If you ran your country, what would you do?

Looking at some of the earlier convos on this thread... You dont need to monitor who is having sex with who, when all unlicensed parents and non-parents are "temporarily" sterilized anyway!!!

I am most pleased to see that there are a few people here that support the idea that humans should have to get a license to be a parent. It is time for us like minded people to unite to make this philosophy into a reality!!!

 

Looking at some of the earlier convos on this thread... You dont need to monitor who is having sex with who, when all unlicensed parents and non-parents are "temporarily" sterilized anyway!!!

I am most pleased to see that there are a few people here that support the idea that humans should have to get a license to be a parent. It is time for us like minded people to unite to make this philosophy into a reality!!!

Too bad you're in the minority.

The decision to have or not have children is too private to regulate. The government has no business making this decision. Only individual couples do. To interfere is a violation of human rights and privacy. As is the decision to be sterilized. I don't care if it's temporary or not. No one has the right to force people to undergo that surgery; it's a violation of their rights and their bodies.

 

Taking away the rights to reproduce may be appauling to you, but just as appauling to me and other progressive minded people, is the fact that Humanity has taken Natural Selection out of the equation. Sterilizing people for the right reasons is just a Human way of re-introducing "natural" selection back into a species that has degenerated to a mostly pathetic state.

 

Hitler had the same idea. Government enforced Eugenics. Scary thought

 

Hitler had the same idea. Government enforced Eugenics. Scary thought

Damn Hitler, I despise that fool!!! He set back the Eugincs movement several decades. Its a shame that you and just about everyone else associates Eugenics with Hitler. DNA,as tool with Gene Therapy, wasnt even discovered when that fool was causing trouble for the world. One must look at the positives and be open minded about the concept rather than focus on the past, especially when Hitler was never a true backer of Eugenics, he was a plain Racist.

A TRULY scary thought is what type of world will we live in when the governments no longer have the resources to care for all the people who were born retarded and such. Then people will have wished that some cure (EUGENICS) would have solved the problem. In the end, perceived rights will have caused the downfall of modern civilization.

If you are really interested in this topic read the BELL CURVE. It spells out the future of mankind without genetic intervention.

 

In my opinion, humanity already "won" natural selection. It's not our fault we are the most intelligant species. We evolved to it. And we have the right to that place, since we got there on their own. If you don't want to have any kids, sterilize yourself. Don't violate the bodies of other people.

I'd rather live in an overpopulated world with freedoms than a world with less people, but those people have their bodies violated.

Reproduction is a natural thing for all living things. It's disgusting to take that right away because you think it will make a better world. Only idividuals can make the choice to reproduce. If you and others like you want to reduce overpopulation, DON'T HAVE KIDS. But don't take that right away from people who desperatley want it.

 

In my opinion, humanity already "won" natural selection. It's not our fault we are the most intelligant species. We evolved to it. And we have the right to that place, since we got there on their own. If you don't want to have any kids, sterilize yourself. Don't violate the bodies of other people.

How has humanity "won" natural selection when it allows its weak/developmentally disabled/Downs Syndrome to continue to reproduce thus weaking the genepool? The point is that Humans have thrown off the rules of nature and insist that ALL people should have reproductive rights even WHEN the offspring are GUARANTEED to be born damaged!!

I'd rather live in an overpopulated world with freedoms than a world with less people, but those people have their bodies violated.

Then YOU can pay the taxes that are used to take care of all the people that will be on government aid/SSI for their whole lives, because I am tired of funding them!!! NOW, that is something that many people are sick and tired of as well!!


Reproduction is a natural thing for all living things. It's disgusting to take that right away because you think it will make a better world. Only idividuals can make the choice to reproduce. If you and others like you want to reduce overpopulation, DON'T HAVE KIDS.

What's disgusting, is that society has allowed people to think that being a parent is a God given right rather than a privilege. Without nature regulating it, humanity MUST come up with some rules that simulate the "natural selection", lest it shall destroy itself.

 

How has humanity "won" natural selection when it allows its weak/developmentally disabled/Downs Syndrome to continue to reproduce thus weaking the genepool? The point is that Humans have thrown off the rules of nature and insist that ALL people should have reproductive rights even WHEN the offspring are GUARANTEED to be born damaged!!

It's not their fault they were born that way. They have the same rights as the rest of us. Now, I seem to recall reading somewhere that developmentally disabled people rarely reproduced, unless they were raped. It might have been in a textbook, I honestly don't remember. But these people are so developmentally disabled, no one would want to breed with them, and rarely do they themselves feel the drive to. If you feel they are weakening the gene pool, don't reproduce with them. Few people want to, so I don't see what the issue here is.

Then YOU can pay the taxes that are used to take care of all the people that will be on government aid/SSI for their whole lives, because I am tired of funding them!!! NOW, that is something that many people are sick and tired of as well!!

Move to another country then, if you don't like the way this one is run.

What's disgusting, is that society has allowed people to think that being a parent is a God given right rather than a privilege. Without nature regulating it, humanity MUST come up with some rules that simulate the "natural selection", lest it shall destroy itself.

It's not a God given right. It's a right nature gave us. ALL SPECIES REPRODUCE. IT'S NATURAL!!! The drive to reproduce is imbedded in us.

The bottom line is: You decide to do with your body, I decide what to do with mine. That's the way it's meant to be. I'm sorry other people's choices offend you so much, so why don't you just go move to a country where the government doesn't let people make those choices? Maybe you'd be a lot happier there!

Maybe my view offends you, but your view truly offends me. You seem to think you can tell people what to do with their bodies. What gave you that right? No one has that right. As long as they aren't doing anything that DIRECTLY (and I mean directly, as in murder or rape) harms another person, people can do as they please. I'm not going to talk about the future. Because who knows what will come in the future? People may develop cures that completely irradicate these genetic diseases, making the people who have them, and any offspring they have, completely "normal." The population could stabilize on its own, once all countries are developed. Who knows? Maybe we'll expand to other planets eventually, and it won't matter how big our population grows. The point is, we have to live for now. Because you don't KNOW what the future will be like. It may be bleak and it may be great. All I know is, NO world is worth living in if it's a world where basic rights we are born with are violated.

 

The primary problem is who chooses who gets to reproduce? You? Someone "wise?"


Next I bet you will think that we should start killing those who already are a leach to society. And while we are at it, I guess we should get rid of traitors, and those committing thoughtcrime.

Anyone who lauds China's human rights record is insane.

 

Anyone who curses China for trying to save themselves and the rest of the world are cruel, sadistical, narrow-minded, jealous, and self-centered. So what if they are Communist? They did the right thing, they are growing stronger, wealthier, and more modernized for it. You should be applauding them in their work to save YOU, and not making biased, selfish, uninformed accusations.

 

Too bad that they force women to undergo sterilizations and unwanted abortions in the process.

I don't care if their goals are good. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. They have no right to control their citizen's choices on how to use their reproductive systems. PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHOICES FOR THEMSELF. Otherwise we'll just have a world with less people - because no one will want to live in it.

There is absolutely NO WAY to control people's reproducton without violating fundamental human rights. Why don't you people see this? There are only 3 ways:

1. Regulate sex between consenting adults. A big no no.

2. Force sterilization. Again, no. You can't force anyone to undergo sterilization. That violates their control of their bodies.

3. Force abortions on women who got pregnant when they weren't supposed to. See, you people who advocate this are actually NOT pro-choice. Because pro-choice is all about a woman's right to chose to either HAVE OR NOT HAVE an abortion. If a woman feels that the life in her body is a full human life, or simply cannot bear the thought of killing the life that would become her child, you have no right to force her to have an abortion.

None of these means are acceptable. All we can do is live in this world, make our own choices, and hope for the best. We could all be worrying for nothing. The future could be wonderful, for all we know. It may not look that way, but who knows what will change? Like I said before, industrialization leads people to have less children. Most people in the US voluntarily choose to have 2 or 3 children (Isn't the average 2.1? And yes, I know there is no such thing as a .1 child, but when you do averages you rarely get whole numbers). Where I live, which is a lower-middle class to upper-middle class area, with just a few poorer or richer people, I rarely see families with more than 3 children. Like I said, give the world time. You just might be pleasantly surprised. Or you may be dead by then and not see it happen. Whatever. But all you can do is change the way you live. You have no right to decide for other people.

 

Also, I was just reviewing the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, and it reads:

Article 16, Section 1 "Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and to found a family."

It does NOT say that men and women have the right to reproduce constantly, irrationally, and without regard for other existing human lives, nature, and the happiness and health of future generations of more responsible and logical people.

Also, if you believe you have the right to reproduce constantly because of religious reasons, then let me quote the Doctrine of Catholic Social Teaching:

Article 3, Section 11, Statement C: "We see that everyone has the right to life, and to the means that are suitible for the proper development of life."

Everyone who is alive has the right to life. This does not say that it is the right or responsibilty of one to make sure that they can create as much life as possible, or to create life at all. It does state that the living have the right to life, and to the materials which can foster and take each individual to the highest possible potential available to them. If everyone were to breed unneccessarily and uncontrollably, then the basic resources needed to serve those who are already living would not be available. If it is your child which tips the scale and makes it impossible for all to attain human rights, then you are the worst and most cruel criminal in all of history, especially if you could have prevented this deprivation. In these increasingly tight days of moderation and responsibility, we can not afford to allow each individual to have five, four, three, or possibly two children, or this scale would be tipped and broken, and human rights would be impossible to attain.

 

It does NOT say that men and women have the right to reproduce constantly, irrationally, and without regard for other existing human lives, nature, and the happiness and health of future generations of more responsible and logical people.

Who are you to say their choices are irrational? I could say someone's choice to sleep around is irrational. Does that mean I can regulate sex? No.

In these increasingly tight days of moderation and responsibility, we can not afford to allow each individual to have five, four, three, or possibly two children, or this scale would be tipped and broken, and human rights would be impossible to attain.

I don't see our "human rights" being deprived here. What you propose does deprive human rights, however. What is the point of building a "better" world if the people in it will have less rights? And by the way, 2 children doesn't add to the population. They are just replacing the two adults people who had them. Like I said, almost everyone with a higher standard of living choses to have less children. Why not improve the standard of living by introducing modernization, including better jobs, more effective birth control, etc. And you will watch the population stablize on its own, without taking away anyone's rights.

"Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and to found a family."

Who are you to decide what defines a family? Some people may want to marry but have no children. Others may want to have 5 children. How about just living your life the way YOU think is best, and letting other people live their lives the way THEY think is best? No one is forcing you to have ANY children. That's what's so great about choice! Who made you the authority here?

In these increasingly tight days of moderation and responsibility, we can not afford to allow each individual to have five, four, three, or possibly two children, or this scale would be tipped and broken, and human rights would be impossible to attain.

And what you suggest would make human rights impossible to attain. Why don't you move to China, if you think it's so great? But I see you like in the US, like me, and probably want to go on enjoying our standard of living. Figures.

 

HEEEEELOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

A family is always defined as two parents and at least one child. That can not be argued in any way, shape, or form, so dont try.

 

Some people chose not to have children and still consider themselves to be a family. Others won't be happy with their "family" unless they have two kids, one boy and one girl. To me a family is people bound by either blood or marriage. Are relatives such as aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc any less a part of the family? To some cultures, it would be a joke to define a family as just parents and children. To them, extended family relatives are just as important as spouses and children. There is no universal standard for a family.

That said, this discussion is off topic and belongs in the overpopulation thread. It's not that old so it should be on page 2. If you want to continue this discussion, I'll move it there with you. If you don't want to, this is my last post in this thread on this one topic.

 

If you are really interested in this topic read the BELL CURVE. It spells out the future of mankind without genetic intervention.


A book which has been discredited by just about every evolutionary biologist, evolutionary psychologist, evolutionary anthropologist, etc on the planet. That book is utter and pure crap and anyone with half a wit and half an education in evolutionary theory would realize that.

I suggest you sign up for the most basic course on evolutionary theory at your school and learn what it really is about.

In the meantime, bone up by reading the following title. I have included the links to Amazon.com

Human Variation, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups (5th Edition)by Stephen Molnar
[link="http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6EE349D1] Link [/link]

 

Lets look at it this way.

A. The planet is only so big. The planet and humans can only produce so much food and other needs for life. Nature will always play a factor in keeping the population in check by coming up with plagues, and natural disasters. When there is no more resources of not enough food which in turn will cause more unhealthy people and in turn create disease and then create famine.

This is what will happen no matter what, unless a Astroid comes back and wipes us out.

Now lets look at the history of marriage and reproducing.

1. Sex for fun. Has always been around and is not going anywhere no matter how much religious doctrine trys to say that the good ol days people didn't have sex before marriage. Complete BS.

2. Marriage. Marriage back in the days of the Roman Empire and in Ancient Greece was not what we think of marriage is today. Back then marriages were arranged so that wealth and inheritence could be handed down. Divorce was common. Family life back then would be the equivalent of a business. A womans job was punch out as many male heirs as possible during her short life, and if she had daughters and they decided to keep them they would be married away to provide extra income. Girls back then were married as early as 10 years old and had kids around the ages of 13-17. Most people didn't live past the age of 30 back then. The agenda of the Roman Empire was to have as many kids as possible, because the equation balanced out in the end since if you had 10 kids maybe 4 lived to be 30.

Husband and wife back then was not for the most part what we think it is today where two people meet, bond and marry and maybe have some kids later on. Back then you were married early and had kids quickly and divorced and had more kids, divorced and had more kids. It was all about wealth. That was family life back then. Most babies until the age of 3 or 4 were raised by "Wetnurses" who were slaves or freed slaves who raised the child while the mother for the most part didn't breast feed the child or any normal motherly duties that mothers do today. Reason is because of health. 13 year old having a baby back then was risky and the girl most likely was sick long after the delivery and couldn't produce the milk due to diet.

Times have changed now. For one people don't have as many kids these days, but also the kids they do have survive due to medical technology. Medicine, knowing what germs are and other things like that have created a balancing out deal. Society is different. Now you have both parents working for the most part and less kids.

What does this all have to do with having people being tested on being parents????? First off it will never work. I myself wish some people were not allowed to have kids because some are complete and utter morons who can't even take care of themselves let alone a child.

However when you start playing "God" in saying you can have a child but you cannot then your going to have a war, you will have so many problems not only from non-religous folks but religious folks as well. Your messing with every single human being on earth then. Who is allowed to have kids???? You, me or who?????? Who decides???? If someone could answer me that question then I might consider it, but until then you cannot regulate reproduction.

However on a side note I'm all for 100% sterilization of some criminals who are threats to society such as child molesters and rapists and such.


However trying to say that parents today are so bad is not fair because you need to look back at family life of ancient times and such to see that even by todays morals and standards they are shocking.

 

I know of a book you should read:

The Bear and the Dragon by Tom Clancy

The forced abortions in China are a important plot point in this fictional book, but I think it clearly shows what is wrong with the Chinese system.

Shoving a stake into a child's head just before it breaths it's first breath and calling it an abortion is a travesty to humanity.

I am for the forced steriliztion of convicted sex offenders under certain circumstances, but in that case it is clearly decided who gets to choose who gets the treatment.

I will ask this unanswered question once more:

Who has the right to choose who is and who is not an acceptable parent?

 

Who has the right to choose who is and who is not an acceptable parent?

[sarcasm] Obviously the people who are so for reproduction being regulated. [/sarcasm]

 

Move to another country then, if you don't like the way this one is run.

This is always a very typical American patriot comment!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, right??? NO WAY!!!

If people ran to another country just because they didnt agree with anything that their country was doing, everybody would be living in tents!!

If I see something wrong with the country I live in, I think changing it would be better than running from the problems!!

 

I will ask this unanswered question once more:

Who has the right to choose who is and who is not an acceptable parent?

Various Social Services Agencies across the U.S. answer this question on a daily basis.
I personally work for one of them. We decide who is an acceptable parent or not, every day.

Then we place the children with a foster home, adoptive home, or relative placement.

So to answer your question, the State has been deciding who is acceptable or not for a very long time.

It only makes since....

Tell me something.... Do you support chronically abusive parents who have lost their parental rights on multiple children,having intact reproductive rights?

 

Since this seeems to be a place to post a social/political reform wish list, here's mine:
Almost all people begin their lives in a home with a family. If good principles are taught in homes, (ie honesty, kindness, etc.) there will be fewer bad politicians, and even fewer apathetic, uninformed voters. The fate of nations hinges on the results of private, hidden activities in the home. If you want to see a good movie that displays this principle well, watch Star Wars.
There is an old Brando movie, "Mutiny on the Bounty." I don't recommend the film, but there was an idea in the film that is pertinent to this topic: Fairness and justice must be in the heart of the Captain, and if they aren't, then they are not aboard the ship. It doesn't matter how many laws we pass. If politicians are corrupt, they will find a way around the law. Let's try to get some morality into kids' heads and hearts BEFORE they grow up and become leaders.

Here's a radical concept that would drive most politicians nuts: force them to put their political platform in writing. It's easy for lame ideas, hypocrisy, and empty words to slip by unnoticed when someone is speaking, but when it's in writing it can be scrutinized for content. Politicians could be held to their word more easily. Of course, this would only work in a society where people based votes on what they read, and reading is something apathetic tv viewers avoid if they can.

Another thing that would be helpful is to make sure all the laws that politicians pass apply to them. There are laws Americans are subject to that their politicians don't have to obey. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Reinstate the concept of "public servants." When was the last time you heard that term used to describe a politician? Yet that is what they are supposed to be. We are THEIR bosses. They are accountable to us. We hire them. We fire them. If we don't keep a tight grip on the reigns, the horse will eventually start riding us.

Speaking of public service, here is a piece of legislation that would make every politician cringe: A member of Congress must read an entire bill before they can vote on it, and no bill can make refrence to a previous bill for legislation. (Instead of "Enact section A, article 5, of bill tk421," the law would say, "...and a pay increase for Senators...")
How many millions of pages of law have flown across their desks and into law books without even being examined by the people who pass the laws?
If this rule were law, it would cause several major changes. (I hope.)
First, laws would be shorter, and easier to understand. This would make it a simple task to hold politicians accountable.
Second, instead of taking all the taxes out of states and running them through the Federal level, with billions being parcelled out to different Willet Creek Dams, taxes would stay in the cities and states that produced them. People in their own towns and states who understand their own needs would be able to decide what their money was used for.

Taxes should be seen as a necessary evil. Legal robbery. Stealing is the forcible removal of someone's property, and that is exactly what taxes are. And if they were spent well, it wouldn't be such a pain to part with them every April 15th.

Children should be shown two movies before they are eight years old. The one is "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and the other is "Harry's War." These movies demonstrate prinicples of Democracy--that the people are supposed to rule. Parents will find these valuable tools for raising non-drones.
I would also like it if parents taught their children the principles in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.