It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should a permit be required to have babies?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by Ghost375

In addition to ownbestenemy's response, I'd also that it could be found in the Constitution itself through the remark of "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Liberty would be defined as the freedoms (the Bill of Rights was really a limiting redundancy in Madison's mind) and those civil liberties that fall under the Law of Nature. Procreation would fall under a civil liberty and would be one of those 'blessings of liberty" as such.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by danielsil18

No, you should NOT need a permit just to have a baby. That is completely unnatural. What's next, needing a permit to use the bathroom?

Or methane meters in the home and taxed if you let off too much wind?

I say wake up instead, and darn fast. That means, no cowering and fear. Stand up strong, not aggressive, not defensive but Bruce Lee's "Way of the Intercepting Fist". A very alert and intercepting assertive in their face, forseeing their every move, defense. An offensive defense.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by Unity_99

No one is saying they can`t have sex and give birth as a result of it. But all people have the responsibility to have the means be be financially able for their offspring, mentally stable enough to handle them, be in good health without being addicted to drugs or alcohol during pregnacy, and are stable enough to not make babies in order to saddle the welfare system.

The flaming continues in 3, 2, 1....

Ah no, actually we need to get rid of all the ISMS and banks and have a natural, living and building and clean tech, aquaponics, no slavery, everyone very well off, no one forced, contributions encouraged, but survival a right. Because you won't have too many traumatized destroyed people, it would be heaven not hell.

And I don't compromise with evil, or crimes against humanity or slavery.

Dad's energy is meant to be heroic, and properly seen, inventive, problem solving, and fair, and equal to Mothers, which is equality, no forcing, no giving up on anyone.

So that idea, is actually orchood. ORCS, are the reptilians, the dog eat dog, jungle boy, survival of the fittest types.

Hell on earth results. Also you have to ignore alot of people, women and children and what children are hardwired to develop healthy by, which is bonding with primary caregiver, and not being shoved in daycares. In fact, not only does that lead to sociopathy in 80% of 40% who get separation anxiety from that, BUT, it also increases infant and child mortality.

Our world has to revolve around children, their needs, family. The natural work is: parenting, food production, home building with education and health care sort of equal finish. Everything else is just gravy and you don't sacrifice the kids to it.

ABC's and 123's of life that I undertood as a toddler watching the news. I got it young. And Im MOM's energy.

And I'm not giving ORCS this world. Its for the kids!!!!!
edit on 26-2-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:22 PM

I fear for the future of mankind.

edit on 26-2-2013 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:49 PM

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Rules, rules, rules....

So many rules hindering life, liberty, and all that jazz.

This is just an idea that will spur more problems than it does good.
edit on 26-2-2013 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)

This is how I see it as well.

The thing is, if you take away the government and it's rules and protective services, the outcome you desire (getting rid of the weak) will be the same. Human life will be like all other life. Survival of the fittest. It's unnatural, all these rules we have.

Power to the people.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by danielsil18

NO! Why? Because nobody is an authority on life. No man should ever be. We can barely keep the balance of the ecosystem of this planet in check. There is no way that any one group or person be aloud to rule over our testicles and ovaries. Pfft! I would seriously fight this with all the might me and my sperms can muster.

We are always trying to control nature and it always blows a big load in our face. We should work with nature: give and receive. We belong to nature not nature belongs to us. Reducing the world population is not the answer. We need to balance spirituality with science to create a better world. We need to prioritize necessity over luxury. I know it sounds weird but we need to stop thinking we can solve all our problems with science, it is not the only ingredient that will make this work. We have two hemispheres to our brains (us guys have an extra one in our pants :lol
and we are only using one too often these days (not the one in our pants......ok for some yes.....I mean..the left side is used more ).

edit on 26-2-2013 by bitsforbytes because: I am human

edit on 26-2-2013 by bitsforbytes because: I am still human

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:23 PM

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's true that people would still have babies, with permit or not. My ideas are kind of radical too because I was thinking of vasectomy for males.

Maybe make them have a vasectomy after they have a child without a permit? That would be really harsh. Maybe a vasectomy when they are very young and then reverse it when they get their permit? also a radical idea but the question is if it would make society a better one in the future?

This is just scary to read.
Sounds a bit 1984-ish.
Also, the one child policy in China didn't make anything better for the people, and when you are born and a girl, chances are, you won't survive because everyone wants a boy.
Also, where is God in all this?

Man, so scary.

I do agree with the (in another post by another poster) mentioned parenting schools though. I think everyone should have the chance and right to be taught about how to raise a child a little bit and that for free so really everyone could take part in it.

Poor people are not automatically bad parents. Love plays a big role. You can neither teach nor surgically install or remove that. (The only thing that might be easier for wealthy people is to bail their kids out of trouble.)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by MentorsRiddle

but what about the rules that are good for society,there has to be at the very least a learning gradient ,curve or milestone ,one has to achieve before given the RIGHT to raise and care for a sentient being.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:14 AM
So we should allow our governments even more control over our lives? Even the most intimate aspects? I strongly disagree. If you like the government having control over your reproductive system try moving to China where you can enjoy their one child policy.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:44 AM

Originally posted by damianrex
reply to post by MentorsRiddle

but what about the rules that are good for society,there has to be at the very least a learning gradient ,curve or milestone ,one has to achieve before given the RIGHT to raise and care for a sentient being.

That "right" as you put it, preexists any government so there is nothing to be given or granted. This is akin to asking the Government permission or achieving some level of "learning gradient, curve or milestone" to speak, eat, breathe, care yourself (well...that one is well on the way to being a Government granted situation), think, protect yourself, or basically live.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by danielsil18

I see the problem a little differently - The problem is that the government is involved at all in providing assistance to either those wanting contraception or needed aid to support the children created from the lack of it.

My ideal situation would be the government at any level would not be involved either way in regulating procreation or the mitigation of the poor choices of people regarding procreation. There is a societal role in this via charity; however, not government charity or taxpayer funded "safety nets".

The government has assumed the role of the indulgent parent who enables the poor decision making of their children by mitigating the resultant negative consequences. However, the state has neglected to take the equally important role of limit setting and restrictive parent who places conditions on such aid to ensure that this cycle of poor decision making does not continue. We throw out aid like it is infinitely available. I guess when you print money it is...

I mean here is a dude who should be sterilized...and charged with a crime, perhaps for deadly use of a penis in the ruining of 30 children’s lives.... Assault on a child’s potential.

A man who can't manage to maintain a job that pays more than minimum wage has "fathered" (I use the term "father" in strict biological terms only) 30 children who in all likelihood will grow up to be just like him - uneducated and dependant. Why? Because the government has probably gladly been forking over checks to support each one of these women who have on average 2.72 children from a father who can't even support himself.

However, infringing on his right to procreate is sacrosanct…no one dare take it away from him. O'really?

We have too many unwanted babies in the US - that is just a fact. In addition to the unwanted babies we way too many children who for the most part should never have been and live in home situations with people who are too apathetic, lazy or stupid to properly raise them. It is unfortunate that those who should have children the least have the most... These children ultimately will be a drain on the nation’s taxpayers who work hard to support their own offspring.

Then comes the classic argument - "it's for the children" people scream, "they are innocent"...
It is a tired argument.

It is a sad situation for the kids but when did paying for the lifetime mistakes of others become a taxpayer problem. I chose to have one child despite the financial ability to support many. I made good decisions, I saved and invested and worked hard. All for what - so others can reproduce at will and without any consequences and send me the bill? This is stupid, criminal and unsustainable.

To take the fruits of one person’s labor by force for the purpose of giving it to another is theft. This is without regard to the relative perceived need of the recipient (or their children) or the perceived wealth of the person from whom the assets are being seized, plain and simple. It is theft regardless if it be at the point of a gun or force of law.

The only way people will ever be properly motivated to change their behavior is to have to suffer a consequence from the action. Action - reaction.... Do people in 2012 really not know where babies come from?

The problem is that our society has made repetitive poor decision making too comfortable for too large segment of the population while penalizing the remainder (shrinking every day) who make good choices. All, for the sake of the children…

Compassion is good, charity is nice but to do it to the point we are not only sustaining and indefinitely supporting the weak, stupid and the lazy we are doing so without imposing any sort of restrictions. Why should people on welfare/public support be able to reproduce and not only that be rewarded for it with more money at the expense of the others? I’m all for welfare for a teen Mom for a while – but when she has the second kid, my compassion begins to wane, more for each one after that…till finally even if children suffer I lose interest.

Supporting the weak and lazy at the expense of the driven and strong is antithetical to nature and why we are in the current predicament. Our compassion is bankrupting us.

I know it sounds callous but perhaps if a parent had to watch a child suffer for their poor choices it might be enough of a deterrent to change their behavior. Making people comfortable by mitigating the outcome of their poor decisions only encourages them to repeat them over and over.

So while it may seem perhaps Nazi-esque or some Orwellian nightmare state program how long must we (Joe Citizen) suffer the burden of paying for these children and others like them?

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:06 AM
Depopulation is part of Agenda 21,

I understand they are looking for administrators for their new Global Child Permit programs.
edit on 27-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:13 AM

Originally posted by TokiTheDestroyer
I swear to god I read these threads and you people seem like you want Nineteen Eighty-Four to come to fruition.
We just need all these new rules and regulations because we don't have enough already, right?
Gotta step on more toes, piss off more people, make more hard feelings all around, yeah, great idea.

I agree with you. I am appalled at so many pro Centralized control of our lives people are around here.

Then again, I've heard that lots and lots of twitter accounts are fake...

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by danielsil18

" I don't agree that everyone should have the right to have babies "

That has to be the Most Narcissistic thing I have Ever Read on ATS . Oh , and by the Way , Who the (BLEEP) are You to say something like that ?.........

edit on 26-2-2013 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Margaret Sanger would have been so proud of her Progressive progeny.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:54 AM
When I see things like:

My initial knee-jerk reaction is YES there should be criteria to have a child.

However, I should also point out that kids don't always take after their parents (I know I surely didn't) and many people (like Tesla) come from very humble beginnings yet make incredible contributions to society (despite the strenuous efforts of others).

So, I think that instead of trying to place controls on each other, perhaps we should get involved with one another more and lend an extra hand to those we observe to be struggling, for the "good of society" and all that.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:13 AM
reply to post by danielsil18

Everybody in that video is pathetic. Do you see how they carry on and posture like some wild animals? It is really so completely beyond help. Nobody can help those people. DNA train wrecks.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by danielsil18

A couple could pass all the tests and exams you would prescribe and still end up being lousy parents raising stupid kids with prejudices, anger issues, history of sexual abuse, severe mental illnesses etc., etc.
edit on 2/26/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Parents would have to be checked to see if they are able to raise a child. I don't think it would be perfect, lousy parents might still pass everything. But I think it would help.

The bad thing is that today, absolutely anyone can have a baby.
for money. That's right. Just have a baby and get money. Get money!! Start rapping!! Baby money!! Making babies, making baby money!! Word.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:20 AM
Procreation is not a personal right, it is an interpersonal, public right that deeply affects another unconsenting innocent person and society in general. I dont think there should be a permit, but procreation is one of those things that is theoretically conductive for government regulation.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by InhaleExhale

You seem to miss that fact that only the child can decide whether their parent is bad or not at raising them once they have enough experience to make that judgement, and thats personal because some children will never realize or make that type of judgement even into adulthood.

Because it's not a fact. The child CAN'T know when they are very young... they have nothing to compare it to. But adults can discern whether a child is growing and learning on schedule (scientifically acquired knowledge).

An older child who realizes there are other ways of living - from exposure to the outside, IF THEY GET ANY - can begin to see that what goes on at home isn't "normal." An adult child or youth can decide that their parents are not good at it, and make a decision to learn to do better........but that doesn't always happen, and when it doesn't, the kid will treat the new baby just like parents treated them.

It's about education, and community. We are able to see when "something's wrong" in the children of our communities. It's our job to do something about it when something's wrong. Teach the parent what happens with different approaches. Educating.

Understanding that you have called your offspring "kids" yet they are successful meaning they are not kids/children to society but to you they are still your kids, same as when I say when the child has enough experience to make that judgement, so it is a fact because you have just backed me up with your academic experience and knowledge,

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Cynic
There needs to be some form of control put in place. The saddest part here is that twits like her are able to reproduce at will and do a serious number on their kids, perpetuating the idiocy and irresponsibility of their own lives.

1) Parenting class prior to birth with test on completion, if failed, take the baby at birth and send out for adoption, no parental contact.

2) Means test, can he/she/they afford the child, ( Based on the average standard of the society in which they live ) if no, take the baby at birth and send out for adoption, no parental contact.

3) I.Q. test, if lower than normal society, take the baby at birth and send out for adoption, no parental contact.

If this sounds too harsh, tough. I am tired of my rights as a taxpayer being trod upon at the whim of idiots.

Flame away,.......

edit on 26-2-2013 by Cynic because: (no reason given)

No flames here friend. What you're suggesting is common sense. At least it was. Common sense aint so common anymore.

When you have a baby you're bringing a human being into this world. If you ( not you OP ) don't take that seriously, what DO you take seriously? We all want our children to have better lives than we did. At least I hope that's the case for people. Sure, having a baby is an emotional time for couples, but you also have to be realistic about it all and not let your emotions rule the school. If you cannot realistically give that child a healthy and productive life, why give it a life at all? You say you're going to love your child. Good. I would hope so. Now prove it by giving it a fighting chance. Love is good. But love doesn't necessarily equate with productive for the society in which they're going to live. Unless you live in Utopia. If you can't raise a loving and productive member of society, then you yourself aren't very loving and productive. Trying simply isn't good enough anymore. Sorry. I can understand unforeseen circumstance popping up. It happens. Bad things happening to good people and all. What I'm talking about is uneducated and irresponsible people having babies expecting the educated and responsible among us to prop up their decision to have a baby. Screw that.

Too many people "try" and fail because they don't give the whole process of raising a child any forethought. You can love that child all you want, but diapers cost money. Baby formula's. Food. Medical costs. School supplies, the list goes on for 18 years and it doesn't stop. It's not rocket science people. It's math. It keeps adding up and with the economy and job market the way it is, you better know what you're doing when you open you legs so you can pop one out in 9 months. But no, don't think about it too much OK? It's only a defenseless baby that's counting on YOU to do the right thing by it. Because if all else fails the government will help you out. The same government that's already billions in debt.

I could go on but I won't. The bottom line is that whenever someone like the OP presents an idea like this, others jump on the "1984 NWO" bandwagon. They equate regulating the people born into an already failing society as a total and complete police state. No one wants that. Not even me on a bad day. What we want is for people to show a little more responsibility for what they're doing, and if that means setting certain criteria for people to pass before they bring another human onto the planet (because they apparently can't set their own), then so be it. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently it is.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in