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.


Forced birth control? I say YES!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:48 PM
Well it would be easy to stop the really poor and drug addicted from breeding. Just offer a few grand for them to get their tubes tide. If they want to reverse it later on their OWN dime they can.

I guarantee you that would be a BIG hit in some segments of the population, and it would NOT violate their rights. It would be their choice. I believe a politician in Louisiana actually suggested it and they accused him of racism.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Sonya610]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:53 PM
Funny how people are so opposed to government intervention into a person's personal life, yet they don't care about other ways in which government controls people. An example being gay marriage/civil unions. You'd think there would be a common consensus that small government is good. Of course if those people that opposed it were of a similar persuasion, they'd be for it, so try to find the reason in that.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by ghaleon12]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by jackieps1975

That's very EUGENICS of NAZI.

Can't pulll your weight? No babies.

What's next? What is the next "undesirable?"

I can't wait to hear.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Sonya610

You're very brave, Sonya...... I've observed that before. I like the way you shoot from the hip, but with insight. I can't disagree with a single part of what you said.

What you propose would not be an infringement nor an intrusion, but a contract, with consideration for both parties.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I imagine the tests to work as any other competency tests work. Overall test score will pass or fail you.

My best friend who works with the mentally handicapped and I have these conversations a lot. It centers around a "Extreme Home Makeover" episode. Where a brand new beautiful house was built for this family full of severely mentally handicapped people. These people didn't have the money to provide for a one child, let a lone six or seven heavily mentally/physically handicapped children.

He believes you can raise people on love alone, and I'm the jerk because I feel like I am the realist, when I don't believe those people should have reproduced past the second child, which to myself is a compromise, considering their genetic history of retardation, I would have rather them not being allowed to have children period. Definitely denied the "birthright" of reproducing especially after seeing that those "less favorable" but dominate genetics kept being passed. Not only was there no means to take care of these kids, they were relying on federal funds, and struggling to get by, letting their house go to the rats and relying on CHANCE to bail them out of a pretty gnarly situation that they never in a million years could get themselves out of.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:05 PM
Just stop handing out free money and let people support themselves. If you have a disability you can still be helped, that's fine, but having a child should not be a lottery ticket. It may sound harsh but its the only way people will take care of themselves, they are not going to get a job if you pay they to stay at home eating cheetohs and watching oprah all day long.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:27 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:52 PM
When someone is advocating that they should be allowed to control my internal organs to promote their own agenda and beliefs, that person does not DESERVE decorum. Speaking to them as if they deserve respect for their literally inhumane horrific beliefs only serves to give that person legitimacy.

Nothing I said was actually a problematic word. You have someone who wants to force feed me chemicals, or alter the interior of my torso with a scalpel against my will. And you think as long as they say it nicely, it is less horrific and has better politeness than my telling them to shove it.

Perhaps the mods should discuss that, sometimes, decorum and politeness are far from an appropriate response. That in elevating politeness as being omni-important, you've missed out on something way more important.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by LostNemesis

What about all those guys who take advantage of women? Either rape, or one night stands, or even marry them and leave them. And whichever way, they leave them knocked up or with kids.

Why do we always hear this side of the argument to rationalize the fact that people are out there having repetetive unprotected sex? There will always be exceptions but the big numbers are not exceptions. People are out there having unprotected sex because they have a safety net. They can get abortions or welfare if they don't have the ability to pay for it. They expect the taxpayers to shoulder the burden and are getting it.

If you don't want to get pregnant. Stop having sex or start acting responsibly. Rationalization will never stop. There will always be an excuse. Stop making up excuses for the fact that most unwanted pregnancies are from sheer irresponsibility.

The answer is not to force birth control. That is wrong on more levels than one and most likely would be a financial burden and ultimate failure just as most other "social" programs have been. The solution is not more government but less. Stop paying for people to have babies. Stop welfare and wic and free medical and extra money for people who keep having kids but can't (translation - won't) be responsible enough to take care of them.

Responsible people are having one or two kids so they can take care of them properly and send them to college. They are limiting their family size to be able to properly take care of the kids they have. Meanwhile, out on the assembly line there are people having litters of pups that they have no way to take care of or pay for. They just keep on popping them out and want the taxpayers to foot the bill.

We are actually working on reverse Darwinism here. We are literally breeding responsibility and restraint out of the population. It is scary to think where we will be in a few more generations. Responsibility will be a fairy tale that they tell kids at bedtime.

You want a kid. Pay for it.
You want sex but no kid. Spring for a condom.
Even better, stop having sex like rabbits in a viagra lab.
Or at least limit it to one rabbit at a time, paternity is easier to nail down that way.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:17 AM
I'm all for forced birth control.

But I think we should give everyone a chance to do the right thing and support their own child.

Take the octo mom for instance.

She had what, 6 kids? Didn't have a job, didn't have enough room for the kids she did have and was living off federal aid for a very long time. Now she has way to many kids for her to ever be able to care for them herself. She will never be able to find a job that will pay her enough to cover all the expenses 14 kids need.

People like that should be forced to take birth control until they are able to care for the children they do have in a satisfactory way. Like being able to support them without tax payers dollars.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:36 AM
Sonya is a realist. She is able to simply say it how it is....
I always loved that.

As for ideals of needing people to be RESPONSIBLE, or stop breeding? Well, it is really not like we want to control anyone's 'internal organs'... But, when someone's 'internal organs' cannot seem to figure out how to stop producing taxpayers' expense, that is when people start to get concerned....

Honestly, people want others to not care that their breeding is out of control... But it is forced onto the rest of us. It is not like breeding a cat, and simply giving the kittens away. It is creating MORE HUMANS that crowd up sidewalks, and cost taxpayer expense on a large scale.

People can keep their 'internal organs', and the affairs thereof, to themselves. But when their internal organs start to affect everyone else, is it no surprise that we are talking about this topic??

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:27 AM
There really is a simple answer.

If a woman needs any kind of state or federal assistance she agrees to a birth control shot. She goes to the Dr every three months and gets a shot, no need to remember to take pills, no permanent sterilization,
The woman shows a receipt to social services to let them know that she received her shot, they continue her services, if she doesn't get the shot, no services. When she no longer needs government assistance she stops taking the shots and starts having babies.

The government could also offer free tubal, I know many women who've paid for them rather than having more children, and many woman who would like to have a tubal but can't afford it. Birth control shots should also be free to anyone who wants them. A lot of teens are getting them just so they don't have to deal with having periods. I know my teens get them from planned parenthood very inexpensively.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by wyleecoyote]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:35 AM
I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'm a tree-hugger, but I think overpopulation is a myth. Population is actually stabilizing - it will never be more than a couple billion more people than it is now.

People who use a lot of resources have less children, and their populations decline.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:48 AM

Originally posted by wyleecoyoteIf a woman needs any kind of state or federal assistance she agrees to a birth control shot. She goes to the Dr every three months and gets a shot, no need to remember to take pills, no permanent sterilization, The woman shows a receipt to social services to let them know that she received her shot, they continue her services, if she doesn't get the shot, no services. When she no longer needs government assistance she stops taking the shots and starts having babies.

Hormonal birth control has a LOT of risks (stroke and such) and that would just mean a ton of lawsuits. They would say they were forced to take it else watch their babies starve.

Better to offer them cash for a tubal ligation, for $3000 many would jump on it so they could buy a new designer hangbag, or their boyfriend would talk them into it, or they would do it for drug money.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:50 AM

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Sonya610]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by LostNemesis

Your argument is ridiculous! Have you heard of condoms????? If a man or a woman is stupid enough to have unprotected sex in this day and age, then they deserve just what they get. Why should a woman have to be the sole support of her child when it takes two to tango and create a child.

I feel the only time a woman should be forced to be on birth control is in episodes of abuse. I have seen so many lowlife women that abuse their kids, have Child Protective case after Child Protective case and still pop out more babies to abuse. I believe if a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of child abuse and/or severe neglect they should not be allowed to reproduce until certain measures are taken. First, a set amount of time should pass, like 2 years. Second, they MUST participate in counseling and parenting classes. Third, they must do volunteer work at an agency where they can see first hand the damage of their behavior.

We cannot nor should we ever surrender our reproductive rights to government as a form of population control.

My two cents.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

DeadFlag, star for you! That is basically what I am getting at, whereas, I would also emphasize that the *breeders* must have the economic resources and moral standards to support (and properly raise) their own, as opposed to being the leeches of society that many irresponsible parents are in this day and age.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Sonya610

Ha ha! Damn girl, harsh but true........STAR FOR YOU! That has a nice ring to it. I'm glad you stated that the way you did because people defending this need to know the sad reality. I love a dose of brutality in the morning...goes so nicely with my cup of coffee!

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by jd140

That is one woman that should be sewn up. I mean FFS! Not only is she irresponsible but I'm going to speculate that she is also mentally unstable. Did you see that piece on the news where GMA was in her house? She had to have at least 3-4 staff (nanny, nurse, w/e) at a time to care for all of those kids. Who is paying for that? I don't remember ever hearing about a husband either. In addition, she will never be able to work with all those kids floating around. She was spouting some B/S about going to school, yada yada. Yeah right. I hope they follow up with her in 5 years so everyone could see how *wonderfully* she has progressed. If I am wrong, I will eat my words...but I seriously doubt it.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:50 AM
What happens with and to my body is none of your business. Its my body, its my choice, its my responsibility. I have a huge problem with the idea that anyone thinks she/he has the right to force me to do something against nature. If I'm not willing to be forced, I'm sure my children won't either. How sick this world is. People thinking they have the right to force other people to kow-tow to outrageous ideas.

If the world is over populated, so be it. How do you think you got here?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in