Long Term Birth Control Injection to all Children with BCG

It sounds like a good idea to me, but make it voluntary.if you choose not to participate in the program then you are agreeing to legally give up your right to any government handouts or aid until you reach the age of 18.
Tax payers shouldn`t be paying for children to have children. If these children think that they are mature enough and smart enough to have children then let them know before they do it that they are giving up their right to receive any government assistance or handouts.Let`s see how mature and smart they are when the tax payers aren`t footing the bill for them to have children.

reply to post by Tardacus



Ill do you one better: taxpayers shouldn't be paying for anyone to have children, outside of their own families.

Humans are social, but we are best in smaller social groups, even if those small social groups make up a larger cultural group.

The family is the flagstone for human behavior. We start with the family (excepting a few, obviously) It is the family that tends to each other. Or, it used to be.

Instead, we are seeing (in America....EU has already seen this) the creeping of "its not my job". The helping of individuals, of people on a one of one basis, doesn't happen. Charities only fill their coffers off the hopes for tax credits and deductions (and the hope for good public image).

I firmly believe ""That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient."

everyone who agrees with this is cold hearted and anti-human.

This is worse than China's program. I'm for sterilization to an extent especially when the penalty for having too many children are simply fines. I think it would be good to offer sterilization for free... but not chemical sterilization. NEVER chemical sterilization. Sterilization would combat abortion rates and orphaned children but should never be enforced on a person without children.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Cultural change....that is the right way to do it.

Once you accept forced sterilization for any, the foot is in the door. I am against "slippery slope" fallacies. But this isn't a fallacy. Those incremental infringements on liberty are well known and documented.

Is that you Bill Gates?

Trying another approach huh?

Jude11

Those birth control shots come with a lot of side affects. I have had first hand experience, First time i got the shot i got pregnant. They convinced me it wouldn't happen a second time. Well, the second time I didn't get pregnant but it almost killed me.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

Cultural change....that is the right way to do it.

Once you accept forced sterilization for any, the foot is in the door. I am against "slippery slope" fallacies. But this isn't a fallacy. Those incremental infringements on liberty are well known and documented.

As in telling people to stop having sex? hmmm... not too sure if that will work unless the cultural change is separating the genders altogether. Bad idea in my opinion, to say the least. If people can afford to pay fines, let them have children but if they can't, don't reward them for bringing a child into poverty and don't fix it by aborting the fetus or giving the child away so it can ask the question "Why didn't my parents want me?" for the rest of it's life.

As for slippery slope... China has gotten slightly more relaxed on it's policy not vice versa.

We need to care for the children we have and teach them, which we haven't been doing a very good job of.

Mind you, I think this should only be done in plentiful gene pools and not in small rare or isolated gene pools. I do believe that many factors should come into play but it's really not a bad idea if you look at the consequences of ignoring the problem at hand. Ignoring the problem and allowing it to get worse is not only bad for the planet but it's cruel to the children. Giving people a scope of reality to make them cherish their children more and appreciate the children of others will change culture. We pretend that child rearing is such a sacred thing while so many ignore their obligations to that and then we sacrifice them to a beast of a system when they're not cute anymore. That's terrible.

I like babies too but the only thing really sacrificed in sterilization is one's ability to populate the earth further with children they can't afford to take care of in the first place. Unless you are of a rare lineage or race, it's really just a matter of ego.

I'd say that playing with chemicals is definitely a slippery slope though.
This should be done surgically, never chemically.

The OP's mistake is thinking in terms of populations rather than individuals. In doing so, she/he de-humanizes the poor by assuming that someone who is "down" today, will not be "up" tomorrow. Some people in management have been homeless, or grew up in a trailer park before advancing economically. (at least in America).

The poor are actually a major force for social change, and while the OP couches the idea in terms of "reducing suffering," he/she is also basically exterminating the underclass, and enshrining the role of the ruling class to control the rest of society.

Sometimes ugly people are geniuses. Sometimes the not-so-bright kid, through hard work, builds an empire. Steve Jobs. Warren buffet. Sam Walton. Andrew Carnegie. Some of those fellows were DEFINITELY not the best and the brightest. But they WERE the most perceptive. And they grew up..... in abject poverty.

Edit to add

The real problem here is that no human is skilled at 'picking the winners.' They end up picking the winners according to race or wealth or big ta-tas, because we have no way of guessing what the quiet skinny kid with no shoes might actually produce some day.

Since you cannot reliably pick the winners, don't try

Originally posted by tovenar
The OP's mistake is thinking in terms of populations rather than individuals. In doing so, she/he de-humanizes the poor by assuming that someone who is "down" today, will not be "up" tomorrow. Some people in management have been homeless, or grew up in a trailer park before advancing economically. (at least in America).

The poor are actually a major force for social change, and while the OP couches the idea in terms of "reducing suffering," he/she is also basically exterminating the underclass, and enshrining the role of the ruling class to control the rest of society.

Sometimes ugly people are geniuses. Sometimes the not-so-bright kid, through hard work, builds an empire. Steve Jobs. Warren buffet. Sam Walton. Andrew Carnegie. Some of those fellows were DEFINITELY not the best and the brightest. But they WERE the most perceptive. And they grew up..... in abject poverty.

Edit to add

The real problem here is that no human is skilled at 'picking the winners.' They end up picking the winners according to race or wealth or big ta-tas, because we have no way of guessing what the quiet skinny kid with no shoes might actually produce some day.

Since you cannot reliably pick the winners, don't try

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

Being poor isn't a trait... it's a state of being that no one wants to be in. Sterilizing 12 year olds would be close to exterminating them but sterilization as a moderate practice wouldn't exterminate the poor. If anything, it would give them an opportunity of less burdens and perhaps more help with children they do have.

No one wants the poverty stricken part of the population to get bigger... as if it is a culture or race. Not even the poor themselves. We want that part of the population to get smaller, but not by getting rid of them, but by leveling the playing field of all money earned and opportunities. Sterilization should not be focused on the poor but any income bracket where the gene pool is plentiful and the population is rapidly expanding.

Benefits should be reserved for the poor, elderly and needy... not just for people who are having a lot of children. That is a very bad incentive to remain poor and continue having children when that person could be focusing that energy elsewhere and concentrating on the children they already have.

reply to post by NotAnAspie



Strange....my wife and I meet up several times a week. For the last 19 years. And we still only have 2 kids.

Must be a miracle.

Or maybe that I am smart enough, along with her, to know better and take adequate precautions.

Cultural change....that is what I mean by it.

Instead of taking away peoples accountability, the government might be better served by enforcing accountability. Sex has become a social activity, and government enforced birth control would effectively encourage promiscuity even more, and eventually compound the problem of unwanted children. Education is the problem, double standards are the problem. The government needs to encourage and promote accountability.

reply to post by calstorm


I can't tell you how many people I know and have heard of that got pregnant off birth control shots. They seem like a sham to me. It's sad when people are TRYING to be responsible and not get pregnant, but it happens anyway. Talk about a slap in the face.

Originally posted by tovenar

The real problem here is that no human is skilled at 'picking the winners.' They end up picking the winners according to race or wealth or big ta-tas, because we have no way of guessing what the quiet skinny kid with no shoes might actually produce some day.

Since you cannot reliably pick the winners, don't try[

Exactly! What naturally happens, instead, is that a certain group of people decides who the "undesirables" are. What develops is a second-class citizenry. Once people are given power, they very rarely give it back. What's more is that they tend to expand on that power--push the limits, if you will. It may start with age, then income level, then character traits, lifestyle, race, culture, etc. Not to mention, I'd be willing to bet this would be enforced far more on women then men.

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by calstorm

 

I can't tell you how many people I know and have heard of that got pregnant off birth control shots. They seem like a sham to me. It's sad when people are TRYING to be responsible and not get pregnant, but it happens anyway. Talk about a slap in the face.

Yes it is, but I am thankful. He is a great kid. I went on to have two more and then I got my tubes tied.
I am a firm believer that sex education and a cultural attitude that not only expects but demands responsible sex is key. I am not saying don't have sex, but we have a culture that promotes reckless sex among our youth and poor.

How soon the UK youth forgets.

We went to war to stop a madman doing very similar to this. Executing the Jews and the disabled as "undesirable".

Eugenics is always bad. You sir, make me ashamed to be British with your idea.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by FireDragonDan

 

I agree that many people are not fit to breed, but what you're suggesting is ridiculous.

How about better education for young people on the subject of sex?
Better access to birth control.
Etc etc.

Right. And I've said this for many years ---> All children around 12 years old should be forced to carry a baby doll around for a week. A baby doll that NEVER STOPS crying and screaming, but must be loved and hugged and changed and bathed... Who would want a real baby after that?

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Eugenics much mate?

Cutting out Humanity and the emotion that makes us Human, i can see where you're going with your idea and yes, i can even see rationale behind it...but as i say, in order to do that i have to disregard my Humanity and that which makes me a Human being and not just another animal.

Not an ideal position from which to reshape our world...i think you'd agree?

Yes, there are many people who turn out to be inadequate parents, and yes there are some that are outright terrible parents that ought not be allowed within 50 feet of a child, let alone raise one, however there are also many people, young people included that are more than adequate parents, and some that are outstanding parents that ought to be given an award of some sort...blanket coverage and essentially forced contraception is not the answer...you'd be losing all of the excellent parents (and the excellent kids they would have brought up) along with those you propose to prevent becoming parents!

Again, not an ideal situation.

The answer is not to prevent everyone being parents by forcing contraception on them, but by the state actually doing an important aspect of their jobs and doing all it can to make sure as many people as possible are properly equipped and have as much support and training as is required.

Parenting classes ought to be on the National Curriculum in senior schools, these should be intensive and properly planned classes with a real qualification to aim for at the end of the course / school time.

Everything should be covered in depth...from Contraception and safe sex practices, to intercourse and conception, right through to financial consequences of starting a family. The pitfalls and problems likely to arise from having a baby should be highlighted starkly, as well as the positives and pluses.

It's proper, mature and well thought out 21st century education and support that is needed, not eugenics mate.

reply to post by tovenar

Since you cannot reliably pick the winners, don't try

Actually, you are right except this last sentence, because to make a positive change it would be enough to pick the winners with better probablity than blind chance. And that could be achieved.

Regarding this thread, I dont think this is a good idea, the potential to abuse it by our corrupt govs is too big and the benefits can be reached by other means. But I think the response is overly hostile, and ultimately rooted in no rational arguments but "hurr durr you are a nazi" sentiment. This does not exist for example in China and thats why most Chinese support their population control programs. And you would too if it wasnt used to demonize the enemy (nazis). Even tough at the time forced birth control was standard policy all over the world for some people.

The exception when I would certainly agree with something like this, and any moral person would, is those poor third world nations where not even basic needs are reliably met. Bringing kids into such society is a crime in itself. However, it is these countries who dont have resources to pull any population control programs off, so the issue is moot.

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Well there goes free will!! Have you ever looked to see what the effects of birth control are, and you want to give that to a 12 year old. I say let people do what they are going to do, and if you're from the UK, I do understand your statement completely.