Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

reply to post by Death_Kron


The irony was lost on you I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

The irony was lost on you I'm afraid.

It's alright buddy, you stick to your theories.

You've still not managed to answer my analogy, oh well...

dude i have even better idea. we take each human, put him in a cell, say 15 by 15 foot, that would save ALOT of space and will solve the real estate market problem(no need for homes!), then we let them out each day for several hours to do certain labor. it can be determined w/ some kind of aptitude test what labor you're assigned to. then go back to the cell for the night. do that every day and feed the people cheapest food, that would save alot of money. so basically, you'll get alot of labor very very cheap;
no need to pay rent, because you just work it off each day, and because the cell is so small, the rent wouldnt be a big problem anyway. then you wil not have any fights among people because they will be in separate cells. also, they will not be able to reproduce at will, we can have special rooms for that and make sure its all controlled. then basically it would eliminate EVERY PROBLEM IN THE WORLD! there would be no crime, no car wrecks, no suicides. everyone can be controlled and super efficient! wow! i just invisioned a UTOPIA!!

reply to post by Death_Kron


Your anaology has nothing to do with the subect at "hand."

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Your anaology has nothing to do with the subect at "hand."

Nice pun.

Of course it does, it involves the surgical prevention of a bodily action...

Although this deals more with the aspect of artificial reproduction, this quip was interesting:

As the current economic crisis vividly demonstrates, it's not always sufficient to let the free market reign and hope everyone does the right thing; sometimes, laws have to be enacted to reduce the possibility of abuses, promote and regulate ethical behavior, and protect everyone involved.

Limiting Reproduction

Is it ethical to let someone who can't afford to have or raise children, do so?

Is it ethical to let someone addicted to drugs or alcohol have or raise children?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Is it ethical to let someone who can't afford to raise children, do so?

Is it ethical to let someone addicted to drugs or alcohol raise children?

So lets prevent all the people who aren't on drugs or alcohol from having kids until someone deems them responsible?

reply to post by Death_Kron


The question is whether or not it is ethical to let a drug addict or alcoholic (not rehabilitated) be allowed to have children ad hoc?

What about the individual who couldn't afford to have a child? Is it ethical to let them reproduce at will?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

The question is whether or not it is ethical to let a drug addict or alcoholic (not rehabilitated) be allowed to have children ad hoc?

What about the individual who couldn't afford to have a child? Is it ethical to let them reproduce at will?

As I've said before, I believe you have good intentions and I don't disagree with the fact that children born by drug addicts or alcoholics will be at a disadvantage however once again I'll still state that you can't deny a human beings right to reproduce.

Educating people is a better alternative

reply to post by Freenrgy2

rofl, maybe its because i live in college town but MOST people i know are alcoholics. they drink every day that is. and alot of them raise children. hell i probably could be classified as "alcoholic" and "drug addict" cuz i smoke and drink, but it doesnt stop me from running my own business and raising a child.

alot of american people, where i live, go out to bars EVERY NIGHT. leaving babies to baby sitters. i know cuz i drive them around in the taxi at night. and i say american cuz the foreigners i know dont do that.. i guess they just stay home and drink.. lol.

reply to post by Death_Kron


And my belief is that the paradigm is starting to shift toward the thinking that perhaps it is time for the state and/or federal government to look into limiting reproduction.

This whole thread was started last year as my attempt to play devil's advocate towards those in favor of Obamacare. If we allow our government control over our health, it is just a small step for them to regulate our reproduction.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Well your opinion is yours mate and you are entitled to it, whether this thread was started as an attempt at devils advocate with regards to American politics or not, I can't really comment being from the UK.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by deadbang

 

And what's funny is that many of the concepts behind the idea of selective breeding are exactly why some abortions are performed in the first place.

Ain't that a kick.

When I read your initial post, I truthfully thought "this douchbag must be out of his mind", But I am glad you kinda made it clear, and to a point where I unfortunately can agree with what you have written. I personally do not believe in abortion, but I do not feel it is my right or anyone elses right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I cannot completely diapprove of government funded health care and welfare for a single mother. Simply because my sons mother in Germany was fully taken care of by her government during the first 2 years of his life. I do not agree with people taking advantage of my tax dollars by milking the systems. There difnitely should be some middle ground, some sort of regulation to help those that truely need it, and to put a bullet in the heads of those that just simply do not care about anyone but them selves. (not really a bullet, maybe a bat)

The simplest way to accomplish this would be to administer a vasectomy to all male children prior to the onset of puberty.

This is child cruelty surely?

Certain risk factors would result in automatic termination of the pregnancy. Other factors deemed acceptable (as they wouldn't strain the government run healthcare system) would be assigned a penalty depending on severity. Prospective parents would either have to pay this penalty based on amount of risk or chose to terminate the pregnancy. Prospective parents would be allowed one "natural" attempt to concieve. After that, they would need to undergo artificial insemination from genetically cleared ovum and sperm in order to conceive.

So in your perfect world of blonde haired & blue eyed 'Aryans' what colour will the uniform of your secret Police Be?

Think about it. Wouldn't this take care of so many problems?

I think you have problems.

- Allows individuals the freedom to engage in copulation with fear of pregnancy.

Teaching teenage boys to respect women and be responsible towards the idea of Fatherhood, is also would allow this. Heard of Condoms, the Contraceptive pill ?

- Almost completely eliminates "mistakes" and passing responsibility off on the taxpayer.

Proper, open and responsible attitudes to sex and sex education would also go some way to stop teenage pregnancy, except the 'The Right Wing Moral Majority' always complain about their children being exposed to 'Graphic scenes of sex "too early. Since when have Children been mistakes?

- Reduces or eliminates the number of children conceived/born as a result of rape of incest. Anyone guilty of raping a child is automatically castrated or sterilized. Multiple charges get the death penalty automatically.

So your suggesting that a child who was conceived during rape has no right to live? Why is it the childs fault?
Rape is a dispicable crime and does sometimes go very under punished, however your punishments do sound somewhat Draconian.

- Reduces the number of poor and unemployed.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate poverty by sterilising people? Do you realise how many people are considered to live in abject poverty? Do you have any idea what causes most of this poverty? clearly not.
Re-distributing the wealth fairly would do this and creating jobs in sustainable industry also does this, without having to resort to sterilising people just because of their social standing and their inability to afford a Mercedes Benz. You are a massive Cock ???

- Reduces the number of children born in communities laden with crime and drugs as these would slowly be reduced as population decreases.

So the poor will eventually die off in their 'Ghettos', remind you of anything? Why do you assume also that poor people commit more crime? Drugs and crime are just as popular with the rich, famous, and aristocratic.

- Reduces the taxpayer's burden on welfare.

But you are happy for your government to spend billions on Nuclear weapons and jet fighters?

- Reduces the taxpayer's burden on healthcare.

All healthcare should be free

- Slowly reduce the number of genetic malformations by breeding out those defects.

So in your perfect world, what is classed as malformation? You are really starting to offend me now, as there is a member of my family who is disabled, and with these Frankly Fascist ideas you have, he wouldn't be part of my life

- Increase the number of wanted children who will be cared for.

This is a ridiculous statement, I would say that most pregnancies are wanted, otherwise they'd be aborted, especially by the mother, yes unfortunately there are some children who are born to terrible lives.
If you are so worried about unwanted children, why don't you adopt some? On second thought, we want them to have a nice life.

- Reduce the population to a more sustainable level.

For that one you can blame the Catholics and the Muslims, as they don't believe in birth control, or you could just start with yourself

- Reduced human carbon footprint.

Use less Carbon based industry, [SNIP]

- Increase amount of fossil fuel through less consumption.

Surley we should be moving away from Fossil fuel...surely????

- Provides a means to ditribute wealth more evenly.

I think it's called a Minimum/Standard/Livable wage for all, and fair taxation of the rich, the wealth could be re-distributed better, by instead of paying bankers bonuses, why not build a school to educate children so they don't grow up with warped, twisted [SNIP] views



What do you think.

I think you are a fascist :-)

reply to post by Exuberant1

Inciting violence is already a crime is it not?

Only if its not violence justified by other violence, or high probability of it happening, for example inciting violent act of imprisonment for murderer, or violent act of preventive restricting of personal freedom of drivers because by driving too fast they may hurt someone with high probability, or inciting prventive violent act of population control on people who have high probability of breaching the right of their children to grow up in good conditions. That are justified incitements of violence.

Is it child abuse to put your kid to work, when the alternative is that he starves? The answer is no, because death is the alternative. The only alternative to factory work is child prostitution. . . Or death.

The most obvious and best alternative is to provide the child with loan to ensure his basic needs (child benefits) so that he does not have to work and concentrate on education, and when he grows up, he will pay back that loan in taxes and better contribution to the society due to education, even with interest.
Why should children die, prostitute, be adopted or work, when we have obviously better alternative for all? I am surprised why you have not considered it? Yes, child work is considered abuse and it is abuse.

reply to post by SirKnightE


Try reading all of my posts before commenting.

If you want to call names, you might want to revisit the T&C's of this site.

Of course, it's just like a liberal to spew hate. Funny how you assume that I am a "right winger", but your political leanings are self-evident.

Originally posted by Shminkee Pinkee
This is child cruelty surely?

More cruel than allowing a child to be born into a situation where they are beaten, destitue, have no hope for a future and are likely to repeat the cycle?

So in your perfect world of blonde haired & blue eyed 'Aryans' what colour will the uniform of your secret Police Be?

Wow, yet ANOTHER Hitler reference. Yet nationalized (i.e. socialized) healtcare is fine and dandy.

I think you have problems.

Just trying to be logical.

Teaching teenage boys to respect women and be responsible towards the idea of Fatherhood, is also would allow this. Heard of Condoms, the Contraceptive pill ?

This is still needed. Where did I say that we should do away with these things? My point was that young people (no matter how much you teach them) are still going to engage in sex. Limiting reproduction would ease the burden of children having children.

Proper, open and responsible attitudes to sex and sex education would also go some way to stop teenage pregnancy, except the 'The Right Wing Moral Majority' always complain about their children being exposed to 'Graphic scenes of sex "too early. Since when have Children been mistakes?

You've never heard of anyone saying this? This is why it was quoted. Surely you can't assume that every child is wanted. If so, ther number of abortions would be drastically reduced. What do you call these aborted babies then. Is the truth so difficult to speak?

So your suggesting that a child who was conceived during rape has no right to live? Why is it the childs fault? Rape is a dispicable crime and does sometimes go very under punished, however your punishments do sound somewhat Draconian.

No, you read this wrong. The penalty applies to the person commiting the crime. The child would live. There is no worse crime that I can think of than that done to a child.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate poverty by sterilising people? Do you realise how many people are considered to live in abject poverty? Do you have any idea what causes most of this poverty? clearly not.
Re-distributing the wealth fairly would do this and creating jobs in sustainable industry also does this, without having to resort to sterilising people just because of their social standing and their inability to afford a Mercedes Benz. You are a massive Cock ???

I am suggesting limiting reproduction. Those who make something of themselves would find them able to reproduce. Those who don't, well you said it. Redistribution does NOTHING except give people another reason to feel entitled to the hard work and fruits of others. It's just another way of saying WELFARE.

poor will eventually die off in their 'Ghettos', remind you of anything? Why do you assume also that poor people commit more crime? Drugs and crime are just as popular with the rich, famous, and aristocratic.

If they can meet the criteria, they can reproduce.

But you are happy for your government to spend billions on Nuclear weapons and jet fighters?

Huh? Oh, I see, you just like to put words in my mouth. Feel better?

All healthcare should be free.

Nope. Completely disagree. More competition, reform tort law and what constitutes malpractice.

So in your perfect world, what is classed as malformation? You are really starting to offend me now, as there is a member of my family who is disabled, and with these Frankly Fascist ideas you have, he wouldn't be part of my life.

This is for SOCIETY to decide, not me.

This is a ridiculous statement, I would say that most pregnancies are wanted, otherwise they'd be aborted, especially by the mother, yes unfortunately there are some children who are born to terrible lives.
If you are so worried about unwanted children, why don't you adopt some? On second thought, we want them to have a nice life.

We have tried adoption and thank you for inserting yourself in to my personal life. Unfortunately, the costs were far too high. And even considered adopting a child with special needs. Feel little yet?

Surley we should be moving away from Fossil fuel...surely????

Are we there yet? Until we are, this point remains valid.

I think it's called a Minimum/Standard/Livable wage for all, and fair taxation of the rich, the wealth could be re-distributed better, by instead of paying bankers bonuses, why not build a school to educate children so they don't grow up with warped, twisted [SNIP] views

I think its another way of saying WELFARE. And there are so many programs now. Has poverty decreased? Take a look at unemployment lately? Wait until after the election for the NEW numbers.

I think you are a fascist :-)

edit on Tue Oct 19 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

I think I am a realist and can see what will happen when the government gets its claws into healthcare.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but whether or not it is a right is completely irrelevant. Rights can be taken away if it means saving the global populous. Overpopulation is a real issue that nobody wants to talk about... yet. Can everyone please stop saying "But reproducing is what furthers the existence of humanity and keeps us alive!" Guess what, so is population control! I'm not even going to get into how Godwin's Law is polluting everyone's opinion here:

As of 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.10%, down from a peak of 2.2% in 1963, and the world population stood at roughly 6.7 billion. Current projections show a steady decline in the population growth rate, with the population expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the year 2040[4][5] and 2050.[6]

The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, which was ratified by 58 member national academies in 1994, called the growth in human numbers "unprecedented", and stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, were aggravated by the population expansion.[7] At the time, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, and optimistic scenarios predicted a peak of 7.8 billion by 2050, a number that current estimates show will be reached around 2030.[8]

Check out this site too World Population Clock

Now, growth rates have been going down, but we actually need to get the world population growth into a negative so that we can gain more resources to supply the generations to follow; we are using them all on ourselves! It is the well being of our children and their children that we are looking out for -- will we be the demonized generation in years to come because we did not acknowledge the problem and work toward a solution? And what for? "Our 'Rights'"? "Our scientific natural capacity to long for a child"? Because we want to label it as "Nazi" and forget about it? Give me a break.

reply to post by Brood


It's nice to see that there is more to it than just the ethical implications. Ecological implications will surely ruffle political feathers.

I leave you all with what is written on the Georgia Guidestones. The first two are most poignant.

Georgia Guidestones


1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2.Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3.Unite humanity with a living new language.
4.Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5.Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6.Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7.Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8.Balance personal rights with social duties.
9.Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

reply to post by deadbang


People here are getting to be real authoritarian.

Ok mr. or mrs fascist. What if they refuse the termination of thier pregnancy?