WTF? (planetary 1-child law)

[☭proletarian☭]

So Laura just mentioned this and this is the first thing Google gave me

Canada’s National Newspaper calls for Worldwide One Child Policy

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

WTF?!

The whole point of preserving the planet is so humans can continue to enjoy it, yes? Is not prescribing the forced reduction of the human population counter-intuitive? Is not the right to reproduce among the most fundamental of all rights? What if a woman ends up pregnant? Will they equire her by law to have an abortion and use physical force if she refuses? What the hell is going on in these peoples' minds?

Earth has enough resources to support the current population (and more) if the problem of distribution is overcome, and populations are self-regulatory in that no population will remain above the level that can be supported by available resources (aid counting as available resources)- leaving their arguments empty anyway.

Someone explain this to me; I just don't get it.

 

[eagleseven]

The whole point of preserving the planet is so humans can continue to enjoy it, yes? Is not prescribing the forced reduction of the human population counter-intuitive? Is not the right to reproduce among the most fundamental of all rights?

You've hit upon the fundamental problem of paternal autocracy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5STG8FYB94"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5STG8FYB94[/ame]

 

[ba1614]

Ya, well, fuck them!
Caucasians are already at a low birthrate of 1.1 to 1.85 depending on the stats you choose to use. Compare that to 3.17 to 3.83 of other races.

Ironic as well that the articles author promoting a limit of 1 child, is a mother of 2. Fuckin' liberals very seldom live what they preach.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like we could benefit from these people firmly placing condoms around their necks.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So Laura just mentioned this and this is the first thing Google gave me

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

One does have to wonder how the welfare class of the Democratic party would respond to this idea

 

[slackjawed]

I got no response on a thread on this subject posted yesterday, I guess there isn't much interest yet.

 

[blu]

most respectable people only have 1 or 2 kids anyway. this will help curb the overtaking of the world by ignorant poor people who cant keep their dick out of every girl they come across. I have been for sterilization of people unfit to raise kids for a long time.

 

[Rozman]

Ed from the Ed show on MSNBC was interviewing a guy for his show the other night where they were at
some clinic. The theme of the show was Health Care and how this country sucks when it comes to taking care of peoples health care needs.The person who was being interviewed was complaining about the fact that he and the wife just had a baby and they don't have health care because they just can't afford it.

Let me see if I have this right. It's OK with everyone here that this couple can't afford health care but they had a baby? I'm sure that either the husband or the wife had some kind of coverage when they had the baby. If couples want to crank out the kids one after the other why do I have to subsidize that
with my costs going up.Why should a company have to pick up the costs for their employees that want to have kids. Should the company be responsible for that?

You want to have kids,you should be able to provide for your family.

 

[MaggieMae]

most respectable people only have 1 or 2 kids anyway. this will help curb the overtaking of the world by ignorant poor people who cant keep their dick out of every girl they come across. I have been for sterilization of people unfit to raise kids for a long time.

Sterilization won't ever happen in the United States, but what SHOULD happen is to limit the number of children voluntarily brought into the world just so a person can increase welfare payments, which contributes to the ugly cycle of inner-city poverty, drug use and crime as those children are left to their own devices as soon as they're old enough to carry on a conversation.

As for sterilization in third world countries, I also don't see that happening. The reason men in some of the poorest and uneducated regions of Africa don't wear condoms is because of ancient religious or cultural beliefs. Women in those places might be more acceptable because they're the ones who literally bear the entire burden of raising the children, but not the men. And you're not going to change that for milleniums to come. And don't forget that sterilization won't stop the spread of AIDS either.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ed from the Ed show on MSNBC was interviewing a guy for his show the other night where they were at
some clinic. The theme of the show was Health Care and how this country sucks when it comes to taking care of peoples health care needs.The person who was being interviewed was complaining about the fact that he and the wife just had a baby and they don't have health care because they just can't afford it.

Let me see if I have this right. It's OK with everyone here that this couple can't afford health care but they had a baby? I'm sure that either the husband or the wife had some kind of coverage when they had the baby. If couples want to crank out the kids one after the other why do I have to subsidize that
with my costs going up.Why should a company have to pick up the costs for their employees that want to have kids. Should the company be responsible for that?

You want to have kids,you should be able to provide for your family.

And here we go. Assuming that every situation is exactly like the one you describe. What's the saying? Oh yeaH, EPIC FAIL.

 

[Anguille]

this will help curb the overtaking of the world by ignorant poor people who cant keep their dick out of every girl they come across. I have been for sterilization of people unfit to raise kids for a long time.

If I was in favor of forced sterilization miserable dickheads like you would be at the top of my list.

 

[Rozman]

So Laura just mentioned this and this is the first thing Google gave me

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

One does have to wonder how the welfare class of the Democratic party would respond to this idea

The welfare class will not like this one bit because they are paid by the democrats to have as many kids as possible,the Dems will reward them with more benefits in return for votes.

 

[Anguille]

So Laura just mentioned this and this is the first thing Google gave me

Canada’s National Newspaper calls for Worldwide One Child Policy

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

WTF?!

The whole point of preserving the planet is so humans can continue to enjoy it, yes? Is not prescribing the forced reduction of the human population counter-intuitive? Is not the right to reproduce among the most fundamental of all rights? What if a woman ends up pregnant? Will they equire her by law to have an abortion and use physical force if she refuses? What the hell is going on in these peoples' minds?

Earth has enough resources to support the current population (and more) if the problem of distribution is overcome, and populations are self-regulatory in that no population will remain above the level that can be supported by available resources (aid counting as available resources)- leaving their arguments empty anyway.

Someone explain this to me; I just don't get it.

The article does not provide the author's opinion on just how lowering the birthrate is to be achieved. I agree that it must be reduced if we are to survive as a species but how to do it without violating civil rights is a difficult question to answer. Forced sterilization and forced abortion are out of the question. A national program to inform and encourage people to voluntarily reduce the number of offspring they have would be a good thing. Free birth control and free abortion on demand would be helpful. Reduction of tax breaks for people who have more than one or two children might be another good thing if it can be done without causing undue hardship to the excess children themselves. They should not be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes.

I'm curious as to what other people would suggest.

Over population is a serious problem that is ignored my too many.

 

[del]

What I Meant Was You People Should Only Have One Child - Jim Geraghty on National Review Online



gotta love a good hypocrite.

"I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years"

http://dianefrancismylife.blogspot.com/

 

[Rozman]

In the United States the more children you have the less of a break on taxes you should receive,I think after three that's it no more deductions for dependents.You want to keep having kids fine,you should not be rewarded for it. I am not for the forced sterilization of women,but education and a change in the tax policy I think is a fair way to deal with a future problem.

To those that say the planet has more then enough resources to handle the increasing population here are a few things to consider. The amount of oil in the ground is not going to increase,we already have conditions in which certain fish production is down due to over fishing. I don't think this is a crazy idea to have a discussion at least on the effect of the World's increasing population on the planet's resources.

 

[Anguille]

In the United States the more children you have the less of a break on taxes you should receive,I think after three that's it no more deductions for dependents.You want to keep having kids fine,you should not be rewarded for it. I am not for the forced sterilization of women,but education and a change in the tax policy I think is a fair way to deal with a future problem.

To those that say the planet has more then enough resources to handle the increasing population here are a few things to consider. The amount of oil in the ground is not going to increase,we already have conditions in which certain fish production is down due to over fishing. I don't think this is a crazy idea to have a discussion at least on the effect of the World's increasing population on the planet's resources.

I have considered being in favor of a policy that would allow the government to remove from the home children born after the limit was reached. The government could then place those infants in the homes of childless couple who qualified as adoptive parents. I think that knowing you will not be able to keep your excess children and even receive a fine could be a deterent to some of those who have no regard for the future.

 

[del]

In the United States the more children you have the less of a break on taxes you should receive,I think after three that's it no more deductions for dependents.You want to keep having kids fine,you should not be rewarded for it. I am not for the forced sterilization of women,but education and a change in the tax policy I think is a fair way to deal with a future problem.

To those that say the planet has more then enough resources to handle the increasing population here are a few things to consider. The amount of oil in the ground is not going to increase,we already have conditions in which certain fish production is down due to over fishing. I don't think this is a crazy idea to have a discussion at least on the effect of the World's increasing population on the planet's resources.

I have considered being in favor of a policy that would allow the government to remove from the home children born after the limit was reached. The government could then place those infants in the homes of childless couple who qualified as adoptive parents. I think that knowing you will not be able to keep your excess children and even receive a fine could be a deterent to some of those who have no regard for the future.

when did you become a fascist?

 

[Anguille]

What I Meant Was You People Should Only Have One Child - Jim Geraghty on National Review Online



gotta love a good hypocrite.

"I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years"

Diane Francis' Life

Your first link just took me to a dead end with a bing popup. I couldn't view the article.

 

[del]

What I Meant Was You People Should Only Have One Child - Jim Geraghty on National Review Online



gotta love a good hypocrite.

"I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years"

Diane Francis' Life

Your first link just took me to a dead end with a bing popup. I couldn't view the article.

see if you can find a kid to help you.

i didn't have a problem.

 

[Anguille]

In the United States the more children you have the less of a break on taxes you should receive,I think after three that's it no more deductions for dependents.You want to keep having kids fine,you should not be rewarded for it. I am not for the forced sterilization of women,but education and a change in the tax policy I think is a fair way to deal with a future problem.

To those that say the planet has more then enough resources to handle the increasing population here are a few things to consider. The amount of oil in the ground is not going to increase,we already have conditions in which certain fish production is down due to over fishing. I don't think this is a crazy idea to have a discussion at least on the effect of the World's increasing population on the planet's resources.

I have considered being in favor of a policy that would allow the government to remove from the home children born after the limit was reached. The government could then place those infants in the homes of childless couple who qualified as adoptive parents. I think that knowing you will not be able to keep your excess children and even receive a fine could be a deterent to some of those who have no regard for the future.

when did you become a fascist?

Ever since I had a beer with your pal, Officer Crowley.

Nothing fascist about my tentative approval of such a policy. It's a drastic measure for sure but we are approaching times when drastic measures may be all we have left. People do not own their offspring, they are granted the priviledge of raising them if they are competent and responsible enough to do so.

As I said have considered being in favor of such a policy. If you know of reasons why I should not, I'd be glad to hear them.
Calling me a fascist just lowers you to the level to which xenofraud has stooped.