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.

 

Population Control "A License to Breed"

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloman Kane
Then people that wear glasses people that are hard of hearing or amputees or have diabettes sorry cant spell .But were do you stop .Now you see the problem.


Well that could be said about anything. Make smoking illegal? Why not cellphones, or driving, or running with scissors.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
No.

You don't get to decide to compromise the organs of other people until you think that they might be sensible.

Shall we tie you into a chair until your past toddlerhood, just to make sure that your lack of sense won't make you run onto the road? How about we don't let you walk at all until we are sure that you understand the consequences that you might fall over and bump your head?


Originally posted by Avarus
I think you're sensationalizing my suggestion just a bit aeons. Just because we require a simple eyesight test and proficiency test to drive a motor vehicle, that doesn't mean we're forcing anyone to do anything.

Consider this, maybe it's not a cultural standard, maybe it's a personal standard. What if the system is set up so that if YOU feel as though you're ready to bear a child, then all you have to do is have the birth control device removed.

It's truly an open discussion. I'm just curious about what people would do to combat global overpopulation. In a potential future scenario, you go to buy your food and you find they've run out for this week because the huge mass of hungry people already grabbed everything up... will you have the same position? Would you wish we had done something about it before it got to that point?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The overpopulation isn't here. Again, many people aren't even HAVING any children here.

Are you thinking that the people in India are going to hop into boats enmasse and row across the ocean to steal your food?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
No.

You don't get to decide to compromise the organs of other people until you think that they might be sensible.

Shall we tie you into a chair until your past toddlerhood, just to make sure that your lack of sense won't make you run onto the road? How about we don't let you walk at all until we are sure that you understand the consequences that you might fall over and bump your head?


Originally posted by Avarus
I think you're sensationalizing my suggestion just a bit aeons. Just because we require a simple eyesight test and proficiency test to drive a motor vehicle, that doesn't mean we're forcing anyone to do anything.

Consider this, maybe it's not a cultural standard, maybe it's a personal standard. What if the system is set up so that if YOU feel as though you're ready to bear a child, then all you have to do is have the birth control device removed.

It's truly an open discussion. I'm just curious about what people would do to combat global overpopulation. In a potential future scenario, you go to buy your food and you find they've run out for this week because the huge mass of hungry people already grabbed everything up... will you have the same position? Would you wish we had done something about it before it got to that point?


Wow, you're taking this one quite personally. Nobody's attacking you or your family.

Well if you nix the idea of required birth control, are you really going to tell me it's a bad thing to require people to take something as simple as a planned parenthood test before having a child? You're saying it's great that people can have 50 babies and not have the means or knowledge to feed or keep them? Isn't that making the children suffer? This isn't about you, it's about breeding ignorance at an exponential rate.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


You already pointed out some of the incentives for this kind of phenomena. My personal opinion is that, in a broader base, it is really the Marxian idea that government runs everything that lays out a foundation for this erratic social issues and others.

In tradtitional culture, children were born, then bred, and then educated, solely by parents. Now, Marxian welfarism takes care of children feeding; Goverment schooling takes care of children education. So there is nothing left that can really stop people from worrying about raising too many kids. Ultimately, the Government is here to help out.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Again with the people on here who think that the PTB are evil, and yet come up with this.

I wonder when you guys will clue in that you ARE the PTB. And crappola like this proves it.


Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Good idea about the drug charges.
Birth control pills are really inexpensive. My mom actually said that she thinks we should just put it in the water.

But then people will go drink bottled water and have 18 kids like those people on TLC.




we are all one...there is no such thing as evil....

but I must agree somewhat with the OP that this is actually a rather fantastic idea. I myself am electing not to have children until I have enough money to provide a stable environment for them...
I am not psychologically fit to take care of a child as I am still learning how to take care of myself so that is another requirement that I would agree with...

this may sound draconian, but think about how many lives it would save.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Might want to double check those ideas with the US Constitution in particular Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and especially 9 and 10.

According to statistics that I have read the earth can handle a population of 44 Billion. At 6 Billion we are far short of that level.

Perhaps stronger enforcement of the moral ideas of sharing and compassion should happen before we begin the wholesale slaughter of those that have committed the particular crime of "not being mine" is in order here?

Some even call that the Golden Rule.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Are you nuts? People in this country dont have on average 10-20 kids...and a license to breed? Come on now that is not necessary. You need to hit the drawing board again and do some serious rethinking of this idea of yours.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The answer is simple...YES. People should be licensed to breed...those of you that are to busy complaing about invading others bodies ....etc..do you not even care about the kids that are physically and mentally abused by thier own parents? So a childs life does not matter as long as some woman and man who will suffer them in the future keep thier rights? I have no clue why some of you are against this. If you are a good person than you should have nothing to worry about. The same people complaing about rights are the ones who also scream about thier right to bear arms...the right to take another's life if they feel threatened ( forget about the others life as long as your is safe....
), and you may say they have lost that right...etc...but once again...rights only matter when it doesn't hurt you.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by riggs2099]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
The answer is simple...YES. People should be licensed to breed...those of you that are to busy complaing about invading others bodies ....etc..do you not even care about the kids that are physically and mentally abused by thier own parents? So a childs life does not matter as long as some woman and man who will suffer them in the future keep thier rights? I have no clue why some of you are against this. If you are a good person than you should have nothing to worry about. The same people complaing about rights are the ones who also scream about thier right to bear arms...the right to take another's life if they feel threatened ( forget about the others life as long as your is safe....
), and you may say they have lost that right...etc...but once again...rights only matter when it doesn't hurt you.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by riggs2099]


I agree completely, I work in the field of social care with the children who are abandoned by parents who had neither the mental, emotional or financial capacity to care for a child, a system of testing whether someone is capable of bringing a child into this world would be welcome, ( not by all obviously as it requires some intelligent thought to rationalise it )it would solve most of our social problems and solve the population problem as well. And to the poster who thinks that the earth can support 44 billion people, I can guarantee that if we reach that point you will end up eating homeless people instead of just walking by then in the gutter.
250 years ago we had 750 million people on the entire planet, we currently are heading for 7 billion. 44 billion, what a joke, except it's not a joke when people don't understand what the hell is going on.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bodhran
 


Yep 44 Billion, things would at that point meet land exhaustion and food production. Now the earth might start resembling a megatropolis at that point but consider this one point to put things in perspective. The Ancient Greeks were concerned about population control to the point of massive amounts of infancide.

Lowering and regulating the birth rate due t a fear of competition of resources is older than civilization itself. When one group of cave dwellers would wage war on the group from the next cave down because it might be harder for their tribe to gather food.

Current growth estimates put the world population at 10 billion in the year 2100.

As for myself, never married and never had children as of yet because I know that I can not afford either right now or in the past. It is a personal criteria and personal responsibility but for those to regulate it based on their criteria...I have a better way of correcting undesired population and relieve their fears at the same time. It is called suicide. And that is far more honorable and respectable than oppression.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

I see.. suicide is more respectable than rational thought and personal responsibility? We are talking about people who for various reasons should not be having children because they lack the ability to care and provide for them. Are you suggesting that we encourage them to commit suicide instead , or the people worried about overpopulation should commit suicide? Either suggestion is absolutely ridiculous and shows that you have no interest in actually debating this issue.

ps :Neither the ancient Greeks nor the Cavemen were as numerous so as to threaten the survival of the entire ecosystem of the earth

[edit on 3-2-2009 by bodhran]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   


Simpy, anyone who cannot afford kids, should not have kids. NO welfare for the irresponsible breeders. NONE. We have encouraged breeding for long enough. If people can afford kids, well that should be up to them how many they can seriously pay for and provide attention for. Another thing. Public schools should now ONLY be paid for by those with kids that use said schools. I am sick of paying for other peoples' offspring.


I agree 100% with you , its just sick to see all thoses peoples makin kids with no controls, the planet is is over populated, and thoses persons are just acting "oh but we are right we're makin babies, not like thoses criminals abortionist"



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a sort of agree with the license thing, far too often we see too many people breeding who arent responsible enough to be parents, and ignorance breeds future generations of ignorant, i see this in the lower economical areas all the times, along with the higher economic areas, just because you're rich and can afford a nanny doesn't mean thats the best thing for a child

and im not being prejudice or racist, because personally i have come to this conclusion from seeing friends and other peers having children that have no right to have children

often when this topic is brought up, people immediately talk about child welfare and all that crap that is supposed to keep kids safe

but unfortunately here on earth in real life more does need to be done, too many kids the world over are growing up in the wrong conditions all because some irresponsible ignorant person wants to have sex, even if sex is solely to have children, it doesnt mean that they should have children

i know controlling who can and cant have children brings up a laundry list of other issues but fact of the matter is that it is my opinion that there are just certain people that should not be allowed to breed, now how we go about controlling that situation is a whole other topic.

just for example
inner city "gangster wanna-bes" should not breed, as i see the way they raise their kids, and they are going to grow up to be exactly like their parents

people in countries that are experiencing severe war and famine and cannot implement a working government due to violence and corruption, they in my opinion should not breed. Why should people breed and create more mouths when they themselves cannot feed their own mouth, let alone be a mother who breast feeds their child yet cant produce milk as they are malnourished themselves

rich parents to dont teach their children love compassion and intelligence and just breed spoiled little brats who go on mtv to have their super sweet 16th bday, they too should not breed, as they may breed a smart business savvy child, yet they have no morals and are not grounded


in my opinion in todays day and age with all the knowledge we have available to us, i feel there is just a better way to go about these things rather then rely on old ancient ways that are causing problems to this day, including diseases like aids and such

life is truly precious, and if we are to create life and bring a new being into this world, this being deserves to be brought up in the best conditions we as humanity can offer them teaching them to be intelligent compassionate loving fair and strong

but how we would achieve such a thing i truly do not know, for if we put the control of this in the wrong hands, it could easily mean the doom of our society

so i am not some extremists who thinks we should quickly jump into things, however i am someone who feels the way we do things now can be severely improved and we owe it to our descendants to do what we can to work towards a truly brighter future



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
in browsing other replies on here i just want to clearify

it is not just the economically well off that make for a good parent

all the money in the world doesnt raise a good child

some of the best parents ever to walk this earth were poor parents, it is not so much money, but values and morals that make a parent good

that is one thing we must realize if we do ever change things, we cant just have a economic level that allows you to breed just because you made enough each year, but you must have morals and values along with that money



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bodhran
 


No, I said suicide is more honorable and respectable than oppression.

Suggesting that I go out and kill anyone or suppress the ability to have offspring to those who oppose my opinion is irrational thought and really hampers debate.

We are not talking about something that is an inconvenience to be aborted and flushed down the toilet like a dead goldfish here. We are talking about removing the freedom of choice from people we find to be undesirable. Many examples exist in history of man's inhumanity to man. Even right here in the good old USA.

Genocide of the Native American Indians, forced sterilization of the mentally incompetent, abduction of children during the Great Depression to be placed in "better homes" separating siblings permanently. Honestly we are talking about fascism and eugenics here.

Is a person a good parent if there are not two parents? If they are not a man and a woman? If they make minimum wage? If they are not college educated? What if the mother is an exotic dancer and makes $50k a year? What if she does not attend the right church? Or perhaps they have a bi-racial child? Good God I even heard that the prospective parent applicant knows a person that has a friend whose cousin saw someone actually smoke a cigarette from a distance of three blocks, obviously we must protect the potential child from the debilitating effects of 97th hand smoke.

Where does this end? Even if the whole world got together and established all the guidelines so the whole world was in absolute agreement as to what the exact criteria would be you know full well two teenagers are going to say "forget that" and have a child without anyone's permission. And I for one would applaud them loudly and openly for proving to the world what freedom really is all about.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
We really need Man to evolve out of his crap!

I am probably going to be hated for this:
I look at the breeders(20's) porn generation, bad drugs, violent video games where they kill babies and women..., junk food, gansta pimp attitude, bad education...I do not think they should reproduce, I know I would not want to be your daughter.

A new type of human will emerge from all this chaos. I believe men and women will recognise each other's qualities and functions as different but equaly important. A deep Respect for Life should ensure happy healthy offspring.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by HulaAnglers]


sty

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
so, actually you support the ideea that the abillity to make money should be essential in having the right to reproduce? let us say we have this smart ass , working in research every day but somehow he is not able to make enough money to quallify in order to have kids.

Then, some guys that let say is good on making money with any means but has no moral value and respect for life - ok, he quallifies because he has the cash.

point 2 - if someone is disabled in a way (non-genetical) let say has an accident, and has his legs amputated. Sure his income will plummet , and of course his body is not "fit" anymore. It means you will not allow this person to have kids??

and at last : psychologically fit . How would you define this, as this changes across the centuries?? what is normal now was considered "sick" back 100 years ago. How would you estabilish what is " psychologically fit " , under what standards as psychology itself it is NOT a science?

conclusion: let people decide if they want to have kids or not, things will self-adjust. No need for another Natzi leadership , look: everyone said that we will be about 8 billions by 2000, and 10 by 2020 . This never happened, the world population is leveling. So , your ideeas are simply NOT needed.

Most of the EU is facing DECREASE of population. In Romania we will need to bring immigrants if I ever want to see any pension (i am in my 30s now, but after me there are barely any kids being born).
Romania is a country of 22 million people, but a decade ago we used to be 23 million, with a large portion of people in need to get retired within the next 10 years. Actually we have 4 million retired people, and yet you would limit the number of births even more?
GET REAL! and keep it real ! Eugenics is not needed. If you want to help the society , make this place a better place - and donate some money for DNA research that would engineer smarter kids .



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
before yous jump on this bandwagon, can I suggest that you take a serious look at the real world out there. what are most of the jobs in your area paying? talk to your neighbors and friends, find out how much they are paying to house a family of four, how, how much is their health insurance, how much they are paying for groceries, clothing, ect....
you may very well find out that well.....most of us really can't afford kids!

and as far as forcing birth control on people,
umm....ya, let's make men get snipped! is that okay with eveyone, then later, if we feel it's deserving, well, we can always unsnip them!

doctors will advise more women to get off the pill when they are around 30, most of the birth control methods are really not that great, and well, each person's body is different, some are really sensitive to many chemicals, you start shoving peices of plastic and such in my body, you are liable to kill me thank you...of course, that would help solve any problem you may have with overpopulation, wouldn't it?

hey I know, let's divide the country into three sections, the males can get the east coast, the females the west coast, and well, those of the two groups that are found to be "acceptable for breeding" well, they can venture out and meet half way in mid america, where they can breed, and farm...since well, that's one of the advantages of having kids, more hands for the farm work!

the reason why you have so many women having kids they can't afford is that they are rewarded for that lifestyle, in many states, they are rewarded far better than they would be if they remained a virgin and applied themselves to a job and went to work everyday. so, the answer to this problem isn't to change the system so that the workers are a tad better off than the welfare recipients, but rather, invade the bodies of all the women.....I am sure that forcing birth control on the men never entered into many minds here, has it....endanger their health and well being...all because all of a sudden it's become quite appearant that we can't afford this crap!!!

still say that we should sterilize everyone as soon as possible after birth, we can pick the creme of the crop as far as who carries the babies till birth, who raises them, who teaches them the official state propaganda, we have the technology now...we can control the birth rate quite efficiently, we can now control everything.....


at least then we would be invading everyone's bodies, not just a small group of demonized women!



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Earth, has enough resources and land mass to house every family of lets say.. 4 in the world. However we cannot have this because of big corporations and people who have like 5 mansions that they don't even use. I personaly think that any more than 5 children per couple can have negative affects any way you look at it. It's alot of responsibility for just 2 people who are probably slaving away at work anyway.

Maybe if we didn't have a monetary system and worked on a resource based economy, 5 children would work for people who now actually have time to look after them, assuming they have the character too also.

Something seems wrong about a liscence to produce. It can have unforseen affects that we cannot see. What if person a was not allowed to produce with person b, but person c, d or e if born could change the world? Right now, with society, government and environment as it is, I agree that having more than a sustanible amount of children is pretty much a bad thing. However maybe once we transcend past all these negatives, we can produce a new generation that will look back and laugh at us for being such fools.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join