Your opinion.
Is it a human right to procreate?
Your opinion.
Are you referring to birth control and parental restrictions that, if this is not a right, may be put on people that are undesired in society? Like mentally deficient people for example...
Or just curious?
But yeah, to avoid a situation where a group of people's would be offspring are denied to them because of ethnicity/creed, I would 'grant' everyone the right (if I had the right to grant rights!).
Yes. Overpopulation is not a problem. As food becomes scarcer and more expensive, people will have less kids. It will balance out.
If you mean as opposed to sterilizing people against their will, sure.
Birth control should be made compulsory.
I don't like crowds of white trash smelly breeders , but then again- it is completely my own fault for putting myself in those sorts of situations anyway.
I'm not too fond of uppity judgmental ******s either, but well - that's just more my home. I guess.
You don't have to be around humans much if you don't like them, you don't have to make a human if you don't want to. I sometimes wonder just how much I need other people. 'Cause I surprise myself on what I can get done on my own.
I am a Life Coach and I encourage you to do what you want. And accept the responsibility for your choices.
Well, if we didn't have penises and vaginas then that means for sure we didn't have the right to procreate.
Are you serious? Gah, this is one reason why I "left" the Beta quadra way back when... I find that Betas on the forum at least (since I don't know any real people) seem to have all these adamant opinions about forcing people to do this and that. And I totally don't agree and find that entire mindset basically a threat.Originally Posted by Gilly
Also, if it were mandatory, I prefer male birth control, surgical or otherwise. Round them up, "treat" them, sterilize them, whatever. Would you like that? Well, I wouldn't either.
I hate the term "human right". You have a "right" to do whatever the fuck you want, and people have a right to attempt to stop you. It's not like theres some guy behind a curtain telling everyone the proper ways of human living.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
For the posters who answer "yes," what about people who have multiple children and are on welfare? Just wondering, as I've struggled with this myself.
They probably shouldn't have anymore children if they can't afford to, but the thing is, nobody can force them not to have anymore children. They might be stupid for doing it, but stupidity is not against the law.
I heard of some place in the US (very specific, I know) requiring women to get the Depo-Provera shot before they receive their welfare check if they have X number of kids.
That's disgusting, even if it's not true I wouldn't put it past the government to try something like that. The State ought to be abolished.
Removed at User Request
I know. I have no reason to take birth control right now though and I don't want to take it. It comes with some risk you know. I prefer to be free to pick my options not have them forced upon me. But if you men want to take male birth control all the time by law (not sure where the research is on this anymore) then fine by me. Pop those pills, or whatever it ends up involving. (I'm okay with surgical procedures too.) I would also like you to document every time you have sex so I can have it on record, thx. (by "I", I mean the government or whoever is implementing this mandatory birth control crap)
Well not really fine by me, I just find this topic retarded. I just can't believe that people actually think it's okay to force other people to do this.
Removed at User Request
Yes, fear and denial go hand in hand. Fear is very distressing -- you can't think under it and as such can't function, thus you need functions of denial to make the world seem less fearful.
Even if it involves believing in something that can't be proven or else, can be disproven. As such, better to control the conditions which create fear so as to keep the denial functions in the dark.
Well it's going to have to be as I will have to fill out my birth control appeal paperwork every few months with documented proof of no sexual activity and of living in a low crime/low rape area. However, if I fail to report a new blossoming relationship I'm sure this will all go to shit.
maybe I do, but you still think it's okay to force people to do this by law, and it would be women because men will have none of it. Until it's too late? People always come up with these arguments to force other people to do crap... we might as well bring back eugenics and just make sure those who can't defend themselves have to do this. Then all the audible bitching will be silenced.Edit: I was joking. You take things too harshly, imo, it's not about males and women, neither about freedom, this should be common-sense. Yes, it can be done through education, but imo law is the easy way to go until it's too late. Do you prefer wars instead? That's what happens when there are too many people on few resources.
Luckily this would never happen anyway as the women won't have it either.
If it was reversible, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
There probably do need to be birth limits. Maybe 2 kids per couple, for starters. Having more than two invites competition and favoritism. Being able to choose the sex of your child would be another plus.
When I have kids, it'll be two. No more than that. Since my grandmother passed on, my aunts and uncles (of which there are six) have split 4-2. Politics becomes a factor in large families.
I kind of would rather adopt. You never know what you're getting if you do it the old fashioned way. Might be down syndrome baby. Might be Siamese twins or a sociopath that would slit your throat in the middle of the night.
Last edited by xerx; 04-28-2010 at 04:59 AM.
Yeah, except for Pinocchio.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 04-28-2010 at 12:24 PM.
The last time I checked, most of the Western world has a very low population growth (perhaps closer to zero and even some negative figures if we don't count immigration into those countries--immigration was last I heard the largest cause of population growth in the Western world), and Japan has a negative population growth (or will soon if not already, and actually that's the case for a lot of European nations as well). It's in the second and third world where population growth is an issue, and one thing that has been shown to dramatically reduce population growth in a region is educating women, giving them access to resources like birth control, condoms, etc. and control over their own bodies. If you really want to do something imaginary (since this is only a discussion) to help with population growth it would be addressing poverty. Most women do not want to be constant baby machines (i.e. have ridiculously high numbers of children like 10). The other factor though is that if you live in poverty and there's a good chance your children will die, then that might be a motivator to have as many as possible so that some can survive (but maybe that's more of a myth, I don't feel like looking it up). Also I'm pretty sure world population growth rates are already on the decline and have been since like 1960 or something, perhaps in part due to Demographic transition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Still, the population is growing and may be up to 10 billion by 2050ish and most of this growth is occurring in the developing world where poverty and lack of education are problems.
However, you do not want to address this. You want to make laws that everyone (I mean all women) have to constantly be on birth control or some such thing. You yourself said in an earlier post that there are "other ways to do this" but of course you want to jump to the way that actually limits people's freedom to control their own bodies and make their own choices. As I don't think it's okay to do this, I'm an "ignorant" or one of those horrible people who opposes everything that is for "the good of the many" and "logical". First of all, your proposition is *not* logical. Second of all it is *not* for the good of the many. Restricting people and taking away their choices is rarely ever for the good of the many. When people jump to the argument that something extreme like this is the "only way" despite there being other ways and use fear tactics (i.e. "do you want war?" what world do you live in btw? the world is full of war right now) it is not about something for the good of the many--it *is* about controlling people. If it wasn't, if people were important, if what people might not want done to them were important, then you would find one of the other ways that work (and probably work better, as since when has restricting people's rights ever gotten anyone anywhere?).
Last edited by marooned; 04-28-2010 at 03:07 PM.
I think a good practice would be to offer some sort of long term birth control program to welfare recipients parents/parent with more then 1 child along along with a incentive for participating in the program. More aid if they get on birth control versus if they are not on birth control. The logistics of the issue being that in the long run this will save more money.
Birth control programs should be incentive based for recipients of government aid, they are the ones at most stress and need. Punitive policies often produce more stress where there is already a lot of stress, while incentives offer rewards for long term planning.
There is no need to use force when we can use incentive, but ultimately there are people who will fail despite these measures and we will only be able to punish them for neglect and child abuse as we find all sort of damages in their wake.
Procreation is one of those biological impulses which we have, and it's impossible to regulate tightly. But incentives, positive coercive tactics towards good practice and educational programs about birth control are all meaningful tactics to address the problem.
Simple solution: no sex outside of marriage. Ooohh.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Stop giving them welfare and they'll stop having kids.
Isn't it the reverse? "Welfare states" like many nation-states in the EU have a much lower birth rate than elsewhere, primarily due to the enormous economic costs of raising children. Even prior to the welfare reforms of the US in the 20th century, parents frequently had many children as a means to ensure that they would be supported in their older age and due to the low economic costs of children. Nowadays people talk about having kids much in the same manner as they would when talking about getting a pet.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
The birth rates are low for the general population, not for the poor. The general population has less kids in welfare states because the cost of living increases directly as a result of higher taxes, since their labor does not earn as much purchasing power as more of it is taxed away. You may be thinking of poor countries where families will have many children so that they can work and contribute to the household. That's because in their societies, children can find work in low-paying factory jobs (no minimum wage law) and even plant their own food, so it makes sense to have lots of kids--especially since you're not paying utilities and one hundred and one taxes.
For the poor in developed nations, however, the more children they have, the more government benefits they receive. It varies from place to place, but it's certainly true in American ghettos. These people aren't productive; they sap the economy, which means they destroy jobs and contribute to poverty. Stop giving them welfare and return money to the productive sectors of the economy and watch as poverty decreases and the standard of living increases.
If it were, they'd never be able to build enough jails fast enough.
There are studies out there that say we do our own form of population control: the US is actually experiencing a slow-down and almost negative population growth, as the one-child family has become acceptable and more and more couples are just deciding not to have children (plus there's the whole group of couples who are unable to conceive, infertility rates are jumping up).
And even if you ignore that, anthropologists are now talking about the idea that wars tend to break out when population gets too high... and the casualties that ensue bring levels down low enough that war does not break out again for a while. It hasn't been proven conclusively, but it's certainly something to think about.
In general... there are certainly people that I really wish wouldn't have kids (Octomom anyone?), but I think it's a dangerous path to go down when you start talking about someone being in charge of who has how many kids. Just look at China's policy/attitude toward having little girls, and where it has gotten them thus far.
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." Mark Twain
No trees were destroyed in sending this message; however, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
I am definitely a 7, and most likely an IEE. Stay tuned for further updates.
No, I think procreation should be controlled. That would be spectacular if we could pull that off. Infact I would be for putting chemicals in the nations water supply to cause impotence, as well as many other nations. Especially Africa- they need to stop procreating for sure. It would be great if we could burn out the balls and kill the eggs.
Removed at User Request
I'm with Loki on this one. Birth Control isn't as miraculous and straight forward as it seems. Pumping your body full of hormones can seriously mess with you. I'm on my third type of birth control right now trying to find one that doesn't turn me into a basket case, leave me dehydrated and turn me into a sexual zombie. Birth Control treats different women different ways and forcing women to be on birth control would not be healthy. Same goes for men if/when a male equivalent comes to the market.
This is what I was going to say. It makes more sense to give people incentives, better education and access to birth control methods. This way they can find a method which works for them best, doesn't discourage people from procreating entirely, but does make them stop to think about it.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
I agree, it's almost like the government wants these hoodlums with an IQ of 80 to pump them out one by one, they know people work the system, yet they continue to cater to these subhumans. I decided a long time ago not to procreate because my family has a long lineage of mental illness and I just can't bear to bring someone onto this earth that has upwards of a 50% chance of developing a serious illness. I believe it's fate really, I am 28 now and still have no desire for children. Forget the ticking clock, I doubt I've even been assembled with one. But this just goes to show how many people of lower intelligence are walking this earth right now and look at their children simply as a meal ticket.
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
LMAO
Ah who am I kidding....
Send in the flamethrowers...
That's right but people living in ghettos would probably have more children whether or not they were getting welfare, since fewer children would survive to adulthood. And by cutting off welfare you're introducing even more social problems to what's already a powder keg of crime / violence / prostitution / drug trafficking.
There is also the factor of education in getting people to stop procreating. Better paid people find ways to educate themselves about risks and accept more social responsibility. Also the more money you make the more you'll want to keep for yourself.
I would agree that paying someone for every child they have is dumb, since it encourages welfare farming. If there was a set welfare wage that rose up with inflation, perhaps it should increase for people who volunteer to do community services and hold down jobs, then that would be way more ideal.
If a policy like that is actively implemented, the ghetto might stop being a ghetto and we'd stop having to pay them welfare.
And Logos makes an excellent point about the European Union.
Not sure about the acceptance of more social responsibility, the current issue on Wall Street should be enough to quell that idea... but studies *have* shown that the more educated a population is on sex, the less likely they are to have unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
I still think the "family values" lobby shoots itself in the ass every time they advocate abstinence programs over real education. If you don't want your kids to have abortions, stop keeping them ignorant on how people get pregnant in the first place.
And...
***WARNING: HOT BUTTON ISSUE HERE, LOOK OUT***
Honestly folks, if you're going to talk about welfare cases then do the freakin' research. The vast majority of people on welfare are actually single moms with kids, most of them white, almost all of them either divorced or really young, almost all of them with jobs that don't pay near enough to make ends meet. Hell, one of my friends is a mom with three kids, has a great job as a journalist for a high-ranking publication, and she has to use the soup kitchen twice a week because her ex husband skips out on his support payments. To me, one of the worst things the privileged lobby did when trying to get their agenda passed was create the image of the po' black/brown folk who are milking the system... it's just not true.
Sure there is a small number of people who do fit that profile, but there's also a small number of people that enjoys sex with animals: does that mean that the bulk of the human population can't be trusted alone with Bessie?
***END OF HOT BUTTON ISSUE***
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." Mark Twain
No trees were destroyed in sending this message; however, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
I am definitely a 7, and most likely an IEE. Stay tuned for further updates.
I think that's often true when it comes to money (because of corruption, theft, nepotism, not paying taxes, etc.). But where money isn't involved, successful people do accept social responsibility, because doing your duty helps you stay accepted by others in the system. Social duty could mean educating your kids, going to vote, and wearing more professional clothing at work. Even keeping your obligation to the rest of the neighborhood by mowing your lawn is something you're more likely to do if you're not stressing out about financial security.
But I do think it's more of a bell-curve. If you're too financially secure and have nothing to worry about then, yeah, you're not as likely to care about social responsibility.
There might also be correlations with different socionics types.
No... but I don't really believe in human rights. Or at least I believe in human rights as much as I believe in human's lack of rights ("we all deserve to die, tell ya why, Mrs. Lovett, tell ya why").
But practically, there is no situation in which one could reasonably punish people for having sex and accidentally getting pregnant. That's actually one of the themes of the play I'm in right now, Measure for Measure. So while people may or may not have the right to procreate, it is certainly illogical/impracticable to attempt government penalties for illegal procreators, except if you're going to have laws against fornication in general, maybe, and OBVIOUSLY that will never happen again, at least in the next 200-250 years.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
