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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
It is incredible that some usually liberal people ive seen posts from on this thread are willing to cast judgment and restrictions upon other humans in such a fascist manner.

WHO will decide who is fit or not to "breed"?

WHO is the authority that decides that only say blond hair and blue eyed kids get to be born?

What if science proves that there is a gay gene? Is this something that should be bread out of the gene pool?

What is the economic cut off point for allowing reproduction?
What if you met this requirement, but after the child is born, you loose your job?

The issue of population control vs available resources is certantly something that should be addressed, however...the government should not mandate any kind of controls against whom/how a couple choose to procreate.

The abillity to reproduce is part of nature, and cannot be "removed"by any means (politically)...to do so reduces all people in the society...Now kids become MORE of a comodity if their regulated, genetically groomed, and other such tampering with the natural order.

We think we're soo smart in the 21st century, yet were too stupid to realize that having kids without the nessisary support is bad....we as a civilization of modern people cant seem to keep our legs closed and private parts away from the opposite sex....I gueess we really arent much smarter.




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
How 'bout we just nueter and spay the stupid people?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
But then there wouldn't be a large enough gene pool to survive and we'd become extinct!!





posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I think there should be regulated reproduction laws. The worlds population is getting too big. We are running out of resources.



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

Me & the army of common sense. Most of the problems you list above are occuring in thrid world countries.


They are occuring here in first world countries too. I've grown up in the same city for over 25 years. I've seen the population and crowded-ness increase first hand. It's not just happening in 3rd world countries. Apartment buildings here that are still being built are usually 75% sold out before they are even finished being constructed. These condo's them self are becoming smaller and smaller. Having to live in 500 square feet of space is not fun. Traffic is at an all time high. Harder to find good jobs because there is so many more people looking for the same jobs, etc, etc... There is more air pollution now, and while we are not short on food (yet) we will be within the next decade or two. These are all problems from having too many people on our planet or at least in my city


Families should be restricted to 2-3 kids max, and only if the parents are in good standing with the "system".



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
While I'm still somewhat shocked at the idea of proposing mandatory sterilization for any of the world's populations or groups, what about in the UK or the US where population and famine issues aren't as severe?

Should the government have a role in fertility, reproduction, or selecting/restricting mates for people? Would YOU expect to keep the right to have children yourself?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
People need to see the bigger picture, please will people stop saying ''it's my right to have as many children as I like''
Grow up, our population is way too high, it doesn't matter what country you live in, US, UK, Egypt etc

2 children max no more, thats what i say



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smatts

Families should be restricted to 2-3 kids max, and only if the parents are in good standing with the "system".



What 'system'? Who would you trust enough to make those kinds of decisions? I haven't met anyone in my entire life I would trust that much.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
People need to see the bigger picture, please will people stop saying ''it's my right to have as many children as I like''
Grow up, our population is way too high, it doesn't matter what country you live in, US, UK, Egypt etc

2 children max no more, thats what i say



But can we govern this kind of thing? How would it be restricted, and what about in areas where more children are needed to work the family farm? What if religion prevents birth control or dictates many children? Do we force surgery on people? Punish them for pregnancy? Dads? Moms? Both?

Can we restrict who is allowed to have kids at ALL?

This is so much more than just numbers of children people are "allowed" to have, but who is "allowed" to have children period.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
But can we govern this kind of thing? How would it be restricted, and what about in areas where more children are needed to work the family farm? What if religion prevents birth control or dictates many children? Do we force surgery on people? Punish them for pregnancy? Dads? Moms? Both?

Can we restrict who is allowed to have kids at ALL?

This is so much more than just numbers of children people are "allowed" to have, but who is "allowed" to have children period.


we have so many questions yet so few answers


This is my idea from earlier in the thread, hope it explains my thoughts a little



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, 7 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Okay again though - lets eliminate the equation of population control. Pretend there is unlimited space, and women could have 50 kids. I dont think the government can play a role in this anyway, but whatever. It sucks and it will suck when people who can't care for their children have them.

Should we restrict who can reproduce, and the types of people that can and cannot? Not how many, but who.

I'm NOT asking about numbers of kids here - I'm talking about disabled, ugly, genetic diseases, whatever.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Okay again though - lets eliminate the equation of population control. Pretend there is unlimited space, and women could have 50 kids. I dont think the government can play a role in this anyway, but whatever. It sucks and it will suck when people who can't care for their children have them.

Should we restrict who can reproduce, and the types of people that can and cannot? Not how many, but who.

I'm NOT asking about numbers of kids here - I'm talking about disabled, ugly, genetic diseases, whatever.


No way... we as a race have no right to decide
I don't believe in using physical measures to stop people having kids, if we were to do this then we would be trying to create some kind of super-aryan style race. Yes it would benefit humanity but in the process we would also lose our humanity.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Yhays what I like about my idea no one is forced to do ANYTHING

Those who are screaming for less kids can donate the money

Those starving can get sterilized plus a check in a lot of countries you could probibly pay less than 500 dollars and have them lined up around the corner

Everyone in every step of the process is a volunteer

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Wonderful topic

I have chosen this topic to discuss for a class project at school (college), as I see that it makes for good, sensible debate. Currently, I am on the side to regulate reproduction, as I am in favor of population control. Like a recent poster stated, we need to grow up and realize that, in order to have a more orderly society, some 'freedoms' have to be taken away. The freedom to reproduce at will is one.

I can honestly say that seeing single women on welfare continue to have babies, year after year, (only to be rewarded by the state) is what brought this topic to mind.

The taxpayers are being taxed to death because of this. The mother is being taken care as well as each child that she irresponsibly decides to have. More than likely, these children will also require assistance as they turn into adults, keeping the generational poverty cycle churning.
edit on 14-3-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Okay again though - lets eliminate the equation of population control. Pretend there is unlimited space, and women could have 50 kids. I dont think the government can play a role in this anyway, but whatever. It sucks and it will suck when people who can't care for their children have them.

Should we restrict who can reproduce, and the types of people that can and cannot? Not how many, but who.

I'm NOT asking about numbers of kids here - I'm talking about disabled, ugly, genetic diseases, whatever.


Welfare recipients should NOT be able to reproduce until they become independent.

Just makes plain sense.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
My own view on this will be sure to draw criticism.

There are currently too many people in the world. You should only be able to reproduce if you can prove that you can afford to raise you children.

I don't think that poor people should have children. They quite literally can't afford to feed, house, cloth and raise children without the assistance of others. Statistically, if you grow up poor, then you will most likely be poor.

The world does not need more poor people.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
No need really, there will be major wars in the future to help cut the populous back a bit. Wars are our natural means of limiting our numbers and we just can't help but get pissed and kill each other all the time..a clever evolutionary limitation I think.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Wow this thread is just awful on every level. Seriously have none of you read a history book? Seriously? Is this how far the human race has fallen? Does no one here remember Hitler and The Nazi Eugenics Program? You know how that turned out? Bad like one of the absolute worst atrocities in human history. I'm not even talking about the Holocaust , Just the war alone was bad enough. THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS gave there life at Omaha so stuff like this would never happen. MORE THEN TWO PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION DIED IN WORLD WAR TWO. My god! Am I being trolled? Are you all insane? No! No! This should never ever happen or cross anyone's mind. This is not a Left/Right thing. This is a Good and Evil Thing.
Seriously Democrats and Republicans agree on very little things but I'm pretty sure we can all agree World War Two? Bad!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Most of the problems you list above are occuring in thrid world countries. To solve the problems more aid needs to be given.


Aid creates population problems it doesn't solve them. It creates an artificial bubble of security that enables the population to expand without necessary local resources to support it.

Either the “aid” continues or the problem is made worse as there are more people to who need this “aid” – it is an endless cycle. It creates dependant societies – see Haiti for an example.

Want an up close and personal example start feeding stray cats on your porch for a year then stop all the sudden and watch what happens...

The difference is everyone knows the "cat-lady" is crazy but the "progressive-left" are perceived as compassionate. Go figure :@@".



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reptius
Wow this thread is just awful on every level. Seriously have none of you read a history book? Seriously? Is this how far the human race has fallen? Does no one here remember Hitler and The Nazi Eugenics Program? You know how that turned out? Bad like one of the absolute worst atrocities in human history. I'm not even talking about the Holocaust , Just the war alone was bad enough. THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS gave there life at Omaha so stuff like this would never happen. MORE THEN TWO PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION DIED IN WORLD WAR TWO. My god! Am I being trolled? Are you all insane? No! No! This should never ever happen or cross anyone's mind. This is not a Left/Right thing. This is a Good and Evil Thing.
Seriously Democrats and Republicans agree on very little things but I'm pretty sure we can all agree World War Two? Bad!


Your view population control as negative because, as your examples state, you are looking for it to come in the form of genocide; basically killing people that are already alive.

Myself and others are explaining how the BIRTH rate should decrease, not having the death rate increase.
edit on 14-3-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by xpert11

Most of the problems you list above are occuring in thrid world countries. To solve the problems more aid needs to be given.


Aid creates population problems it doesn't solve them. It creates an artificial bubble of security that enables the population to expand without necessary local resources to support it.

Either the “aid” continues or the problem is made worse as there are more people to who need this “aid” – it is an endless cycle. It creates dependant societies – see Haiti for an example.

Want an up close and personal example start feeding stray cats on your porch for a year then stop all the sudden and watch what happens...

The difference is everyone knows the "cat-lady" is crazy but the "progressive-left" are perceived as compassionate. Go figure :@@".


I agree!!

I had his very debate with someone over the weekend. He asserted that the gov't should increase the resources to provide all the new births.

How insane and absurd.

1st, once certain resources are gone, they are gone.
2nd, people should have SOME sense of accountabilty, to themselves, to newborn children, and to the reset of society.

People should not have child after child just because they can; yes, reproduction needs to be regulated.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join