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: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


I wouldn't limit it to those groups of people. In there should be included African nations with little to no hope of generating enough money to sustain themselves, AIDS ridden areas etc...

7 billion on the planet people!!

T




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


I wouldn't limit it to those groups of people. In there should be included African nations with little to no hope of generating enough money to sustain themselves, AIDS ridden areas etc...

7 billion on the planet people!!

T



If we are going to sterilize anyone, we should start with the bigots incapable of independent thought.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


You are right. It is a tough issue.

One I think should be on a case by case basis. Things like this make we realize where the justice and jurist system came from. Sometimes these 'difficult to call' issues are better decided by a representation of your peers. Some answers will change with the times and values of the society, as well they should.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


I wouldn't limit it to those groups of people. In there should be included African nations with little to no hope of generating enough money to sustain themselves, AIDS ridden areas etc...

7 billion on the planet people!!

T



If we are going to sterilize anyone, we should start with the bigots incapable of independent thought.


I think this thread is calling for...


compulsory contraception


...which is quite a different thing than sterilization.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Cull the flock. Do not propagate the non productive elements of society.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


It's not really that different, the effect is the same.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The U.S. (in some states) already sterilizes those it deems "unfit" to have children, without consent, and where they go Europe inevitably follows, so I would imagine it will be on the cards at some stage.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Even if they judge each case separately, the risk of abusing this is gigantic. I've seen with my own eyes how childcare in the Netherlands work. I'm still dubbing if I should make a thread about what I've experienced ever since my lovely son was born and how childcare dealt with the case.
Unjust at its finest...

edit on 13-4-2012 by Regenstorm because: Added line.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I abhorr the idea of eugenics but where I live there are hordes of teen moms - - many with two or more children to different fathers who are nearly always absent , its getting that bad here in the UK that they may have to consider something like this in the future .

The benefits system is over burdened by these girls continously getting pregnant - state benefits, rent paid, social services involved because they are incapable of raising their kids without outside support - now we have groups of feral children roaming housing estates - tomorrows criminal gangs ?

these girls are 3rd generation state benefit bandits- its the only life they have ever known - the cost of supporting just one of these girls and her three kids till they reach adulthood is staggering.

as a tax payer and home owner its easy to see the appeal in such a proposal.

( and now I feel ashamed for even considering such a thing )



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
In a modern, "civilized" world where humanity or society or the community feels the obligation to take care of any human child that isn't being cared for, you don't have a "god-given" right to have a child that you can't properly take care of, because by doing so you FORCE others to become responsible for that child.

My collective right to not have to take care of other peoples' children trumps your right to have a child, if you can't take care of it.

Furthermore, why do we consistently ignore the fact that genetics in humans works just like it does in other animals? We know perfectly well what happens when substandard specimens of dogs, horses, cows, etc. are allowed to breed, and for the most part we don't do it. (Just look at the absolute ruin of many popular dog breeds due to "backyard breeders" for examples).

But we continue to ignore the simple facts of science and genetics when it comes to human beings.Why? Don't we want future generations of humans to be healthier, stronger, smarter?

Take eyesight for one example. Before we had the ability to correct vision, people who had very poor vision probably didn't live long enough to reproduce. Thus, poor eyesight was a trait that was not propagated. Now we have the reverse - collectively, human eyesight is getting worse. It seems like half of the children I see around have glasses, let alone the adults.

We seem to have forgotten that human beings are a species, and we seem to be incapable of taking actions that will benefit the species over the individual. Sometime in the future it may be humanity's downfall, as has already been predicted.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Never, ever, ever ever ever ever ever NEVER will I agree with legislating what someone can or cannot do with their body.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost

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.


You can call me names all you want, but, in turn, you're only demonstrating and showing your mental deficiency towards reason.
I never proposed a permanent solution.
The solution I proposed is a solution beyond political or legal suggestions that would not allow for any of the corruption, favoritism, bribery, or criminal behavior that a political or legal solution would create.
It doesn't apply for the extermination or criminal marginalization of anyone for any reason or factor. The proposition is entirely nondiscriminatory which is the only way any plan to reduce population levels would and could be successful on the highest level of ethical consideration compared to any other proposed solution.

A limited cure or immunization could be developed at the same time, but launched on a trajectory similar to Halley's comet, on a predictable timed course out of the hands of tampering, greed, control and corruption that would occur if there was a cure available and accessible on-planet. Every so many generations, the cure happens.
Populations are degraded, then stabilized and eventually after X generations, hopefully we've matured to an extent of accountability that once the cure is permanent, on a planned and times schedule mankind can be responsible.

If you took the time to do the math, really look at the numbers, you'd see quite clearly the state we're in regarding the 8 Billion people and the demands on dwindling non-renewable resources.
You, however, think i'm "effin' mental", which, as stated before is a plain demonstration of your limited cognitive abilities, so, with that, I'll leave you to your ignorance as it's really quite pointless attempting to explain concepts of diminishing returns, supply and demand, and all the myriad other factors from logistical and social standpoints that will spell our doom.


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

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



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Additionally, we could always just enact a Logan's Run doctrine. No one past the age of X (in Logan's Run it was 30), lives. After 30, you go 'renew'. for every new life, there would be one death.

Simple and elegant. It's a bit barbaric too, but, the only discrimination applied is age. Unfortunately, such a thing requires political and legal control such as the Sandmen portrayed in the movie which in turn leaves room open for corruption, favoritism, crime, criminal punishment, and all the nastiness associated with such, so, it's not near as pleasant a solution as limiting people on a biological level to only one child per couple.


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



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Why stop their!
You could very easily extend it to criminals, unfit parents, women that have 15 children and no way to support and rely of government support etc etc.
Take it even further and you could put them down, when do you stop?

At times I do agree some people do really need to ridden from the genepool however what right do we have to make that choice? Majority rule, legal judgment, IQ test, DNA test, game?

In the end I doubt sterilizing populations without consent goes against every freedom we are fighting for and really isn't in our benifit, who knows...ATS or conspiracist may be a valid and community accepted raasson to give us the snip!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


I wouldn't limit it to those groups of people. In there should be included African nations with little to no hope of generating enough money to sustain themselves, AIDS ridden areas etc...

7 billion on the planet people!!

T



If we are going to sterilize anyone, we should start with the bigots incapable of independent thought.


Comical. Where in that statement am I a bigot? It's plain and simple truth, you might not like it, but it's my opinion, and furthermore it's actual fact that people in Africa are having babies, whilst knowlingly infected with aids, and have no capacity to sustain themselves financially.

I think you're the one who needs to be sterilized, since you are under the impression freedom of speech and independent thought are synonymous with bigotry.

Nice try though.. keep it coming we'll have a ball.

T



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
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.


So do you think Stephen Hawkings should not be allowed to have children..



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





So do you think Stephen Hawkings should not be allowed to have children..


Stephen Hawking is not mentally handicapped, quite the opposite.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Let's think about this for a minute. In criminal cases, what is the basis of the "insanity defense?" That the person wasn't competent to understand the consequences of their actions, and/or that they didn't fully understand what they were doing.

On to the mentally handicapped, who also are often not able to comprehend the consequences of their actions or understand why they shouldn't have unprotected sex.

It's not sterilization, it's contraception, and there are many ways to achieve it. My consumer gets an injection once every 3 months (in the US).

People who are not able to understand the consequences of unprotected sex (i.e. pregnancy and a baby) would be protected from those unintended consequences by being required to use contraception. It isn't really a matter of preventing them from having a baby that they want and intend to conceive, it's preventing an unintended result of their inability to fully comprehend why they need to use contraception and what happens if they don't.

If a person is mentally competent to understand that sex leads to pregnancy and a baby, and what that means, and have cognitive intent to have a baby and be able to take care of it, that can be a different discussion as to whether they should be able to. In most cases I'd probably say yes..

But that's not the case, most of the time. What we're talking about, really, is people who are having sex because they enjoy it, and they have no real comprehension of the possible consequences.

Take, for example, the person with developmental disabilities who is diabetic and obese. They don't really comprehend the connection between the food they eat and either their weight or their illness. They just enjoy eating .. usually all the wrong foods. So, do we allow them to slowly destroy their health by eating whatever they want, or do we impose a sensible diet? Stop and think about it, it's actually the same principle at work.

People (think children) who are unable to comprehend the potential negative consequences of their actions are generally guided or even coerced to avoid those actions by people who do, and this is considered to be right and in the best interest of the child/person.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Never, ever, ever ever ever ever ever NEVER will I agree with legislating what someone can or cannot do with their body.


You call reproducing "doing something with your body?"



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
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.


No one should be FORCED to lose out on the ability to have & love their child!

I once saw a film about a mentally disabled human male who lost the right to look after his daughter,
The film is about how he fights to show that despite his disability he is still capable of providing the love that child needs. (Called; I Am Sam)

Love gives humans the ability to do things they would never have conceived of if they'd never encountered love.

Its a magnificent thing and it most definitely should not be underrated!

It is all well and good intervening when the family needs help, But as soon as you start deciding who can and who can't have children, you head down a slope which you can never return from.

Tread very carefully here,
I strongly recommend seeing that film I mentioned before you bang your gavel's down.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join