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.
That being said, as we're in the business of declaring some things as a ''human right'', I find it hard that anyone can argue that procreation is not one of these rights. Regardless of one's personal, philosophical or religious take on life; the one ''purpose'' that most of us would agree on from an objective perspective, is our need to survive and pass on life.
Just as I called it, any argument in favour of eugenics falls foul of any semblance of logic. And here we have Maslo disembarking from the logic train.
There is no such thing as ''child abuse'', unless there's a ''correct'' way to raise a child. There isn't.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you hit on the reason why this policy would never be practical.
People really need to think before they print their warped, fantastical garbage.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
Well, come up with a better form of birth control for girls then.
Vasectomies are simple and reversible. Maybe scientists can come up with a better form for both males and females. Heck, we probably already have it from the crap McD's puts in their food.
Why don't you try better education and parenting skills?
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
So, you'd rather be reactive than proactive?
It is better off to let people reproduce and worry about the repercussions later?
Tell me, do you do preventative maintenance on your vehicles or do you drive them until they break down and then fix them? And would you be able to afford the bill from a major repair or would it have been more cost-effective to spend a few dollars up front to prevent a major repair?
This is how I see our society. Even though we profess to educate and bring awareness to today's young people, the fact is that they aren't getting the message. A lot of parent(s) aren't getting the message either.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.
Lives are infinitely more important than dollars.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Ariel
Yes, I wrote that position to play devil's advocate with the people who are pro-abortion.
My position is that of giving a vasectomy to male children.
Originally posted by Ariel
reply to post by Maslo
Instead of destroying that person, why do we not focus on giving that person quality of life?
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
Perhaps you know more about birth control with regards to young girls. Tubaligation?