It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Two children should be limit, says green guru

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by pynner

Originally posted by aleon1018
I've had two wives, two falied marriages and two families. As to how many kids are biologically mine, I'm not certain.

so after making countless kids in which you don't seem to keep track of, your argument is "they aren't doing it, why should we".

thanks, your the epitome of what im talking about.

I was referring to the two families I had and those children. You should try working as a psychic and a palm reader, since you know so much about everyone already.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:38 PM
Yeah well the "Green Guru" is an unbearable burden on the environment, in fact this topic has left an unbearable headache from the surprisingly idiotic posts on this thread already. Are some of you serious in saying this is a good idea? "My tax dollars" are being used up, so lets just start killing off babies and start tying up some tubes after child number two! I'm guessing some of the posters on here don't have kids, thats ok, I don't either, but I should be able to choose if i want six kids. Many of my relatives have more than four, I even have some cousins that have 18 and they are doing a pretty good job, yes lots of second hand clothes, but they'll grow and buy their own stuff anyway. Using abortion as a tool to stop global warming is among the stupidest things I've read recently. I guess the GW people are getting desperate cause their agenda is losing steam and getting disproven. There is plenty of room on this planet, trust me. Lots of land out there available without destorying the environment.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:39 PM

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by pynner

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by pikypiky
It doesn’t matter if environmentalist or TPTB suggest that two children per family is the limit. Bottomline: If babies are not wanted and the family cannot afford to take care of more babies and if making more babies entitle baby makers welfare, then yeah no more than two is a good start.

Would you like to hear a real horror story? Okay, picture this:

'A woman, pregnant with her third child, is reported by one of her neighbors because she has made public comments about how she refuses to get an abortion and this conflicts with the two-child rule.

So while this woman is out and about, she is stopped by armed military men who usher her into a waiting vehicle. She is forced unconcious in the vehicle. She awakens, some time later, in a government-run hospital bed. She tries to get up but a sharp pain runs through her belly-area. She looks down and notices bandages and pads and some blood. She freaks out and the machines hooked up to her begin to beep loudly. A nurse enters and the woman begins to scream "What happened to my baby!?"

The nurse injects her with a shot of tranquilizer and then informs her that because of the law, her child was forcibly removed as per government mandate. '

Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario, but how's this: enact such a law and what will it be - receiving mail from the local government informing you or your wife to report to the nearest "enviromental care by birth suppression" facility? What happens to women who resist? Prison and forced abortions?

Or what about a proactive solution - does the government require that a woman's uterus be removed after the second child is born so there is no chance of a third conception?

You still think that's a good start? I don't.

yeah.. or not.

this is the kind of non-sense that stops constructive conversation.

what if? what if? what if?

Actually, this isn't a what if scenario. It's funny how this possiblity, which would likely happen if population control were to happen here, makes you suddenly claim the conversation has ceased being constructive. You think this scenario is non sense? They do this kind of thing in China, in fact if the government finds out you have child number two they will do said things in the other post, but the only difference, they don't knock you out, they'll just do a forced abortion, kickin and screamin. Parent says something, bullet in the head. If the second child is born, there have been eyewitness accounts that they'll just come out and kill the baby. Not a what if, it's a reality. A reality that this could happen everywhere, even in the states.

Oh btw, I notice in your posts that you tend to us stupid a lot and that people need to be educated. Must be nice on your little self made pedestal and it must be nice that you can never make a mistake. Must be great to be so infallible!

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:48 PM
I will never recognize any government regulating the population of my family. For the sake of "global warming" a trendy moniker that doesn't even exist?
I will decide how large my family will be - it is none of the government or any environmentalist whacko's concern.

If I breed 'em - I'll feed 'em. I have never needed the government for ANY type of support, and won't adhere to any reproductive limitations.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:33 PM
Is this supposed to be bad news ?

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Well in a sense overpopulation is a HUGE threat to our environment and our planet. Now while abortion isnt the route i would go i feel like there should be a limit on how many children a person has. some things to consider:

-we only have a limited anount of farmland. As far as i know God isnt making any more. There are alternatives such as farming skyscrapers but the types of foods especially meat are limited. If we keep going the route we are going we will need these very soon and they arent cheap.

-low income/welfare families who continue to have children. This costs a lot of taxpayer money and could be avoided. For anybody to have a large family who cant afford it is highly irresponsible.

-The amount of pollution our ever growing population produces. We need a better recycling program and better materials that break down quicker. Landfills arent a dime a dozen.

There should be a limit on the amount of children ANY family can have. Until we start colonizing space this should be a high priority.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:03 PM
When we started down this slippery slope of devaluing Human Life, we wrote our own epitaph.

Here Lies Humanity
We Killed Our Selves to Save the Whales
They Died Anyway
We Thought We Destroyed the Climate
It Was the Sun All Along
George Orwell
Move Over Brother
We Need More Room for the Bodies
Rest In Peace

Kill your child, earn a new TV.
Knock off your old Granny, get yourself a new Microwave.
Be the first on your block to eliminate your whole Family!
Kill them now, more for you, more for me.
Letting others live is the true insanity.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:04 PM
I think that all of those on this thread who are pushing population control in the US, who obviously have no grasp of the nature of the land/population ratio in the US, should be the first to give their lives to reduce the population. Less resources used on unbelievable, criminal stupidity. And the man who said this originally? He's the sort of monster thats been let in the gate with Obama. If this man came to my door, and told me I couldnt have offspring, that I could support, to carry on my family, he'd be fertilizing my garden immediately. Those who kill in the name of the greater good are worse than any murderer walking the street. And have the power to kill many, many more than any serial killer ever could.

Does no one understand or value freedom anymore? Is it down to killing babies for the sake of socialism? Disgusting.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:07 PM
My goal in life is to have 5 children. Im 24 and so far have 0 of my own. My fiance has one from a previous relationship.

Theres very little point of suggesting such things as 2 children per couple. maybe a country can say that, but to think the whole world is going to follow suit? Never.

Ultimately my only purpose in life is to reproduce. If these "green" people want us to have less children then I suggest they have no children. Allowing for others to have more kids. as to balance out the statistics.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
We Killed Our Selves to Save the Whales
They Died Anyway

That is the silliest thing I have read in a long time.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

"I agree, i think it should be 1.5 children per person, that way if your a couple you get to have 3. "

I have nine children.

I also have 15 (or more) grand-kids.

Add to that; I'm a great-grandfather to three more.

*When the earth's population was at 2.3 billion, there was still ninnies like yourself running around crying about the same nonsense you whine about nowadays.... Just sayin' ;0)

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by thegreatone

"There should be a limit on the amount of children ANY family can have. Until we start colonizing space this should be a high priority."

Please elaborate.

Please Explain to me how such a thing will work.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:38 PM
No no. I am TOTALLY happy for these anti-family/women/children people to not have children.

Keeping them from making laws about MY uterus I do care about.
"Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Keep your green out of my uterus."

Please, please, please feel free to not have any. We all appreciate it. For different reasons than what you'd hope for, appreciate it all the same.

You all keep up the good work.

[edit on 2009/2/2 by Aeons]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:47 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, I am unabashedly pro-abortion. Make no mistake here: I don't mean pro-choice, I mean pro-abortion. In favor of more abortions and fewer live births. In favor of abortion being advocated, not as a distasteful last resort, but as a common, standard procedure which is often preferable to bringing another insatiable eating machine into the world. After all, until a human is independent and conscious in its own right, it's basically just an empty body; a parasitic uterine tumor.

And now, approximately everyone hates me. But bear with me here:

Pro-lifers and advocates of having large families will probably make the argument that life is precious, and that aborting fetuses nonchalantly somehow diminishes the perceived preciousness of life. But what's really doing the diminishment is an overabundance of life. Life is not precious. Life is cheap. And our society strives to make it cheaper. The more people there are on the planet, cluttering up the place and living miserable lives, the less life is worth. This operates just like inflation. The more of something there is, the less valuable it is.

I for the record, will not breed and intend to get a vasectomy, another simple and safe procedure that should be widely advocated. If later in life I go insane and my latent parental instinct kicks in... well, that's what adoption agencies are for.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:10 AM
Personal point of view.

If you are irresponsible and procreate without the ability to sustain your kids, the governement gonna feed your kids so more kids feeds by the Gov = more poors and malnurished kids and promiscuity and by the way, YOU are paying for thoses kids born from irresponsible parents

More kids born in poor (or not) families when non desired is a burden for all of us, technicaly .

Abortion must to stay a choice same for the control pill , but realise all thoses ppls who dont care and think "bah nevermind, the governement gonna pay for the kids"

finally we have to stop to breed like stupids rabbits and maybe its a good moment to stop thinking poorly "oh but life is sacred you dont have the right to kill a foetus,its a thinking life" its totaly irresponsible, too

ok now feek free to to stone me

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:10 AM
I have to ask those here in this thread who are against this policy what alternatives they can provide to population control.

I made an entire thread on this and it's a very simple argument. There is only so much land space on earth, each human needs a certain amount of space to live, therefore the earth has a limit on the amount of people it can sustain.

So we have a choice, either we can limit the number of children born, or we can let everyone keep breeding and eventually everything collapses in a massive famine.

So come on, alternatives please.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by MillionEyedMask

"I for the record, will not breed and intend to get a vasectomy, another simple and safe procedure that should be widely advocated."

You are Under thirty years of age.

You have been subjected to a lifetime of propaganda. - and it has had a strong effect on you. It has worked on you. You statements are proof of this.

Oh well, my family will thrive and in two hundred years, My wife and I will be directly responsible for bringing over 200 humans to earth ;-) (at least)

If you don't breed, it will leave more room for my Progeny....

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:16 AM
At least we should to consider to educate all thoses "omg-life-is so-wonderful, lets-breed-infinite-numbers-of-babies" peoples,its important to understand the choices of everyones, of course they can have kids, of course they have beliefs in religions but honestly, respecting a religions without any criticism and without any logic and calling all peoples pro-abortion "murderers" is not really a mature way of thinking, simply because god told you "you shall reproduce and grow in number" dont remove you the ability to think

well maybe apparently yes..

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:20 AM
I have some words.....

I cannot believe what I have been reading on ATS the last couple of weeks, but this thread and most of the responders in here take the cake!

Are we conspiracy theorists or are we conventional thinkers? Cause be damned better be conspiracy theorists!

I say this with utmost certainty that most are playing the 2 dimensional, partisan, segregational trap game. I came to ATS seeking a way to create solutions, but as of late, I have seen arguments that are comparable, if not equivalent, to utter FOX NEWS sidewalk crap. "I am pro-life!", says Tom. "No but I am pro-abortion!", says Fred. Why would you take sides? It makes no sense.

All I ask is to search through the thread and try and find common phrases or words in posts and it will become painfully apparent. Solutions are what we should be striving for, and not perpetual, segregational arguments. I mean the only solutions I have found on ATS so far that seem to be logical are: self sufficiency, The Venus Project, and back to bartering / farming (which is basically self sufficiency). From what I can remember at the moment

Being pro-something is fine, but when it starts to hinder our ability to collaborate as human beings, that's when we ought to draw the line.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in