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.


Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:57 AM
reply to post by fraterormus

Excellent post and it reflects my thoughts entirely!

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:10 AM
It's quite clear to me that we should ban from breeding:
Shoppers seen buying ready meals
Traffic Wardens
Forum-ites who communicate in text speak
People who dress their pets in cutesy outfits and carry them around
Anyone who wears a baseball cap back to front
Call centre sales staff
Anyone who has a shoe closet bigger than my house
Anyone called Liam or Britney

That'll do for now
Any advances?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by unicorn1]

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:34 AM

Originally posted by endisnighe
Than, when or if they feel they can actually contribute to the COLLECTIVE,


They are the ones that think government is their for their benefit,


Apparently you failed to pursue the most robust government program: public education.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

As a followup to another thread dealing with the hot topic of abortion yet again, I pondered if perhaps the simplest solution would be to restrict reproduction starting at the time a child reaches puberty. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to administer a vasectomy to all male children prior to the onset of puberty.

Are you insane?

Its our god given right to reproduce, To keep mankind going.

If people stoped haveing kids, in less than 100 years there would be no one left on the planet.

If someone wanted to give my kid a vasectomy id cut THERE ...penis off

EDIT: And what about unplanned pregnancies? Some of the greatest people that ever lived wernt planed. Yet the world is a better place because of them.

I guess you're all for RFID chips implanted into you're children to.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Agent-ATS]

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:48 AM
Your opening post implies the government imposing strict laws and limits on people and their person, their privacy, their choices. That's very different than abortion, which is a choice that an individual makes for their own life.

The fact that you don't see a difference between an entity imposing strict and invasive laws on all people - and an individual's choice for their personal life - is worrying, to say the least.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:48 AM
Reproduction is a right, but your progeny is also a personal responsibility, which has turned into a non 'Politically Correct' term nowadays. If someone has proven to be incapable of supporting for his/her offspring, then something should be done. The state should not be expected to raise your 'personal responsibilities' while you are allowed to act just as childish as your children.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:56 AM
We need better education for our children. NOT Vasectomies.

OP would you really let someone give you're child a vasectomy?

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Agent-ATS]

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by Agent-ATS

Got to agree with you there.

As I said on the first page educating the less intelligent would help reduce the numbers of poor or unemployed and it would also help with regards to crime, drugs etc

The answer most definately is not selective breeding or banning peoples right to reproduce.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:17 AM
Well its not like we have many rights left to take, might as well take this one too huh?

This is just sickening.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by Death_Kron

The answer most definately is not selective breeding

No its not just take a look at the so called elite.

Bunch of inbred,selectively bred toe-rags. I dont want to live in a world of designer baby, cloned ,mutants.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by Agent-ATS

I dont want to live in a world of designer baby, cloned ,mutants.

I certainly don't either! I don't even think that plastic cosmetic surgery is right unless its for medical purposes (i.e. because someone has been badly burnt) or because someones looks are that bad they are bullied or feel insecure to the point of depression about their looks.

Like I said on the first page, nature shouldn't be messed with!

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by Death_Kron

Like I said on the first page, nature shouldn't be messed with!

I agree. I also belive that nature has a way of righting it's self.

And maybe just maybe ,if the world was filled with "clones" nature would just wipe them all out, in it's own way. Big fireball from the sky suites me lol.

Go nature.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Interesting that your handle is "Freenrgy". Free energy? Very interesting...

First of all, because you are the one willing to put this idea into practice, I would judge that you would be the first one to undergo this challenge. I highly doubt you'd pass, as you have no love for your fellow human beings and their freedoms. This makes you a horrible candidate to have children.

Secondly, bad things happen in the world. People make mistakes. Bad decisions are made. We all make mistakes. We all do bad things at one point. A lot of us grow up and decide to be good, whether it be for God or for ourselves or for our kids. A lot of us grow up and decide to be evil, whether it be for hatred for God, or for ourselves, or for our parents. This is the reality of life. No matter what laws or statutes or plans you make, you can never change this. YOU CANNOT CHANGE NATURE. So, therefore, what you're proposing is evil. I think that people like you cause a lot of problems for society. Make I should think of ways to have your fingers removed if you don't type what is good and true? Oh, but that would kill your freedom of expression. Oh well. Too bad that there are natural consequences to stupidity. I guess we don't have to make laws to punish people for everything! The punishment fits pretty dang well.

You obviously have not made a big enough mistake or suffered a big enough mistake yet. Or maybe you're too jaded and haven't figured the reality of your situation yet. It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your part in your life and forgive. It's time to move on. Meanwhile, others are going to be making mistakes and making the choice to either learn from the consequences or continue down their rotten path. Interestingly enough, even if your idea was put into action, who is going to take that kind of action against the very people who are performing these operations? I mean, these people would neutralize a number of people in a day, meet a quota, go home, get drunk, try to hit on a co-worker or a girl at the bar, and say, "Hey, baby. I've been neutralized. Yeeeah." They could even explain the process in order to con her into believing it. Oh, I can just see it now... the numbskull humans that reproduce.

And THEN... OH my gosh. That guy has a baby. He's a DAD!! I guarantee he's not going to neutralize his baby so easily.

Grow up and learn how reality works. Stop attempting to stop "bad" things from happening. Your evil is greater.

We CAN reduce the amount of "bad" happening in the world if we stopped making so many double-talk laws that reduce peoples' freedoms to the point where people have to fear whether it's okay to describe someone and wonder if they should say, "black" or "white" in the description. I mean, it DOES narrow things down a little, doesn't it?

Anyone who has passed PUBERTY can tell you that the more you attempt to control a situation, the more likely it is to get out of control. IF you want to be more intelligent about ensuring that certain people don't reproduce, do your part and don't. Or, either that, understand for yourself the consequences and if ever you find out that your children are having sex when they shouldn't be, you discuss with them and deal with them accordingly and explain WHY it's a bad time. But, you can't control them. You can't control anyone, sorry to tell you.

You want to know the awesome thing about choice? We always have it. Even if someone put a blade to my neck and told me I had to do something, the obvious answer is NOT to bow down and then say later, "I was forced." No, you weren't forced. You were given a new set of options. You chose the easy way out. No one said it is easy to make the right decision, but that would be why it is called the RIGHT decision and not the easy one.

If I've learned anything, it's that adults come in all ages. I've met 12 year old adults and 60 year old kids. I'm rarely amazed anymore.

I am reproducing, by the way. I have a baby on the way here in a couple of weeks. And my baby is going to let your baby live. What will yours do for mine?

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by TarzanBeta

Wow, tell me how you really feel!

You should read my posts for they really are, playing devil's advocate.

Of course, you prejudged me based on the highlights of my post.

The main point, which I explained in a previous post is to take this whole paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars to the next level. Are we so blind to not assume that once the government has their mits into paying for abortions, that somewhere along the way they are going to start flexing their muscles and limit reproduction? It's the natural evolution of power hungry, corrupt politicians.

Let me ask you something. Ever watch T.V. when the arrest some child rapist or murderer? Ever say to yourself, "Man, I hope that guy doesn't have kids" or "Why are people like him allowed to reproduce?" Have you every thought that perhaps a way to reduce the amount of gang and drug-infested neighborhoods would be to limit reproduction. How many baby daddies are there? And I know personally of women in our area who get pregnant and have kids just so they can collect more money and aid from the state. What a drain on resources that you and I pay for, don't you think?

Many abortions performed are out of "convienence." The woman didn't count on having a baby at that particular time, so abort it. My proposal wouldn't ban one forever from being able to reproduce, but would act more like a stop-gap in that a male would not have his sterilization reversed or a woman allowed to conceive until they could demonstrate their ability to care for a child.

Whether what I've written appalls you or not, affects me not one iota. I'm broaching the subject because I see this coming to the forefront in the near future if we have government-run healthcare. No matter what bill passes there will be rationing. And, eventually, with rationing someone will realize that there would be more money to be made if reproduction were restricted and authorized only with government approval.

After all, Americans seem perfectly content to give their liberties away to the all-knowing, all-powerful government.

It is you and anyone else blind to what is taking place around you that needs to wake up. Let my post serve as a warning to you and everyone else.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Have you every thought that perhaps a way to reduce the amount of gang and drug-infested neighborhoods would be to limit reproduction

No mate, education and effective community support policing among other things will sort that problem out.

You cannot limit or restrict the human right to reproduce, its called nature.

How many times...

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by Death_Kron

You're right mate, I certainly can not.

However, the government can. Once you give them enough power, all bets are off.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

You're right mate, I certainly can not.

However, the government can. Once you give them enough power, all bets are off.

The government get away with enough, I'll agree on that.

But it would never happen in my opinion and should never happen.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by gandhi

Reproduction as a right? It is a physical right never to be taken away. Only if chemicals make it so we can not reproduce, will that right be taken away.

You are not keeping up with the news.

GMO Population Control: Spermicidal Corn
A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

Of course they have a more immediate and permanent plan for population control - it is call Starvation: Coming from Congressman Waxman.

HR 2749: Food Safety's Scorched Earth Policy
Invisible to a public that sees only the headlines of the latest food-safety scare – spinach, peppers and now cookie dough – ponds are being poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared. Fences and poison baits line wildlife corridors. Birds, frogs, mice and deer – and anything that shelters them – are caught in a raging battle ....

In the verdant farmland surrounding Monterey Bay, a national marine sanctuary and one of the world’s biological jewels, scorched-earth strategies are being imposed on hundreds of thousands of acres

But Congressman Waxman does not stop with "scorched earth policies", massive red tape, huge fines, warrantless search and jail times for farmers he is also aiming at YOU.

Strange Martial Law via Food Control: HR 2749

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.

I think Linn Cohen-Cole caught the essence of what is happening. " It struck me then that we are in fact looking at a new form of slavery."

Given that a hidden form of enslavement is at stake, it’s reasonable for farmers to look for reassurance that no accidental acceptance of any portion of those bills will happen.

It was only after writing it that I was jerked up by my own words and suddenly experienced them as neither symbolic nor hyperbole. It struck me then that we are in fact looking at a new form of slavery.

I have always assumed that slavery was an historic event which we have rejected now morally and have made changes in law to codify. I see our cultural repulsion at continuing forms of slavery as a sign of civilization having learned lessons about slavery and being committed now to stopping it wherever it still exists (even if it is hard to do).

So, it was not easy to recognize that bills being introduced are an actual form of enslavement...
The literal enslavement of the American farmer

By the way if you have a garden you will be included in the regulations sooner or later. The food safety bill HR 875 includes this.

["in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST." and the Commerce clause states: A farmer growing wheat for his own use affected interstate commerce “The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce”

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective.

What the OP is advocating is more links in the chains of our slavery. And Congress is rapidly passing the laws that push us into slavery.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:17 AM
For those who live in the EU or in the US of A. the laws of the EU and US are going to be "harmonized" or made the same. Therefore it behooves all of us to keep an eye on laws in other nations, because once the @#@$ gets a bad law in one place it will metastasis like the cancer it is.

“In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” TheBBC reported from the Summit in Washington on Monday:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
What the OP is advocating is more links in the chains of our slavery. And Congress is rapidly passing the laws that push us into slavery.

It would be amazing if you read my posts instead of passing judegment.

The only thing I'm doing is playing devil's advocate.

I don't have the power to do anything I've suggested. I'm stating a rationale that certainly the government could use in order to further this agenda of centralized healthcare.

I'm trying to be a realist and it is really an eye-opener to me how many of you replying in anger are more concerned with telling me "how dare you enslave me" or "how would you like your kid sterilized" when it is those same people who will GLADLY sign away your freedoms in exchange for what you perceive to be something the government is doing for our best interests.

I guess you'll just have to be angry with me for making you aware until the government indeed carries out exactly what I've suggested. But, by then, it will be too late for you, won't it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in