8 percent of over 1 and a quarter billion is still a HELL of a lot of people,
i read an article, couple months back about a boy who was living with his grandfather in the poor chinese countryside and he had no money but the boy drank a fertilizer thinking it was coke, and his grandfather took him to the hospital but could not pay the cover so they kicked him out without giving this 8 year old boy treatment, and by the time the grandfather was able to scrounge up enough money to pay for the boy to get treatment, the boy died, and that could have been prevented.

That just kinda represents both Poverty and Human rights.

 

i never said he was up for adoption. i said i'd gladly give him a chance at a better life. no one knows anything but what was posted. judgements were made off the information that was given. you, are definately guilty of making judgments of other people's lives, after knowing nothing about them.

 

If you look back, I never even came close to endorsing forced sterilization.

But if you really want to know from whence China has come, you only have to look back at the so-called "Cultural Revolution". And before that, you can go back to the warlord era in the twenties. China has introduced reforms that bring it much closer to a market-based economy, and for good or ill, it's becoming a much more open, westernized society. Yes, progress is still needed on the human rights front...but let's not forget how bad things used to be.

 

And a lot less then 53% of the whatever the population was twenty years ago.

Just to remind people of a bit of fairly recent history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

 

Sterilization isn't enough, how about euthanasia?

 

Okay, I'm going to have to break this up in to chunks. There's a lot to reply to.

To you smcaa, no hard feelings. That wasn't a post for a pity party and I'm not upset in the slightest, just letting you know I've been at the bottom and I can honestly speak about what it's like from that vantage. Now to the actual guts of your post.

I said above, this plan is not a plan of eugenics and none of the sterilizations would be permanent. And obviously this is not a system that would go in place tomorrow. Many other parts of our society would have to be retooled in order for this to work. One would be making sure no one was above the law. No Bush-like exemptions because daddy was connected. Do I think this is likely? Not really. But the entire thread is a big hypothetical and the discussion wasn't so much about who would try to get out of it, more the ethical question of should it be done at all. You're points are legitimate if one day people really do want to implement something like this.

No worries, it is what it is. I made peace with my past a long time ago. And, as I was just explaining to someone in a PM, it's not a sob story, it's just my story. Many people are worse off than I was.

Thanks. It's not a one-up, kinda thing, although I did grin quietly whenever baller tried to convince everyone that no one else knows poverty and abuse but him.

-S-

 

My definition of socialism is straight out of Merriam-Webster

 

My problem with zero population growth advocates is that they in favor of everyone but them not having kids.

It also matters little what the UK and US do, the global growth is in the areas where apparently it can least support it: i.e.: China, India, Mid and South Africa.

 

I should add that I put this in after just reading the OP. It seems entirely out of place where it is in the discussion.

 

This first part is contradictory (my plan would deal with that). You say if you if one is not able to support a child, one should not have a child. Here we agree. Then you say it's one's natural right to have a child (you never did define natural right, by the way). So your solution is to basically wag your finger in a stern manner and tell people who would otherwise be unfit and say 'you know, you really shouldn't have kids....' And in nature, organisms who are unfit to breed can not attract mates and therefore don't breed. So, using your loosely to non-defined term of natural rights, it isn't. You have to earn the right to procreate, even in nature. So it would appear that procreation is not a natural right.

You're not listening again. I said above to Lioness that beliefs are not a determining factor and that this would not prevent human stupidity. If the Neo-Nazi has a job and can financially support the child, has say one year drug free and one or two years without a felony conviction, then he would have a kid too.

If I were asked honestly if my mother should have aborted me, I would have to say yes. She should not have been a mother. Yes, that would mean Leila and I would not be together, BabyShake would not be around and all of you here would not have the pleasure of my keen insight and intelligence, but it doesn't change the fact that she was a bad mother. She made attempts at times, but she can barely take care of herself and she definitely should not have had six kids, of which I am the oldest.

The state makes attempts to control what we do with our bodies all the time. For instance, can you go out to the local grocery store and pick up a pack of Jamaica's finest Purple Haze? Suicide is illegal most places you go, etc.

Now, stumbler...

Dude, you make me tired.

Once again, this is not a fix for human stupidity. I've already explained this. People are so emotional on this issue that they keep ignoring what I say. If you have your kids and after their born you loose our job, whatever, then you aren't punished, unless the state has to come in and remove your kids from your care. Then you would be put back on sterilization for the probationary period. If the state has to take away your kids then you're unfit and you definitely should not be having more in the mean time. After the probationary period is over and you're back on your feet, the state can return your kids to you and you can have more if you want.

See my comment to smcaap.

This is also not a cure-all. This will not solve all the worlds problems, it's just one measure to deal with one aspect of our society.

You can fuck up as much as you can until you kill yourself, but because you have a dick shouldn't give you the right to fuck up a new life as well. Parenthood should not be one of those things that fuck ups fuck up in to. We should not be simply crossing our fingers that those least able to protect themselves are left at the mercy of people the least able to care for them.

Yet it happens over and over again.

All emotional responses. And you're ignoring AGAIN what I said about who would decide the criteria. The same people who decide who removes kids from unfit parents. The guidelines are already in place. And this would have to be applied to all people from all walks of life, rich and poor, in order to be effective. Not likely, I know, but I've ALREADY SAID THAT!

No, they weren't. The unhappy one was the main character, can't think of his name, who was raised among the savages in the desert and then transplanted in to the utopian part of the society. Everyone was happy and pleased with their lot. There was no war, no poverty, no hunger. The only place that existed was with the people who had rejected the changes and now lived a tibal existence in the deserts of the American Southwest.

-S-

 

Yeah, I figured that.

-S-

 

It's more fun to see you rant at others.

 

Now you read what i said, i said unless it is to cause harm to yourself or others. Weed is illegal for imparing judgement and it could cause harm to yourself or others, Suicide is illegal because it causes harm to yourself.

 

Here's what I see Bella and you just did it again. You'd gladly give the kid a chance at a better life? What makes you think the kid needs a better life? Simply because his folks made the local paper over a stupid argument.

How do you feel about the people who believe they can give your child a better chance at life because after all you post pictures on a porn forum?

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you did endorse forced sterilization. I was just trying to point out I agree with population control just not through using some vague moral and financial standard to force people to be sterilized.

 

Basically what it all comes down to shake, is you are trying to play god. you who disagrees with the all mighty chooser, want to be able to say who should be able to have kids and who shouldn't. This is where religions come from.

 

And a drug addict is a harm to others.

-S-

 

No it's not. It's making people earn the right to be parents, just as happens in nature.

-S-

 

In nature. mates are chosen as who has the better qualities, human society works different, you can't make a law and call that nature, you are not father nature, people earn there right to be parents in different ways in human society.

 

Way to back pedal. You call procreation a 'natural right' and point to animals, then say humans are animals and now say we are different. You really need to make up your mind.

Oh, and in small tribal societies men still compete for mates.

-S-

 

do me a favor, and put me on ignore? or stop reading into my posts. i said the same thing everyone else said. that's ridiculous that those parents are arguing over what GANG their FOUR year old should belong to. that's horrifying. and YES, i said i'd gladly adopt him. why? because i lost a child for no reason, and it pisses me off that drug addicted mothers and gang members get to have kids, but people that really, really want them, can't. so if you can't raise them, then give them to parents who can. my post meant nothing more. it was an OPINION.

p.s, if you have something against naked women, you are on the wrong forum. i post clothed pics, there's no nude. once again, you're judging me, which is something you've apologized twice for in the past. me being on here (aren't you a parent too, along with half the forum??) has nothing to do with my kid, or my parenting skills. go say the same thing to piggit... she posts pics too. you judging her?