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.

 

License to have children

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


Really, people don't have a "RIGHT" to have children? Do you have a "RIGHT" to breathe? The fact that you're breathing affects all of us as well. The way some people think is scary. I'm hoping this thread is some sort of "group think" experiment & adult rational humans don't really think like this.


no it isn't, you just think it is because it's always about ME ME ME ME ME. children are starving, we don't have enough work for everyone, over population has the potential to take down the whole world. but oh it's your right to destroy the planet/society




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I think it's a sad day when ordinary people in this world begin to support their own oppression.
edit on 16-6-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
I think it's a sad day when ordinary people in this world begin to support their own oppression.
edit on 16-6-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


yes, they is why it has to come out of each and every individual. overpopulation is a ticking time bomb, but with that being said shoving tyranny down peoples throat won't work. consciousness is the key



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
I think it's a sad day when ordinary people in this world begin to support their own oppression.
edit on 16-6-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


No, only some do, and their opinions really don't interest me for fascsm is criminal. I would be very loud to any politician that tries this. Not listening to anyones crapola but picturing a free world and act out my freedom openly. Those who wish to regress into hellzones will have to wait until they die, they're not going to do so on earth.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well, this thread has realy opened my eyes.

Now I understand why the world is in such a mess.

I'm not a believer in god but at this moment in time I realy wish there was one because I'm sure he'd be busy with a big pair of blunt scissors sorting out those who think this is a good idea.


Jean Paul Zodeaux

EyesWideShut



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


Really, people don't have a "RIGHT" to have children? Do you have a "RIGHT" to breathe? The fact that you're breathing affects all of us as well. The way some people think is scary. I'm hoping this thread is some sort of "group think" experiment & adult rational humans don't really think like this.


no it isn't, you just think it is because it's always about ME ME ME ME ME. children are starving, we don't have enough work for everyone, over population has the potential to take down the whole world. but oh it's your right to destroy the planet/society


People like you are the problem. How am I thinking it's about Me? You've yet to learn that YOU can only control YOU. You can't control others. You're speaking in terms of "we" which means that you're speaking for me, but "we" don't agree. I have work & my kids aren't starving. please explain how I'm trying to destroy the planet/society?

As a matter of fact I'm a Nurse & a Firefighter... I'm pretty much "of service to others" not of self.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Basically. If it was setup of the jump with this in mind? Nah, but the means as to what it is used now? Yup. Education and some damn true opportunities will knock that poor class out. Then we'd would be left with just the.. transients. Think of the cash that would instead be spent on education instead of.. handouts hmm?

If you have a legitimate need then do it, it's why we pay taxes. It's real in the field. But if your just mooching just to mooch, seeing children as a means to secure your finances, hell nah. And you have no disability or impairment to prevent you from gettin down, that's a double negative. No bread for you.

Some females are having children in their 40's! Just so they can continue gettin support from the government *shudder* Ish like that, we shut'em down fast. Keepin it real homies and get straight gansta, it's that real. Government worker needs to say quite simply "Have any more children (limit is X) and you will no longer be eligible to receive benefits from the Government". I mean what.. they don't pay a salary tax so why should they drain the system. We need that for when we lose a job suddenly and need a check until we get back on our feet. Not so [insert name] can literally get a free ride. And isn't contributing.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
 

I have a problem with this because we have yet to have a government that isn't corrupted. Who would choose? What if the person in charge hated specific groups of people and allowed that hate to dictate their decisions. Someone who is a devout religious person isn't always unbiased towards someone who doesn't believe in religion. I know of people who are very hateful towards all different types of people; tattoos, piercings, heavy metal lovers, the list goes on. Problem is- people are too judgmental for them to be unbiased when making such an important decision.

While I realize there are many people in this world who shouldn't make more unfortunate babies that grow up to be unfortunate adults, we couldn't POSSIBLY be capable of making such a life changing decision. Instead I feel we as a society need to educate and inform the public WHY they shouldn't have more children if they aren't able to support the existing ones; why they shouldn't have any children if they aren't capable of even trying to raise them to be productive citizens.

I think we should make a law that says when a person goes on government help, any future children would not increase the charity they receive. That way, we are not telling them they are not allowed to have more children, we are simply making it so that it's not profitable for them to do so.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   


Op are you John Holdren? Sounds like you read his book.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kctornado
I think we should make a law that says when a person goes on government help, any future children would not increase the charity they receive. That way, we are not telling them they are not allowed to have more children, we are simply making it so that it's not profitable for them to do so


This is basically what I am advocating - have 100 children if you want who cares but the minute you turn to the public troth for aid the conditions should set in.

To hand out money for assistance without any strings or limitations attached is fiscal suicide as we can plainly see. To receive government aid, remain drug free, either in search of work or education, and implanted or injected with contraceptives. If not no checks. The money should have conditions. Any contract should have obligations from both parties.

If you have demonstrated the inability to care for the offspring you have currently I'd say a condition would be to not breed any more.

Ideally, the government would not be involved either way be it in underwriting a person's poor choices with aid or limiting a person’s right to procreate.

It's too late I suppose to totally go cold turkey and stop any assistance at all since our current system has generated generation after generation of welfare families and entitlement culture.

However, at least we could place some restrictions and limits on the irresponsible behavior of those in receipt of the benefits.

I mean if my kids as adults made some bad choices (be it with an unplanned child or something else) and needed to move back home for some reason I would set some stipulations on their behavior and activities as a condition to receiving my financial assistance. It is my responsibility to help/guide my children not to enable them.

One could argue the relationship of the government to the governance is not the same as parent - child.

Forgive me if that's not the best analogy but in this case I think when the governed are seeking the assistance of the government financially the government has an obligation to the taxpayers to ensure that the aid isn't squandered or wasted on those who don't genuinely see the arrangement as temporary. I am all for giving aid to those who want to change/improve their ability to provide for a child but to give it unconditionally to those who would profit from it is folly.

No one forces them to accept the conditions (contraception) of the aid - they are free to drive on creating children they can't feed at their own expense. Perhaps watching a child starve would reinforce this is not the best plan of action.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Oh sure, you're only advocating this form of oppression because of the epidemic of parental pedophilia and parental face eating problems that exist in the world today. Disconnect with reality in order to advocate a real world governmental policy is hardly an act of erudition, but you're not advocating that only the erudite have children, are you? Only that we license all of those numerous parental pedophiles and face eaters.




edit on 16-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


You're right - child abuse is so rare, it's not even worth a second thought. We've got more important things to do, like protecting the rights of child abusers to have children.


Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Every year 3.3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving 6 million children; that’s because reports can include multiple children. The United States has the worst record in the industrialized nation – losing five children every day due to abuse-related deaths.


www.childhelp.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So now all prospective parents are child abusers?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
How about no, Scott.

Second line.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


restrictions are acceptable, I just can't support the idea that all children would be physically prevented from having children until they "applied" because it turns into a huge power thing and humans simply can't handle the concept of having power over another without abusing it. Thanks for the reply!



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So now all prospective parents are child abusers?


Of course not. I don't think I said that. I'm saying that child abuse and child neglect is a real problem, and not just in my "stupid little ole' head". I'll bet that looking closer at the statistics, we could probably get a good idea of who is doing the abusing and neglecting. It is this group that probably shouldn't be allowed to have children.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66


No one forces them to accept the conditions (contraception) of the aid - they are free to drive on creating children they can't feed at their own expense. Perhaps watching a child starve would reinforce this is not the best plan of action.


You want a child to starve just to teach the parent a lesson? I guess it's the kid's own fault for being born into the wrong family. Stupid kid - he deserves it.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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.
That's pretty dumb.
Are you telling me people with low IQ can't care and love??
And what's 'cheque balancing' got to do with parenting???
The country i live in, i can show a number of uneducated parents who will make the parents of your country hang their head in shame.
Money is a secondary need while a stable and natural loving environment, the primary one for parenting.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So now all prospective parents are child abusers?


Of course not. I don't think I said that. I'm saying that child abuse and child neglect is a real problem, and not just in my "stupid little ole' head". I'll bet that looking closer at the statistics, we could probably get a good idea of who is doing the abusing and neglecting. It is this group that probably shouldn't be allowed to have children.
Can you describe the qualities of those groups of people???
Even a murderer, rapist, uneducated, poor,alcohal addict,,,,,,,can be a good parent.
Parenting is a different thing altogether and you can't predecide who will be a good parent.
Even if this is made into law, can the state give guarantee that the qualified people will turn out to be good parents??
I can't stress out the dumbness of this concept.
It's just pathetic.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Talk about pseudoscience.
Its how you raise a child not who creates it.

The funny thing is that the people who most would say have a right to breed are usually the worst of the lot. Like rich and affluent people, if anything they deserve it the least.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I disagree again,

I would say MOST people are "poor" because they live outside their means.

I was divorced and raised 2 children on my own since they were 2 & 4 years old. All through school and now they are in their early 20's.
I was making minimum wage in a lot of the jobs I had then and sometimes I had to work 2 jobs but I always took care of the kids first and we we're never on welfare.
I didn't have a cell phone, internet or cable TV and we ate well because I knew how to shop and prepare our meals cheaply. I drove an old and sometimes reliable beater car for years.

I lived within my means. We didn't eat out and I didn't socialize much.

I never said only rich people should have children..... only that financially STABLE people should have kids.
You don't have to be rich to be stable and responsible.




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join