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.


Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:54 PM
As a followup to another thread dealing with the hot topic of abortion yet again, I pondered if perhaps the simplest solution would be to restrict reproduction starting at the time a child reaches puberty. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to administer a vasectomy to all male children prior to the onset of puberty.

Those wishing to reproduce would then be subject to criteria used to determine the viability of the individual(s) in raising a child. Along with this would be genetic screening once conception had occured to determine risk factors later in life.

Certain risk factors would result in automatic termination of the pregnancy. Other factors deemed acceptable (as they wouldn't strain the government run healthcare system) would be assigned a penalty depending on severity. Prospective parents would either have to pay this penalty based on amount of risk or chose to terminate the pregnancy. Prospective parents would be allowed one "natural" attempt to concieve. After that, they would need to undergo artificial insemination from genetically cleared ovum and sperm in order to conceive.

Think about it. Wouldn't this take care of so many problems?

- Allows individuals the freedom to engage in copulation with fear of pregnancy.
- Almost completely eliminates "mistakes" and passing responsibility off on the taxpayer.
- Reduces or eliminates the number of children conceived/born as a result of rape of incest. Anyone guilty of raping a child is automatically castrated or sterilized. Multiple charges get the death penalty automatically.
- Reduces the number of poor and unemployed.
- Reduces the number of children born in communities laden with crime and drugs as these would slowly be reduced as population decreases.
- Reduces the taxpayer's burden on welfare.
- Reduces the taxpayer's burden on healthcare.
- Slowly reduce the number of genetic malformations by breeding out those defects.
- Increase the number of wanted children who will be cared for.
- Reduce the population to a more sustainable level.
- Reduced human carbon footprint.
- Increase amount of fossil fuel through less consumption.
- Provides a means to ditribute wealth more evenly.

and on and on..

What do you think.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:02 PM
Freengry2, You should take a read of "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin, alot of the ideas you espouse are straight from that book...and I think the idea is ridiculous, it's called selective breeding.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:02 PM
The only way you can have any rights is if you give them to yourself. Hell, why not give yourself more than everyone!

Reproduction as a right? It is a physical right never to be taken away. Only if chemicals make it so we can not reproduce, will that right be taken away.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by gandhi]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:03 PM
I'm having a hard time following your logic here.

Are you talking about an economic eugenics program?

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:03 PM
Great idea on paper, but in practicality i think it would crash and burn. For example, what if the guy said he had a vasectomy and actually did not and then boom, pregnant?
So long as people didn’t have to "apply in writing" in order to have children i couldn’t see the problem.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:06 PM
Hell yes.

Let's set up a polling system. Everyone that feels the COLLECTIVE is responsible for everyone else, need to be on the list first and foremost. Than, when or if they feel they can actually contribute to the COLLECTIVE, we check to make sure they can actually earn enough for their child and the family they want to raise.

Now if for any reason these people fail to raise their child properly, we take their child and give it to one of the people not on the original list and than make them permanently infertile.

They are the ones that think government is their for their benefit, so be it.

Edit to add-and to think some call me non conformist!

[edit on 11/11/2009 by endisnighe]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Personally I think we have a right to reproduce, but I think there should be consequences to foolish behavior. Like if a man doesn't helpp support his children then he should be sterilized. If a woman needs more than one abortion in her life (with the exception of rape, incest, health)then she should be sterilized.

Also, if you go on public assistance you should be sterilized or on some sort of forced birth control that can be monitored. There is no need to have more babies if you cannot afford to feed the ones you already have.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:11 PM
Yeah, I'm with the "sounds good on paper" guys on this one.

Have you ever tried to adopt a baby?

That's what pops into my mind when I think of this. A huge black market would then add child-birth to the rolls of drugs, weapons trafficing, etc.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by KrazyJethro

That my friend, has been here for ages. Children are sold every day.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by gandhi

That my friend, has been here for ages. Children are sold every day.

True, but I suppose this is a good idea if you really wanted to kick it up a few notches.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:21 PM
I seem to recall having this same discussion in High School English Lit after reading Huxley's Brave New World.

In theory I am for intentional or Planned Parenting (not to be confused with the organization of Planned Parenthood). As such, I openly advocate the Sexual Education and the *VOLUNTARY* use of contraceptive practices. In theory I believe in such even without Parental knowledge or consent, although as a parent of a soon to be teenage girl, I understand fully well the reservations many people would have with such being done without Parental knowledge or consent.

However, I also firmly believe that we have the unalienable Right to procreation and that it becomes grossly a Human Rights Violation to mandate laws over one's Reproductive Rights. (See the Supreme Court ruling on Skinner V. Oklahoma (1942) which found that involuntary sterilization infringed on an individual's inalienable right to procreate.)

Although I understand the reasoning, I find the fact that we have laws preventing certain people from procreating absolutely offensive and a throw-back to misguided Eugenics programs at the turn of last century.

Even China's laws that restrict the number of children a family may legally have (exempting farmers), it is completely rational and understandable given their population density and trends, but that still doesn't justify it or make it right.

The moment you take the VOLUNTARY part out of to reproduce or not to reproduce, you are violating a person's inalienable rights. However, that door must swing both ways, meaning that the moment you take the VOLUNTARY part out of the ability to chose or not choose Contraceptive Methods, it is also violating a person's inalienable rights (meaning parents who feel they should be allowed to prevent their Teens from using contraceptive based on Religious grounds).

I certainly think that such a debate could and should be considered entirely separate from the 1st Term Right to Choose vs. Right to Life debate. Abortion is an entirely different ball-game with a whole different set of criteria and issues at hand.

All in all though, I think it comes down to Education. If you properly educate the people on Human Sexuality and Contraceptive Methods, and allow them to make the choice themselves, most will treat their Sexuality responsibly...and by extension treat their Reproduction responsibly.

I know I see the negative effect rampant Reproduction has upon society. I know that I see the problem we face as a Nation with homeless and starving children in the United States, along with an overburdened Foster Care System to take care of unwanted children who cannot be Adopted (personally, I think part of the problem with the later is due to the fact that we have too restrictive of Adoption laws in the U.S.). I would never think of intentionally or unintentionally having more children than I can afford to raise myself, and more children than it takes to replace myself, allowing for a net zero population growth. Most people I know, with Higher Educations, would never consider having a child ever, under any circumstances. Those that are having more children than they can afford, or than they can support (even on Welfare), are the ones whom our Educational System left behind.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

I know this is a hot potato in a world filled with billions of self centric eaters and takers but at the same time I absolutely reject the idea and the notion that some rock brained bureaucrat elected or not could be given the power to decide if another human being should be allowed - after a time of much form filling and hoop jumping - to reproduce.

No person has a right no matter how noble the mainstream media might present it to tell another that they are not eligible to be allowed to breed and it does not matter if they base these criteria on intelligence or social background. The notion should be hung out to dry in the same way a Nazi war criminal should be hung up to die because the two would have been bed buddies in the past, and if we are not careful they may once again become acquainted in the future.

For me this idea of selective breeding is abhorrent and repugnant and to my mind is obviously the thin end of the wedge. It is one clear symptom of many others that since 911 continue to assault that highly espoused illusion we all love, that illusion going by the name of freedom.

This is not a political issue from where I am sitting, it is a question of ethics and fundamental to every person’s right to exist. I see this “issue” as a loaded question like a loaded gun, with everything hanging on how the majority answer the man taking up the second pressure on that trigger – the question.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

Wow... for something that on the surface that looks so obvious, the issues run pretty deep.

The problem is not with those who want to... and are both fiscally and emotionally capable of rearing children. The problem is with those often the least capable, having the most children.

Any kind of reproductive tyranny would quickly lead to widespread dissent... the kind that drag civilizations down to crumble. But if left unchecked... the outcome looks just as bleak.

No good answers right now... but certainly a worthy subject if we can keep it civil,

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:56 PM
Thanks for the replies.

It is a topic to ponder and one that I feel will start to garner more attention as the government gains a foothold into healthcare.

We seem too eager to sign over decisions to the government, so I wanted to take the discussion to the next level.

Regardless of your position, it would resolve many issues would it not?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Freenrgy2]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Excuse me but as human beings aka animals our purest and sole reason for being alive is to reproduce. I'm sorry but you can't take that away from anyone regardless of what benefits you feel it would achieve (which ironically it wouldn't)

Poor and homeless people in the main are not the result of over active sex lives.

Maybe a better idea would be to educate the less intelligent?

But taking away peoples right to reproduce is simply not right.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by Death_Kron

I find it ironic that it is more o.k. to take the life of an unborn child while the simple task of preventing sperm from leaving a boy or man for the purposes of fertilization (where nobody dies) is less o.k.

So, your 'right' to reproduce at will trumps the rights of an unborn child to live?

Where is it stated that this is our only reproduce? Surely mankind has evolved to the point where it is no longer necessary to exist only to reproduce to ensure survival of the species. Wouldn't you agree that reproduction is now secondary to ensuring that those that are here have the highest quality of life? Wouldn't this be better served by selective breeding?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Freenrgy2]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
I started this thread to address all of the things abortion proponents argue while defending this procedure. Things like:

- The child won't be loved (in cases of rape or incest)
- The child will be born into poverty.
- The child was born to too young a mother who can't (or won't) take of it.
- The child won't have a father.
- The child will be born into an environment where they will eventually take to gangs or drugs.

So, is what I am proposing really that wrong? After all, for those of you wanting universal health care and wanting the government to pay for abortions with tax payer money, aren't you saying that the government should make those decisions.

We all know that once a door is opened to the government, that they will not stop until they consume all power. Is it too far-fetched to assume that a point in time will come where the government will enact legislation restricting the ability to procreate unless certain government requirements are met? And this will be done in the interest of ensuring that we all have the absolute best health care available. I think its a no-brainer.

And from what I've read from so many other posts, the number of abortions performed because someone made a mistake is so overwhelmly high as compared to rape or incest (or life of the mother) that these statistics shouldn't even be included as they fall well within the margin for error. That means most abortions arise because two people had sex and neither one cared at all what the outcome would be. It was simply a moment of self-indulgence and how dare a bunch a cells impede on my lifestyle. After all, it's all about me, isn't it.

I see no issues with restricting the ability to reproduce until such time as deemed appropriate. You folks seem very nonchalant about letting government make more and more decisions for you, so what's to stop this rock from gaining speed?

I want you to be mad. I want you to get angry. I want you to see that it is very different cry I hear from abortion proponents when the shoe is on the other foot. Respect my "right" to do what I want to my body, but when the government tells you what you will do with your body, then a far different tune you sing, even it it resolves many of the problems you cite for having an abortion in the first place.

If you demand that I, as a tax payer, should fund your abortion, then I want the government to do everything in its power to ensure that people do not have the ability to conceive until it is appropriate, therefore reducing the number of said abortions.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by deadbang

And what's funny is that many of the concepts behind the idea of selective breeding are exactly why some abortions are performed in the first place.

Ain't that a kick.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Education + Free Will + Economic Freedom + Female Rights + Legal Protections for women, particularly in marriage = Fewer Children Born.

The "population problem" already has a solution.

However, protecting and granting freedoms is counter intuitive. People want to control everything, and therefore would prefer to TAKE AWAY freedoms and oppress. It seems so much more satisfying.

Of course, almost all the oppressive regimes and cultures that grant possessive controls of one group over another all have gigantic and growing population problems. But that never seems to dissuade anyone from this "solution."

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

I find it ironic that it is more o.k. to take the life of an unborn child while the simple task of preventing sperm from leaving a boy or man for the purposes of fertilization (where nobody dies) is less o.k.

Most abortions take place when the unborn child isn't actually a living human being so in that sense no life is being taken.

I don't have a problem with abortions as long as they are used for the right reasons. I definately do not agree with sex-selective abortions or anything similiar but I don't see the problem with a rape victim having one for example.

So, your 'right' to reproduce at will trumps the rights of an unborn child to live?

As I said above. Something that isn't a living human being doesn't have rights does it?

Where is it stated that this is our only reproduce?

Well at the lowest level this is the only reason we exist, just like animals we are here to ensure each of our blood lines continue.

Surely mankind has evolved to the point where it is no longer necessary to exist only to reproduce to ensure survival of the species

Yes I agree with that, bear in mind I'm talking about the lowest reason why we exist.

Of course everyone has their own personal reasons for their existence and most of us have our own personal goals and things we would like to get out of life but from natures point of view we are here to reproduce.

Wouldn't you agree that reproduction is now secondary to ensuring that those that are here have the highest quality of life? Wouldn't this be better served by selective breeding?

No I wouldn't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for ensuring people have the best quality of life they can and I encourage healthy eating, fitness training, avoiding excessive alcohol intake, drugs etc

But nature shouldn't be messed with in my opinion. It's a sad fact of life that we are born, live, then usually get sick and die but thats just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Look at this for an example:

Imagine you have a 47 year old man who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness such as heart disease and he is told that he only has a couple of years to live.

According to your selective breeding theory this man would never have been born in the first place because the genetic defect causing his heart condition was spotted before conception was allowed to take place.

All well and good, no man and no heart disease.

But what if every single year of that 47 year old mans life was filled with happiness? What if he had found love, achieved his life long dream of sailing around the world and he had a beautiful wife?

You think thats fair to take that away from him?

Surely its better to have lived and then it end early than to never have lived at all???

As they say better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all...

You said your idea would:

Reduce the population to a more sustainable level.

Nature already takes care of that with disease and illness. As I said above its a fact of life that people get ill but just because someone dies early doesn't mean they haven't had a fulfilling life...

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in