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.
I'm a fencesitter who's leaning more and more towards staying child-free for the long-haul. I've never particularly liked being around children (I actually prefer animals to them, but that's not saying much since I prefer animals to most people) and I don't understand the 'ticking biological clock' phenomenon. The only reason I'm a fencesitter is because I can't say, without a doubt, that I'll never want to have a child. Of course, that could change any day now.
I have no children, never wanted any. Hubby is the same way. We dearly love our two labs. I agree with you about animals. Our entire estate will go to animal shelters and spay/neuter programs.
They are my only charity.
I vote no because we have a population problem in this world and I do my best part and have no children. They say that we can not provide for the feature of children and that to many people are still having these children. I think it is a good idea to have restriction on allowed child maybe one for every couple. I think some other countrys are doing the same thing and it is better for the world.
I have no children, never wanted any. Hubby is the same way. We dearly love our two labs. I agree with you about animals. Our entire estate will go to animal shelters and spay/neuter programs.
They are my only charity.
I have a dog, and she is my kid. Some people think that I am a little nuts because I treat her as I would a child. She's the only thing I have. She was adopted, and I am proud of being the mommy that loves her and treats her right.
I don't feel that I have the patience for a child. I love my younger relatives and my friends kids. That's good enough for me for right now.
...we have a population problem...I think it is a good idea to have restriction on allowed child..
In the near future, people will not be allowed to breed without a license. This has long been the plan of the controlling elite and is based, in part, on the Eugenics programs of the 1920s and 1930s. Implementation procedures are already in place.
It will not be imposed immediately by voting in one group or another, but will be gradually introduced and approved by the citizens as they become mired in the hopelessness of overpopulation and it's associated shortages of food, water, and clean air.
Here are a few of the principles on which the program will be based.
The first, and most obvious is birth quotas. Potential breeders will have to apply and wait until an opening comes up. This will depend on the death rate, but that can be easily manipulated, as it always has, by war and other acts of genocide.
To obtain a breeding license, the couple will be required to pass genetic screening to insure that they do not perpetuate genetic defects or diseases.
They will also have to pass IQ tests, be educated, gainfully employed, and possess the racial characteristics deemed desirable to keep the ethnic composition of the country within the socially defined limits of balance.
A non approved pregnancy will be terminated and the offending couple permanently sterilized along with those who fail the genetic screening.
Of course any government run program is subject to graft, corruption, and inefficiency, and that remains one of the main weakness of the program. As soon as the ongoing research is completed which will enable the temporary, reversible sterilization of children, the program will advance to the next step which will involve intentional manipulation of the food and water supply, in much the same way that the fuel, energy, and housing is currently being manipulated.
In the near future, people will not be allowed to breed without a license. This has long been the plan of the controlling elite and is based, in part, on the Eugenics programs of the 1920s and 1930s. Implementation procedures are already in place.
It will not be imposed immediately by voting in one group or another, but will be gradually introduced and approved by the citizens as they become mired in the hopelessness of overpopulation and it's associated shortages of food, water, and clean air.
Here are a few of the principles on which the program will be based.
The first, and most obvious is birth quotas. Potential breeders will have to apply and wait until an opening comes up. This will depend on the death rate, but that can be easily manipulated, as it always has, by war and other acts of genocide.
To obtain a breeding license, the couple will be required to pass genetic screening to insure that they do not perpetuate genetic defects or diseases.
They will also have to pass IQ tests, be educated, gainfully employed, and possess the racial characteristics deemed desirable to keep the ethnic composition of the country within the socially defined limits of balance.
A non approved pregnancy will be terminated and the offending couple permanently sterilized along with those who fail the genetic screening.
Of course any government run program is subject to graft, corruption, and inefficiency, and that remains one of the main weakness of the program. As soon as the ongoing research is completed which will enable the temporary, reversible sterilization of children, the program will advance to the next step which will involve intentional manipulation of the food and water supply, in much the same way that the fuel, energy, and housing is currently being manipulated.
Well there! I would not have been aloud to breed anyway!
I think it is a good idea to have restriction on allowed child maybe one for every couple.
Are you really suggesting that the United States adopt a China type policy?
Let me ask you bluntly: Assuming you do really believe that the US should mandate only one child per couple - how would you enforce such a thing? And, what penalties would you prescribe if a couple violated the policy?
Are you really suggesting that the United States adopt a China type policy?
Let me ask you bluntly: Assuming you do really believe that the US should mandate only one child per couple - how would you enforce such a thing? And, what penalties would you prescribe if a couple violated the policy?
Not the person that wrote the original quote, but what I believe is that no one should tell you how many kids you are allowed to have BUT, I think there ought to be a cap on the number of kids you can get tax benies for. I just don't believe the country ought to give you write off's or any extra money just to have kids. Have 2 kids or 20 but the costs to raise said kids will be the responsibility of the parents and not the government. Can't afford them, don't have them.
...I think there ought to be a cap on the number of kids you can get tax benies for. I just don't believe the country ought to give you write off's or any extra money just to have kids.
I agree that doesn't make sense. It should be just the opposite, the more kids you have the more taxes you should pay.
The larger you family, the more resources you consume so you should pay more, not less.
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.
