Would You Support Strict Government Human Population Control To Prevent Bad Parents?
Options
Plutarch
Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’m a strong believer in freedom and liberty, but I also strongly believe that a big central part of the reason for many of the severe problems in American society (such as gangs, high murder rate, and even your everyday acts of stupidity) originates with bad parenting (that and poor education): Parents, for whatever reason, who fail at raising their kids right. It may be a stretch to say this, but some, if not most, of the children of these parents grow up to have serious problems. And these problems will most likely spill over to “innocent” people. I’m going to guess and say that most serial killers had bad parents, so you can’t deny that the murders that they commit are partly caused by bad parenting. I do know that a lot of gangbangers never had good parents, or at least a good father, and that’s part of the reason why they accepted a different family/gang. Then you have parents that are way too young and immature to raise kids because they themselves are kids. And you also have couples (especially immigrants) who have 50 kids when the economy’s bad. And they never even give a thought about how much it will cost to send those kids to college. And don’t get me started on the Octomoms out there.
We need to put bad parents on blast, but you very well know that the last thing that a bad parent is going to do is admit that he or she is a bad parent. So why not skip the ? and have the government administer mandatory contraception, abortion, and sterilization? And mandatory child services checkups? Wouldn’t that better society as a whole? To be honest, all this sounds terrible to me and I don’t fully support it, but it’s something to think about right?
We need to put bad parents on blast, but you very well know that the last thing that a bad parent is going to do is admit that he or she is a bad parent. So why not skip the ? and have the government administer mandatory contraception, abortion, and sterilization? And mandatory child services checkups? Wouldn’t that better society as a whole? To be honest, all this sounds terrible to me and I don’t fully support it, but it’s something to think about right?
Comments
-
nope dont agree at all
-
They had something like this in North Carolina for a while, but it seems like people are really mad over it.
If it saves money, I see nothing wrong with it. -
I wouldn't support this. The last thing we need in this country is for the government to control more aspects of our lives than they do now.
The government itself would not support this action either and I will outline why.
1. The American prison system thrives off of the underclass. Without the poor and uneducated the system would lose a ton of money and because the prison system is tied directly to the judicial branch of government judges at the top would feel the pinch the same as the correctional officer at the bottom. The American government needs criminals to survive, hell the system manufactures criminals. The low life's of society equal a paycheck for someone.
2. If you eliminated the uneducated lower class you would have a populace intelligent enough to recognize that the government is ? them over and they would be smart enough to change things. The reason government is able to take advantage of people now is simply because the majority are condition to trust and believe in the government even if it is failing them. This means voting for candidates that do not represents their interests and voting for legislation that either infringes on their rights or the rights of others. For example the bible belt states. These people are generally uneducated gumps who vote for their candidates based on "christian values" and not the actual issues. It's the same for a lot of Black Americans who voted for Obama solely on color alone. Keep the simple folk arguing amongst each other and you can ? them all over.
3. Poor and uneducated people spend money. This is a capitalistic society and when you mix that with ? people it equals more money for those on top. Take a look at how many government officials have ties to big business and you will understand further why the government doesn't want an educated populace. -
I guess I have no room to speak, I'm 24 with 4 kids but I think there should be a two kid limit. Now I can't (I could I guess) really control whether or not pregnancy happens, at least 100%.
I think if we're at the point of using up all resources (which we are or will be soon), over populated, using up too much money, there needs to be a two kid limit. By that, I mean after the second birth, the woman is automatically 'fixed/tied'.
Now like I said, I know I'm not one to speak with 4 kids but that's what I think should happen if they were to control population. -
redhandedbandit wrote: »nope dont agree at all
care to explain why? -
fiat_money wrote: »They had something like this in North Carolina for a while, but it seems like people are really mad over it.
Yeah, that's understandable. Americans do not like it when the government gets into their business/freedoms.fiat_money wrote: »If it saves money, I see nothing wrong with it.
That's a good point, especially in this economy? -
I totally agree with you. So many trajedies today could I am sure be related back to people being abused and neglected as kids. The only problem with government mandating parenting is how to set up particular laws. Like 1) IF your child is in a gang then the parents get arrested? for example. I think a better way to do it is to have a law that all people that have a child must take financing, budgeting, how to care for babies and children, etc. Maybe that would help.
-
CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »I wouldn't support this. The last thing we need in this country is for the government to control more aspects of our lives than they do now.
Fair point.CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »The government itself would not support this action either and I will outline why.
1. The American prison system thrives off of the underclass. Without the poor and uneducated the system would lose a ton of money and because the prison system is tied directly to the judicial branch of government judges at the top would feel the pinch the same as the correctional officer at the bottom. The American government needs criminals to survive, hell the system manufactures criminals. The low life's of society equal a paycheck for someone.
I don’t think that I fully understand you. I don’t directly see how population control to keep bad parents from reproducing irresponsibly would necessarily and suddenly make the poor and uneducated disappear. They will still exist to be exploited regardless right? I do however see the population of the poor, criminal, and uneducated decreasing in number, which I think is what you implied. But decrease by how much? I don’t really know. With that being said, is it safe to assume that you would rather have the government exploiting the underclass than have the government control our lives when it comes to population control? No disrespect, just an honest question.CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »2. If you eliminated the uneducated lower class you would have a populace intelligent enough to recognize that the government is ? them over and they would be smart enough to change things. The reason government is able to take advantage of people now is simply because the majority are condition to trust and believe in the government even if it is failing them. This means voting for candidates that do not represents their interests and voting for legislation that either infringes on their rights or the rights of others. For example the bible belt states. These people are generally uneducated gumps who vote for their candidates based on "christian values" and not the actual issues. It's the same for a lot of Black Americans who voted for Obama solely on color alone. Keep the simple folk arguing amongst each other and you can ? them all over.
Forgive me, but I’m still having a hard time with the idea that population control that we are talking about would eliminate the uneducated lower class.
I agree that conquer and divide is very much prevalent in the U.S. But I somewhat disagree that if the “uneducated” class was eliminated (and in my opinion, that’s a very large percent of the population that we are talking about) then the people would rise up and make change happen. The “elite” still have a considerate amount of power, and the non-elite are not very different from them. The non-elite also exploits and craves power. I don’t think that they would suddenly have a change of heart and advocate peace and love. It will be one hegemony replaced by a another similar one imo.CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »3. Poor and uneducated people spend money. This is a capitalistic society and when you mix that with ? people it equals more money for those on top. Take a look at how many government officials have ties to big business and you will understand further why the government doesn't want an educated populace.
I’m well aware of this, believe me. I can see our economy hurting with a decreased population, especially with a decrease in ? . If that’s your point, I see it. But I’m still not sure if the uneducated masses will necessarily be specifically wiped out by the kind of population control that we are talking about. Bad parents and bad children isn’t necessarily the same as poor, criminal, and uneducated people. There are rich but vain, educated but incredibly busy, and professional but shady parents who are just as bad. Right? -
I guess I have no room to speak, I'm 24 with 4 kids but I think there should be a two kid limit. Now I can't (I could I guess) really control whether or not pregnancy happens, at least 100%.
Yes not 100%, but I have read that various contraceptive methods can very well have a more than 90% success rate when used correctly.I think if we're at the point of using up all resources (which we are or will be soon), over populated, using up too much money, there needs to be a two kid limit. By that, I mean after the second birth, the woman is automatically 'fixed/tied'.
I'm not sure about this. But if what you said is true, something definitely needs to be done. I was just talking about preventing bad parents from having kids. Preventing allparents from having no more than 2 kids is soemthing else. Maybe there's a better alternative?Now like I said, I know I'm not one to speak with 4 kids but that's what I think should happen if they were to control population.
No, that's fair. It doesn't matter how many kids you have, especially if you're a good parent, what's true is true regardless. The worst you can be is a hypocrite but that doesn't change the fact that what you say may still be true. -
No. The reason being is bad parenting is subjective. Obviously most would say the following examples are classic bad parenting traits i.e. extreme emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
Yes exactly, that coudl be a problem. But like you said, there are obvious signs. Why not just leave the less obvious signs alone and focus on the obivous ones?However from there it gets murky. What if the head of this government program considers not being a religious person bad parenting? Or if, as a parent, you have legitimate reasons not to allow your child/children to get vaccinated that would be considered a case of bad parenting. What if they thought home schooling was bad parenting? You get my gist.
Yes very fair points. But what if the government left those murky examples alone? Could you still support it?While I detest women like Octomom and in my head the idea of sterilization is perfect for people like that, I hope I never see the government involved in choosing who to sterilize. Again, it's a case of thinking about who will be the people wielding that authority. At first it might be a case of weeding out the Octomoms of the world but then it might be poor people, less intelligent people, black people and the list goes on...
Well, you've convinced me there. I can't argue against that at all.I would, however, like there to be more funding in social services and therefore more social workers checking up on vulnerable children but there is much money to be made for keep children safe so hey, let the children suffer!
???????? -
Sorry Plutarch, I was under the assumption that this population control would automatically include some type of stipulations such as I.Q.testing. I couldn't see the government limiting anyone's right to reproduce without establishing a criteria. I actually don't like to see anyone exploited by the government, I was only pointing out some of the ways it is done.
I do think if it ever gets to a point where the government is going to control population it will be done similar to A BRAVE NEW WORLD where people will be bred, when you look at what is being done now as far as gender selection and testing for genetic precursors it isn't hard to believe these types of measures could be taken. -
Well my question is what is your true definition of bad parenting? Cause actually a bad parent to me is a parent that make bad choices to have sex unmarried and not follow the laws of ? . I see bad parenting as not having family time and the mother and father not taking their proper roles in the home and just shipping their kids off to school everyday to learn about a history that's not even theirs and not even learning about who they are and where they came from. Bad parenting just do not revolve around the kids in gangs and drugs, etc and the obvious. And another question? are you a parent? do you do what you are suppose to do? Are you living with person or married to person you have a child with...start with you and see the changes you make with your family (if you have one)
-
Mandatory murder! Yep sounds just like the direction this world is headed to. The Georgia guide stones tell it in secular language. The book of Revelation tells it in spiritual language.
-
That would never work, bad parenting is subjective.
-
WHY is it the governments job to take care of some people from cradle to grave? -- especially those who abuse the system. There used to be this one individual on this site who boasted about pimpin' the system for everything he could get...and then some wonder why the government is broke. I CAN'T stand these ? who don't contribute to the system and then yell-out ? like this; this ? owes me (Uncle Sam/Sugar) on and on and on and on.
same could be said about corporations who abuse the system...majority of people who use social services are on them then get off them -
no, terrible idea.
I understand your concern about bad parents but, A governmental mandate for abortion, contraception and forced sterilization is never a good idea. Thats actually criminal in my book. Also, those initiatives are presumptuous which would assume that a particular person will automatically be a bad parent... guilty until proven innocent. -
No I'm more in the antiMalthusian camp. Population control has a lot of unintended consequences, including gendercide, and dangerous demographic gaps.
-
I’m a strong believer in freedom and liberty, but I also strongly believe that a big central part of the reason for many of the severe problems in American society (such as gangs, high murder rate, and even your everyday acts of stupidity) originates with bad parenting (that and poor education): Parents, for whatever reason, who fail at raising their kids right. It may be a stretch to say this, but some, if not most, of the children of these parents grow up to have serious problems. And these problems will most likely spill over to “innocent” people. I’m going to guess and say that most serial killers had bad parents, so you can’t deny that the murders that they commit are partly caused by bad parenting. I do know that a lot of gangbangers never had good parents, or at least a good father, and that’s part of the reason why they accepted a different family/gang. Then you have parents that are way too young and immature to raise kids because they themselves are kids. And you also have couples (especially immigrants) who have 50 kids when the economy’s bad. And they never even give a thought about how much it will cost to send those kids to college. And don’t get me started on the Octomoms out there.
We need to put bad parents on blast, but you very well know that the last thing that a bad parent is going to do is admit that he or she is a bad parent. So why not skip the ? and have the government administer mandatory contraception, abortion, and sterilization? And mandatory child services checkups? Wouldn’t that better society as a whole? To be honest, all this sounds terrible to me and I don’t fully support it, but it’s something to think about right?
gotta disagree .... gangs, high murder rate, and even your everyday acts of stupidity are prevalent in impoverished communities everywhere....
poverty and social immobility are symptoms of a failed state
institutionalized racism, our failing school system, the lack of jobs, bad policies ( the war on drugs), globalization, corrupt politicians are the reasons why america is in so much trouble....
these "bad" parents are victims, products of their environment....
and what makes a parent "bad"? -
You about 6 millinieums too late
-
I totally agree with you. So many trajedies today could I am sure be related back to people being abused and neglected as kids. The only problem with government mandating parenting is how to set up particular laws. Like 1) IF your child is in a gang then the parents get arrested? for example. I think a better way to do it is to have a law that all people that have a child must take financing, budgeting, how to care for babies and children, etc. Maybe that would help.
Yeah, I think that that is a much better idea. -
CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »Sorry Plutarch, I was under the assumption that this population control would automatically include some type of stipulations such as I.Q.testing. I couldn't see the government limiting anyone's right to reproduce without establishing a criteria. I actually don't like to see anyone exploited by the government, I was only pointing out some of the ways it is done.
No problem man. But yeah, that's very fair. I agree, government exploitation is never a good thing.CPTJamesT.Lurk wrote: »I do think if it ever gets to a point where the government is going to control population it will be done similar to A BRAVE NEW WORLD where people will be bred, when you look at what is being done now as far as gender selection and testing for genetic precursors it isn't hard to believe these types of measures could be taken.
I cannot doubt you for one second there. Sadly enough, the signs are pretty obvious today. BRAVE NEW WORLD was/is so scary... -
kheiyah4life wrote: »Well my question is what is your true definition of bad parenting?
Yes, a very necessary yet difficult question. Generalwise, I would have to say that my true definition of bad parenting is parenting that neglects or fails to "educate" the child or children about life and the world in general such as responsibility for various things, respect for various things (including the law, other people, etc), the importance of education (to combat ignorance such as racism and sexism), etc. Now that's probably a bad and subjective (though I wouldnt say too subjective because I always try to be as unbiased as possible) definition, so I see your point if you have a problem with it. But I think that older people go through life experiences and they make bad choices. Well, it's these bad choices that need to be taught to their children so that those children don't make the same mistakes and so that they live a better life for themselves and everyone else. If that makes sense. It's like when a boy doesn't have father figure in his life so he ends up doing dumb stuff. But later, that same boy grows up to be a man and a father, but he himself isn't around for his son so he ends up doing to his son the same things his father did to him, which was not being there for your child. If that makes any sense.kheiyah4life wrote: »Cause actually a bad parent to me is a parent that make bad choices to have sex unmarried and not follow the laws of ? . I see bad parenting as not having family time and the mother and father not taking their proper roles in the home and just shipping their kids off to school everyday to learn about a history that's not even theirs and not even learning about who they are and where they came from.
Yes, you and I have somewhat different notions on what bad parenting is. Even though I don't agree with your notion about fornication and the laws of ? , I respect that and agree with your notion about taking proper roles and having a vested interest in your children.kheiyah4life wrote: »Bad parenting just do not revolve around the kids in gangs and drugs, etc and the obvious.
I'm well aware of this. Did I give you the impression that I thought that bad parenting revolves around the kids in gangs and doing drugs? I was just using those instances as mere examples. Obviously, there are many more other example to be named.kheiyah4life wrote: »And another question? are you a parent? do you do what you are suppose to do? Are you living with person or married to person you have a child with...start with you and see the changes you make with your family (if you have one)
I honestly think that these questions as largely irrelevant to the main argument. But even if I was a parent that didn't practice what I preach, that would only make me a hypocrite. That wouldn't necessarily prove that what I was saying was false.
But no, I am not a parent. If I was, I would certainly, or at the least try to, practice what I preach not because I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite but because I genuinely believe in what I was saying as truthful and progressive. If was a parent, I would want to be married to the person whom I would have a child with. I wouldn't want to have a child with someone I am not married to (or in "true" love with) because that could be irresponsible and many many problems/drama can arise in such a situation. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Mandatory murder! Yep sounds just like the direction this world is headed to. The Georgia guide stones tell it in secular language. The book of Revelation tells it in spiritual language.
I respect you as my Christian brother (that is, if you are not a gimmick/troll), but sometimes you are just over the top.
Though you could be making a fair argument. But I don't see contraception and sterilization as murder. How are you defining "murder"?
Now abortion? I'd rather not get into that argument. There's no clear cut answer to that at all. Though, I would agree that in some cases, abortion is basically terminating the life of a baby that would otherwise have a life. If you call that murder (I however might use a more accurate and less charged term), then yes I agree with you in that regard. -
-
My last point was sarcasm!
Lol, I thought so, but I thought I saw a typo in there somewhere that threw me off. I must've been tripping.It just seems to me that the government always has money for the army but never for social services. You'd think that because this involves the lives of citizens they'd fund social services more but alas....
I've been saying this for the longest. This forever reminds me of a 2pac line: "we got money for wars, but cant feed the poor". I'm beginning to think more and more that the U.S. needs to adminster a self imposed isolationist foreign policy. How can we spend billions on foreign wars (most of them unecessary) and not spend it on the domestic wars that go on at home? Seems criminal and idiotic to me.
