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.

 

Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 

Its a faulty analogy in many important ways, too important to be relevant to the subject in any way:
1. by limiting procreation you dont infringe on other rights and bodily functions, like ability to have sex or make dinner
You can precisely target only unwanted thing and nothing esle. Chopping hands off would surely prevet domestic violence, and myriad of other unrelated things in addition
2. chopping off hands is not reversible, techniques which we propose are.


What a silly post


Of course limiting a human beings ability to have sex and reproduce is infringing on a humans right.......




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Non-sequitur.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 
dam you your going straight for the throat,do you honestly believe in vasectomies for young boys?that is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard well if that's the road you want to take how about sewing up little girls vaginas as well.education is the way to go not mutilation,and giving out fines.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Because its simply a faulty and irrelevant analogy, read my other post.


Read mine, you obviously can't comprehend having a child.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 
and you can't comprehend raising one!

Because its simply a faulty and irrelevant analogy, read my other post.


Read mine, you obviously can't comprehend having a child.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





Of course limiting a human beings ability to have sex and reproduce is infringing on a humans right.......


Nobody is talking about limiting ability to have sex, only about limiting ability to reproduce, which I do not consider to be a human right, but a privilege, as I have stated many times in this thread already.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maybe you know or maybe you don't, but the prime reason human beings have sex is to reproduce, not to gain sexual pleasure...


•Under common law, privilege is a term describing a number of rules excluding evidence that would be adverse to a fundamental principle or relationship if it were disclosed.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





Of course limiting a human beings ability to have sex and reproduce is infringing on a humans right.......


Nobody is talking about limiting ability to have sex, only about limiting ability to reproduce, which I do not consider to be a human right, but a privilege, as I have stated many times in this thread already.


Privilege by who? Do I have a privilege to punch who ever I want? Or taser who I want?

Where do you draw the line?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





Maybe you know or maybe you don't, but the prime reason human beings have sex is to reproduce, not to gain sexual pleasure...


And that makes it a right how? And I disagree, in modern society, sex is primarily for pleasure.



In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.



edit on 18/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I disagree that our purpose is to pass on life is as important that it would justify us to infringe on a right of child to grow up in good conditions with prepared and responsible parents. There are plenty of childless people that still have purpose in life.


I didn't say that procreation was the sole purpose of life; it's just a part of survival and furtherance of the species, that inherently defines our existence.

Childless people that find purpose in their lives, just find purpose in their own survival.


You say that a child has a ''right'' to grow up in good conditions with responsible parents, but who says that children have that automatic ''right'', while denying prospective parents the automatic ''right'' to have children ?

You're going to have to be clear who or what defines these ''rights'', as they seem genuinely arbitrary to me; Governments ? God ? You ?


Originally posted by Maslo
It is utterly selfish to try to fulfill this need of passing genes without considering how would the resulting child grow up.


Every human, by definition, is selfish. Everybody's actions are always selfish. Why do you object to this particular example of that trait ?

You've got to get over this idea that someone brought up in less than favourable circumstances, will regret it.


I dare you to have the balls to go up to a man who was born into poverty, and say that he would have been better off dead.

Let me know how you get on with that one.

Or are you just another ''keyboard eugenicist'' that cowardly pontificates about who should breed, while cowering away from his own shortcomings ?



Originally posted by Maslo
Eugenics? I did not mention genes, nor do I consider them important. Material and psychological readiness of the parents is what I consider important, not genes.


Stop trying to be coy.

Yes, environmental factors play a part in psychological well-being, but you know as well as I do that one's genes respond to environmental stimuli; ergo, psychological ''readiness'' has a huge genetic factor to it.

Material factors also have a large genetic element to them.


Originally posted by Maslo
There is not a "correct" way to raise a child, I agree. But there are plenty of incorrect ones, and it is justified do deny the privilege (!) of reproduction for example, to a drug addict, IMHO.


If we agree that there's no ''correct'' way to raise a child, then I'm very curious as to where you get your notion that there's an ''incorrect'' way to raise a child ?

This doesn't seem logical at all.


Originally posted by Maslo
As I said, I am arguing primarily from an ideological standpoint. In practice, there are plenty of ways to do something like this, not just outright sterilization. Tax increases, cuts, fines, government provided birth control, or even education about the issue comes to mind.


I agree there are ways to eugenicise ''by stealth''.

But I think we need to make a difference between ''positive eugenics'' ( such as prolonging life by medical treatments ), and ''negative eugenics'' ( such as forced sterilisations ).


Originally posted by Maslo
Says the person that made up this whole tale of druged nine year old children being forcefully sterilized, when all I said was that people that cannot take care of their children do not have a right to bring them to this world.


What ?

Are you insane in the brain ?!

Children have been known to get pregnant at nine ( or younger ).

Clearly, if one was going to implement a procedure of routine sterilisation, then it would have to be done before the possibility of pregnancy.

That means that routine sterilisation would have to take place when a child is 8-years-old, at the latest.

I have no children, and I'm not planning on having any in the foreseeable future.


However, if I was to have any children, then I can assure you that it would be over my dead body that I'd let my government forcibly sterilise them.

So, how would they implement this procedure ?

I'm not letting them in my house, so they'd have to force there way in and physically subdue me trying to defend my child.

My child would then be kidnapped ( obviously without my consent ), and presumably drugged before the operation took place.


You can't hide behind your measly-mouthed statement:

''all I said was that people that cannot take care of their children do not have a right to bring them to this world.''

Because, as I've outlined above, the only way that you could stop people bringing children in to the world, is if you sterilise them before they are physically capable of having them ( which is 9-years-old in some cases ).

Ergo, you either have a right to have children, or you have to be forcibly sterilised as a child.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


And that makes it a right how? And I disagree, in modern society, sex is primarily for pleasure.


edit on 18/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


I feel sorry for you then....



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Sex is a need, procreation is not.


They are one and the same thing.


Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Procreation is one result of our inate desire for sex and intimacy.


It is the fundamental result of our innate desire for sex.

Through millions of years of evolution, those that had the greater desire for sex produced the children, and extending from that basic, those with the ability to nurture, protect and provide for the result of their sexual desires, furthered the species.

You can't separate sex and procreation, when they are genetically intertwined in nature.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 
Yeah,what you said

Yeah,what you said.......



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Accidental double post.

My reply is below.
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Ariel
 


You also prove my point that she probably wasn't financially able to support a child to begin with. So, the answer is for everyone else to pay for child care while she can work and then continue to have more children?

Where do you draw the line? Or is that what "it takes a village" all about?
edit on 18-10-2010 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)


I just saw your edit with these questions. Ok, here's my thinking. Childcare is a major issue to begin with, since usually it's really difficult to sustain a 1-income household, especially when there's a child to support. So reasonable, cost-effective childcare provisions are needed anyway. They're needed for most working adults, not just young moms who are facing an unplanned pregnancy but want to keep their child rather than adopt.

It's true that while she's in school, she's not in a great financial position. But childcare could be considered part of student and employee benefits in schools, so it's not a situation where "everybody else has to pay for her child care". It would be set up to care for the teacher's young kids, as well as the babies of any students. Meanwhile, students planning to be teachers or work with young kids could gain experience (my high school had a day care type facility, and there was an elective class where we did a rotation planning lessons, observing, and teaching in the day care). Also, parenting and/or health classes could have a practical aspect to them, where students have the opportunity to work in the nursery under teacher supervision. There could be some sort of employment aspect for young mothers related to it, so that they could begin to financially support themselves and their baby.

OK, then she gets to the point of working and truly supporting herself and her baby. All along people should be getting the importance of personal responsibility, but for people who don't get it, yes, the cost of their child care should and will still have to, increase the more kids they have. Remember, I said cost-effective and reasonable. Nowhere did I say free.

Here's the thing. If they don't get that responsibility, this situation you describe is still going to happen when you unsnip that vasectomy you're so advocating. I certainly don't advocate murdering these kids in the womb because in your program they'd be unapproved. Instead, the young parent(s) would need to be helped to look at their options (multifamily home to reduce living costs so that they can absorb the cost of the new child, budgeting skills, etc.) to deal with potentially getting in over their heads financially. Teach responsibility to help avoid these issues in the first place, and teach them how to deal with these issues responsibly if they still do get themselves into that situation.
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Reproduction as a right: NO


Is it any concern that poor people are having the most kids...kids they can't even afford? These mindless breeders pass on their debts to the tax-payers...who in turn are made to raise their kids. It would be best to provide permits to anyone interested in starting a family. They should be able to verify sufficient income or funding in order to do so. If it so happens that a child is produced by a couple whose combined income or lack of income is deemed insufficient, they will be fined, detained, sterilized and have their child taken away and raised by the government to serve in our armed forces when he or she comes of age.

Problem solved.
edit on 18-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





You say that a child has a ''right'' to grow up in good conditions with responsible parents, but who says that children have that automatic ''right'', while denying prospective parents the automatic ''right'' to have children ?


I believe they do.




You're going to have to be clear who or what defines these ''rights'', as they seem genuinely arbitrary to me; Governments ? God ? You ?


They do not seem arbitrary, but inherent to me. Your idea of procreation rights is as much arbitrary for me. Thats how it is in reality, rights are defined by human beings recognizing them, and this can differ among different persons. I believe in absolute infallible morality, I just dont believe you or me or anyone has recognized it yet.




Every human, by definition, is selfish. Everybody's actions are always selfish. Why do you object to this particular example of that trait ?


Maybe, maybe not. But I dont see how this is relevant.




I dare you to have the balls to go up to a man who was born into poverty, and say that he would have been better off dead.


Dead? You mean non-existent. You can be dead only after you are alive. Non-existence is not good or bad, it is neutral.




Or are you just another ''keyboard eugenicist'' that cowardly pontificates about who should breed, while cowering away from his own shortcomings ?


I am not covering away. Everythink I propose in this thread, I would subject to.




Stop trying to be coy. Yes, environmental factors play a part in psychological well-being, but you know as well as I do that one's genes respond to environmental stimuli; ergo, psychological ''readiness'' has a huge genetic factor to it. Material factors also have a large genetic element to them.


It is funny how you are trying to prove that genetic factors matter to me, so you can say that I am an eugenicist, ergo I am nazi or god knows what, and that is evil. Genetics of the parents is not important for me.




If we agree that there's no ''correct'' way to raise a child, then I'm very curious as to where you get your notion that there's an ''incorrect'' way to raise a child ? This doesn't seem logical at all.


There are plenty of correct ways to raise a child, there are plenty of incorrect (addicted, abusive parents, poverty etc.) ways to raise a child. I believe that requiring parents to be psychologicaly and materially ready would save lots of children from the incorrect way.




But I think we need to make a difference between ''positive eugenics'' ( such as prolonging life by medical treatments ), and ''negative eugenics'' ( such as forced sterilisations ).


I do not consider procreation to be basic human right, so even negative birth control is sometimes justified IMHO.




What ? Are you insane in the brain ?! Children have been known to get pregnant at nine ( or younger ). Clearly, if one was going to implement a procedure of routine sterilisation, then it would have to be done before the possibility of pregnancy. That means that routine sterilisation would have to take place when a child is 8-years-old, at the latest.


Again, you are making this up. There are other ways than sterilizing everybody. Just look at China. Sterilizations are quite rare, and are for repeated offenders.




Ergo, you either have a right to have children, or you have to be forcibly sterilised as a child.


False dichotomy.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


There is a big difference between being in a difficult financial situation than being chronically poor. Certainly society should endeavor to keep families together when they are in a period of financial distress, but someone who has not and can not afford to provide food and proper shelter for their children should have those children removed from the family. Why is it OK for someone with a child who is already receiving numerous state and federal subsidies to continue to have children? Its not



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I have a question for the OP where do you get the right (from what source) to open me up and perform a vasectomy to my body without my permission. I'm assuming that those who don't agree with your little plan here won't be able to opt out of the program so easily. What if i don't meet your eugenic's standards and I don't agree to have a vascectomy? Will i be detained? Forcibly sterilized? Or worse? This whole idea reeks of tyranny as you do not allow or even consider for that matter what the person's own choice would be you simply believe that you know what is best for him and that because of this you have the right to act. Collectivism is tyranny even if it is masked in the "greater good" mantra.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Reproduction as a right: NO


Is it any concern that poor people are having the most kids...kids they can't even afford? These mindless breeders pass on their debts to the tax-payers...who in turn are made to raise their kids. It would be best to provide permits to anyone interested in starting a family. They should be able to verify sufficient income or funding in order to do so. If it so happens that a child is produced by a couple whose combined income or lack of income is deemed insufficient, they will be fined, detained, sterilized and have their child taken away and raised by the government to serve in our armed forces when he or she comes of age.

Problem solved.
edit on 18-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

I think I want to vomit.
So lets just punish the child for the mothers "crimes" shall we?

Aside from the fact that children are 11 times more likely to be abused and 7 times more likely to die in government care, who is to determine what that income level should be? Enough to keep them clothed and fed even if money is a little tight for non necessities or enough for them to wear high end clothing and go to summer camp abroad? There are some people are wise with their money and can raise a child extremely well on $1000 a month, and some people making $10,000 a month due to poor spending habits and going into debt for things they can not afford can't make ends meet.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join