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.

 

Call for compulsory contraception

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Call for compulsory contraception


translate.googleusercontent.com

Severe addicts, psychiatric patients and mentally handicapped people should be forced to use contraception. Former Chairman of the Dutch National Safety Board Pieter van Vollenhoven argues for a legislative change that allows it.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
frontpage.fok.nl




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
This is a very difficult matter, on the one hand I approve this, on the other hand, will this proposal if it gets through and becomes legislation be abused?
I think the Dutch state will abuse this if it gets approved. Childcare in the Netherlands already have a very bad reputation and I've experienced this myself.




translate.googleusercontent.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


All I can say is that we shouldn't listen to people whose opinions on this matter are coming from a fictional book



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I have always thought that mentally handicapped people should not have children for two reasons:

1. They are not responsible or mentally fit to raise children
2. There is a good chance that the children will be mentally handicapped too, which just makes even more of a burden on the state.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
the dutch politician who suggested this sounds like in his heart he really want prefab babies.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Well this guy did hit someone with a car, killed that person, never attended the funeral, only sent some flowers, then 28 years later he apologized to the mother of the 20 year old German student he killed. 28 years later.

Also he has ties to royal families. And he writes reports about accidents. 4 kids, all named like kings from the 16th century.

So no, no, no. To hell with suggestions like this. It's eugenics all over again.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
From a population control in the face of growing overpopulation, I think that limiting everyone on the planet to just one child, regardless their station in life would be a good thing.

On the down side of that, attempting to enact such a thing, let alone enforce it, would bring about all sorts of nastiness that would in itself be unacceptable.

In regards to people that are mentally incapable, socially or financially irresponsible, I don't think legally neutering them of the biological imperative to procreate is all that nice.
Sure, there's the argument that some people, for whatever reason or another really shouldn't have children due to the possibility of burden, but, those possibilities are unrealized, and only possibilities.

Look at Stephen Hawking. On one hand you would have the hope of any progeny also having a propencity for genius level cognition. On the other, there's this debilitating illness that could be passed on.

Yes, there's a chance for people of menial or limited cognitive abilities typically associated with downs, or some other similar ailment to pass it on, but, we continue to grow in understanding these problems such that treatment options in utero or pre-conception may in time be feasible to enact genetic repair.

Yes, everyone should be allowed to have at least one child.
For those that are unfit to care for such child, there are hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people worldwide that if limited to having only one child per couple would be more than happy to adopt any extra child.

As a navigation around creation or enforcement of draconian measures to create a one child per couple worldwide rule, if there were a virus designed such that could effectively render anyone that procreates sterile after birth, one child per would become the biologically enforced norm.
It's a TPTB type scenario, but, it cuts out favoritism, bribery, criminal spawning and all the loads of other sorts of things that could crop up if such a proposition were attempted from a legal and political level.

In time, once world population numbers are in balance with resources and scarcity of resources availible to support any population of X size comfortably such that quality of life isn't the struggle it is today, then, perhaps a cure, or limited immunization be introduced.

As it stands, however, we humans breed like roaches and we're going to wind up stripping this planet bare, and tapping out whatever dwindling resources are available before we ever reach a cumulative level of maturity and self accountability such we can actually manage this planet.

For those of you that tend to get hot under the collar, I volunteer that I have zero children, and have vowed to continue to have zero children such is my feeling in regards to overpopulation.



edit on 13-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I'm a recovering addict and I also have bipolar disorder: both of which are totally under control; but according to this I qualified to be forced to not have children. I find this unbelievable. It's hard to believe we live in a world where a public figure can say this without fear of totally ruining his credibility. Mental illness is far more common than most people realize. In the US about 25% of people have some form of mental illness. What this guy is suggesting is to not allow a pretty large percentage (if the rates are similar there) not to have children. As far as 'severe addicts' what if someone gets sober but is medically listed as an addict prior and isn't allowed to have children because of their past? This really is an example of eugenics. It's scary to think we still live in a world where eugenics is alive and well.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
It does not matter who a person is, or what they believe, how stable they are, or how capable. Forced contraception, forced sterilisation, forced womb removal, forced surgical intervention to remove any part of a reproductive organ for ANY reason other than concern for the subjects health, should be looked on as the first step to our damnation.

If the state suffers because there are too many crazies, well... SCREW THE STATE! No nation is ever going to be as important as the basic human rights applied to its citizens, ALL of them, no matter what state they are in. Only people who make a free will choice to behave in an inhuman manner, against the laws of not just a nation, but the entire human moral structure, by murder, by molestation, by inflicting horror on others, deserve to have thier rights impinged in this way, and even then only in very extreme cases. The criminally insane may deserve this removal of thier rights, but the merely impeded do not, and the person who came up with the idea should be ashamed of himself.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


There is a good chance any normal couple will have mentally handicapped children and you'll find the parents of these patients ARE normal who gave birth to many of these children who were concieved and grew in the womb quite normal but obstectian screwed up while delivering the baby.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
From a population control in the face of growing overpopulation, I think that limiting everyone on the planet to just one child, regardless their station in life would be a good thing.

Try convincing the Catholics that this is the right thing to do and see what happens lol. They would probably fight to the death for their "god-given" right to procreate.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
From a population control in the face of growing overpopulation, I think that limiting everyone on the planet to just one child, regardless their station in life would be a good thing.



China tried that, ask how it's working out for them.

As for forced contraception, America did something quite similar back in the early 20th century, except they used forced sterilization. It was wrong, then, and it's wrong what this guy wants to do.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by tebyen

Originally posted by Druscilla
From a population control in the face of growing overpopulation, I think that limiting everyone on the planet to just one child, regardless their station in life would be a good thing.



China tried that, ask how it's working out for them.

As for forced contraception, America did something quite similar back in the early 20th century, except they used forced sterilization. It was wrong, then, and it's wrong what this guy wants to do.


Yes, these things have been tried from a political and legal standpoint. I'm very well aware of all the failures and attempts one way or another to look at this issue.
As I stated, attempting to enforce such a proposal from a political and or legal standpoint would be catastrophic.

Infecting every single person on the planet with a tailored virus that only allows just one single child would make the proposal a biological fact of life. There'd be nothing to enforce from a political or legal standpoint. there'd be no favoritism or bribes by the elite or well to do. there wouldn't be any people illegally spawning like insect swarms anywhere in retaliation.
It would just be a simple biological fact. One child allowed no matter how hard you try and it effects everyone on the planet without favoritism or discrimination.

Everyone would be thus equal in that respect and the biology of the virus would continue to enforce it. No police or extra laws necessary.

The only way such a proposition would work would be if every single person regardless their station or privilege in life were treated equally all over the planet. No discrimination. No favoritism. No corruption. No laws. No punishments. No more than one child per couple.


edit on 13-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Why not just forced sterilization?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Why not just forced sterilization?


For everyone, until the government gives you a license to procreate. You are only allowed one as having a baby leaves a huge carbon footprint.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

Good point. But also think about how not having children affects the world. Empty birth control pill bottles, condoms + packaging etc, all ending up in landfills


We're doomed no matter what we do.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
So it's basically a call for the big bad E word (eugenics).

The question inevitably becomes "which individuals are considered undesirable for the general population?" which can be a slippery slope.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Not everyone can even take contraceptive. 50% of women, have complications from it. I couldn't take it, had prestroke symptoms and migraines.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
How about turning on its head and letting people apply for licences to procreate when the time is right for them?

Everyone is compulsorily on contraception until they can prove they are ready to provide a stable home.

Not necessarily sure I believe in this, but would like to explore the concept in the context of your discussion.

It would get over the issues associated with having been an addict and tarred with that for the rest of your life.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by tebyen

Originally posted by Druscilla
From a population control in the face of growing overpopulation, I think that limiting everyone on the planet to just one child, regardless their station in life would be a good thing.



China tried that, ask how it's working out for them.

As for forced contraception, America did something quite similar back in the early 20th century, except they used forced sterilization. It was wrong, then, and it's wrong what this guy wants to do.


Yes, these things have been tried from a political and legal standpoint. I'm very well aware of all the failures and attempts one way or another to look at this issue.
As I stated, attempting to enforce such a proposal from a political and or legal standpoint would be catastrophic.

Infecting every single person on the planet with a tailored virus that only allows just one single child would make the proposal a biological fact of life. There'd be nothing to enforce from a political or legal standpoint. there'd be no favoritism or bribes by the elite or well to do. there wouldn't be any people illegally spawning like insect swarms anywhere in retaliation.
It would just be a simple biological fact. One child allowed no matter how hard you try and it effects everyone on the planet without favoritism or discrimination.

Everyone would be thus equal in that respect and the biology of the virus would continue to enforce it. No police or extra laws necessary.

The only way such a proposition would work would be if every single person regardless their station or privilege in life were treated equally all over the planet. No discrimination. No favoritism. No corruption. No laws. No punishments. No more than one child per couple.


edit on 13-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


Are you effin' mental? What happens when your tailored virus causes the population of earth to dwindle to one breeding pair of humans capable of having exactly one child? You environmental activists/nutters need your own planet. It'd be great, after you've built up infrastructure you'll all just off yourselves and the rest of us unwashed masses could just move on in.

FYI, Earth can deal with quite a bit more human beings than it currently has with proper agricultural and economic practices. People aren't starving because of lack of arable farm land, they starve because we let them. There are warehouses full of food just rotting while good people go hungry. People with more than one child.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join