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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:04 AM
only two words...

"make me" or "make us"

sorry, but enforcement only goes so far. I think you're being too harsh, too elitist, and too discriminatory for my taste, or the taste of any sane human being with common sense. You or anybody shouldn't have the right to decide who among us are destined to bring a child into the world.

Honestly, what is it with all this elitist cr*p anyway? What makes you think YOU know better than I do about whether I can or can't have children? You don't know me, or my circumstances, yet you feel compelled to tell me how to behave? Tell you what... you worry about YOUR OWN life, and leave the rest of us alone (unless we are criminals, in which case call 911)

Oh, did I forget to add also, that Hitler was of a similar mentality when he was trying to create his "master race" or did you forget that tidbit in history? It was called Eugenics, and hitler was a big proponent of it.

The more and more I read elitist diatribe like this from people who try to pose it and hide it with "rational" thinking. The more and more I'm thinking that these people are upset because once they go out into the real world they find out that the world doesn't quite revolve around their "perfect, utopian" ideas, and somehow feel they must try to force their ideas or convince people of their ideas in order to push this garbage, not even bothering to think of the consequences that they bring, especially when it comes to the matter of FREE WILL.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Question]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by jackieps1975

Forced birth control? Are you kidding me? How do you expect to enforce that? Are you going to hold women at gunpoint and watch them swallow their birth control pills?

How about just killing women? I've heard that's something Hitler was involved in. Just kill people so they can't reproduce.

I have another idea. It's an Illuminati idea, actually, just decrease the surplus population with famine and disease. A genetically engineered swine flu or ebola or something.

Or, we could just nuke China and India. That would eliminate at least 2 billion people, easy! That would also eliminate competition for American jobs.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by muffingirl]

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:07 PM
So many of you miss the point. I never even mentioned sterilization. That's okay, keep perpetuating behaviors such as these. This country is too damn liberal with this kind of scum:

and if you don't think that is sick enough and still wish to say these disturbed young woman should be able to have babies........

Kindly do me a favor and peruse these few articles and then tell me what they all have in common. It may sound cruel but some of us would rather be a little harsh in prevention to avoid such tragedies.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:31 PM
Congrats OP. You have convinced me that you do not deserve freedom. You are just yet another person who thinks they have the right to control other peoples lives.

You are the reason this country is so screwed up. People like you who aren't happy enough being able to make decisions for their own life, they believe they are able to make decisions for other peoples lives.

Those who can't be happy with a single life to live make me sick.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by OhZone
Here we go again.
We are spending millions in welfare and yet there are tax payers who will scream at the notion that poor people should be prevented from multiplying indefinitly.
I say sterilize them all.
The poor in the world are growing poorer and greater in percentage of the entire population.
Really want a war on poverty?
Sterilize them and let them die out.
This would cut welfare payments back by at least 80%.
The remaining folks could support themselves on their low wages and no children would have to suffer.

One joker here thinks that not paying the unwed mother support would solve the problem....wonder what he/she is using for a brain.

But he/she is against forced sterilization. Maybe he/she should make a personal pledge of cash support.

I expect to get flamed, but I'm used to that.
I call it as I see it.
There is nothing like cold logic for efficiency in solving problems.

Oh, who will make that decision?
The individual's life will speak for itself.
Unskilled drop out that can't read, write or speak the language question about it.

You've got a point there .. is it fair that people can saddle society with children who are jailbound, unproductive, or unhealthy? If my government forces me to cover the cost of medical treatment for kids born in poverty, juvenile detention, etc .. then I should have a say in who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. If you're not cool with that, then don't ask me to pay for your kid's problems ..

It's a cold way of looking at things, but emotion has no place in political discussion .. because emotion boils down to morals .. and forcing your morals onto others infringes on their freedom.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:01 AM
*sigh* I see this subject come up on so many occasions in this forum, I'm getting quite numb... and lost. I just wish people would understand that everybody (and their situation) is as individual as, well... as each individual. No two people, or the situations that led them to where they are today, are alike. I'm just saying people should consider not to stereotype or label 'groups' (and what should happen to them) without having experienced each person's life first.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by misfitoy
*sigh* I see this subject come up on so many occasions in this forum, I'm getting quite numb... and lost. I just wish people would understand that everybody (and their situation) is as individual as, well... as each individual. No two people, or the situations that led them to where they are today, are alike. I'm just saying people should consider not to stereotype or label 'groups' (and what should happen to them) without having experienced each person's life first.

By that logic, a judge would have to be part murderer, child molestor, rapist, money launderer, etc ..

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal

My post's 'logic' actually was not referring to any judge... I mentioned "people" in general. I'm referring to the people who are so quick to look down on others... look down on the ones that many times are victims of circumstance and have absolutely no one to turn to.

My point is merely that a growing number of people have reached a point where it's easier for them to just point fingers at a category of people rather than reaching out to them as individuals first. It just saddens me because I've watched some of the most beautiful and caring people just... give up. They eventually lost the strength to continue fighting for the better because society turned their back on them during the time they were unable to 'contribute' hence, an 'infringement on society.'

btw~ wanted to add that I don't see anything in the OP about murderers, rapists, etc that you mentioned above, and I would most certainly hope that this is not how you view people that are unable to contribute... good grief, talk about categorizing people.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by misfitoy]

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:29 AM
It's funny because I proved Abortion isn't related to crime the last page and suddenly the topic changes.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by jackieps1975

In essence you are talking about forced sterilization... there's no other means other than sterilization to enforce mandatory birth control...
Well lets see... the natzies tried it in WWII they ended up opening death-camps as the final solution.... Most of you don't know this but in the 60's and 70's the US government forced sterilization upon unwitting Native American women... the plan was just to let the race die out...

But to be fair lets take a good look at your plan...dead weight would include anyone who doesn't pay taxes so we should include parents who take the EIC and get all their tax money back, plus some... there dead weight right? What about all the young servicemen and women who become disabled in the line of duty... they no longer work and surely their seeing eye dogs and artificial limbs are a drain on our country too... Lets sterilize all of them... In fact why now just turn fema camps into gas chambers... surely homeless flood victims are a major drain on this country... what about preschoolers they contribute nothing lets sterilize all of them before they get to kindergarten and become preteen mothers...

your suggestion is ilconceived childish and quite dangerous .... comrade Jackie

[edit on 12-6-2009 by DaddyBare]

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:15 AM
Forced sterilization isn't a bad idea...It's just that it's a controversial one. I'm all for it...reason being is that people who do not not even have the ability to support themselves are breeding the most...and of course they can play the system and get their handouts. These people are numerous..and unless the government puts a stop to their games, they will continue to reap the benefits from taxpayers.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by laiguana

you are judging someone's qualifications from your monetary perspective, which is flawed because capitalism cannot allow everyone to be able to be wealthy by its very nature. So what you are saying is essentially a cast system where the untouchables aren't allowed to breed. Yet by that very act, when they die off with no descendants, people MUST take their positions by the demand for it and as the waves of economic highs and lows knock people off, more will become untouchables. Essentially creating a state where only the rich can have kids and the poor will die alone. It's forced evolution of sorts.

Sorry, no.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:36 PM
Okay, for the 800th time, people need to read this thread thoroughly before they make erroneous comments and make presumptions. I never mentioned sterilization. I am talking about introducing birth control in a preventitive measure. It may sound harsh to some bleeding hearts....but reality is harsh.

So, are some of you really proposing that it's better to just not talk about it and let these irresponsible women keep having children? Innocent children that live terrible lives in poverty, prison and often times turn up dead before they even reach toddlerhood? Give me a break.

People need to learn responsibility or face the consequences. The people (ie. tax payers, working class) that pay for the actions of others have a right to their opinion and the right to make suggestions for the betterment (even if it stings a little at first).

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by badmedia

Congrats OP. You have convinced me that you do not deserve freedom. You are just yet another person who thinks they have the right to control other peoples lives.

You are the reason this country is so screwed up. People like you who aren't happy enough being able to make decisions for their own life, they believe they are able to make decisions for other peoples lives.

Those who can't be happy with a single life to live make me sick.

Well, if we're talking about freedom...check yourself please. We all have rights to our opinion, one of the many beautiful things that go hand in hand with freedom! I'm guessing you haven't really been exposed to much of the 'real world' if you can't handle a conversation of this multitude. Your insults are clearly indicative of your character. I am willing to bet you didn't even read through the whole thread.

For you to presume this comes from a place of hate and people wanting to control others, you are sadly mistaken. To have a woman (who is uncapable of parenting) take a birth control pill is not an unreasonable request. Get over yourself.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by jackieps1975

When people attempt to limit other's freedoms, they no longer are protected by freedom. That's why radicals with guns are arrested.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by jackieps1975

The young lady they were interviewing for the piece was an unmarried nursing student. (Key word here...student), with no intentions of marrying the *baby daddy*.

What's wrong with that? She will have an excellent career when she graduates and pay her debt back to society. There's always jobs for nurses and they make excellent pay. What is your problem with this?

Now before I get attacked, let me just state that I am all for breeding if you are a contributing member of society. I do not care if you are single, homosexual, or any other societal taboo for that matter, just as long as you are able to provide proper care and upbringing to your child, without becoming an infringement on society (or me as a hardworking tax payer!).

And she would be when she graduates. She is helping herself, and becoming a nurse, she may be helping you one day. She has intentions of working. However, I agree that a person who is sitting on their A** and having four, five, and six babies to get the welfare(the welfare queens) SHOULD be made to use some form of Birth Control, I'd go so far as saying manditory sterilization for those losers!!!! Plus some serious pychologist time.

To be perfectly honest, I am in favor of mandatory birth control. Not only in teens, but also in those that are unable to pull their proverbial "weight" in this country. It may sound cruel and inhuman but it's not. I am not talking about sterilization or anything invasive or dehumanizing. I'm simply stating that if individuals cannot act responsibly, rather than burdening the populus, keep them in check in some manner. We are overpopulated. The working class of America is every dreg of society's meal ticket and I've about had enough of that. I don't condone abortion and I also don't condone bringing children into unfavorable situations just for the sake of not having an abortion! Rather than perpetuate these situations of moral turmoil, why not make one of the long-term birth control devices mandatory for those who are under-age or ill equipped to raise a child??? I personally believe that many individuals and society as a whole would benefit. Ineffectual, invasive and blatantly ridiculous laws are passed every day. Why not something that would actually HELP us as a whole? I think it's perfectly reasonable.

This is agreeable, And I'd go so far as to say psychological testing be done on all parents before they reproduce, to lessen abuse, neglect, and child death rates.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by ldyserenity

You are trying to standardize what is normal. But normal is purely a personal viewpoint. My parents yell and fight each other. To me they are freaking nuts. But to each other they are happily married. I don't think they are happy but they say they are.

So who is right? What can be described as normal when the people view it as but you do not?

That's why you are wrong. The government managing the right to reproduce is simply one step away from an almost Matrix-like society with everything controlled.

No thank you. What I do in bed and how I raise my offspring, or if I decide I want to "parent" them your way, is purely my business. Keep your little government eyes away from me and maybe I won't threaten the life of your inspector when "it" comes to see me.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth


If she gets pregnant and she ends up being on welfare or what have you, there is not much that can be done. The government will not just allow these babies to go hungry or with out healthcare.

The issue, you have with not wanting your hard earned money to go to people like that, is understandable, and there are people who abuse this systen to get as much money from the government as possible (octomom)....

So perhaps a more reasonable move to make would be to limit the money that they can get. To give them just enough for the kids, and give it in a form that can not be spent on un needed junk. Food stamps for example would be a wise thing to give to parents who need it. A cheaper or free healthcare system for parents in that situation.

I don't know, I am just throwing ideas out, but I truly believe all the ones I have come up with are MUCh better than forcing women to go on birth control. The bottom line is it is none of my business who has sex and when. It is not the governments either, however when it does happen, it is our duty to make sure those children are safe, fed and sheltered and loved.

We can not just stop giving them money, I can understand how you might feel about the women but it is not about them it is about the kids that they ahve brought into this world.

Except when they are my children...or so the government decides...yes they decide who qualifies...apparently I didn't. This is a touchy subject for me because 1) I BUSTED MY A** from the age of sixteen paying into their D*** welfare tax. 2.) I served their G******* COUNTRY! 3.) I even had my own healthcare for many many years, but when I was laid off...what did they do...they denied my children of any help/ welfare..AND THEN THEY HARRASSED ME FOR FIVE YEARS UNTIL THEY NEARLY HAD MY CHILDREN ADOPTED OUT FOR NO GOOD D*** REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY??? BECAUSE I WASN'T A CRACKHEAD SLUT OR A ILLEGAL OR OF AN ETHNIC MINORITY GROUP(WHICH IS A D*** FALLACY ANYWAY AS THEY OUTNUMBER US 10 TO 1!!!! Wake UP...the people who really do need it for any given time are NOT the ones getting's all the dregs of society getting the help!!!!!

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by mopusvindictus

Well, right. I mean, it's kind of crude but the way I see it, we're just animals. Huge eukaryotic multicellular organisms. If it wasn't for technology and medication, we would all die a lot earlier. And the healthiest of us would live on to reproduce. Nowadays, everyone passes their genes along, even if they are evolutionarily weak. And the elderly are kept alive for much longer through artificial means. Which is more important? When do you just let people die? It's hard because we all love things so much, and we have these silly emotions.

That's the thing with abortion and birth control. People say "It's a life! It's a future!" I say "Honestly, it's a bunch of cells right now. You never know what can happen."

Kind of awful, but kind of true.

Absolutely, this is what I have always said... your first paragraph here here...

Nowadays, everyone passes their genes along, even if they are evolutionarily weak
I beleive this is the fall of our society...survival of the fittest kept the human race strong!!!! It weeded out the worthless genetics.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by ldyserenity

That's really not right. Weak according to nature is not weak according to man. I have asthma, so should I die because my lungs are weak? 1000 years ago I would die. Now I am on meds when I need them, but remain a fully functioning member of society.

No, it won't be the downfall of society, it will be its rise. For only the species which commits itself to self preservation in such a way so as to make the weakest into equals is the best survival.

to hell with genetic elitism.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in