. My having one son has not, to my knowledge, resulted in one death. If you have information otherwise, I'd be happy to see it.

 To argue that just because we are bound to all die, therefore we ought to be free to safeguard our optional abstract rights  for ourselves by placing at greater jeopardy sooner the lives of others is to more completely bankrupt the concept of rights.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a misunderstanding of my point. It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. By conflating the two in the emboldened clause, you are making a category error. It's also an overweening application of consequentialism without taking into account things like social stability (who would give their loyalty to a government which arbitrarily decided to sterilize them?), and still ignores my point that such a government could not be trusted to exercise that power in a just manner.

Edit: It was me conflating the two, not Chuck. I apologize for imputing to him a view he wasn't propounding.

I still think there are better ways to address dangerous population growth than giving any government such powers as to mutilate their citizens.