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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm

There are some women without the mental power to balance a checkbook, and yet they are trusted to raise kids properly? It's absurd.

And what's 'cheque balancing' got to do with parenting???



If you can't see the connection between lack of mental power and raising kids, please go get fixed.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm

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.


If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwood
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I disagree again,

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

And what dictates those means???
Answer that and you have found the real problem.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I think what we should do is stop subsidizing teen pregnancy (pregnancy medicaid). If there was no government money for kids to have kids then a lot of this would end eventually. Imagine if the grandparents were held liable for the hospital costs? I bet they wouldn't turn a blind eye to their 15 year old girls dating whoever whenever.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.


Not literally no - no one wishes ill upon a child. I was using hyperbole of course. I do wonder what it woudl take for some people to stop having kids they can't support.

Now, that said to what lengths are you willing to go "for the sake of the children" - perhaps the most overused meme in government today.

How much are you willing to sacrifice so that another person's child doesn't go hungry? 50%, 70% - 90% of your income?

To whom will you say – no more? To this guy? Should he still continue to procreate as is his right? I wonder how many of his kids we support?


A Tennessee man's problems paying child support aren't so surprising: He has 30 children with 11 different women.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville, is pleading with the state to help him pay for child support, citing the fact that he earns minimum wage. Hatchett made national news in 2009, when his tally stood at 21 children.

“I had four kids in the same year," he said. "Twice.”

The mothers of his children are supposed to get anywhere from $25 a month to $309 a month for help raising the children. The state takes half of Hatchett's paycheck to divide among the mothers of his children, but now Hatchett has petitioned the state to help him meet his obligations.

The children range in age from toddlers to 14 years old.
Read more: www.foxnews.com...




This is what I am talking about - a man who can't manage to maintain a job that pays more than minimum wage has "fathered" ( a use the term "father" in a biological terms there only) 30 children who in all likelihood will grow up to be just like him.

Why, because while the government has probably gladly been forking over checks to help each one of these women who have on average 2.72 children from a father who can't even support himself.

I mean we can't restrict a person’s right to reproduction right? This is insanity. This guy should be in jail for 30 counts of using assault on the future of his children. He has in effect sentenced 30 kids to a cycle of dependency and poverty. Castrate this douche bag in the square...he is clearly irresponsible and we get stuck with the bill so he can have his "right to procreate" unlimited.

Not just here either -

I was in the Army for 24 years and have seen places where people are procreating past the point of the region to sustain its population. Somalia was one, of course their problems with growing food are compounded by a lack of functioning government but what is the solution? Aid?

I personally don't comprehend how these people can continue to procreate the way they do knowing that the children they have will be born into hunger, pain, war and instability.

What kind of adult (who knows where babies come from) does that? It's the height of cruelty and selfishness to indenture a child to the lives they will lead in these areas for the brief thrill of the sexual act . This is simply animalistic in nature.

Aid in those circumstances only prolongs the suffering IMO. It takes the population from the survival level in which ovulation mostly stops due to a lack of nutrition and body fat to just the right level where it begins again and the cycle repeats itself over and over until the aid stops. Then there will be a massive die off…

Denying these regions aid would force them to find the equilibrium between population growth and the ability of the region to support it's indigenous population.

Same with a household really - make people comfortable in their poverty and they will repeat the cycle over and over.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by deepankarm

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.


If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?
This is your best argument!!!
Are we talking about adoptions here??
There is a huge difference between a person adopting and having his/her own kid.
I see many past addicts giving up their bad habits for the sake of their child.
The responsibilty of parenting can change the outlook of any person towards life.
My cousin is one of those kind of guys but when i see him holding his child, i see a determined father's look in his eyes.
The innocence and smile of a child can melt any heart.
I see a number of depressed teens who have well educated and high earning parents.
How can we prevent this from happening???
What's the guarantee that a person doesn't turn to drugs or any bad habit after adoption.
All we need is to make people realize the needs of a child.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by deepankarm

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.


If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?
By that logic someone who uses pharmaceutical drugs shouldn't be aloud to have children either.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I agree with your frustrations, but rather than letting the child starve, I would rather we take the money from the parent and give it to the child for food. Let the parent starve, since they are the one responsible for the situation, not the child.

And yes, the man from Tennessee should be given a forced vasectomy, in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Here's a thought.

Maybe children should have a license before they are allowed to have same sex parents?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
i find it ironic that couples who want to have children but have to adopt a child, have to go through so many checks and tests to see if they are suitable parents, yet two teenagers still in school can have a baby that they do not want (i'd like to say that i am not generalizing all teens rabid breeders) or have planned for and they aren't checked by anybody to see if they are suitable parents. i personally would not want to bring another life into this world not with the way things are but thats just me. i think a licence for childbirth is a bit to harsh but something has to change. according to the church of euthanasia (a bunch of nutjobs that want to end all life and promote suicide, their website is quite sad) there are 2 children born every second. that's a lot of f'in babies in fact while i've been writing this over a 1000 babies have arrived, i'd like to think that all of them are going to a good home but i know that a lot are going to be in the sh*t. just my opinion.

PS. i came across the church of euthanasia while researching suicide- they have a very bleak outlook and i am suprised they exist at all. it is a sad time for our world at the moment. peace and love.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?


By that logic someone who uses pharmaceutical drugs shouldn't be aloud to have children either.


There's a difference between someone who takes a pharmaceutical drug responsibly and someone who abuses something like oxycodone to the point of not being able to maintain a job or prepare a meal, or keep their eyes open more than 3 minutes at a time. Do you think an adoption agency should hand over a kid to an oxycodone abuser?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?


By that logic someone who uses pharmaceutical drugs shouldn't be aloud to have children either.


There's a difference between someone who takes a pharmaceutical drug responsibly and someone who abuses something like oxycodone to the point of not being able to maintain a job or prepare a meal, or keep their eyes open more than 3 minutes at a time. Do you think an adoption agency should hand over a kid to an oxycodone abuser?
Both pose serious possible health risks to the child.
Do you know that in a well known experiment most rats will choose drugs over food till the point of starvation.
But..
If you increase the rats cage to a certain larger size they will almost always pick the food, many will never pick the drug at all.
You can give babies to the 'best' people and if the environment is the same the same problems will always occur.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?


By that logic someone who uses pharmaceutical drugs shouldn't be aloud to have children either.


There's a difference between someone who takes a pharmaceutical drug responsibly and someone who abuses something like oxycodone to the point of not being able to maintain a job or prepare a meal, or keep their eyes open more than 3 minutes at a time. Do you think an adoption agency should hand over a kid to an oxycodone abuser?
Both pose serious possible health risks to the child.
Do you know that in a well known experiment most rats will choose drugs over food till the point of starvation.
But..
If you increase the rats cage to a certain larger size they will almost always pick the food, many will never pick the drug at all.
You can give babies to the 'best' people and if the environment is the same the same problems will always occur.


I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that we could eliminate drug addiction by enlarging the homes the drug addicts live in?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
 


First, let me begin by saying, I'm a very blunt person and it's not my intention to make you angry or to provoke you...but, you seem like a very angry individual with a slight power complex.

I'm just curious as to what you believe gives you the right to decide who is or isn't suitable to be a parent? Do you have children?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by kaylaluv

If a person is a known heroin addict - do you think they would be allowed to adopt a child? Do you think they SHOULD be able to adopt a child? After all, who's to say they won't be a good parent just because they're a heroin addict? Let's hand over an orphan child to a heroin addict, shall we?


By that logic someone who uses pharmaceutical drugs shouldn't be aloud to have children either.


There's a difference between someone who takes a pharmaceutical drug responsibly and someone who abuses something like oxycodone to the point of not being able to maintain a job or prepare a meal, or keep their eyes open more than 3 minutes at a time. Do you think an adoption agency should hand over a kid to an oxycodone abuser?
Both pose serious possible health risks to the child.
Do you know that in a well known experiment most rats will choose drugs over food till the point of starvation.
But..
If you increase the rats cage to a certain larger size they will almost always pick the food, many will never pick the drug at all.
You can give babies to the 'best' people and if the environment is the same the same problems will always occur.


I'm sorry - I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that we could eliminate drug addiction by enlarging the homes the drug addicts live in?
What you guys are suggesting is a cure to a problem, not prevention which is what we need.
This very well may reduce some problems, but only for a limited time.
I.e. its pointless.

edit on 17-6-2012 by HumanCondition because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingDoey
I personally loathe children. I do not find them cute or 'funny' when they harass you at restaurants, or let off deafening screeches every few minutes, and why do people with kids think they have priority over others?

What I am saying is on a smaller more localised scale why should I pay for something that I despise so much?

You have a fair point, but if you feel that strongly about it you should be refusing to pay school taxes (even people without children pay these.)

You derive absolutely no benefit from paying this particular tax, so you should flat out refuse to pay it if you do feel that strongly about this subject.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Who are any of you to decide what kinds of rights people should and shouldn't have? Do you think yourself gods? While you may be divine beings still, you have all long since fallen from that status you call, God. We are all free to do as we perfectly wish as long as we do not cause harm or damage to persons and property. As long as they provide for their kids, it's not your business how many they have. Besides that we should all practices acts of selflessness ad charity. There is enough space and food on this planet for all of us. We need not fight or bicker, mother nature will always take care of us. We need only work together.
edit on 17-6-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

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.


yeh, but when humanity is f'd and there isnt enough water for everyone people will look back and think "oh i wish our parents would of planned for this" humanity can either grow up or nature will do it for us. and btw you clearly missed a large portion of my first post, on purpose no doubt. but isaid the answer is not to force tyranny down peoples throat. you cant make people not have children, they need to learn it on their own. But for the most part people only identify with their body/mind instead of the whole
edit on 17-6-2012 by biggmoneyme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I don't agree with this, and never will... and here's why

It's not only a violation of human rights, but in order to have a law like this, we would need people in charge, those who say who can breed and who can't--meaning we would be that much closer to a communist society, and not only that, but it's the same problem with passing laws restricting the freedom of speech. If you only get to speak freely in a certain time or place, who gets to say what time or place?

It's another form of humans playing God, and though the intentions would be good, having the power to stop people from breeding could VERY EASILY be taken advantage of by TPTB, Even if the law wasn't originally created by the more wicked people of the elite, eventually, it would fall into their hands. This would be playing right into their little pre-drawn plans, to make human beings look like the "bad guy" so that there are less of us.

Also, I don't believe our resources are at half as much risk as they like to lead us on to believe. Just like global warming, carbon taxes, ect. "It's man's fault, something must be done! Tax people for breathing! Stop them from reproducing! We must attack mankind in order to save mankind!" It's all bs.

In my opinion, if there wasn't so much casual sex, orgies, one-night-stands, and other ignorant crap in the mainstream media, people wouldn't follow the leader into the pulpit of constant lust, and perhaps there would be less accidental children and more planned ones. I believe that, if TPTB want more responsible parents in society, they should stop indoctrinating them to be the very opposite, rather than pass a law restricting them of something they have every right to do.

We need a license to do nearly everything. Should we need one for having children too?

No way.

If the government really wanted to help with a population problem, there are a million and one ways to do it, rather than having a license or "one child policy" law.

In fact, I'll go as far to say that if they do pass a child license law, I'll start having more babies than I can count. Let em try and stop me.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
 


Considering all the abusers I know and killers I read of are or were ' nice respectable community people" I say no to licensing..as under most of the arbitrary rules of such things proposed to date, only those kind would ever get one.

The false sense of security that such externals provide and the inability to truly measure any ones actual potential or capacity let alone their 'internals' is evident already in our society where pathological and sociopathic "socially acceptable" people run the entire planet.

We forget we cant see a persons mind and heart...we aren't God...I know I wasn't where I used to be - the gutter - because I was bad mad 'unfit' or insane..only that bad men and insane people masquerading as a ' nice respectable community' people had left me to deal with the results of their problem.

While I had no choice in having my two children, despite my past, in fact owing largely to overcoming it, I am a good parent and a wise and loving one..both my children are good free thinking intelligent people, high achieving in their respective goals and had I been subjected to 'licensing' rules..I'd never been permitted to have even one...society would have lost two good men...and at any point leading up to the last 15 or so yrs, I would have been earmarked for the human trash pile.

hmm I think that's the point of the people behind eugenics style 'licensing programs'...they don't want nature and nurture taking back control of their monopolies...they don't want people to know you can overcome your past and any mistakes you make..they don't want people 'getting better' and being in control of their own lives..they want to play God..but don't want the responsibility of actually being God.

Until they accept the latter..they can go get stuffed on the former.

Rosha




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join