It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Mclaneinc
Try to feign sympathy all you want. Go ahead and pander to the "SAVE THE CHILDREN" nonsense.. and go on and bring up your own daughter to try and bolster your position. Thing is, it won't stop the reality that you're not for "lessons on upbringing", that's not what this thread is about. The thread title is clear.. "License to have children".
You're welcome to continue supporting this position, but you can stop with the obfuscating. It's rather obvious. If you don't want the heat, then don't support absurd practices.
People keep saying, "It's for the children, for the children, I love children." but you always append your ramblings with "Out of my pocket" nonsense, that allows people to clearly identify who you all really are.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Sounds kinda "Big Government-ey" to me.
I don't know. Maybe it should happen. Mr. intelligent man capable of supporting a family will probably have two kids. Mr. dumb guy who can't support a family will have 5 or more kids.
There are some women without the mental power to balance a checkbook, and yet they are trusted to raise kids properly? It's absurd.
Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by jiggerj
In my country, the number of students from poor families beating reputed competition exams is almost ten to one as compared to rich ones.
I am an Indian,MIT Cambridge post-graduate with an uneducated mother and a matriculate father.
Do you know what is the driving force for me?
It's the hardship of my parents for me i have seen through my childhood.
I want to serve my parents for their remaining life and when i see people abandoning their parents more so in the so called civilized western world, i don't know what to say or feel.
Maybe it's the broken society which uses chilldren as toys whose authorship is decided in courts.
I think we have a situation of girlchild abortions in my country and on the other hand depiction of abortion as a form of progress in your world.
This proves to me that IQ isn't the deciding factor of the morality of a society.
Originally posted by Lannister
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
You have to have a license to have a dog, drive a car, get married - why not have kids???
BTW: What do you suggest happens if two people violate this?
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by kaylaluv
That's not how Nature works. If you think it is, you most certainly don't belong in it.
Perhaps you should get off the computer and risk your life for a walk in the woods. Breathing some fresh air and finding out that - shock! - you'll make it home safely again.
Nature provides all we need - medicines included. I personally wouldn't go to a hospital if I were sufficiently conscious to object. My family know this and would never dare allow doctors to treat me. But this is the choice of every person alone, or at least should be.
You go on and have yourself a nice day serving Big Brother. I'll probably go hang some more laundry to dry outside. I'll have to fight off bears and mosquitoes in the process, but somehow I'll muster the courage to brave Nature.
Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of greater than 50%. Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in India and The People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to advances in agricultural technology (such as chemical fertilizers).
Basic life expectancy numbers tend to exaggerate this growth, however. The low level of pre-modern life expectancy is distorted by the previous extremely high infant and childhood mortality. If a person did make it to the age of forty they had an average of another twenty years to live. Improvements in medicine, public health, and nutrition have therefore mainly increased the numbers of people living beyond childhood, with less effect on overall average lifespan.
Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Right that's my lot, had enough hatred for the day thank you...
To those who I may have given the wrong idea, my apologies..
To those who still think I want special licenses to have kids, no I don't...I'm a kind parent who loves his daughter so who would hardly want to ban having children, I just call for responsibility from those seeking or unwantedly having kids, if you don't want kids use protection, if you cannot be bothered then at least look after the child, you owe them that.
To those that think I'm part of some special abuse ATS ideal, please get a life....
To those that hate me still, never mind eh, there will be another person you can hate and blow your ego at in a minute, just remember, coming on to ATS, giving yourself a fancy name and cool avatar does not automatically make you clever, correct, or important. I'm sorry you are just the same as me in the real world, an unknown average person hoping to get through life as easily as possible.
If that annoys your ego then I've done some good after all..
What I think should happen is (for example) temporary castration at birth. Then if you want kids later in life you apply for a license to have your castration reversed. To have a baby (weather rich, poor, black, white or whatever) you must prove your home is a stable loving environment that has the means to support, love and raise a child.