Long Term Birth Control Injection to all Children with BCG

reply to post by dashen


I wouldn't say it should be up to the government at all, perhaps after a consultation with your family GP, at least this way the birth of the child is a wanted pregnancy, no more abortions etc.

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

I did change the headline by adding (Birth Control, rather than Nueter) but thanks for the advice

You added at the end in brackets "birth control, not sterilisation" while still leaving "chemically neuter" in the title

You want people to click the thread, leave as is.
If you want a serious discussion lose the sensational title.

Just my opinion and I only offer it as I would like to see this thread do well, could make for interesting reading

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Well which country are you in? You do realize the US isn't really overpopulated right? Some of the cities and its infrastructure are. But one of our major problems is we don't have enough consumers to really spur any economic growth.

For example we have plenty of room to build more cities, but we don't really have enough consumers to live in them and make it worth while. Just like the housing crisis. We have empty housing developments after empty housing developments..

I'm pretty sure there's enough square footage in just Texas alone for every single human being on the planet to fit. There's just not the infrastructure to support it. We could build it though, but the population in the US has kinda been doing DOWN.

For example we have close to 15 million homes that nobody wants to buy, hence the housing crisis. We can't sell cars, we can't sell anything the economy sucks.

But we've aborted like 50 million (not really accurate statistic) babies since Row v. Wade. If those babies had been born it wouldn't be a problem to fill up 15 million homes. It would also have created jobs because now you'd probably have to build more homes.

Now you have more jobs so now you have to sell more cars to those babies so they can get back and forth to work to their new jobs. Now they have jobs so they buy more EVERYTHING. Then you have even more jobs.

See, people have it backwards. Our financial system, and things like social security for example, were designed with the idea that the population would always grow. And therefore the economy would always grow. Our future economic growth would pay for today's debts.

But then we started killing babies. Those babies were supposed to be today's consumers. But they never showed up. Hence no economic growth. You don't build new cities if there's no one to live in them. You don't build new houses if there's no one to live in them. You don't build new cars and so on. You killed all the home owners before they were born.

You have to think of it like a business owner. If you owned a business, do you want more consumers, or less consumers? When asked like this the answer is obvious. You want to be able to sell your product to as many customers as possible. You don't want people killing your future customers before they have a chance to walk in and buy your product.

Long story short don't confused overpopulated infrastructure with an overpopulated planet. The money changers don't wanna put any money into improving the electric grid, the bridges, the highway system, high speed rail, clean green energy and getting away from oil, and building green cities, because there's not enough people to live in them.

So the cities we do have kinda get overpopulated because people like to live in cities. They like to live next to other people, hospitals, markets.

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

I did change the headline by adding (Birth Control, rather than Nueter) but thanks for the advice

Wait, you cannot move the goalposts like that on ATS and personally I think you should be ashamed for having done so. If you couldn't be bothered to put some thought into the title to the extent you felt the need to change it. How confident can we be you put even a modicum of thought into your "proposal?"

Of course I would be all for education and the provision of birth control at an earlier age but most certainly NOT forcibly. Who decides who is a fit potential parent? You? The Government? The Daily Mail vote section?

Absolutely NOT. I would never allow any doctor or politician near my children or putting any dangerous chemical in their body. They can do that to themselves, but not to their families, for they don't own their own families, nor mine. But if they want to be guinea pigs, themselves, by all means as long as what they do doesnt affect my freedom. If they're a threat to my freedom they will have to be rounded up and thrown in jail.

Not on my watch!

I personally think that we need a lot less ruthless, power hungry lizzie types in this world so they should start with their own reproduction abilities.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


took your advice and thank you

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Ok I'll play ball~

* Anyone under the age of 18 (still a child themselves)
* A drug Addict
* A unwanted pregnancy
* And dare i say it, if you cannot afford to have a child, then you shouldn't have one

In America, not the UK during High School I've seen at least 3 teenage women become phenominal parents. Better than there parents so does Age really qualify? Sure, there are always extenuating circumstances but again, how many compared to people who just suck at parenting.

A drug addict.... Is this just illicit drugs? I mean hell, I know many families that the mother or father is doped up on Anti-Depresent Opiates and drink like a fish but are still "good" parents... I'm still trying to see your idea of a "good" parent.

A unwanted pregnancy...

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by WhoKnows100

 

And what would you suggest is the solution to unwanted pregnancies, abortion, children born to crack heads etc?

Years ago, folk only had sex in marriage but that has all changed and as such we now have an issue that needs resolving.

Education, instruction, availability of birth control for both males and females...that way one does not hold all the responsibility. If birth control was widely available and easy to obtain without all the hassles...then the abortion issue completely goes away.

Children born to drug addicts?...Can't fix that. Some folks have risen to the responsibility and cleaned their lives up for a child...others have not. Not your place, or mine, or anyone else's to be in the middle of that.

Children born to the poor? How dare you! Do you know that back in the day "families" from pre-teen to adulthood "used" to stick together and work to make a better life for the WHOLE family...it's only been i the last 50-60 years that we have become so selfish that every family member must have a place of their own...to quietly suffer and struggle in solitude and loneliness.

reply to post by PW229


The headline was a bit Harsh and was misconstrued into meaning a permanent sterilisation which is not what i meant at all, i was meaning "Birth Control" and something that could be undone at a later date.

With regards to having something forced on you, we already have vaccinations and woman taking the pill for birth control so not much different really, what I am saying is that this long term "Birth Control" (if it even exists) should be given to young people to stop unwanted births etc thus reducing abortions etc etc

There is a name for this idea. It's called eugenics. I do believe Hitler was a fan.

reply to post by Damian65


I agree with your points, but why should I have to pay for another persons child if they are on benefits? Here in the UK some people on benefits have kids just so they can get more money from the government. They are not having kids out of love but out of greed and we all end up paying for this and in more ways than one.

These children then predominately end up like their parents, on the benefits loads of kids and the cycle continues, so that's why I hold that view. I have seen it for myself, these children are playing in the streets at all hours of the night and are still babies depending on themselves.

reply to post by tinfoilman


But in your view from my understanding is that we are all commodities then?

My opinion is not mainly to do with "Population Control" and more to do with the rights of the child and to stop unwanted pregnancies, abortions etc. In my view at least every child born into this world if this was ever to be the case would be a wanted and loved child.

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by PW229

 

The headline was a bit Harsh and was misconstrued into meaning a permanent sterilisation which is not what i meant at all, i was meaning "Birth Control" and something that could be undone at a later date.

With regards to having something forced on you, we already have vaccinations and woman taking the pill for birth control so not much different really, what I am saying is that this long term "Birth Control" (if it even exists) should be given to young people to stop unwanted births etc thus reducing abortions etc etc

Well that is far less extreme then your opening post and I will humbly apologise if I came off a bit "strong."

There is indeed a long term birth control method that a friend of mine uses. It's an implant put in the arm and last for up to 3 years. However, there have been some problems with it and I most certainly would not advocate it's use in a young woman aged 12.

I acknowledge there is a problem with teen pregnancy. It is a worldwide problem and it's solutions can be very emotive. Education is the key IMHO.

You must understand that your opening post was suggesting something that was completely abhorrent and would have no place in civilised society. My responses are based on my utter disgust at the suggestions you hinted at. Also please bear in mind it is nothing personal, I simply disagree with your views.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Eugenics
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

Nothing about eugenics at all, if you would like to read what I written. I do not believe I have once said anything to do eugenics in this thread.

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Well if it's just about love everyone would probably want to have lots of kids to love. Usually if someone is talking about sterilization it's because of overpopulation and economic reasons.

reply to post by PW229


I totally agree with you and believe me, I am more than aware that even the amended headline would have a lot of people not agreeing with me. But I still stand by what i said in the fact that the reduction of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and children actually being bought into this world for love and not gain.

Thanks for your comments though, this was my first thread, ill take a little longer next time when writing the headline

reply to post by tinfoilman


I did use "Population Control" as a Pro to this discussion, but my main view is the unwanted children. I see it all the time here in the UK, you can see a mother with several kids in a shop shouting at the top of her lungs at her kids in front of everyone. And whilst I am sure that yes kids can be little gits and push the patience of a saint, does not mean a mother should be like that in such a public place and thus the reason I said we should have Child Care and Parenting Classes in our education system as part of the syllabus. I believe this is as important as Maths, Science and English lessons taught in school.

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Forced birth control certainly falls within the spectrum of eugenic techniques.

reply to post by FireDragonDan


I don't think because a mom yells at their kids in the store once that means the kids were "unwanted". My mom lost her crap and yelled at me in the store once or twice. That doesn't mean I was an unwanted child lol? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Nobody has to have an unwanted child. If they don't want a child they can use birth control or get an abortion. That's a far cry from forcing people to use birth control so they can't have a child that they DO WANT.

i believe the OP is meaning a REVERSIBLE type, and mentions a chemical form. the only thing is with all the controversy about medical drugs/ drug companies, would you really TRUST them that it would do no harm? even if the companies were trustworthy there is always some who it would have problems like it doing irreversible damage to their reproductive systems. just think you would end up dooming some to be "childless" due to it.

i remember in a sci-fi series book i read at least females had some sort of implant i think a physical block to the phelopian tubes or something, that could be removed when someone wanted to start having kids. don't know what they used for males.

i could understand if someone WANTED to have it done so they could have sex without worry. but NO WAY IN HELL should it be FORCED on people. we don't want to be like China where one needs "governmental approval to have kids, that is just WAY TOO MUCH POWER to put into the hands of government. it would become a TOOL TO CONTROL THE POPULACE. "i don't like your religion,race, eye colour, or anything at all", or even "you are too stupid or ugly" etc, so.........no kids allowed for you. it could even go as far as the government deciding on WHO should mate with who to get the most desirable offspring, or again........NO KIDS ALLOWED FOR YOU.

one thing i have heard from all my friends that have kids is something like "you really mature fast once you have a kid", or "you really don't grow up until you have a child to look after". i have to think that is correct considering most of my friends with kids are the mature ones (yes there are exceptions, notably the ones who don't live with or take care of their kids), while most of us that are single tend to still act and in a lot of ways think like teenagers (with over 20 years experience ). and lets face it since that seems to be the case then how would anyone "know" that couple X is mature enough to have kids, when most people mature AFTER they have kids.

oh and from stories i have heard and read for years, (and i would think that most wouldn't hit the news, so we only see a small percentage of it happening),12 years old is not YOUNG ENOUGH, you would have to have it done at SIX YEARS old for it to be effective as kids DO tend to EXPERIMENT especially when they have "sex education", and see the deed on tv and in movies which sparks their curiosity about it, while not understanding the consequences of it. heck it was just recently i read about a girl in Mexico who gave birth at 8 or 9 years old, yeah the guy was apparently older, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't have been say the same age or even a 10 year old (only 2 years older), and have the same thing happen. basically you would have to do it BEFORE PUBERTY STARTS, which hits kids at different ages but sometimes they are EXTREMELY YOUNG when it hits. i have a friend who's daughter stated menstruateing at SEVEN YEARS old, that means she could get pregnant at that point.