Should reproduction be a privilege?

Should reproduction be a privilege?

  • Yes; some people should not be allowed to spawn

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • No, everybody should be able to spawn

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Only people who can afford children should spawn

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Only people who have certain genetic qualities should spawn

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
Big Money said:
Is that a "yes"?
Click to expand...

Did you miss this?

gnRDn.gif
 
eliminate welfare for children and see how quickly girls legs get crossed. make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard.
 
christiefan915 said:
I support their mission to provide reproductive and other services. I commend Sanger for the work she did to help protect women's health. Couples could decide in advance on family size and not leave everything to luck.

I never agreed with her wacko stance on eugenics which as you know was a position also held by a number of prominent people in those days. Churchill, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes, to name a few.
Click to expand...
So you support wanton promiscuity and the wanton murder of unborn children to the tune of 1.5 million every year.
 
Celticguy said:
eliminate welfare for children and see how quickly girls legs get crossed. make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard.
Click to expand...

The wrong things are getting hard now, aren't they?

Wouldn't mandated sterilization of those incapable of providing for a child solve a lot of problems?
 
Big Money said:
The wrong things are getting hard now, aren't they?

Wouldn't mandated sterilization of those incapable of providing for a child solve a lot of problems?
Click to expand...
I suppose it might in much the same way euthanasia of people who take ill would. Or had defects, or disagree with the government...

Its a rather slippery slope and one that hasnt turned out well when tried in some form. The government is simply been proven to be a poor judge of what is beneficial much less right.
 
Celticguy said:
I suppose it might in much the same way euthanasia of people who take ill would. Or had defects, or disagree with the government...Its a rather slippery slope and one that hasnt turned out well when tried in some form. The government is simply been proven to be a poor judge of what is beneficial much less right.
Click to expand...

The government already sanctions birth control.


Just imagine a world with fewer people competing for scare resources...increasing the odds that a child is wanted and nurtured by people who had to actually meet standards to become parents...wouldn't this led to lower rates of crime, poverty, hunger, and disease?
 
Big Money said:
The government already sanctions birth control.


Just imagine a world with fewer people competing for scare resources...increasing the odds that a child is wanted and nurtured by people who had to actually meet standards to become parents...wouldn't this led to lower rates of crime, poverty, hunger, and disease?
Click to expand...
Actually no. Has PRC made a dent in its massive population with its one child rule ? Its also going to be impossible to shrink the global population fast enough to stop the natiral culling thats coming with the food supply going away and clean water as well.
Does it make sense in theory ? Sure, but in practice you cant ignore all the other causes of these things.
And regarding the curious statement regarding government sanctioning of birth control, surely you understand that there is a difference between voluntary control and involuntary, invasive physical alteration of people's bodies.
It will all sort itself out when the food and water are gone. Look at the math, its sure as sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top