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.

 

Restricting Human Reproduction. Should it happen?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
On another thread about two women seeking to have a deaf child, an interesting subject came up that is much larger than this news story alone.

Should anyone be told who they can reproduce with, and if they can reproduce and have children at all? Is it the place of the government to regulate human reproduction?

Some examples:
* restrictions on people with diseases or conditions that could be inherited and passed to their children
* restrictions on people who have what some feel to be too many kids
* restrictions on habitual drug users having children
* restrictions on mothers with a habit of turning her children over to the state for care

If you believe the government should regulate reproduction and who we choose to sleep with:
* should they also regulate what choices can be made at sperm or egg banks?
* who gets do decide what a 'disability' is?
* who decides what conditions we will allow to be inherited and which won't?
* how many kids is too many, and will we restrict just in cities or farm families too?
* which drugs disqualify you from having children? Alcohol, nicotiene, marijuana, heroin....?
* what happens if we find that more black women are restricted than white or asian or vice versa?
* how will this be enforced? Sterilization or mandatory birth control?
* what are the charges and punishments for women with the gene for Alzheimers who has a baby?
* will fathers be restricted too, or just women?

What do you think? Am I the only one that is frightened by the idea of this even being proposed?

[edit on 3-9-2004 by RedBalloon]




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I see your point, but.

In the other case you have a mother saying that see went out a looked for a deaf person, so that her kid was deaf... I belive because their other child was also a deaf child. They said something like they didnt think they could handle a "normal" child...

Well my friend, it will be cold day in hell when I dont fight agaist illogical thinking like those women have demonstated.

In the case of those women, they should at least be judged.

As for the rest of the world and the reproductive regulations, I think, as slow of a process this would be, that we really need to look at individual situations.

1. Why would a sperm bank want blind man sperm, or HIV sperm?
2. We are getting to a time when the population of the world is exploding... we might have to look at reproductive regulation for large familys or we might run out of room/resorces/a good life for all.
3. Crack wores should not have kids, that is just a smart thing. Its like doing a bad science experiment with a persons life... before its even their life.

I just think that we are in an age of being able to "fix" problems before they start... So why go back in time?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   
people can't support children without money,
I'm looking at it from a UK point of view, so my measures won't work globally

why not favour those who have 1 or 2 children. Finacial Benefits for 3rd, 4th, 5th etc children in a family would be stopped. The money raised from stopping benefits to 3rd, 4th, 5th etc children would go towards increasing benefits to first and second born children. Thus helping to raise living standards for families who have no more than two children. A cruel measure I know, but something needs to be done to slow of population growth down, with my idea we will slowly reduce the speed of our population growth and increase the living standards of children.

I hope that makes sense



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Im vehement, so live long and die!




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
why not favour those who have 1 or 2 children. Finacial Benefits for 3rd, 4th, 5th etc children in a family would be stopped. The money raised from stopping benefits to 3rd, 4th, 5th etc children would go towards increasing benefits to first and second born children. Thus helping to raise living standards for families who have no more than two children


Good idea, but different than having a gonernment action to prevent the 3rd 4th or 5th child or punishing people that do.

What happens when farming families who need 9 kids to run the farm are punished?

Would a particular ethnic or economic group be unfairly punished or favored?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
RedBalloon: This is a very interesting thread and I would like to put my two cents in.

1) I believe that if someone is "forced" to live off welfare no more than two children should be covered by the goverment for a period of longer than three months (arbitrary figure selected) in order that whatever "emergency can be covered after which one or both parents should be back at work. After this the state should have the right to intervene as they are being held responsible for the living expenses of these children and families. If you don't want government intervention then don't rely on them for assistance;
2) Going back to my thread about the deaf women intentionally having deaf kids, I believe that the state should grant unborn citizens the same rights as those already born, ie the right to a healthy existence. So in the case of the parents of the two deaf children the children's rights would have been violated in utero. The case of being at risk for genetic defects differs in total from intentional harm or disabling of infants/children - ie in the Indian sub-continent their are parents that maim their children to "assist" them in begging on the streets; and
3) In terms of mothers who habitually turn their children over to the state for care, they should be given a limited time to rehabilitate or face the alternative of the children being put up for adoption.

This may all sounds incredibly unfeeling of parental rights, but adults can and should take responsibility for their choices and the consequences thereof. Children on the other hand are vulnerables who should be protected from these choices.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
1) If you don't want government intervention then don't rely on them for assistance;
2) I believe that the state should grant unborn citizens the same rights as those already born, ie the right to a healthy existence.
3) In terms of mothers who habitually turn their children over to the state for care, they should be given a limited time to rehabilitate or face the alternative of the children being put up for adoption.


I shortened a bit for quoting purposes..I think I preserved the main point of your statements, but I have some questions.

1) Agreed. They shouldnt, but they do. At what point would we say "nope - no more kids for you" and leave the kids a woman DOES have to be neglected or sold or otherwise abused? It's kind of a catch-22 for the kids, and they are the ones that end up suffering the most.

2) What is defined as healthy? Some deaf folks might disagree that they are indeed healthy, and are very happy with their lives. What would be considered illegal? Where would it stop? A mother that just upped the odds for disability by not having enough folate? Would a natural deaf couple conceiving a child that was deaf be liable?

3) What about the father? Can she go back to drugs after her case is reviewed? Who will adopt all these children?

The situation sucks.. sucks for the kids the most no matter how it turns out.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
If anything like those ideas became law I would want to start a Civil war to get rid of them.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If anything like those ideas became law I would want to start a Civil war to get rid of them.


you and who's army


i don't think there anything wrong with my ideas

But i guess your happy with:
- Over crowding
- Rapidly Reducing Resources
- Reduced Living Standards
- Reduced Space per Person
- Less Food
- Damaged Enviroment

[edit on 4-9-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by xpert11
If anything like those ideas became law I would want to start a Civil war to get rid of them.


you and who's army


i don't think there anything wrong with my ideas

But i guess your happy with:
- Over crowding
- Rapidly Reducing Resources
- Reduced Living Standards
- Reduced Space per Person
- Less Food
- Damaged Enviroment

[edit on 4-9-2004 by UK Wizard]

Me & the army of common sense. Most of the problems you list above are occuring in thrid world countries. To solve the problems more aid needs to be given. But most Importantly corrupation needs to be stamped out. Countries like Aust & NZ have an ageing population which means I will be paying high taxs to pay for baby boomes health when they get older.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I've had a many a heated debate on this subject. I don't know about the limits mentioned above, but I have always thought that it would be best to sterilize the men in the areas of the world where people get up in the morning and choose which child will die today. Before the men start with the typical BS....it's a much more simple procedure for a man than it is woman, that could be done on a mass scale that's the only reason I say "men". It makes no sense to me for these people to have child after child only to let them starve to death, but I hear, "Oh no!!!! That violates their right to have children" These people live in shacks with no food, barely no clothing, with their children suffering to death! If it were me, I wouldn't have sex, but sense they obviously continue to do so.....



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I've had a many a heated debate on this subject. I don't know about the limits mentioned above, but I have always thought that it would be best to sterilize the men in the areas of the world where people get up in the morning and choose which child will die today. Before the men start with the typical BS....it's a much more simple procedure for a man than it is woman, that could be done on a mass scale that's the only reason I say "men". It makes no sense to me for these people to have child after child only to let them starve to death, but I hear, "Oh no!!!! That violates their right to have children" These people live in shacks with no food, barely no clothing, with their children suffering to death! If it were me, I wouldn't have sex, but sense they obviously continue to do so.....


Doesn't Ethopia's population double every 28 years or something, madness when there's not enough food for a 10th of the population

i'll look for a source on the population fact



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Ethiopia Population Facts



Ethiopia's population size and growth rate are among the highest in Africa. The population is estimated at more than 67.7 million, making it the second most populous Sub-Saharan African country after Nigeria. With an annual growth rate estimated at 2.9%, Ethiopia's population will approach 110 million before 2020. Nearly 2 million people are added to the country's population each year. Rapid population growth, the result of continuing high fertility, is a fundamental constraint to sustainable development in Ethiopia.


madness,



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I've had a many a heated debate on this subject. I don't know about the limits mentioned above, but I have always thought that it would be best to sterilize the men in the areas of the world where people get up in the morning and choose which child will die today. Before the men start with the typical BS....it's a much more simple procedure for a man than it is woman, that could be done on a mass scale that's the only reason I say "men". It makes no sense to me for these people to have child after child only to let them starve to death, but I hear, "Oh no!!!! That violates their right to have children" These people live in shacks with no food, barely no clothing, with their children suffering to death! If it were me, I wouldn't have sex, but sense they obviously continue to do so.....


You just suggested a gross violation of human rights.
We need to help develop the areas where people battle for survival not wipe out the human population in areas of the glob. In all the areas your project would take place there would be no factualitys for sterilizing goats little alone humans.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


You just suggested a gross violation of human rights.
We need to help develop the areas where people battle for survival not wipe out the human population in areas of the glob. In all the areas your project would take place there would be no factualitys for sterilizing goats little alone humans.


Yep!!! This is the arument I always get



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Ethiopia Population Facts



Ethiopia's population size and growth rate are among the highest in Africa. The population is estimated at more than 67.7 million, making it the second most populous Sub-Saharan African country after Nigeria. With an annual growth rate estimated at 2.9%, Ethiopia's population will approach 110 million before 2020. Nearly 2 million people are added to the country's population each year. Rapid population growth, the result of continuing high fertility, is a fundamental constraint to sustainable development in Ethiopia.


madness,

It sure is but the world dosnt care because Africa dosnt supply us with anything we need. (people give a toss about democracy in the middle east because thats were most of the worlds oil comes from.)



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The solution to third world overpopulation is industrialization and modernization. In modern industrial countries (like the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc.), the birth rate is 1% or less (in some countries in Europe, it's even down to -1%, creating a birth crisis of the opposite kind!)

Why does modernization result in population reduction, or at least stabilization? For several reasons. First, people don't need 15 kids anymore to help them work on the farm. Second, kids going to school instead of working on the farm costs money (they'd be profitable if they didn't go to school and stayed home, working on the farm), and then parents would not be inclined to have more than a couple of kids anymore since every kid they have costs them money. Third, modern technology leads to modern medical knowledge -- so having cheap, easily available items like birth control pills and condoms would help a great deal.

Education and modernization is the best hope to prevent population problems on Earth. Forced sterilizations and abortions would only be treating the symptoms (in vain, I might add), not the disease, so to speak.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
.
Human population probably should be limited until we move out into space. It should not for political and genetic reasons include the EUGENICS selections you have suggested.

We are not smart enough to determine who has the the particular genes that will be useful in an eternally changing unknown future.

You should understand that Sickle cell anemia is a disease of 2 copies of a particular gene. One copy of that particular gene provides resistance to malaria. That is why it is prevelant in populations that have lived in close associations to mosquito populations (swamps).

Genetic diversity is VERY important for the robust survival of a species. One virus in a genetic mono-culture can wipe out a species.

It should be done on a blind determination basis. Perhaps limiting each paired couple to two children or something.

One of things that worries me in China is they have managed to control their population under the communist regime. While I hope for capitalism for them, I don't want them to lose that. Perhaps the rest of the world can try to learn from what they had to do out of pure desperation, before we become desperate.
.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
The solution to third world overpopulation is industrialization and modernization. In modern industrial countries (like the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc.), the birth rate is 1% or less (in some countries in Europe, it's even down to -1%, creating a birth crisis of the opposite kind!)

Why does modernization result in population reduction, or at least stabilization? For several reasons. First, people don't need 15 kids anymore to help them work on the farm. Second, kids going to school instead of working on the farm costs money (they'd be profitable if they didn't go to school and stayed home, working on the farm), and then parents would not be inclined to have more than a couple of kids anymore since every kid they have costs them money. Third, modern technology leads to modern medical knowledge -- so having cheap, easily available items like birth control pills and condoms would help a great deal.

Education and modernization is the best hope to prevent population problems on Earth. Forced sterilizations and abortions would only be treating the symptoms (in vain, I might add), not the disease, so to speak.

You hit the nail on the head sadly the problem is that what little aid thrid world countries get gose down the big sink hole called corrupation.


XL5

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
They should adopt a deaf child and any one should be able to adopt a person with a disability, just not knowingly FORCE some one into that position.

Known problems that can effect a child from early or even late teens, if the chances are high enough should adopt. Drugs, 5-10 years of being clean should be enough time to become a caring parent. Smoking is ok and so is drinking in moderation, weed sould be on consent of relatives and a docter, any hard drug should not be allowed (Ozzys!).

The amount of children (over 2 children) should be regulated by some factors, time you have for only the child(ren), the stabiliy of the parents money and emotional status and why you want more children.
Govt. perks for making more tax payers should not be applied to people living or going to live in the city in another 15 years. On a farm where money is tight but the parents are emotionally stable and have lots of time with the children, then sure.

Maybe people are the new currency?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join