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.

 

Long Term Birth Control Injection to all Children with BCG

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by truthermantwo
 


O believe me, if I could I would! this place has gone to the dogs!


If you dont like it FIX IT. Instead of taking the sides of morons who want to dominate in the name of their overbearing scientific minds and no heart, have heart, and overcome the mind. Get over your own pescimism or let it drive you towards something beneficial. I.E. LEARN.




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
May sound a bit harsh but bear with me whilst I explain the pros and Cons to my argument.

What I am suggesting would be to in provide all children at the age of 12 when they have their “BCG” vaccinations a long term "Birth Control" injection, Just because someone can have a child does not necessarily mean that they are fit to have children. I have worked with the public all over the UK in the last two decades and believe me; a high percentage of people should not be allowed to have kids. They don’t give a damn about their children and then these children have children and think they way they were bought up was the right way and thus the cycle goes on.

It seems totally unfair that you have couples unable to have children for whatever reason, and then you have those on benefits, never worked a day in their life having kids like its going out of fashion, and not because they love their children (well not in most cases) but so they can get more money from the tax payer in benefits.

I do honestly believe that you should be taught at School “Child Care or Parenting Classes” and have to pass this exam to be even considered to be allowed to have a child. A licence perhaps, you need a licence in the UK for nearly everything from your dog to your TV and yet you can bare a child f**k its life up for 18 years and no one seems to give a damn.

What are the benefits?

• Would stop all unwanted pregnancies
• Every Child born would be a loved child and would be nurtured into a responsible adult
• Population Control – No need to try a kill of the populace in other ways if we are controlling the birth rate
• Would stop “Crack Heads” having children and being born with an addiction through no fault of their own.

What are the disadvantages?

• Human Rights (but the human right of the child also needs to be considered)
• Government intervention into our family lives
• Could be unfair to poorer people of society if having a job and being able to support your own family was a condition of being unneutered.

I am sure there are a lot more pros and cons to this suggestion.

edit on 26-7-2013 by FireDragonDan because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2013 by FireDragonDan because: The phrase Chemically Neuter was getting the wrong response...


No matter how much people are educated, these little Eugenics propositions continue to crop up from time to time.

NO. It is wrong. Bottom line. Just because a child isn't an adult doesn't mean that we should force things onto them that, as an adult, they may not accept. Like drugging them to prevent childbirth, instead of parenting.

How ludicrous and disturbing of an idea.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


I did use "Population Control" as a Pro to this discussion, but my main view is the unwanted children. I see it all the time here in the UK, you can see a mother with several kids in a shop shouting at the top of her lungs at her kids in front of everyone. And whilst I am sure that yes kids can be little gits and push the patience of a saint, does not mean a mother should be like that in such a public place and thus the reason I said we should have Child Care and Parenting Classes in our education system as part of the syllabus. I believe this is as important as Maths, Science and English lessons taught in school.


mothers yell, kids throw tantrums, no matter how well they are normally. it has nothing to do with kids being wanted or not. show me one mother who hasn't yell, or a child that never acted out, and i will call it a fraud.


you know it's funny we USED to have "home economics" classes which taught exactly that type of thing, along with things like cooking and sewing, don't they still do that?

some societies have "god parents" type things for married couples, that is part of their "duties" to not only help the couple with dealing with each other but to help teach them things like dealing with children. not to mention a person's PARENTS, they should (and most do), help with couples and their first child. heck until modern times it seems it was common for a mother and/or mother in law to LIVE with a young couple for a bit after the birth of a child (especially the first one), not only to help out the new mother but to begin to help teach them about taking care of a child. not to mention that especially in larger families (which was the norm), older children help take care of their younger siblings, and younger siblings might go help an older sibling take care of their first kids. not to mention cousins helping take care of cousins. it still happens in some societies. i see it all the time, a say 8 year old carrying their 2 year old sibling and helping take care of them, and play along with them. these kids don't "hang" only with kids there own age but you will see teenagers playing with kids of all ages right down to taking care and playing with a toddler or baby. that tends to mean that by the time a couple gets together and have kids they already KNOW how to take care of them, and raise them since they HAVE been doing that since they themselves were children.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


Well I came late to the thread so I have read the redacted form of the OP.

One thing I would have given S&F based off of your bravery to discuss the topic however the lack of spellcheck left me guessing far too much.

You are not proposing Eugenics those who think that do not fully grasp the definition of Eugenics. I can see many people are upset with your idea but truth be known that will probably be the future one day or something close.

I could see this being a good thing in a simpler form right now. Not where people would need to qualify to have children as you proposed just that in order to have children they would need to consciously remove whatever form of BC is being used to keep from having unwanted pregnancies. The religious would be against that though as they are against any form of BC.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


I thought Margaret Sanger was dead?



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Years ago, folk only had sex in marriage but that has all changed and as such we now have an issue that needs resolving.


Right...........Because fornication and sex outside of wedlock are brand new inventions!




edit on 26-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I can understand some of the ideas but the moment its forced then its wrong...if mum, dad and little lucy decide that its in their best interest for her to have a 5 year bit of birth control fitted even though she's only 12-13 then thats all well and good but just enforcing it would annoy catholics for starters and i'm sure many other religious groups would complain as well and never mind theres no BC that fits every woman so the basic method would be flawed and soon stopped once a few young girls had an allergic reaction and died

nice idea...needs a lot of work to sort out the problems



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
May sound a bit harsh but bear with me whilst I explain the pros and Cons to my argument.

What I am suggesting would be to in provide all children at the age of 12 when they have their “BCG” vaccinations a long term "Birth Control" injection, Just because someone can have a child does not necessarily mean that they are fit to have children. I have worked with the public all over the UK in the last two decades [ and believe me; a high percentage of people should not be allowed to have kids. ] They don’t give a damn about their children and then these children have children and think they way they were bought up was the right way and thus the cycle goes on.


Who the Hell do you think you are to suggest such a horrible thing?

With such an attitude, methinks your mom should have had that birth control injection. Are you the next Hitler?

Now, calmly after counting to ten - It's Not the role of Government to teach people how they should raise their children. Many schools already have classes that teach basic parenting skills - you know they have to care for an egg the whole semester and care for it etc..

How is it the Parents fault if they were born poor and the Government does little to help but give out hand outs? Sure there are college graduates that are so dumb they are bad parents - like our President Obama. He's certainly the worst role model for his kids and if any kids should be taken away from a parent it's His.

But the hope is and it happens so often that as people themselves grow up they learn to be better parents. I'd rather agree that a law is in place that forbids people from having children before the age of 30. Child bearing years say 16 to 25 these people are still kids themselves and have no clue how to be mature enough in many cases. Education, morality, being old enough to have some maturity all play a part in what makes a good parent. - but to deny people this chance by such a drastic step as a mandatory birth control injection is way over the top and is dead wrong.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I can't even believe your post has been flagged.

You are a vile human being. Do you have any idea what you suggest? You mentioned cons but I saw nothing about the long and short term effects that many suffer from birth control. I'm livid than someone thinks it's okay to not only subject womens bodies to hormonal changes that can result in up and down mood swings, cramps, bloating, hair loss, nausea, cysts, swollen painful breasts, dizzyness, nervousness, headaches, depression, facial hair, rash, skin discolorization, longer more painful periods or for other women nonexistent ones, for some women an increased risk or cervical and or breast cancer, blood clots....sometimes life threating, strokes, jaundice, infertility later on in life (so yeah the ones who might make a great mother might lose their chance) weight gain, decrease in bone mass leading to osteoperosis....and thats the symptoms for adult women and late teens and YOU want to GIVE this crap to twelve year old GIRLS whose body hasn't yet fully developed?

What makes you think that the children being born would be more loved than the ones that weren't allowed to be born? This kind of world in which you suggest doesn't sound like love would be a requirement only MONEY. Your vision of the future is horrifying I hope for my daughters sake things like this don't come to pass, because if someone trys to stick my tween/teen daughter with a needle i'm going to shove it in and then break the needle in their neck.

Shame on you. I suggest YOU STERILIZE YOURSELF.

edit on 26-7-2013 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


What you are suggestion comes at a mighty high price -- our children's autonomy. Once you take away a person's right to control over their own bodies, you start a slipping down a treacherous slope. Hell, we have people fighting tooth and nail to retain the right to own any and all firearms. Government enforced birth control is a whole other can of worms.

Too scary to even contemplate.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
You know OP I hope you understand why folks (like me) think this is pretty outrageous. It has been explained so I wont do it again. Taking your idea a step further...In the US we will look forward to this "idea" of yours to be a perfect fit in the invasiveness of Obamacare.

Some folks just shuttered.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It appears that people on this thread are unaware that there is a school 'nurse' who is

able to dispense free condoms and the morning after pill to pupils who go to her.

And the family Dr at the local health centre can have a consultation and prescribe the 'pill' or

the 'implant' contraceptive device to a girl under 16 years of age and without the parents

consent.


This I believe is what is known as 'her' 'human rights!



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


Yes but the school nurse and doctor can do so ONLY if the young lady asks for it and they must disclose all risks involved in taking said birth control to the young ladies that they dispense them to. So that they can make the choice that is right for them.

From what I can gather the people posting here don't have as much as a problem with the young lady making the choice herself as they do with the suggestion by the op that this be forced on young ladies all of them, period.

There is no choice in forced birth control.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


Well which country are you in? You do realize the US isn't really overpopulated right? Some of the cities and its infrastructure are. But one of our major problems is we don't have enough consumers to really spur any economic growth.

For example we have plenty of room to build more cities, but we don't really have enough consumers to live in them and make it worth while. Just like the housing crisis. We have empty housing developments after empty housing developments..

I'm pretty sure there's enough square footage in just Texas alone for every single human being on the planet to fit. There's just not the infrastructure to support it. We could build it though, but the population in the US has kinda been doing DOWN.

For example we have close to 15 million homes that nobody wants to buy, hence the housing crisis. We can't sell cars, we can't sell anything the economy sucks.

But we've aborted like 50 million (not really accurate statistic) babies since Row v. Wade. If those babies had been born it wouldn't be a problem to fill up 15 million homes. It would also have created jobs because now you'd probably have to build more homes.

Now you have more jobs so now you have to sell more cars to those babies so they can get back and forth to work to their new jobs. Now they have jobs so they buy more EVERYTHING. Then you have even more jobs.

See, people have it backwards. Our financial system, and things like social security for example, were designed with the idea that the population would always grow. And therefore the economy would always grow. Our future economic growth would pay for today's debts.

But then we started killing babies. Those babies were supposed to be today's consumers. But they never showed up. Hence no economic growth. You don't build new cities if there's no one to live in them. You don't build new houses if there's no one to live in them. You don't build new cars and so on. You killed all the home owners before they were born.

You have to think of it like a business owner. If you owned a business, do you want more consumers, or less consumers? When asked like this the answer is obvious. You want to be able to sell your product to as many customers as possible. You don't want people killing your future customers before they have a chance to walk in and buy your product.

Long story short don't confused overpopulated infrastructure with an overpopulated planet. The money changers don't wanna put any money into improving the electric grid, the bridges, the highway system, high speed rail, clean green energy and getting away from oil, and building green cities, because there's not enough people to live in them.

So the cities we do have kinda get overpopulated because people like to live in cities. They like to live next to other people, hospitals, markets.
edit on 26-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


This exactly, yes, diminishing the population has dire consequences and we are well on our way to being screwed in that area anyway. Check out some population rates for several countries and then read this post ^^^ says again.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Drug addicts.
I hope you include alcohol? Probably one of the nastiest drugs their is.

Do YOU drink alcohol?
Well??



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sulaw
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


Ok I'll play ball~



* Anyone under the age of 18 (still a child themselves)
* A drug Addict
* A unwanted pregnancy
* And dare i say it, if you cannot afford to have a child, then you shouldn't have one


In America, not the UK during High School I've seen at least 3 teenage women become phenominal parents. Better than there parents so does Age really qualify? Sure, there are always extenuating circumstances but again, how many compared to people who just suck at parenting.

A drug addict.... Is this just illicit drugs? I mean hell, I know many families that the mother or father is doped up on Anti-Depresent Opiates and drink like a fish but are still "good" parents... I'm still trying to see your idea of a "good" parent.

A unwanted pregnancy...



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Years ago, folk only had sex in marriage but that has all changed and as such we now have an issue that needs resolving.


Right...........Because fornication and sex outside of wedlock are brand new inventions!




edit on 26-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Thank you for bringing this up actually because it's so very untrue (referring to the OP, not you Wind).

People certainly did have sex outside of wedlock back in the day. It's just that family's would keep the pregnancy quiet in order to "save" their names. It was such a scandal back then for the woman and her family. Marriage was usually demanded at that point. If marriage was not an option for whatever reason, the pregnant woman would usually be condemned by those around her and gossip would be no stranger to the her and her family.

Actually, I was just discussing this with my mum the other day. They used to have these homes for young pregnant women who were not married. Once they had the baby, they would go back home as if nothing happened. I can only assume the children were orphaned or adopted. Some would keep the baby. I've even heard of the mother or some other family member of the pregnant woman would keep the baby as her own and raise it.

Here's a pretty interesting story: Values and morals in American society: The 1950's versus today



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Yeah, some people shouldn't be parents. But some people who shouldn't be parents end up having children who break the cycle. Sometimes it may even take a generation or two.

My mom was 18 when she got pregnant with me. At the time, she wasn't married. My parents married a couple months later. At the time, they couldn't afford me. My dad got a great job six months after I was born. I grew up in a middle-class suburb. They got divorced and I was poor in my teens, but I am now an accountant making a middle-class income.

If people like you had your way, I wouldn't be here. Neither would my sister or my niece. Neither would my boyfriend. Neither would my mom! Her mom was under 18, didn't marry for quite some time, and certainly wasn't financially stable at the time. All because YOU get to decide who doesn't get to have a child and who doesn't.

You can't judge someone based on the current situation. Sometimes a kid is what kicks someone in the butt to get their act together. You also can't assume that because someone is getting gov't assistance that 1) it has always been that way and 2) will always be that way.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


A big percentage of the women I know who turned out to be fabulous mother's started out as a teenage pregnancy or an unwanted pregnancy....myself for one!

Oh and being a parent is a damn tough job which as you quite rightly point out can stretch the patience of a saint at the best of time's.....I make no apology if you ever catch me losing my patience and raising my voice in a public place while out with my family...I have long since got over caring about the judgemental attitude's of some individual's who would try to undermine my confidence in my parenting abilities....despite at some time or another falling into more than one of your predictor categories for who "isn't going to be a good parent"!

I have 5 children, although my eldest is a grown woman now.....one thing I have learnt over the year's is that apart from some very obvious exception's that it is absolutely none of my business to judge and criticize other parent's and how they conduct family life.

And another point....I know the media in the UK will have us all believing that there are throng's of benefit scrounger's spewing out kid's for monetary gain's.....I for one have never met one of them!



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FireDragonDan
 


I got a better idea....why don't all the millionaires and billionaires in the world give up most of their money for these children that needs parents/homes. That seems more logic and reasoning than putting drugs into your body to cause something un-natural to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join