It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A license to breed?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I think its too bad your parents didn't get a license.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
I think its too bad your parents didn't get a license.


But looking at the criteria that people have mentioned on this thread, my folks would have got a license.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I used to think about this too, as I'm sure thousands of people have. There are just too many damned people in this world.

At first I was going to say...... everyone should be made sterile at birth, and then when they wish to have kids, they come in to the office, have it reversed, and have their child. I would require no license for that, simply because I feel that I know to a 99% certainty that with this plan, at least 50% of the population would suddenly stop breeding. This would automatically free up a whole lot of money, which would be more than sufficient to care for any children that were left behind.

Then I thought about it further, and I thought about the world. Sure the U.S. or Britain might implement this plan,... but what about China? India? Europe?? With the signifficant reduction in population, it would also reduce our armed forces, our labour (unless we let immigrants do those jobs..... the way we do now anyway, and this leads me to the question..... Do we allow immigrants to have children, or do we steralize them upon entrance to the U.S.???),... but there are a lot of jobs that require training and good English-speaking skills that many immigrants wouldn't be able to fill. Pretty soon the U.S. wouldn't be able to defend itself against most threats around the world, and since we've got a sweet piece of land here, I'm sure it might entice someone else to come over and use it.

So..... if population reduction was the plan, it would have to be implemented all over the world, not just within one country. Unless of course we decided to allign ourselves with other countries who would agree to protect us or help us out.
With the many benefits of population reduction, there are also many negatives for individual countries who are alone in the plan, as well.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by 2manyquestions]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Perhaps instead of a license to breed there should be incentives for healthy educated people to have more children.

At the same time, you could do away with the incentives to have children for those who don' t measure up.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Perhaps instead of a license to breed there should be incentives for healthy educated people to have more children.

At the same time, you could do away with the incentives to have children for those who don' t measure up.


The problem is that people usually have children "accidentally". There aren't that many people who have children for the benefits. Lots of teenagers from poor, middle class, sometimes even the upper classes have children unintentionally. Poor and rich people enjoy having sex, and most end up with unwanted kids, sometimes several! There's the problem.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Wild Bob
2many,

Can I ask you a question? Do either of you have kids? I honestly am just curious.

Because if you don't... I hardly... Well... I don't have kids. But, I'll be damned if I'll ever ask my government permission to decide whether or even when I can have kids. Period.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
On which planet do you think you have the right to tell anyone how many kids, or if they can have kids. Child molestors sure, 2nd offense off with the wee-wee. But the rest is just about control, and that is a bunch of _______. Yeah there are a lot of stupid people breeding. But natural selection takes care of that Everytime we try and "take care of it ourselves", we always stick someone like Hitler in charge.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
On which planet do you think you have the right to tell anyone how many kids, or if they can have kids. Child molestors sure, 2nd offense off with the wee-wee. But the rest is just about control, and that is a bunch of _______. Yeah there are a lot of stupid people breeding. But natural selection takes care of that Everytime we try and "take care of it ourselves", we always stick someone like Hitler in charge.


On the child molestors, 100% agree. Why wait for the second offense?

What natural selection? In the developed world, there is very little. We will spend vast amounts of time and money to keep children alive that would have died left to nature.

This planet as I live here. The global population is growing and at some stage, this planet will not be able to sustain them.

I see people having children and expecting the state fund and help them bring their children up. In the UK, we have child allowance and tax allowances for families with children. If you can not afford children, do not have them and take more care when having sex.

Why should my taxes be spent on helping families who can not afford children.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I see people having children and expecting the state fund and help them bring their children up. In the UK, we have child allowance and tax allowances for families with children. If you can not afford children, do not have them and take more care when having sex.

Why should my taxes be spent on helping families who can not afford children.

Why should you have to make up to difference for the mega rich people who get millions of dollars in tax breaks? Or embezzle money? Or claim they're bunkrupt.. send money to offshore accounts only to leave workers in the lurch without retirement funds? If the system was fair they wouldn't be alloud to get away with it and their surplus taxes could support the poor instead. Creating a non corrupt system would be alot more logical than neutering poor people.. seems to me they are just an easy target.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by riley]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Wild Bob
2many,

Can I ask you a question? Do either of you have kids? I honestly am just curious.

Because if you don't... I hardly... Well... I don't have kids. But, I'll be damned if I'll ever ask my government permission to decide whether or even when I can have kids. Period.



To answer your question, no I do not have kids. I don't have kids because I know I can't afford to have kids. Not only that, but I honestly don't believe I would make a good parent. I try to take precaution so that there are no accidents. Unfortunately many people don't take precautions or are "caught in the moment". This is just my opinion and how I think, but it would be great if I didn't have to worry about accidents. I bet a lot of people would want that peace of mind. Then when you decide you want a child, you go to the doctor, he reverses it (no questions asked), and voila. I am against the Government telling me when I can and can't have kids, but I'm all for the medical profession offering me that choice when I want to make it. Think of all the 13-14 year olds who made a mistake, think of the women and teenagers who've been raped and gave birth as a result. Think of all the prostitutes who have accidents. Think of all the one night stands, or all the poor people who have trouble feeding themselves, not to mention 5-6 kids. Think of all the orphanages and all those kids without parents, getting into trouble because there's just too many of them, and not enough money or personel to give all of them a good life. Let's get real,..... people enjoy having sex, and usually they don't think of the consequences. Of course because of the urges they couldn't resist, they produced children they didn't want. This would allow them to have those urges without producing children they didn't want. Since there is no way to enforce people to have protected sex all of the time, this seems like the only way to do it.

But,... as I briefly stated in my other post, I thought about the down-side of giving people that choice too. I see both the dangers and the positives here.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I see people having children and expecting the state fund and help them bring their children up. In the UK, we have child allowance and tax allowances for families with children. If you can not afford children, do not have them and take more care when having sex.

Why should my taxes be spent on helping families who can not afford children.

Why should you have to make up to difference for the mega rich people who get millions of dollars in tax breaks? Or embezzle money? Or claim they're bunkrupt.. send money to offshore accounts only to leave workers in the lurch without retirement funds? If the system was fair they wouldn't be alloud to get away with it and their surplus taxes could support the poor instead. Creating a non corrupt system would be alot more logical than neutering poor people.. seems to me they are just an easy target.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by riley]


I am not sure what you are driving at, Riley? If someone is mega rich then they do not need taxes to help them bring up their children.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Please note, I don't advicate a license to breed, I said that there should be incentives to encourage people that meet certain standards to have more kids.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I am not sure what you are driving at, Riley? If someone is mega rich then they do not need taxes to help them bring up their children.

No but many of them look for loopholes in the system so they don't have to pay tax.. IMO the poor pay a much higher % tax than the rich. They've also been several large corporations that have left workers with no way to feed their kids while sending their money overseas. Should we make the workers infertile because their bosses had their hand in the till?
Private schools in Aus that get million dollar government grants yet public schools [in the same suberbs] can't even afford heaters. This is an example of government maintaining the class divide by ensuring kids are under educated.. dooming them to become wage slaves.

This 'idea' is punnishing the poor. How can people not realise that the system is designed to exploit and to keep them that way?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I am not sure what you are driving at, Riley? If someone is mega rich then they do not need taxes to help them bring up their children.

No but many of them look for loopholes in the system so they don't have to pay tax.. IMO the poor pay a much higher % tax than the rich. They've also been several large corporations that have left workers with no way to feed their kids while sending their money overseas. Should we make the workers infertile because their bosses had their hand in the till?
Private schools in Aus that get million dollar government grants yet public schools [in the same suberbs] can't even afford heaters. This is an example of government maintaining the class divide by ensuring kids are under educated.. dooming them to become wage slaves.

This 'idea' is punnishing the poor. How can people not realise that the system is designed to exploit and to keep them that way?


So what you are saying is that in AUS, the mega rich find ways to pay less tax and ensure that the workers in their factories are so poor they can not afford to feed their children, and that the AUS state gives more money to private schools than to public schools?

So in essense, only the rich would be able to breed as they have more money.

Still, the bottom line is why should I (in the Uk) and AUS tax payers pay for other people's children. If you can not afford children, why expect the rest of us to pay for them. This is not a question of who pays the biggest % of tax. One of the key aspects of getting a license to breed, is showing you will not need the state to pay to bring up your children.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Just playing devils advocate here.

So... What are your feelings about public school and health care?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
In America, the role of government is to ensure the rights of the citizens and equal access/application of the laws of our land (constitution). It is not supposed to guarantee that we all have a particular lifestyle. It is not the role of government to pay for anyone's children, parents, etc. The fact that we have government doles in various venues only shows that our goverment has exceeded its bounds. Americans on this site are arguing about the best way for government to continue abusing their power rather than insisting it return to its rightful function.

The John Birch Society has a motto that I find appropo to this discussion: less government, more personal responsibility and, with God's help, a better world.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Just playing devils advocate here.

So... What are your feelings about public school and health care?


In relationship to what Lostsailor?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
In relationship to you not wanting to pay for children of course...

Look, I'll be honest. Something seems inherently wrong to me that people would even consider this to be a good idea. Yes... There are people out there abusing the system. But they are a minority. Once again, we have the actions of the few governing the whole. It's not alright in my book...

Give me liberty or give me death...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Featured Topic

This thread has been selected as an AbovePolitics.com Featured Topic.

Applause worth 1500 PTS Points has been awarded for the original post.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Just playing devils advocate here.

So... What are your feelings about public school and health care?


The state has to ensure its future and part of that future is our children so yes, once the state has granted a license, the provision of schooling and health care is part of the contract between state and the parent.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join