Should a law be passed to prevent procreation of children?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep...it's possible the OP wanted to light a little fire under our butts.

I think people with limited income should be limited to how many kids they can have. Its hard to tell who will be abusing their children or not so it would be difficult to pass this law. Trying to make people with disabilities or mental illnesses not have kids will start something. It would be like going backwards in time. I say if someone has shown they can't be competent parents, then they should not be allowed to have kids and that already happens anyway. Some people are banned from having children ordered by the judge. I have heard of it and knew someone at work who told me she couldn't have anymore kids unless she made $100,000 a year. I interpreted that as she can't have any kids at all ever again because plenty of people make a lot less than that and still have kids and take care of them fine. She didn't seem to read between the lines because she told me it was all BS what the judge said.

My cousIns gf was told she either needed to get fixed or go to prison after losing her all of her 5-7 kids. She chose to be fixed. This was via a court.

Dear god. If that was my family I would be embarrassed.

I wonder why she lost her kids. My co worker claimed she lost hers because she was homeless and were staying with friends and then their son got taken. They had another baby when they had a home again but their baby got snatched by the state when they had him in the hospital. But my husband doesn't buy it or my parents. They say that is not how CPS works. I know another guy who isn't allowed to be near his wife and her kids and his. He said it was because he was in a mental hospital and now he isn't allowed to have kids and be near them. He wouldn't really give me any details about why he went there but it makes me wonder what happened. Did he abuse his kids during his break down or what? Be glad he didn't go to prison if he did do child abuse and the judge just decided to ban him from being near kids and having any of his own because of his condition. It's always for the well child being. If you show the state you can't be a good parent to your kids and provide them care they need, they get taken and you are banned from having kids again. It doesn't matter if you have a mental illness or an intellectual impairment. I don't think they will put you in prison for it if your condition had anything to do with it, they will only just take your kids and say you can't have anymore.

1) This discussion is best held in PPR.
2) This is obvious troll bait. Look at the post history and don't feed the trolls, folks.

They the black sheep. Always doing drugs. Which is a shame since he could work good as a contractor. He been in prison last 3 and half years and has 10 months to go before prarol. He did drugs, stole stuff, drove drunk, had warrants for his arrest for years. Illegal guns and illegal silencers, drove illegally too never had license his whole life. Never didn’t have a gf either. Perhaps he’ll change after prison i dont know but I don’t want anything to do with him. His kids got adopted out to a nice foster family. We got to see them recently and they keep in touch with my grandma. My uncles other kid the one he irnored for the bad one, is a high paid engineer who did great with his life, they’ve reconnected since the other ones been in prisOn.

She abandoned her other kids, and was on heavy drugs when pregnant with both these ones. Then all the stuff with the police and stuff. She never seatbelted the babies. Did drugs around them etc. besides that i dont know I didn’t go to the court. But she either got fixed or went to prison for years. The kids went to foster care but due to her and my cousIn not turning their lives around got adopted y the foster parents and moved out of state so cousIn couldn’t kidnap them.

any restriction [or negative incentive] of certain undesired groups' ability to procreate, amounts to eugenics. mere humans are not IMHO morally qualified to be in judgment of others' ability to reproduce. even, merely, to say "it would be nice if so and so would not have babies," unless in the spirit of compassion, approaches blasphemy. the furthest I could go in this direction, would be to pay people to not reproduce, in the interest of reducing human suffering.

I did as you suggested and looked at his post history and you are right. Interestingly this thread has not deteriorated into unpleasantness so OP is defeated by us taking it as a literal question rather than a dig

Merry Christmas everyone

In my honest opinion, I try not to consider certain posts as troll posts. It doesn't feel right at all, especially since I've been called out as a troll many times in various places for the posts I make and many people haven't taken me seriously and treated everything I posted as if I'm making stuff up to get attention. If people keep thinking that "bizarre/obscene" posts are nothing but a troll post then that says a lot about why some people refrain talking to others in a social situation. It doesn't help with people who want to be taken seriously for once and get treated like another troll.

I like to take things as literal as I can because well, that's kind of how I roll. People should be allowed to express their thoughts and opinions on subjects without it automatically being considered a troll. Yes, people can intentionally make a post just for trolling but it's not true or everyone. This is an issue that some people face when trying to determine whether or not someone is being legit serious or a fake.

Like, there are plenty of posts I read here that I personally find obscene and ridiculous but they are treated like any "normal" person's post because in reality, that's the majority's mentality so most can understand. But put one person who thinks "outside of the box" and they automatically receive the troll banner.

I also don't have my questions taken seriously though for me this happens mostly IRL and I did answer first thinking this a genuine question and so did everyone else, which was the point I was making. If he meant it as a genuine question then I wonder that he has made the same point on other threads (less tactfully) but not looked at the responses.

I agree that it is important to give people the benefit of the doubt though.

Whenever I learn that someone somewhere is advocating eugenics, my reply is always "you first."

This topic reminds me of my Dad ( born in 1936 in "the Third Reich").
Let me tell you a little story.....
We were living in South Africa ( you know, Apartheid, Minority Rule, Strict segregation of whites and "people of color").
So we were driving down the road, behind a very old pick-up, stuffed to capacity with young kids( yes, I know dangerous for them to be sitting out there, on the back with no seats, no seat-belts, no nothing). It was obviously a family of very limited means. The kids were all dirty and their clothes were well worn. And they all wore thick eye-glasses (yes, my Dad was tailgating) We had to stop at a stop sign. My Dad observed the little scene in front of us. He looked at me.
"You know, I think that the parents of those kids should have been neutered before they had so many kids. In fact, they should have been put down at birth. I mean, look at those thick glasses. It will only get worse as they get older. And then they'll have kids by the truck-load. Don't you agree?"
I looked at him. Calmly.
"But Dad, I wear glasses too. And so do you..."
He never mentioned that eugenics c*** again.

So you've gotten yourself fixed, correct? Think globally, act locally.

I personally rather just get an abortion if I for some reason "slip up" than to be "spayed". I know it would cost more money, but I rather keep my stuff and not risk a lack of sex hormones or whatever the possible symptoms can come from getting something done like that.