Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
It ain't the door that we worry about!
:-)
I guess if I really had to be King or The Lord and fix this (IF it was truly deemed to be a problem...I'd have to study that for years as I don't take "common knowledge as being common"), I'd do something like this:
People are gonna jump on me for this one!
Ok, so we invest a couple billion in an instant on/off snip precedure - maybe a laser activated or de-activated, maybe a "value" implant (small chip), etc.
EVERY male who cannot somehow get bonded or insured for "damages done" (non-payment of support, etc.) gets the snip after puberty, but only after a couple samples of their sperm are collected and frozen. This is "insurance"...and, in fact, may be the preferred method in the future of reproduction.
Now everyone goes out and has fun.
Should said male wish to have bio children, contracts are signed (marriage is one such contract, so there is precedent) and the preserved sperm can be used OR the procedure can be reversed temporarily.
Note that young sperm has better babies, so even said male older than 35 would have benefits by using the frozen. There is quite a bit of evidence showing that many problems may be related to older sperm (older aged men).....
Women, of course, have some similar options but the fact is that those BC options are pretty heavy drugs or surgery.
Of course, none of this will ever happen and I am not convinced the USA is over-populated. What I am convinced of is that each of us in the USA takes up too much "room" and we need to make our society more efficient and productive to forge ahead with good results.
That's progressive, I guess.
Along with all of this is REAL education. I wept when GWB and his henchmen said that abstinence works and that was all they were going to fund.
I don't think the US Constitution establishes the Right to Reproduce to any level.....we already regulate many things that people themselves are too irresponsible to self-regulate.
Obviously this is complete fantasy (above)...but the real fact is that we won't solve new problems using old methods. Sex for recreation by ALL the masses is a relatively new thing (at this level)....and we need to recognize it for what it is is...fun, not reproduction.
One-day this may be the least of our worries ... there is a reason the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply ...
"Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved and globally the average woman has fewer than 2.5 children today.
<snip>
The population of a society does not increase when every woman is replaced on average by two children."
Just saying ...
Quote:
Of course, none of this will ever happen and I am not convinced the USA is over-populated.
The u.s. is holding its own because of the population from migrants, but, they too are not procreating either ... so there's that.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Here's where you go wrong. Women aren't being forced to have unprotected sex unless it's rape. Where is the responsibility of the woman? She knows how pregnancy occurs and it's her body that gets impregnated via sex not the man so above all it should be she that takes the most precautions to see that it doesn't happen if she doesn't want to get pregnant. I'm not scapegoating the man but let's face it all of the above should be considered by the woman consenting to sex in the first place.
It takes two, to tango ... both are in it for the long hall, or none at all.
For all you nay sayers, the only reason you feel that it is your duty to stop and shame poor people from having a child to love, is TAXES ... and that is just wrong on so many levels I do not know where to start, except, that just because you are the slave to the system, same as them, does not give you the right to tell other slaves, how to live their lives.
Doing so will not ease your tax burden, knowing it is there, how about manage your funds better and leave others to do the same. It is not your personal responsibility to help the government masters conduct population control ...
Besides that, people who know better will not pay any attention to you anyway ... They live, they love and if having a child enhances their lives, that is all the better.
It's not wrong.
We're paying taxes, and we have every right to voice our opinions re tax expenditures.
What does or doesn't ease our tax burden is irrelevant.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Truth be told, this is what some people want. I don't think it's the right thing to do. And I don't think it would work. The poor have had higher birth rates than middle class and wealthy people before any kind of welfare state existed. Some women have a bunch of kids because they can. There are many cases where they have a kid hoping said kid will become an athlete and take care of them. Derrick Rose was interviewed after getting a contract with the Chicago Bulls. The way he spoke about his mother, he felt like he had to be the man and take care of things because she didn't have a man to do those things. This is not to say that this mother had him hoping he would become an athlete. However, it does make me wonder about those who have children for the purpose of living off of them.
Thus the problem with the government welfare system as it was set up with the idea in mind that the children would carry the tax burden of their parents ... in other words, my children's taxes are paying for my SS retirement.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
For all you nay sayers, the only reason you feel that it is your duty to stop and shame poor people from having a child to love, is TAXES ... and that is just wrong on so many levels I do not know where to start, except, that just because you are the slave to the system, same as them, does not give you the right to tell other slaves, how to live their lives.
Doing so will not ease your tax burden, knowing it is there, how about manage your funds better and leave others to do the same. It is not your personal responsibility to help the government masters conduct population control ...
Besides that, people who know better will not pay any attention to you anyway ... They live, they love and if having a child enhances their lives, that is all the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH
It's not wrong.
We're paying taxes, and we have every right to voice our opinions re tax expenditures.
What does or doesn't ease our tax burden is irrelevant.
It's the only reason you're here is you think that some how a lower population will some how ease up your taxes, when in reality it will increase them.
"Although the practice is primarily associated with Nazi Germany, North Korea, and other oppressive regimes, the U.S. has had its share of forced sterilization laws that fit with the eugenic culture of the early 20th century."
"The Nazis, who sterilized hundreds of thousands before moving onto outright mass murder, used American eugenicist theory, such as it was, and practice as an excuse for their own."
"The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States."
Seems like alot of poor, single females are going from relationship to relationship having a baby as a trophy for each man and expecting hard-working Americans to pay every single penny for their massive housing vouchers, free utility bills, four-digit monthly food debit cards and respite daycare if they decide to make the welfare office happy by working in hour or two once in a while.
Sort of will be a crisis before long and will impact alot of different things next generation. There basically is huge segment of millennial women out there who are in poverty having baby after baby when they can't take of themselves and are clueless on how to raise a child even with a welfare bonanza from confiscated tax dollars.
The birth rates among poor women are absolutely stunning and I guarantee that it's going to have implications in 20 years when you have a tremendous amount of children growing up in absolutely horrid upbringings and then there is a large segment of middle and upper-middle class who skipped out on having children who have much more potential on average and would likely pay much more in taxes for the massive rise in retirees.
I admit it's a few years old but it's just incredible how millions and millions and millions of poor women babies each decade, one after another when they don't have the ability to take of themselves.
It's amazing how very low the birth rate has become for successful women who put in an honest 40 hours as opposed to those in poverty.
"Together, Figures F and G demonstrate that peer countries are much more likely than the United States to step in where markets and labor policy fail in order to lift their most disadvantaged citizens out of poverty."
Seems like alot of poor, single females are going from relationship to relationship having a baby as a trophy for each man and expecting hard-working Americans to pay every single penny for their massive housing vouchers, free utility bills, four-digit monthly food debit cards and respite daycare if they decide to make the welfare office happy by working in hour or two once in a while.
Sort of will be a crisis before long and will impact alot of different things next generation. There basically is huge segment of millennial women out there who are in poverty having baby after baby when they can't take of themselves and are clueless on how to raise a child even with a welfare bonanza from confiscated tax dollars.
The birth rates among poor women are absolutely stunning and I guarantee that it's going to have implications in 20 years when you have a tremendous amount of children growing up in absolutely horrid upbringings and then there is a large segment of middle and upper-middle class who skipped out on having children who have much more potential on average and would likely pay much more in taxes for the massive rise in retirees.
I admit it's a few years old but it's just incredible how millions and millions and millions of poor women babies each decade, one after another when they don't have the ability to take of themselves.
It's amazing how very low the birth rate has become for successful women who put in an honest 40 hours as opposed to those in poverty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not your personal responsibility to help the government masters conduct population control ...
