Population Control "A License to Breed"

At this point, it should be law that there only be one kid per person. So in a loving marriage, that has no split up in the foreseeable future, that's 2 children. That'll at least stop us from overfilling the land.

Originally posted by Aeons
People who don't have children should just shut up. The impact on anything important for you will be over in less than 80 years anyway.

"Just shut up" is an O'Reilly tactic. Congratulations, you sound pompous.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by sadisticwoman]

There are plenty of people who have commented positively on this topic that have children. Just as there's a few people who don't have children who are against the idea... You can't automatically assume all people with children are going to agree with you.

But I'll say it again... you haven't really read my idea thoroughly. I'm not asking to require people to be sterilized. I'm only asking it be mandatory to be educated before procreation. Are you saying education people on responsibility is an evil, fascist thing? It's totally great that people are blissfully ignorant?

Originally posted by Aeons
The very fact is that I actually have investment interest in the future, and those who don't breed or do so very little have little investment in how things turn out.

Ever heard of "extended family" or adopting?

I'm sorry - but I'm just not understanding the self indulgence.

A living thing (earth) needs to be healthy - with clean water - regrowth of the Rain Forest - etc. - - not raped and depleted. For me that is #1 priority.

Originally posted by OhZone
Ahab, what is wrong with sterilizing the mentally retarded?
Do you think that they should be free to create more like themsleves?

First and foremost not all mental retardation is genetic. Often times it is the result of a birth defect, chemical imbalance, improper oxygen supply during pregnancy.

Second, not all genetic causes are the result of dominant traits. It is actually possible to for normal children to be produced.

Now let's exam criteria. Autism and childhood vaccinations are showing a greater cause and effect correlation than cancer and smoking. Good and proper parents have their child vaccinated, right? How about having them drink fluorinated water for good teeth? There are studies showing a correlation between cancer, osteoporosis and fluoridation levels in the body.

As for parental education in order to be able to have children, are we talking about Dr. Spock style of child rearing here? Dr. Spock never had children...kind of puts his opinion in to perspective.

Or do you think I need a Time Out, for not playing nice and agreeing with all the other "grown ups" in the thread that are looking out for themselves under the pretext of looking out for everybody?

Honestly this thread only seems to be about planing what's next once we get rid of all the smokers for those that wish to impose their will on others.

"I hate Illinois Nazis" --Jake Blues from The Blues Brothers



[edit on 4-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

The people on this web site have a major problem. You think you can all have your cake and eat it to. You agree with peoples right to have as many babies as they want to have, but when they can't feed them or take care of them that pisses you off to. So what is it going to be?

reply to post by Avarus


How is what you propose any different, or better, than the ideas of the eugenics crowd, or other groups that have proposed such controls? In the early 20'th century, forced sterilization was a real and horrible practice. The idea that only those "smart enough, financially secure enough (by what standards?) or physically "correct" enough are dangerous, and should be repellent to anyone that values personal freedoms.

It might also be noted that thus far, all of those over-crowded doomsday world scenarios so popular in literature and movies have all failed to come to pass. The idea of people somehow overwhelming the earth is a fear tactic, IMO, and nothing more.

Originally posted by OhZone
Ahab, what is wrong with sterilizing the mentally retarded?
Do you think that they should be free to create more like themsleves?

Birth control via the pill for women is totally wrong. You ask them to poison themselves with chemicals.

Yes, snip the males.
Snip the females too.
Reverse or do invitro when the time is right.

Everyone should have to have a full history of heritable defects before being allowed to procreate.

Humans have over 4000 heritable diseases.
Is there anyone who would not want to eliminate them?

Sorry mods... but I gotta.


You're a moron. It's ironic that you would propose such measures, as you'd obviously be first in line for this "sterilization". We have unlocked the human genome, are taking our first tentative steps towards modifying out these deleterious hereditary traits -WITHOUT- evils such as forced sterilization, breeding controls, or other some of the more extreme methods of eugenics. Such as bullets, gas chambers, and ovens. How dare you look into the mirror of history and propose such wretchedness, when for the first time in human history we have the capability to reprogram the human genetic code and eliminate such harmful mutations - without KILLING and SUBJUGATING people. Many of these defects aren't even hereditary, but are just common transcription errors. Some of these issues aren't even found in the DNA itself - but in the genome as a whole. Down-Syndrome patients suffer from an extra sex chromosome. X/XX or X/YY. The segments of DNA in the extra X or Y may be complete and correct (barring, of course, natural mutations which occur in every fetus) but it's a problem in pairing.



Jesus Christ, and I'm not even Christian... but please let this be a joke.


BTW: I personally believe that the choices made in "Designer Babies" should be left to the parents as custodians of that future child, and I can see that in this fashion (like abortion) it will be left to the parents. Defects such as deafness or blindness at birth may be fixable, but the parents might opt to allow their child to develop with these handicaps. There are whole subcultures and communities of deaf and blind people who see nothing wrong themselves... and rightfully so. There is nothing wrong with them, and to have some sort of government mandate requiring correction in the embryo to "fix" blindness would be seen as an attack on their community. I can see the same for, at least some, forms of mental retardations.

However, I can't really see any parent denying their future child of hereditary breast or prostate cancer because they feel it would not be right to deprive their child of the chance to grow up in a cancer support group. Religious reasons... financial reasons... misguided moral reasons... perhaps. But not that.

(Actually, I can see a few extreme morons doing it, but they would be the rare exception)

Originally posted by Avarus

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.

Who, exactly, do you think should design such a test? Who gets to decide what the requirements are? Answer that question.

Exactly what physical "defects" would prevent a person from being allowed to have a child? Who would decide if the standards needed changed? What about this idea is different that those that sought a "super race", through selective breeding?

What exact financial standard should be met? Who decides the lowest possible income that is acceptable? Exactly what standards for the child's upbringing would prospective parents be required to prove they could pay for (and thus, by extension, be required to pay for)?

Who sets the mental standards that determine if a person is mentally prepared or capable of raising a child? What would disqualify a person?

Do you not see the problems here? ANY restrictions that those in control demanded could, and would, be put into place. A change of power, and the rules would change. People with poor vision, or certain religious beliefs, or without a 50K-plus-a-year salary (or more), people with political ideas that someone decided made them "unfit".....any and all of this could be used to prevent people from having children. What next? Forced abortions? Forced sterilization? Imprisonment?

Some of these questions have already been asked, but I have not seen an answer from you yet on them. I am most interested in hearing your opinions on these points.

Originally posted by bodhran

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.

I have seen reports and read articles and hear personal stories about the abuses of the social services system. In Florida, there were quite a number of children in the system that the system LOST. There have been many cases, all over, where there was no abuse or neglect at all, yet kids were snatched from homes, parents were treated as criminals, and in the end, it was found there was NO problem. Now, I understand that this isn't always the case, and certainly we can hope that the average worker in the field honestly wants the best for the kids that really are in danger. However, to force some testing criteria for prospective parents to hopefully avoid future abuse is in effect punishing people for a crime they MIGHT commit. This is not an acceptable practice for people that value rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by Dramey
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

So, let me see if I have this straight. You want to stop people in poor countries from breeding. So in a generation or so, they are all gone, and then what? Those that agree with you go take over the land? The problem in those countries isn't too many babies; it is corrupt governments that are already abusing the powers they have. So, gee, let's give them MORE. They can decide that their enemies are all unfit, sterilize the lot, and eliminate them. This is called genocide.

Exactly who's morals and who's values should be used here? Are you prepared to give such control to someone that thinks you might be the one who is not moral?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Some of these questions have already been asked, but I have not seen an answer from you yet on them. I am most interested in hearing your opinions on these points.

Holy mackerel... I have answered this question about 5 times, and I'm getting tired of explaining this to unnecessarily belligerent people. For some reason, you are twisting my suggestion into "The government should sterilize all people and create a superace of perfect blond haired blue eyed males."

I'm talking about a hypothetical extreme situation. The goal of this tread was to hear what the good people here at ATS think is acceptable in an extreme situation (whatever that may be).

I Personally think:
At the very least, it would be mandatory to be educated before procreation. Whether that be a series of classes, or a standardized test (like a drivers license). I hope you're not implying that educating people on responsibility is an evil, fascist thing? Are you saying it's a good thing for the general population to be blissfully ignorant, and have children they're not ready for, or willing to support?

Before you go into attack mode on somebody, please take the time to read all of their posts.

You are trying to negotiate how much control you should be allowed to have over my organs.

This is like the guy negotiating about sex for a million dollars and then trying to argue the price down. When the woman complains that he's treating her like a whore, the answer he gives is that THAT is already established and now they are just negotiating her price.

You have NO rights that extend to the interior of my body.

Period.

Originally posted by Aeons

You have NO rights that extend to the interior of my body.

Period.

I'm done. You're not even reading my posts anymore. All you can see is red, and I have no interest in having a conversation with you in this state.

Yep. A guy who hates children and women enough to want to create laws to stop them from using their organs, or even being born....and *I* have rage.

Originally posted by Aeons
Yep. A guy who hates children and women enough to want to create laws to stop them from using their organs, or even being born....and *I* have rage.

It's been a pleasure. Thanks the personal attacks, for twisting my words, and missing the entire point of this post.

[edit on 2.4.2009 by Avarus]

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.

Best post ever!!!!!!!

You can't play God, and you can't tell people how many kids they should have. Geeeez, to see a suggestion like that on ATS, where there have even been threads about the subject before, is baffling.

Originally posted by msnevil
I thought Eugenics died 100 years ago, except a few places like China?

Used to be those who bred like rats, worked like rats as well. But in this World, everything is backwards. You are "rewarded" with welfare for being lazy, and having sex all the time.

Perhaps ending "support" systems would be better then eugenics?

Ah, but that is what those in power WANT. Easily controlled masses to do their bidding. Votes that can be controlled and bought. Even distrust and hatred between various groups, so that control can be "needed" to "correct the problem". Why else would neither of the major political parties do anything to fix the border issue? It's all about power and control.

Avarus, I get what you're saying and I totally agree with you. In my area of the country, I see welfare mothers breeding like there's no tomorrow, just for the money. The children are all but forgotten, growing up in homes where education is the least of any priorities and nutrition and hygiene are iffy at best. They're lost children, and their lives have been ruined by irresponsible parents before they even had a chance to do anything.

So yes. I totally support the idea of making people who want to have children earn a license to do so. If having babies is soooo important, then they shouldn't balk at the thought of actually having to do a little hard work to deserve the privilege.

And for those against it? Okay...how about this. How about not making anyone take a test to be allowed to drive? I mean, that might impose on their right to speed irresponsibly and do whatever the hell they want to do on the roads, right? And pilots...why should they have to get a license to fly a plane? Why not just let anyone who wants to do it, have at it? Personal responsibility? Please...not anymore. If there's a problem, it's always going to be somebody else's fault.

And Aeons, you have offended me greatly on a very personal level. I have no children due to health and personal issues, yet you DARE to say that because I'm childless, I don't care about the future? I don't have as much stake in the future (and, therefore, I'm so much less important than you, since you've done your womanly duty and had babies) because I have no children? THAT is just arrogance. I have family, and I have friends, and I worry about the future of this world for their sakes (and yes, for the sake of their children).

Most of all, I worry about the future of a world where people like you feel the supreme right to judge anyone with different opinions or lifestyles and deem them unworthy of the basic human right of common respect.

Maybe that's why you (and others like you) fear the idea of a simple license for childbearing so much. You're afraid you might not make the cut.

Originally posted by Avarus

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Some of these questions have already been asked, but I have not seen an answer from you yet on them. I am most interested in hearing your opinions on these points.

Holy mackerel... I have answered this question about 5 times, and I'm getting tired of explaining this to unnecessarily belligerent people. For some reason, you are twisting my suggestion into "The government should sterilize all people and create a superace of perfect blond haired blue eyed males."

I'm talking about a hypothetical extreme situation. The goal of this tread was to hear what the good people here at ATS think is acceptable in an extreme situation (whatever that may be).

I Personally think:
At the very least, it would be mandatory to be educated before procreation. Whether that be a series of classes, or a standardized test (like a drivers license). I hope you're not implying that educating people on responsibility is an evil, fascist thing? Are you saying it's a good thing for the general population to be blissfully ignorant, and have children they're not ready for, or willing to support?

Before you go into attack mode on somebody, please take the time to read all of their posts.

I did read all of the posts, thank you very much. You did NOT answer the questions. WHO decides the standards? Can I decide for YOU? Standard tests, huh? What questions do you want to put on the tests? What is the minimum financial requirement? What conditions, or beliefs, would make a person mentally or emotionally unsuitable for parenting? Mandatory education??? This is a conspiracy site, yes? Did I take a wrong turn? Mandatory education???????? Education in exactly what standards? Set by WHOM? Gee, I would be willing to bet you have no issues with those people that have discussed mandatory service, with, of course, mandatory "training camps" for all the youth of the nation.

There is NO extreme situation with the population. There isn't going to be one. It's been predicted before, and has not happened. Heck, aren't we all supposed to be eating Soylent Green now? It's the same alarmist nonsense it has always been, set into motion to control people.

As for the number of kids people should have, stay out of MY business. I have more than two kids, and take care of them quite well (and we are not wealthy either!). One of mine is grown, and has more than two, and they are also taken care of quite well. I know other families with several children, and they ALL take care of them. Everyone with more than one or two kids isn't a welfare case, or a child abuser, or whatever other evils have been ascribed to them in this thread. All of the people I have mentioned here consider their children a blessing, a gift, a treasure. None of these kids is a truant, or a gang member, or a menace to society, or abused or neglected.

If you have issues with welfare, demand the system is revised. I have no problem with that at all. I do have issue with anyone trying to impose fascist ideas on families. It doesn't matter if you think such measures should be for a super race or not, such a system will always be abused. Look at the history. This isn't "attack mode", either, simply a statement of what I think of the idea. You did ask for opinions; did you expect them all to agree?

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?

Soylent Green anyone? This is a somewhat serious issue, but most people aren't ready to admit the problem, much less discuss it rationally. I suppose there is some small religious issue to contraception, but most intelligent people shouldn't feel threatened by the need to lessen the numbers of humanity on this orb.

Chrono