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.

 

Is it time to require a license to reproduce?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Longstanding joke aside, is it really time to put the clamps down on our ever growing society, and regulate reproduction.

This article sparked my thoughts:



ONTARIO, Calif. — An 8-month-old boy has died after his mother told police she accidentally cleaned his nose with a cotton swab used earlier to clean a methamphetamine pipe.

Samuel Reta of Ontario was declared dead Friday at Loma Linda University Medical Center, according to the San Bernardino County Coroner's office.

Reta had been in a coma since police responding to a child-not-breathing emergency call early Thursday found him in full cardiac arrest. The baby also has a fractured skull, broken arm and pneumonia, police said.

www.foxnews.com...


But this anecdotal example of scumbags having children (and abusing, then killing them) is merely a "hot button" topic, the reality of controlling population rates extend beyond inept parenting, and are more firmly grounded in the fragile resources that we all rely on to survive. How much longer can we afford to allow unchecked population growth? What criteria would need to be established to define who could be licensed? How would violations be punished? Does this need to start in a western country (China already does it) to gain credibility across the globe?

The poo is going to fly on this one.




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I for one blame modern society for the proliferation of this problem.
That is, a lot of these people are coddled and allowed to continue to exist by virtue of the protections they recieve from modern civilization. These deficient morphs would have ceased to exist a lot sooner in their temporal existance if they had to survive on their own wits and cunning. But we now allow them to replicate their deficient selves and therefore suffering results. This suffering is not only localized to their offspring but also placed upon society as a whole.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by passenger]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by passenger]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
What criteria would need to be established to define who could be licensed?


I would think there would have to be something like you need to prove you can provide for the child. If you can barely afford to care for yourself, how can you be expected to provide for a child?

Also, some sort of rule about having to be married, or a certain medical condition that if you don't have a child now, you may never have one. Too many children get affected by only having one parent raise them. Plus, it allows the parent to bad mouth the parent that isn't there.




How would violations be punished?


I have no idea where to begin thinking about that one. The only way I can even imagine is by fining and forced abortion. Perhaps for repeat offenders, they would forceably tie the tubes. I don't mean to make it seem like women should be the only one punished, it's just guys can't get pregnant.



The poo is going to fly on this one.



Still waiting.......



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 


Actually, we would have a lot less people not being able to take care of themselves, if the government wouldn't have started the welfare state in the first place. Now the welfare system has made it so the single woman with multiple kids gets the most from the system. They are the ones that get the money, and a ton of food stamps. The less you make, the more you get.

Even back 15 years ago, I knew of someone who was actually planning on having a lot of kids, not getting married, and living on welfare for the rest of her life. Now, at least they have to work, and sometimes with a family, only one of the adults have to work.

But still the system caters to single women with a lot of kids. I shouldn't forget the free health care the kids get. Most states have some type of system the parents can get their kids on. They also get checked at school at least once a year. Then there is hud housing that helps get someone into a home.

I know there are people out there that really do need help. The system has created a new class of welfare citizens who are looking for a handout.

If this system wasn't in place, then many more women would be thinking twice about having kids, especially multiple kids. Then they really wouldn't be able to afford having children. The population growth would then become checked.

I remember reading last year about how higher income families stalling on having families, and having smaller families to make sure they can support their family.

As far as their being a population crisis, I'm sorry to say I really don't see one. Right now George Bush has done a good job reducing the world's population with the war on terror. Also, many people still die from various diseases and accidents. It seems when one disease is cured, a new one comes out. Conspiracy wise, I'm sure there are groups who would love to release a new super virus when they think there are too many people on the earth. Only the wealthy would be able to afford the cure.

Oh, wait a minute, they don't need a new virus. They already have a plan for WW III, and wiping out a large portion of the population through that war in various ways.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by secret titan

I would think there would have to be something like you need to prove you can provide for the child. If you can barely afford to care for yourself, how can you be expected to provide for a child?

Also, some sort of rule about having to be married, or a certain medical condition that if you don't have a child now, you may never have one. Too many children get affected by only having one parent raise them. Plus, it allows the parent to bad mouth the parent that isn't there.


How about the first step is to make welfare even more difficult to obtain, or take it away all together. See my previous post as to why. Other than that, if the person feels like they can support the child, let them have the child. You would be just creating a big underground or looking at a civil war. Let the child welfare people be able to do their job correctly. Right now that system is completely messed up, and they have 5x as many goose chases than real abuse cases. That is for another topic.

As far as having to be married, well it is much easier to get married than to stay married. No one can force the parents to stay married if they don't want to. Many doctors and psychiatrist's would tell you that it is healthier for the child if the parents were split up than forced to be together. Actually if two parents stayed together that truly hated each other, that would be putting the child in danger. The spousal abuse that happens would eventually happen to the child, let along the emotional damage it would cause. I think it would cause more damage than if they got divorced.

With a divorce, you still have a single parent household, except maybe with joint custody if both parents wants to see the child.



I have no idea where to begin thinking about that one. The only way I can even imagine is by fining and forced abortion. Perhaps for repeat offenders, they would forceably tie the tubes. I don't mean to make it seem like women should be the only one punished, it's just guys can't get pregnant.


You would have a seriously large population against you on that. Look at all the anti-abortionists. You would be looking at a major fight on your hands. Personally, I believe you are actually killing the child, and many others have that same belief. Forced abortion would be seen by us as forced murder.

Why is the other option so often over looked? Adoption!!! Why isn't adoption seen as viable as abortion. I believe adoption should always be the first choice. Abortion should only be performed in extreme situations where the mother does not want to give up her life for the child.

As far as foreablly tying the tubes, I have heard that being done in prison already for extreme cases. Why should it always rest on the woman? The man can get a vascotemy (sp?). If it is determined that it is the many getting many women pregnant, then why not have a law to forceable make him a enuich? We need to stop putting all the blame on the women.

If that was an actual law, then maybe guys would take the responsibility of their actions much, much more seriously. They wouldn't be dumping all the blame on the women as most do now.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Another thread on a similar line from earlier in the year and it would be interesting to see if the same people post and have views changed!!

License to breed thread



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join