Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said, just a theory. We would have made good parents, but elected not to have children. Our neighbors, who had 5 kids, are awesome parents - we wish they'd had more.
If only people were better at self-regulating. And I think that was the intent of the original poster.
Good afternoon,
It may be only theory, but many evil things in history started with a theory. Many of these evil things also started from something that seemed to be "for a good cause". By no means am I saying you are evil or supporting it, my concern is when an evil person moves into office and uses the new powers meant for good in an evil way.
Well, I think the only good idea that could come out of it is that it would stop over population to a degree.
However, I don't agree it would necessarily stop poverty and food stamps. Sometimes things happen to perfectly good people that is out of their control.. their job goes etc. And they need that temporary support. Note I said TEMPORARY. I am not in agreement that people should mooch off the government from being lazy and just popping out kids to get benefits etc.
Also, the very idea of someone messing with a kid of mine as a baby, makes my skin crawl. How do you know something might not go wrong and that person would be denied the chance to ever have a child.
I can see it controlling over population.. but it's the only thing I can see good out of it
Good afternoon,
People are not animals, I don't understand the logic behind "controlling the population" as if we are dogs and cats. If you want to use some type of non-intrusive incentives to meet your goal, that's fine, but simply taking away freedoms to meet this goal is evil and will not last due without harsh penalties due to human nature.
Once again, I am not saying YOU are evil, just the idea of taking away rights in the name of "controlling the population".
What are the consequences of someone who violates the "baby chit" policy by having another baby or refusing to get fixed after using all of his/her "chits"? A law is only as good as its' enforcement. Also, how do you prevent this large power from being abused by a politician with bad intentions?
We need to stop trying to regulate people's freedoms to fit individuals' worldviews. If population growth is so much of a problem for people, they can always buy their own large tract of land and grow their own food so they won't be affected.
I'm all for adoption and giving these kids good homes.[/quote]
I understand what you are trying to say but not everyone wants to adopt. Many physical and mental illnesses are inherited and just because a child is cute and small doesn't mean you know what you are getting. And for those from the nurture camp no amount of good rearing will get rid of the schizophrenia and/or psychosis that your adopted child might come with. You need to ask how did a seemingly healthy child end up with NO ONE willing to take care of them ?
I understand what you are trying to say but not everyone wants to adopt. Many physical and mental illnesses are inherited and just because a child is cute and small doesn't mean you know what you are getting. And for those from the nurture camp no amount of good rearing will get rid of the schizophrenia and/or psychosis that your adopted child might come with. You need to ask how did a seemingly healthy child end up with NO ONE willing to take care of them ?
Hi there,
I understand this and that's why there should be social safety nets if no one wants to adopt these precious children. I don't think we should create some mass sterilization program (as the OP suggests) just to avoid unwanted children who are a low percentage of the population.
Once again, our freedoms are too precious to give them up in the name of "saving" some people.
hmm, a pill someone could take to prevent pregnancy, but would then make pregnancy feasible when you stop taking it? don't we already have that?
a lot of teen girls are prescribed the Pill and a lot forget to take it, or take it w/ other drugs that reduce its effectiveness. put the burden onto the parents wouldn't help has adults are just as likely to forget. there are things like IUDs, but the risk of complications is high. honestly, birth control just messes w/ a lot of people negatively.
how about people just not worry who are having kids or how many kids they're having? yes, there are people out there w/ kids who should never have them, or people popping out more kids than they can afford, but I don't get the concept of seizing the reproductive rights of millions of people, of pumping them full of chemicals or surgically altering them, of dictating who can have kids when, just to solve this issue. only thing that will work is education and proper access to the things needed to prevent pregnancy or terminate an unwanted one. people will slip through the cracks, but I believe it's preferable than this idea on gov't enforced sterilization.
I would actually be supportive of the idea from that Kurt Russell movie "Soldier".
Take all babies from those unable to physically or financially support them and raise them into strict soldiers.
Sounds corny, but less Draconian than the original idea envisaged in this thread.
seems the prolifers would be all for this... it does stand against the person in favor of big brother, and I haven't seen big brother making great choices.
Seem it is a better option than all the unwanted births. It would also eliminate the need for birth control... no expenses for pills, IUDs, sponges and so forth... we could save a fortune.
seems the prolifers would be all for this... it does stand against the person in favor of big brother, and I haven't seen big brother making great choices.
Seem it is a better option than all the unwanted births. It would also eliminate the need for birth control... no expenses for pills, IUDs, sponges and so forth... we could save a fortune.
Good morning,
Many pro-lifers are also typically conservative and as a result anti-big government, so they're not going to be for forced sterilization. (As they shouldn't be).
That being said, I do acknowledge the conservative big-government hypocrisy on federally eliminating abortion (instead of state by state or through Constitutional Amendment), their good points on life in the womb being granted equal rights in the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding.
An interesting resolution to some of our most disfunctional social issues. I think in order to reverse the sterilization process the prospective parents should prove their capability to support and nurture the future child properly and lovingly
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
