Poor people should not be allowed to give birth

[Ahmad]

Originally Posted by dabong1

The same way we dont know how some became poor.....could have a businessman who went bankrupt......or a family that has been robbed ect.

yes, and we cant generalize any of the cases.

Does not matter.......how are the resources of the nation divided amongst its people that is what is important.
Give a certain section of poor people the same amount of access to education and health and i am sure with in a few decades they wont be poor.Making them have no children does not solve the problem.

There are 2 things, division of resources among the citizens, and availibility of the resources. If there is limited resources, by doubling up the populaiton we will increase the risk of social injustice and people will become gready, they will think everything is limited and everyone will be unsure of the future and they all will try to get a good share of the resources as much as possible by all legal and illegal means before it runs out and to secure their personal future without thinking about country and socitey, dont you think it is all a bad idea itself? and if there is less population then people will at least have faith that there is enough for everybody and it wont open the door for all kinds of lill in the socitiety. OK, in an ideal world(for the third world countries), we can say that the governments should provide this and that to the citizens, if there is limited resources and funding then where can the gov provide all those support to the huge families? if they have the money, they surely help the people, but if there is no money what can be done? can the governments start trusting each other and stop huge investment in the military? if yes, then we can provide a decent level of healthcare and eduction to everybody as well as job opportunities, otherwise the population must be controlled.

[Ahmad]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

you are saying in other words that the society wants control over these births as they want the poors to not to bring up more than a kid , if more they are most likely to become a bad adult and trouble the society !! i see a conflict of interest as bigger question is who is actually the society is it compromsied of middle clas and poors or is it just a indivisual group. i

a society is comprised of everybody. you, me, the rich, the poopr, middle class etc. i am not saying that the poor definately and 100% raises a bad child and rich will raise a good child. but we should never forget the fact that if you are poor with many children, you are highly in a risk of brining up a child who will have problems in his adulthood as well as his/her childhood. and somebody rightly said here about the welfare of the child which is getting less attention, that poor child has every right for a proper life, education, entertainment and better enviroment, can a very poor person provide a decent life for so many kids?

[Valiant_Soul]

Originally Posted by SiegHeil

in almost every post in this thread everyone seems to care about the rights of poor man but very few are concerned about the child whose whole life is at stake guys we are talking about another human being a different individual different personality.and we are not talking about some materialistic needs like a skateboard or psp but basic needs i.e. food and shelter
every one looks at the goverment to solve the issue and by that sense even mentally challenged people have the right to have kids and our goverment should look at their upbringing.

Mate, I guess we all can understand your emotions, but you need to see the issue practically. If you have to enforce something, you need to put a consequence for that. The first thing is that this is against basic human rights provided in the constitution. The second thing is that even if you can change the constitution, how do you propose to make this effective? The third thing is that education and persuasion is far more effective than punishment, also in the long run is going to be very productive. We need to push the states to formulate policies for education of such basic things amongst poor, we need to build a proper system for everything and see to it that they are properly implemented. You cannot run a nation on emotions.

[SiegHeil]

i may seem but if a poor man has the right to have as many children as he likes even if he cant provide food to them and let them suffer a life much2 worse than death than every person should have the right to suicide too
we have an employee with a salary of 4000 rs when he had his first child my mother a doc explained him everything about family planning but he didnt seem to bother now he has 6 childrens 3 of them dont go to school.now you decide he could have been better off with 2 chiildren but.. .
all i am saying is we must have some criteria for a person for being eligible to have a child coz some people just dont understand what is better fo them and their children.the need this .
i am not saying we can solve all the problems but its time we atleast start somethin.

[pak-marine]

Originally Posted by Unity

a society is comprised of everybody. you, me, the rich, the poopr, middle class etc. i am not saying that the poor definately and 100% raises a bad child and rich will raise a good child. but we should never forget the fact that if you are poor with many children, you are highly in a risk of brining up a child who will have problems in his adulthood as well as his/her childhood. and somebody rightly said here about the welfare of the child which is getting less attention, that poor child has every right for a proper life, education, entertainment and better enviroment, can a very poor person provide a decent life for so many kids?

you are right upto an extent but if we apply this equation on masses this doesnt apply , its eventually the govts responsibility as a welfare state "it is suppose to look after their own , instead running after things which are rather materailistic .. and hold no value in the longer run. Things depreciate dude people dont .. its all about citizens and their prosperity, If they are happy and looked after than what more any could country want. May be western countries are better off becuase they put people interests first.

[SiegHeil]

Originally Posted by Valiant_Soul

Mate, I guess we all can understand your emotions

The third thing is that education and persuasion is far more effective than punishment, also in the long run is going to be very productive. We need to push the states to formulate policies for education of such basic things amongst poor, we need to build a proper system for everything and see to it that they are properly implemented. You cannot run a nation on emotions.

i do agree but still we cant just let them go on in a baby production spree.

[Valiant_Soul]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

you are right upto an extent but if we apply this equation on masses this doesnt apply , its eventually the govts responsibility as a welfare state "it is suppose to look after their own , instead running after things which are rather materailistic .. and hold no value in the longer run. Things depreciate dude people dont .. its all about citizens and their prosperity, If they are happy and looked after than what more any could country want. May be western countries are better off becuase they put people interests first.

Or perhaps because they know that what corrupt people in our places consider as self-uplift is actually self-destruction in the long run. They ruin their bigger home trying to garner/build their small one in unholy ways.

[Ahmad]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

you are right upto an extent but if we apply this equation on masses this doesnt apply , its eventually the govts responsibility as a welfare state "it is suppose to look after their own , instead running after things which are rather materailistic .. and hold no value in the longer run. Things depreciate dude people dont .. its all about citizens and their prosperity, If they are happy and looked after than what more any could country want. May be western countries are better off becuase they put people interests first.

Yes, it is the gov's responsibility, thats why we humans invented this gov system to manage ourselves and our lives. But what if the gov have no money? It is all a vitiouse circle going around, poverty comes with over population, then illetracy, limited resources etc. You are right that western countries put the interests of their public above everything, but we should try to find out why this is the case in the west and not in our socieities? They are not overpoulated, so they have got more chances of development, education, accountability, etc.

[SiegHeil]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

you are right upto an extent but if we apply this equation on masses this doesnt apply , its eventually the govts responsibility as a welfare state "it is suppose to look after their own , instead running after things which are rather materailistic .. and hold no value in the longer run. Things depreciate dude people dont .. its all about citizens and their prosperity, If they are happy and looked after than what more any could country want. May be western countries are better off becuase they put people interests first.

pak-marine even we have our responsibilities towards our nation (now a stupid question) suppose u have a neighbour who is drunk dosent have any source of money what if he decides to have a child and your goverment asks you to provide all your tax from your hard earned money to him everyting goes well now he decides to have another one and govt tells you to bear additional burden now what if this process goes on even after your repeated request to get the hang of his life.
would you still have the same view.

[rubyjackass]

Originally Posted by paritosh

well the kind of population explosion that we have seen..we do need some fascism coming into play...if given a wide enough time frame...I'd definitely go for the democratic education of the entire populace to curb the high birth rate...but that doesnt seem to happen at a good rate...
the state must draw the line...
Reach a minimum threshold income and then go for a child.

Population explosion is no longer a problem in many parts of India. For example for the entire South India the fertility rate is close to 2. Only in Bihar and UP it is horrible near 4. Clearly the problem is education. Or rather the existence of prevailing notion that more children means more working hands.(Never underestimate poor man's economist skills). Just imprison every parent who sends his child to work for 1 year. Problem solved in less than a decade. Because we are lenient with child rights, we now have the impression that poor people are stupid. No they are not. Its just that their economics is allowed to be practiced.

So my solution is this: 'Jail every ******* who sends his child to work'. The poor man's nerve centres will tell him less children means better life or rather that more children has no incentives.





On another note what is being asked in the title thread is societal engineering(for the lost 'social engineering' to hackers) to get satisfying statistics, while giving exception to rich who mostly earned the fortune because they inherited the seed from their parents. I don't think humans have degenerated to such levels of meanness and fairness.

[pak-marine]

Unity;643489]Yes, it is the gov's responsibility, thats why we humans invented this gov system to manage ourselves and our lives. But what if the gov have no money? It is all a vitiouse circle going around, poverty comes with over population, then illetracy, limited resources etc.

dude they can go and spend billions on bombs whereevr you look and their own are dying .... who are they protecting ? when your own are at risk ! what is the frigin point of so much weaponary and armour when ppl are dying of hunger , poverty. I seriously dont get it. Findamental issue is all countries have enough money to fund their silly projects they will spend a fortune on any thing but NOT on their own. I dont know about africa i dont live there but lets put indo-pak as an example what is the defence budgets ? just imagine if that money is spent on ppl! it can do wonders . look the way it works being poor doesnt let you think much , how productive you think you can be on empty stomach and no shelter ?

You are right that western countries put the interests of their public above everything, but we should try to find out why this is the case in the west and not in our socieities? They are not overpoulated, so they have got more chances of development, education, accountability, etc

tunnel vision man what else , we are simply paranoid and afraid of each other , severe lack of trust.

[pak-marine]

Originally Posted by SiegHeil

pak-marine even we have our responsibilities towards our nation (now a stupid question) suppose u have a neighbour who is drunk dosent have any source of money what if he decides to have a child and your goverment asks you to provide all your tax from your hard earned money to him everyting goes well now he decides to have another one and govt tells you to bear additional burden now what if this process goes on even after your repeated request to get the hang of his life.
would you still have the same view.

dude we are talking about mases an indivisual eg doesnt seems fit here

[Ahmad]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

dude they can go and spend billions on bombs whereevr you look and their own are dying .... who are they protecting ? when your own are at risk ! what is the frigin point of so much weaponary and armour when ppl are dying of hunger , poverty. I seriously dont get it. Findamental issue is all countries have enough money to fund their silly projects they will spend a fortune on any thing but NOT on their own. I dont know about africa i dont live there but lets put indo-pak as an example what is the defence budgets ? just imagine if that money is spent on ppl! it can do wonders . look the way it works being poor doesnt let you think much , how productive you think you can be on empty stomach and no shelter ?



tunnel vision man what else , we are simply paranoid and afraid of each other , severe lack of trust.

Look at my previouse post and I pointed the issue of militarization in our countries. and all of those things come with lack of trust. If spending hugely in military is stoped, a good number of problems can be solved with that money.

[Ahmad]

Originally Posted by pak-marine

dude we are talking about mases an indivisual eg doesnt seems fit here

i think he is making sense. and it is not about individuals it is about the whole lot of tax payers. why should i/you/anotehr person pay for irresponsible reproduction of somebody who doesnt care about anything?

[pak-marine]

Originally Posted by Unity

Look at my previouse post and I pointed the issue of militarization in our countries. and all of those things come with lack of trust. If spending hugely in military is stoped, a good number of problems can be solved with that money.

corecto, on the other hand look at americans or europeans ! how smart they are ? all wars r outside their borders and they produce al kinda weaponary and sell it to the whole globe. I dont know how much the global defence industry is worth but imagine for a second if no war or the world comes to peace how many people will be unemployed and businesses and people associated will be busted.

So al to blame here and similar applies to our region if no war than what will be the use of these millions of soldiers , amo , missles , planes and God knows what else. There is this whole economy assosiated with it , there has to be a war to consume all this it benefits some of us but a large population suffers. So the one suffering has to realise and stand up to this !