Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
Announcements and links |
| Henry Cavill Hayden Christensen Comics Continuum Doctor Who Online Ebay | Charlie Hunnam Outpost Gallifrey Anne Rice David Tennant Tenth Planet | |
| Welcome to The Garden District. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our fabulous features: |
| Breeding, Right or Privlege? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 23 2006, 03:14 AM (1,112 Views) | |
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 03:14 AM Post #1 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
The debate this week concerns breeding, should it be a right or should it be a privlege? "Be fruitful and multiply" so it says in the bible. But God was talking to Adam, not to rabbits. And in 2006, where the US population has hit the 300,000,000 mark, and where in China alone there are over a billion people, breeding along the line of rabbits, or cockroaches, has taken on burdens which I don't even think God anticipated. I think breeding is no longer a right. Not when so many people unfit for having children are having them. An unfit parent cannot instill the values and the proper skills a child needs to thrive in this chaotic world we live in. Young adults and teens in particular, with no proper sense of responsibility, are having children and become part of a growing cattle movement, where there is less innovation and all the more draining and droning stagnation intellectually, financially, and spiritually. Why have a child when you are going to struggle to support it? Why continue to have children when it will further strain the family from achieving its goals? Overpopation is placing a dire burden on this planet. More people means more shelter needs to be built, so down goes vital forests, stripped is vital land. More people means more food is needed to produced, down goes the quality of our food and water supply, up goes the rate of diseases and cancer as a result of it. More people means more resources, gas for cars, coal for fuel....we've seen the results of the greed which develops from the needs to control natural resources. The current Bush Regime is trying to create a monoply on its control of oil to support its interests and to profit from it, at the expense of human lives. Hell, the Republicans make anti-aboration one of their campaign themes not because of religion, but because they need to ensure future genetrations of puppet soliders for future wars! The time has come to set a limit I think, much like the Chinese do, but not like the way they do it. I've read horror stories of forces abortions and sterilizations from that country. I think we in the developed countries should start to impose a one child policy according to a nationalized scale of financial responsibility it would take to rear a child. That is, every couple who wants to have a child gets to have one provided they can support it according to the nationaled scale. The first child can be had for free with no restrictions, but every child after that there should be a fine and tax! The scale inself will not be too imposing, nor the fine and the tax, but the point would be that responsibility should be forefront when having children and if you are not responsible enough then you will pay for it. The fines and taxes will then be used in programs to assist what these children will need in life, like a national health care system for all children, proper education, etc. In short, having a child will then become a privlege rather than a right. As for third world nations, we can support them up to a point, but if they haven't realized by now that their continued breeding is wasteful when their children either die or grow up to be dirt poor with no future then that is their decision. There is plenty of wealth to spread and to inductrialize these nations, but they will have to learn responsibility as well. And I've always said ugly people shouldn't breed but I don't really mean it, that is too close to the Nazi type of thinking in terms of eugenics. Anyhow, that is my topic for this week, debate away. |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Oct 23 2006, 11:57 AM Post #2 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
A very good arguement, Jesse san, but I think imposing breeding rights in the US wouldnt make too much of a difference, worldwide because we are only one country. I know that China and India have been doing it for a while, but how much of a difference is it making when both countries already have over a billion people? Personally, I dont see how that can truely be controlled. I think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to do. I do think that overpopulation of the planet is a huge concern, and a growing problem. But I dont think your rights to breed should be taken away either. What should happen in this country, should be what they do in holland. All female teens should be put on birth control from age 13 to 18. And it would also be a big help if the Catholic Church changes their thinking on at least birth control if not abortion. If the catholic church gives the green light on birth control, then all those devot catholics that refuse to use birth control because of their religious beliefs might stop procreating after 2 or 3 kids. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 01:44 PM Post #3 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Oddly enough I am against birth control for women, especially young girls and women. Birth control pills, with their manmade chemicals, deregulate a woman's natural cycle and I think has effects which have not been studied enough. Condoms all the way, they are not 100% effective but they are effective enough. |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Oct 23 2006, 02:00 PM Post #4 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
thats a little extreme. Yes overpopulation is scary, but taking away rights of people or taxing them when they can truly provide for children is just shit.Even if such a program was enforced, mistakes will always be made. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 02:18 PM Post #5 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
We live in extreme times and extreme measures need to be taken, otherwise there will be no future for our children. There are flaws in the concept for sure, but they can be worked out. People need to start paying for their irresponsibility. A few months ago there was a news story of a an apartment fire which killed all five children in the family. The fire started because for months the family had their electricity cut off, and were using candles for light. One of the candles caught something on fire. FIVE kids and no electricity because they couldn't afford it! Perhaps if they hadn't breed like rabbits they could have afforded it and kept the life of one or two child along with the means to pay their bills, now they have none! |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Oct 23 2006, 02:25 PM Post #6 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
people die everyday.whether they be murdered or die in a fire for lack of electricity. If anything,maybe couples should just have a background check in order to see if they are financially and mentally stable to raise children. No taxing or putting a price on life. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 02:30 PM Post #7 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Our lives are priced anyway because we all have financial needs. I look at it as an investment on the life of the child and a way for which people who choose not to have children or to have only one or two do not have their taxes used to support the irresponsible ones. |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Oct 23 2006, 02:36 PM Post #8 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
Its just sounds so awful.Just because the fucking idiots who have a bunch of kids and not be able to afford them ruin it for the people who can.. I plan on having children one day, and I think that that idea is just wrong.I should be able to have as many children as I can support without the government telling me what to do with my cooter! |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 02:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
I'm thinking of the welfare of the planet as a whole. This will be one of the centerpieces of the spritual revolution I will lead!
|
![]() |
|
| Sexy Zombie | Oct 23 2006, 02:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Poosie Liquor
|
I'm adopting anyway. I think more people should think about this before they go off and get pregnant. There are plenty of children all over the world who need good homes and families. Why don't we worry about them before adding on to the population. |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Oct 23 2006, 02:45 PM Post #11 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
I want my own spawn.Maybe later I will consider adoption. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 23 2006, 02:50 PM Post #12 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Good thinking Erin. Have one child, adopt the rest. |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Oct 23 2006, 04:07 PM Post #13 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
we are all egocentric and want to make our own children, we want to see how much they look or act like us and to pass on our good genes! I am not saying that is right but that is the way most of us think deep down. They need to make adoption cheaper, too. It is so freaking expensive to adopt a child, it is like 1 year salary! I bet if it were much cheaper, more people would adopt. |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Oct 23 2006, 10:22 PM Post #14 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
exactly Michele! Also I want to actually know what its like to get preggo and give birth. Im not saying any time soon. NO WAY! Eventually though, I do. Im curious to see what my lovah and I could create. :gosh |
![]() |
|
| Sexy Zombie | Oct 24 2006, 05:25 AM Post #15 |
|
Poosie Liquor
|
I guess that doesn't go for me cause I'm afraid to be preggers and give birth. I alsways wanted to have the "husbands" role of cutting the cord and all that. So I'd rather adopt because I'm adopted so I know what it's like and I want to give a child a home. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 25 2006, 12:44 PM Post #16 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Humans will need two Earths, report claims Global footprint left by consumption is growing, conservationists argue MSNBC staff and news service reports Updated: 9:17 a.m. CT Oct 24, 2006 BEIJING - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a report published Tuesday by the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Footprint Network. "For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said in releasing the 2006 Living Planet Report in Beijing. "If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape added. Largely because of its huge per capita emissions of carbon dioxide a gas many scientists tie to global warming the United Arab Emirates were placing the most stress per capita on the planet ahead of the United States, Finland, Canada, Kuwait and Australia, the report said. Using the report's criteria, Cuba is the only country in the world that has a high level of development, including good health and education systems, and does not use up more resources than is sustainable. Groups: Footprint getting bigger The report estimated that "humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003" and that consumption has even outpaced global population growth from 3 billion in 1960 to the 6.5 billion today. In 2003, the report added, humanity's ecological footprint the demand people place on the natural world was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste. "This ecological 'overshoot' means that it now takes about one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year," the conservation groups said in a statement. "Overshoot has increased by 4 percent since the last Living Planet Report, which was based on 2001 data, and is projected to rise to 30 percent in 2006." "On current projections, humanity will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said. "People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources." "Humanity is living off its ecological credit card," Mathis Wackernagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, said in a statement. "While this can be done for a short while, overshoot ultimately leads to liquidation of the planet's ecological assets, and the depletion of resources, such as the forests, oceans and agricultural land upon which our economy depends." The report noted that an index tracking 1,300 vertebrate species birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms. Eyes on China, other growing nations The conservation groups added that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain. Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years. "Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added. "The cities, power plants and homes we build today will either lock society into damaging overconsumption beyond our lifetimes," he added, "or begin to propel this and future generations toward sustainable living." |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 25 2006, 12:46 PM Post #17 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Now tell me again why extreme population control measures should not be taken?
That is very interesting to note. |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Oct 25 2006, 12:54 PM Post #18 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
these reports and predictions have been coming out over several years now, and what has the US and other nations started to do about it? Anything? Nothing? Dont the fucking greedy power hungry politicians and multinational corporations fucking realize that if they dont start changing their ways and start conserving and using other alternative energy resources that in 20-30 years they wont be making any profits at all anymore, cause the earth will be depleted, the economy will crash, businesses will go bankrupt. Spend more money now to make some needed changes so that you can continue to make profits for generations to come. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Oct 25 2006, 12:58 PM Post #19 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
It's almost...alien...how they think. Are they that much in denial? Does their greed and need to dominate blind them that much? I ponder these things, and the only answer I can indeed come up with is well...something alien. |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Oct 25 2006, 01:11 PM Post #20 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
I know like I cant comphrehend it either. Are these people THAT evil? Cause if we continue to fuck up the planet like we are. then not only will they no longer be making profits cause their companies will crumble, but we will all die or at least live in squalor, starving. And that includes these greedy bastards and their families! |
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Rowan ruminates · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:09 PM Jul 11
|
Infinite Results.
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy







2:09 PM Jul 11