Stabilizing World Populations for Group 3
I have some suggestions on how to control the world populations. The most important factor would be educating people about the world’s population problem. Informing people about birth control worldwide will cut down on teen pregnancies and life threatening diseases (AIDS and HIV can kill people causing the population to decrease). If we provide more jobs and insurance then people will have the resources they need to survive. Better healthcare can provide people with the tests that they need to maintain good health and welfare.
69 Replies
I agree and like the points you stated to what you think would help. I think you made a good point with educating people about the problems we will face with population because not many people really know how our world population is increasing so rapidly. Next I would like ask about how are we going to inform people of the problems of the population, AIDS, HIV, and about birth control? I think we should have classes be applied to school and for places that don't have schools, have centers set up that will get peoples attention on these factors. The problems we would face with school is the classes would be optional and a parental consent paper could be destributed. The class, like the center, could have some way to catch attention and to make people want to learn whats happening within the next few years if we don't change our ways. That would be my suggestion on how to inform people.
One thing i disagree on is providing people with insurance. If we just gave people insurance than there would be no money to cover the cost of medical if the person needed treatment. Each month people pay their insurance company a certain amount so when they are in an accident or need treatment the company can take the money paid into it and pay the bills. The money would have to be taken out of the government and then that would take money from somewhere else. Therefore giving people insurance would lead to losing some other goverment funded thing or not enough money to cover medical or anything that would be covered by insurance. Also with small economies not much money would be in insurance funds or goverment funds which would have not enough money.
Better health care would be another great idea but with better care comes more money. Many people cannot afford any care and with better care probably more money than they couldn't recieve it. This all points back to insurance.
I have a few questions that I want your opinion on. What do you think could help people get the money and insurance they need for health care? Do you think a fund should be set up in areas for those who need the help? Do you feel that centers and classes would be a good way to inform? How much does jobs, insurance, health care, disease, young births, and lack of education play a role in our world population increase?
I agree that informing people would be the first thing we should do. Not so many people know or understand what is really going on with the population these days. With the more people involved, then it would probably be easier to help the problem. Also, if we gave everyone health care, then there would be a change in population because if we can help them if they get sick, then they have a better chance of living. I also agree with Jenna about adding schools and classes to places that don’t have them.
But one thing I disagree about is the insurance. If we just handed them the insurance, then they wouldn’t have to pay for it. That means that we would have to take the money out of the government to pay for any medical or accident that that person has. Also, I think that we do have enough resources, it’s just that people aren’t using them wisely.
I have a question though. How will informing people about birth control help prevent AIDS and HIV? That disease is going around and we really can’t stop it.
Many countires have socialized medicine. This means that if you are sick you simply go to the hospital and are treated for free. No exceptions. There is no money exchanged and Health Insurance companies don't exist. The fact that the US doesn't have free medical care for its citizens is really confusing to other parts of the world, such as Canada, France, and even Cuba. The system we have now is extremely flawed and pretty much lets these health insurance companies do whatever they please. They buy off senators and do whatever they can to save some cash, meaning they deny people's ability to be cared for by a doctor. It's very sad, especially for people who can't afford the ridiculous prices they are asked to pay. It simply seems logical for a country to take care of its people. Sure, that means more taxes, but just think of all the wasteful things our tax money currently goes into.
So yeah, I think the solution is to introduce free medical care, rather than sigining everyone up for corrupt insurance companies.
I agree with Emily's position on raising awareness. This is how you start change for anything like this. You inform people, and hope that they see the problem and take action. There are many more direct actions to take, but it's hard to tell people how many kids they're allowed to have. You're stepping on not only their belief systems, but their feedom of choice.
If people started to take steps to live a 'greener' life then wouldn't the problem with overpopulation be slightly less traumatic? I'm not saying it would go away entirely at all, but maybe that needs to be done before we take steps against the population.... Or maybe I'm wrong and it should be in reverse order. It's something to think about...
Charels, I don't really understand how having socialized medicine in the U.S. would help control our populaton. I am hoping you can explain that to me. However, I do agree with you that you cannot tell people how many children that they're allowed to have. That would be taking away their freedom and possibly offending their religious beliefs. This could possibly result in rebellion, tearing our nation apart when we will need to be bonding together.
I also agree with Emily on educating people and raising awareness on the rapid growth of population and the effect it will have on human society and our environment. We need people to want to do this and have a desire to change our possible future of over population. I believe people will feel the desire to change if we educate them thoroughly on this topic and give them the horrific examples of what will happen if we don't change our lifestyles.
From the discussions i have been reading on the internet, most people are turning to the solution of simply only having one child or no children families. I don't believe that would go over well with the world population. I believe the answer to overpopulation is education instead of regulation. We should make people aware of the consequences that their choices will have on society and our environment. For people who want to have multiple children they should consider alternatives such as adoption, to provide better care for those who are already living.
I do not believe we should start limiting the number of children people should have. I think that will result in a period of time where there will be fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly. That will not help in the advancement of the world's society.
I'm interested in your opinions on whether you think we should regulate or educate the number of children there are in families.
Jenna, you many have misunderstood what I was saying, I meant that insurance should be more affordable to all, not just given to them. For your first question about the money and insurance for healthcare, the answer is, if the people are working at least 40 hours a week, then there should be some way insurance can be provided for them. A small amount could be taken from their paycheck, or the employer could have that as one of their benefits. People earning minimum wage are finding it difficult to survive, let alone pay for health insurance. Also, yes I think a fund program would be a great idea, but how do you thing it would work? Centers and classes would be a good idea, but there is always going to be stubborn people that won’t listen to facts or suggestions.
Shayna, I am aware that informing people about birth control won’t stop HIV and AIDS. But, even if one person is listening, that’s one less person that has a chance of getting it or spreading the disease. It is a slow process.
pahs-LindseyP wrote:
Charels, I don't really understand how having socialized medicine in the U.S. would help control our populaton. I am hoping you can explain that to me.
I was replying to Jenna and Emily's comments on health care.
You mentioned adoption, which could be a great alternative for many people. Of course, not all people, but I think it would be good for potential parents to really consider this option.
I did my report on China and over there they have the one child policy in place. This is one of the more direct options I was talking about... Do you guys think other countries should consider this at all? Or do you think it goes too far?
I do agree with Emily about educating people about the world's population problems. But I think that just informing alone is enough, more education and revisiting morals may be a start. I think we need to get more people involved in the discussions of population control, through town meetings, church groups, schools, and colleges. People need to be more educated in social and psychological areas. For example, actions that could be taken are, improving communication skills, getting along with others, and understanding yourself and others in society.
I think that we need to form a team of population specialists that study the population of the world and they come up with solutions that then, country leaders vote on, to solve problems. The specialists would have to look into every countries beliefs and laws to be able to come up with solutions for population control. They would be able to use ideas from countries such as China. China has child restriction laws. The laws are slowly beginning to help China control their over-population problem. Why couldn’t other over-populated countries do the same?
Another possible way of controlling over population on the earth would be to continue with the education of the younger population. At the age of fifteen, all male and female students will have to take a series of comprehensive tests that deal with the population control problems and how to resolve the issues. Once each student has passed the series of comprehensive tests, they would receive a license. This license entitles them to go out and get a job to provide for themselves and permits them to get married and have a family. The limitations of the license are you have to have a job in order to start a family. This is so because you would have to be able to support your family. After a period of four years of holding a job, being married, and supporting your spouse and child, you would be permitted to have a second and final child. This, therefore, would contribute a great deal to limiting the population.
The paragraph above, answers Lindsey's final question.
Charlie, I agree with your position on taking steps to live a “greener” life. Since there are so many people in this world today, by having everyone be supportive of a “greener” lifestyle, we would in turn be able to have more resources available to everyone. Not everyone is supportive of this lifestyle, but with more awareness, it might be possible.
I disagree with what you are saying about socialized medicine. If we have free healthcare, and tax more, then that will cause even more of a problem. The taxes we have now wouldn’t just go to healthcare; instead there would be a tax increase. By taxing more, this could hurt all of the social classes, especially the middle and lower classes. There will always be “wasteful things” that our tax money will go towards, and it would just be worse if we added to it. I’m I understanding what you are saying, or am I way off?
The nice thing about the factor of education, though, is that it can lead to improvements in medicine, which would cause better healthcare, as Emily stated.
Also, the way she said about informing people about birth control is helpful in this situation too. This is because with birth control in effect, not only will it maintain a steady population, but it will call for less gynecologists to deliver babies. With improved education and controlled births, this could give more medical students study other fields, will give us a better lead on finding a cure for cancer or AIDS.
If this would work, there are other ways of controlling the population. Unforunately, the demand for gynecologists may eventually be replaced by a demand for abortionists, but hopefully it won't result to that. Adoption is a good way of regulation becuase it lowers abortion levels and it gives parental opprotunities to people who can't natuarlly have a baby, but it doesn't promote birth control.
pahs-EmilyF wrote:
Charlie, I agree with your position on taking steps to live a “greener” life. Since there are so many people in this world today, by having everyone be supportive of a “greener” lifestyle, we would in turn be able to have more resources available to everyone. Not everyone is supportive of this lifestyle, but with more awareness, it might be possible.
I disagree with what you are saying about socialized medicine. If we have free healthcare, and tax more, then that will cause even more of a problem. The taxes we have now wouldn’t just go to healthcare; instead there would be a tax increase. By taxing more, this could hurt all of the social classes, especially the middle and lower classes. There will always be “wasteful things” that our tax money will go towards, and it would just be worse if we added to it. I’m I understanding what you are saying, or am I way off?
Well, paying taxes is just part of being a citizen of the country. Most countries who have socialized medicine feel that it is simply necessary and not an 'extra tax' that is simply added on to the pile, if that makes any sense. They feel that helping their fellow citizens is a top priority.
With socialized medicine a homeless person could go receive the finest medical care available. They could stay in the hospital for months if they needed to for free.
Look at countries like France, Canada, and Norway. They all have free health care and have longer life expectancys than us.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-27 at 09:14 PM by: CharlesD
Emily - Oh i see what you are talking about now. I must have read it wrong.
I like Charle's idea of living a 'greener' life. If we do this, the air would probably get clearer and there would probably be less polution. The resources would also grow and we would have enough for everone. But what will we do with all of the people that don't want to go along with this idea?
Danielle, first off, how do these actions you speak of help to control populations? Another thing I’m questioning is the license. How would this work? There are other factors that you would have to deal with. One of those factors would be teen pregnancy. This license will not necessarily stop teens from having sex. Another factor would be unemployment, what if a wealthy person doesn’t want a job because they already have the means to start a family? Would they not be allowed to start one? Also, by limiting the number of children you are allowed to have is infringing on our rights as American citizens. I agree with Lindsey when she said that she does not believe we should start limiting the number of children people should have. Your theory is very creative, but only for a perfect world.
pahs-EmilyF wrote:
I have some suggestions on how to control the world populations. The most important factor would be educating people about the world’s population problem. Informing people about birth control worldwide will cut down on teen pregnancies and life threatening diseases (AIDS and HIV can kill people causing the population to decrease). If we provide more jobs and insurance then people will have the resources they need to survive. Better healthcare can provide people with the tests that they need to maintain good health and welfare.
I agree, many people don't know what's happening so they can't stop it. As far as birth control methods cutting down on AIDS and HIV many of them say they won't protect you from that or any other STD's you just have to be careful. More jobs would be wonderful but with the population being as is it, there is very little space to build buildings to house jobs. The jobs that there are though should give better healthcare but most of them just give what they are required to give and nothing more.
I think that all of these topics will greatly influence everything that goes into the population of any country. Charlie, your points were really good about the healthcare of our country. I never really knew that other countries offer free healthcare to any citizen in their country. By doing that our population might very well greatly increase though, seeing that the great cost of healthcare for citizens is one of the main reasons why parents may not have as many children.
I also agree with Emily's points about educating the people. Though, I think that half of the people in some countries don't really understand how population would even affect them in any way. This would also be so difficult to do because there are so many religions that tie in with having children and greatening the population.
I think that the main thing we should do is just educate the people in any country on the affects of having a high or even completely full population. Like Mrs. Maine said, we should mostly educate the mothers because, not trying to be sexist here, they do control how many children are coming into their family and most of the time take care of that family emotionally.
One last thing, do you think that eventually the US is going to have a Family Planning Law like some other countries have?
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
pahs-LindseyP wrote:
Charels, I don't really understand how having socialized medicine in the U.S. would help control our populaton. I am hoping you can explain that to me.
I was replying to Jenna and Emily's comments on health care.
You mentioned adoption, which could be a great alternative for many people. Of course, not all people, but I think it would be good for potential parents to really consider this option.
I did my report on China and over there they have the one child policy in place. This is one of the more direct options I was talking about... Do you guys think other countries should consider this at all? Or do you think it goes too far?
On that last question, (I didn't see this when I posted) I think that sooner or later we are going to have a Family Planning Law just as China and other countries have. We have to realize soon that with the increasing amount of people in country, the less minerals and essential items will be provided for us.
pahs-EmilyF wrote:
Danielle, first off, how do these actions you speak of help to control populations? Another thing I’m questioning is the license. How would this work? There are other factors that you would have to deal with. One of those factors would be teen pregnancy. This license will not necessarily stop teens from having sex. Another factor would be unemployment, what if a wealthy person doesn’t want a job because they already have the means to start a family? Would they not be allowed to start one? Also, by limiting the number of children you are allowed to have is infringing on our rights as American citizens. I agree with Lindsey when she said that she does not believe we should start limiting the number of children people should have. Your theory is very creative, but only for a perfect world.
Emily-These actions help control populations because they limit the amount of children people can have. By saying how the license would work, what do you mean? I don't think teen pregnancy is such a big deal anyway. Not that many teens are getting pregnant, so it's not that big of an issue in the world. Think about it. I think that there is a bigger issue out there than teen pregnancy.
I think that divorce is a bigger issue. Not so much the actual divorce, but the fact that the more people divorce, the more the population increases. How you may ask? Well, let me show you. Two people get married. They have two kids. They divorce. Then the mother gets remarried and has one child with her new husband. Then they get a divorce. The wife remarries for a third time and has two more kids. So altogether there are five kids. If the wife would have originally stayed with her first husband, there would only be two children. Teaching people more logic and how to read themselves for what they want in life, then they will be able to find the perfect partner. Doing so, would help regulate population control.
Back to your questions. If a person is wealthy enough to no need to have a job, then they would be charged a tax. That would then allow them to have children. Yes, my theory is out there. But it could be possible.
Wow, I think that teen pregnancy is a big factor in the world, the US anyhow. The teen pregnancy rate has gone up atleast 10% in the last twenty years, and with so many people not using effective contreception these days, who knows how bad it will be by 2020.
Danielle, I was just using teen pregnancy as an example. How would this license prevent anyone from getting pregnant, including teens (thank you Megan), before or after getting the license? Just because they are told not to reproduce without being married, doesn’t mean they won’t. What if a single women or a man wanted to adopt? Would they still have to be married or could they be a single parent? Also, what if a married couple had twins, triplets, ect.? Would this be allowed? On the divorce issue, what are the divorce statistics on people that get divorced and then have more children?
I think taxing people to have children because they are wealthy shouldn’t be something they have to deal with. Taxes are put on income, property, and goods, it shouldn’t be on children. They are not just items, they are the future.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-28 at 08:05 PM by: pahs-EmilyF
Taxing people might even make things worse. A lot of the time people only have children because of the tax rebates they get at the end of the year for having more children.
Also, about the people having children who aren't married, etc, look at our country. A lot of the people here are religious, and I'm not completely sure but most of the religions I know of don't approve of sex before marriage, yet look how many children are born each year compared to the amount of weddings each year.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-28 at 08:09 PM by: MeganW
If we would just give healthcare way, then wouldn't that mean that more people would live while more people are being born? Then the population would just increase. If we just gave it away, then parents will think that it is ok to have more and more children because they don't have to worry about paying for healthcare, also causing the population to increase.
Although both Danielle and Megan make great points about teen pregnancies, I though of something. What about abortions? Abortions in the US are mostly made by women <25 years of age. Unmarried women also account for 81% of abortions. In 1990 there was 1.6 million abortions, but it started to declinde and by the decade's ending it was close to 1.3 million. That is the lowest it has ever been. If abortions keep going, then the population is decreasing. I'm not for abortion, but it does keep the population from going up drastically.
Divorce is not only a problem, but cheating as well. If a girl or a guy cheats on the person that they are with, they could cause more births. For example, if a guy is cheating with more than one girl and then gets them pregnant, that is just more births. There also could be a possibility of one or more of the girls with twins.
pahs-ShaynaL wrote:
If we would just give healthcare way, then wouldn't that mean that more people would live while more people are being born? Then the population would just increase. If we just gave it away, then parents will think that it is ok to have more and more children because they don't have to worry about paying for healthcare, also causing the population to increase.
Although both Danielle and Megan make great points about teen pregnancies, I though of something. What about abortions? Abortions in the US are mostly made by women <25 years of age. Unmarried women also account for 81% of abortions. In 1990 there was 1.6 million abortions, but it started to declinde and by the decade's ending it was close to 1.3 million. That is the lowest it has ever been. If abortions keep going, then the population is decreasing. I'm not for abortion, but it does keep the population from going up drastically.
Divorce is not only a problem, but cheating as well. If a girl or a guy cheats on the person that they are with, they could cause more births. For example, if a guy is cheating with more than one girl and then gets them pregnant, that is just more births. There also could be a possibility of one or more of the girls with twins.
Well, I think that in the 90s there were a lot more abortions than there is now. Seeing as that teen pregnancy isn't a taboo as much as it was ten years ago, more girls are willing to keep their babies or find other ways to still have them but maybe have someone else take care of them. I think that abortions do happen a lot in the US, but I also think that it doesn't really make up a lot of the death rate in America.
About the cheating thing, I completely agree. From what I've gathered it seems as if more and more people are cheating or getting divorced nowadays than they were in say, the 50s. Marriage just doesn't have the same meaning as it did then.
You can't tell someone to not reproduce simply because they aren't married. That is a major violation of the separation of church and state.
Maybe the government should take direct actions to reduce carbon emissions and prevent global warming AND raise awareness of overpopulation, but not stopping people from having kids.
It's easier to tell citizens they can't driver Hummers than it is to tell them they can't have babies.
You also have to consider that letting the government control how many babies people can have could lead to some bad things down the road, like maybe harsh penalites for those who have too many kids which is out of the question.
I think the US, as the richest country in the world, needs to not only actually become involved in fighting global warming, but needs to lead the cause. We need to elect leaders who take this seriously and stand up to the industries who are such a major cause of the problem and aren't doing anything to fix it.
If we can do this and simultaneously tell people about the major problems of overpopulation and the things they can do as individuals to stop it, then maybe things will change. This way we're treating the planet better while taking steps to stop overpopulation by informing and teaching, rather than by threatening.
It's going to be even harder though since we ARE the United States and we are the richest country in the world. Half of the other countries in the world hate our guts for what we're doing to them someway or another.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
It's going to be even harder though since we ARE the United States and we are the richest country in the world. Half of the other countries in the world hate our guts for what we're doing to them someway or another.
If the United States would become involved in things like this and start to work with other countries on these important issues then maybe we wouldn't be so hated.
It's sad that such a wealthy country won't contribute to this cause.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-28 at 10:38 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
I have been wondering this question throughout our whole debate and talk of population and this is for anyone that has an idea. We have talked about how we can tell people all about the problems going on in the world but how do we get them to actually listen and act on it? Just because we telling them to doesn't mean they will. I want some idea on how to get them interested and to just take a stand in whats going on in the world.
I agree with Emily about the license that Danielle suggested not to work. I don't think that just because we set up a license system that it would be followed. Everyone tells kids not to smoke or do drugs everyday but they still do it even though its a law. Setting up a system might decrease it a little but it's not going to be 100% affective.
pahs-JennaM wrote:
I have been wondering this question throughout our whole debate and talk of population and this is for anyone that has an idea. We have talked about how we can tell people all about the problems going on in the world but how do we get them to actually listen and act on it? Just because we telling them to doesn't mean they will. I want some idea on how to get them interested and to just take a stand in whats going on in the world.
First of all we have to make our country not as hated as we are right now. In order to make everyone aware we have to let them have choices and not shove everyone's beliefs down their throats. There needs to be a way that we can inform people through a peaceful matter.
My look on population control is this... Any set of parents should be able to have as many children they want as long as they have a way to provide for that child in every way it needs. Also, if a set of parents has more than one child, they should have to be able to provide for each child equally so as not to possibly skew one child's future or something like that. I also think that birth control or abortion would be a considerable way to stabilize the population. Birth control would be usable for WOMEN AND MEN both. Furthermore, my view on abortion is that it's not considered murder unless the child is actually born so I think that abortion could also be a source of population stabilization. Please give me some input here.
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
<a href="http://profiles.tiged.org/pahs-
If the United States would become involved in things like this and start to work with other countries on these important issues then maybe we wouldn't be so hated.
It's sad that such a wealthy country won't contribute to this cause.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-28 at 10:38 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
Charles, the United States DOES get involved in stuff like this! We're always hearing about funds for things ranging from AIDS to a Save The Whales campaign. The U.S. is always giving money to other countries and sending people to places to help out the needy. The thing we need to remember is that countries hold grudges. We're trying to do so much at one time but it won't do anything if we can't stop fighting with other countries long enough to take a nice hard look at the big picture. We need a wake up call.
pahs-ZakD wrote:
Furthermore, my view on abortion is that it's not considered murder unless the child is actually born so I think that abortion could also be a source of population stabilization. Please give me some input here.
thank you. i feel the same way. the fetus does no breath or eat by itself, so i personally do not feel it is alive. if someone was on life support because they were in a car accident and they weren't going to get better would you leave them on it to suffer or would you pull the plug? for a fetus, i believe it is almost the same situation. it isn't taking care of itself so if the mother is at risk of dying for having the baby, or if the baby is at risk of dying, or if the mother is raped, i believe it is her choice. she shouldn't have to go through anything that she doesn't want to because with childbirth there are many downsides. i think adoption is a better choice but i also think abortion could be a choice.
pahs-JennaM wrote:
I agree with Emily about the license that Danielle suggested not to work. I don't think that just because we set up a license system that it would be followed. Everyone tells kids not to smoke or do drugs everyday but they still do it even though its a law. Setting up a system might decrease it a little but it's not going to be 100% affective.
I believe that doing something is better than doing nothing. Honestly, think of how many more drug and alcohol problems there would be if there were no laws to hinder children from taking them, because nobody would feel that it was wrong if there were no laws. If a license like Danielle suggested was put into effect I believe that it would have at least moderate results.
pahs-ZakD wrote:
My look on population control is this... Any set of parents should be able to have as many children they want as long as they have a way to provide for that child in every way it needs. Also, if a set of parents has more than one child, they should have to be able to provide for each child equally so as not to possibly skew one child's future or something like that. I also think that birth control or abortion would be a considerable way to stabilize the population. Birth control would be usable for WOMEN AND MEN both. Furthermore, my view on abortion is that it's not considered murder unless the child is actually born so I think that abortion could also be a source of population stabilization. Please give me some input here.
I agree with the beginning of this. I think that people on wellfare for instance shouldn't be able to have 7 or 8 kids and not be able to pay for their needs and then in the future have those same children be in the same position with the same or even more amount of children. I don't agree with the abortion part though. I think that if someone has had the choice to have sex than they should have to deal with the consequence. But, of course, rape and other things like that are an exception. Also, how are men supposed to be put on birth control? A vasectomy? Ha, I don't think anyone would do that. I don't think there's a drug like the one for women for men. I think that people should just be aware.
pahs-ScottW wrote:
pahs-JennaM wrote:
I agree with Emily about the license that Danielle suggested not to work. I don't think that just because we set up a license system that it would be followed. Everyone tells kids not to smoke or do drugs everyday but they still do it even though its a law. Setting up a system might decrease it a little but it's not going to be 100% affective.
I believe that doing something is better than doing nothing. Honestly, think of how many more drug and alcohol problems there would be if there were no laws to hinder children from taking them, because nobody would feel that it was wrong if there were no laws. If a license like Danielle suggested was put into effect I believe that it would have at least moderate results.
I don't agree with this ending part. The license would just make the teens want to have premarital sex even more. When you tell someone they can't do something, even force them, it makes them want to do it even more.
pahs-ZakD wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
<a href="http://profiles.tiged.org/pahs-
If the United States would become involved in things like this and start to work with other countries on these important issues then maybe we wouldn't be so hated.
It's sad that such a wealthy country won't contribute to this cause.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-28 at 10:38 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
Charles, the United States DOES get involved in stuff like this! We're always hearing about funds for things ranging from AIDS to a Save The Whales campaign. The U.S. is always giving money to other countries and sending people to places to help out the needy. The thing we need to remember is that countries hold grudges. We're trying to do so much at one time but it won't do anything if we can't stop fighting with other countries long enough to take a nice hard look at the big picture. We need a wake up call.
But, we're shoving our beliefs down their throat! By us just coming over there and starting to preach to other countries, it doesn't even do anything. We need to get into other people's communities, into their customs. Just because we talk to a certain goverment doesn't mean it's going to affect EVERYONE in that country. We have to go down to their level and understand where they're coming from.
But, we're shoving our beliefs down their throat! By us just coming over there and starting to preach to other countries, it doesn't even do anything. We need to get into other people's communities, into their customs. Just because we talk to a certain goverment doesn't mean it's going to affect EVERYONE in that country. We have to go down to their level and understand where they're coming from.
I agree. If we force our beliefs on them, eventually war will break out, which will only make matters worse. If war would be a result, not only would people die from warfare, but that would limit resources even more. I believe that the best thing to do is to not look at ourselves as seperated democracies, but to join as a global population. I know this would be extremely difficult due to issues of cultures and beliefs, but this would bring all the great minds of the world together to fabricate a solution.
Wow Emily you put it perfectly, and this is probably the most complicated thing I've ever done in my life. But besides the point.. The number of people in our world has increased over the years, as stated on betterworld.net there are 140 babies born every minute! Now how do we control our population, or better yet how do we know what's right in the world? So here are my ideas.. make teens be on birth control. Now everyone knows that teenagers all over the world aren't ready to have children, but things happen.. but if at the school we had ways to give birth control pills to students we could prevent parents vs. child conflict and teen pregnancies. Also we should limit the amount of children parents can have depending on the amount of monoey they make. Sure, this sounds mean and unjust, but if you're onlly pulling in 20,000 a year should you really have 5 kids? No, yet some people do, and then get money from the government to help. Third is Education. If more people finished highschool and went to college they would have the knowledge not to start families too young and not have too many children when they are ready. This would also reduce poverty and save many lives. Now this big group..The United Nations Population Fund works with governments and non-governmental organizations in 140 countries to promote reproductive health. Which means nothing to you unless I explain. These programs help to save lives, slow the spread of HIV. This helps to reduce poverty and stabilize population growth which is the idea of this writing. So all in all everything I meantioned would be creating more healthy and smart families, communities and a better world.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
But, we're shoving our beliefs down their throat! By us just coming over there and starting to preach to other countries, it doesn't even do anything. We need to get into other people's communities, into their customs. Just because we talk to a certain goverment doesn't mean it's going to affect EVERYONE in that country. We have to go down to their level and understand where they're coming from.
I agree. If we force our beliefs on them, eventually war will break out, which will only make matters worse. If war would be a result, not only would people die from warfare, but that would limit resources even more. I believe that the best thing to do is to not look at ourselves as seperated democracies, but to join as a global population. I know this would be extremely difficult due to issues of cultures and beliefs, but this would bring all the great minds of the world together to fabricate a solution.
Yes, if the U.S. would try to solve problems instead of forcing their beliefs, customs, ect. upon others we would have better results and less conflict.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
But, we're shoving our beliefs down their throat! By us just coming over there and starting to preach to other countries, it doesn't even do anything. We need to get into other people's communities, into their customs. Just because we talk to a certain goverment doesn't mean it's going to affect EVERYONE in that country. We have to go down to their level and understand where they're coming from.
I agree. If we force our beliefs on them, eventually war will break out, which will only make matters worse. If war would be a result, not only would people die from warfare, but that would limit resources even more. I believe that the best thing to do is to not look at ourselves as seperated democracies, but to join as a global population. I know this would be extremely difficult due to issues of cultures and beliefs, but this would bring all the great minds of the world together to fabricate a solution.
Exactly, if only there was en easy way to do that.
Exactly, if only there was en easy way to do that.
The way that can be done is if the world's government officials just admit we all have differences, suck it up, and find a way to save the Earth.
pahs-KristaM wrote:
Wow Emily you put it perfectly, and this is probably the most complicated thing I've ever done in my life. But besides the point.. The number of people in our world has increased over the years, as stated on betterworld.net there are 140 babies born every minute! Now how do we control our population, or better yet how do we know what's right in the world? So here are my ideas.. make teens be on birth control. Now everyone knows that teenagers all over the world aren't ready to have children, but things happen.. but if at the school we had ways to give birth control pills to students we could prevent parents vs. child conflict and teen pregnancies. Also we should limit the amount of children parents can have depending on the amount of money they make. Sure, this sounds mean and unjust, but if you're only pulling in 20,000 a year should you really have 5 kids? No, yet some people do, and then get money from the government to help. Third is Education. If more people finished high school and went to college they would have the knowledge not to start families too young and not have too many children when they are ready. This would also reduce poverty and save many lives. Now this big group..The United Nations Population Fund works with governments and non-governmental organizations in 140 countries to promote reproductive health. Which means nothing to you unless I explain. These programs help to save lives, slow the spread of HIV. This helps to reduce poverty and stabilize population growth which is the idea of this writing. So all in all everything I mentioned would be creating more healthy and smart families, communities and a better world.
I don't think birth control is the answer. Do they even make birth control for guys? Just giving birth control pills to women is sexist and not right; the human body should not run on chemicals, and sterilization of the male/female population seems unethical. Maybe people should only be able to have a certain and then they should be sterilized or have a form a preventive surgery? What are your opinions on this?
Charles, the United States DOES get involved in stuff like this! We're always hearing about funds for things ranging from AIDS to a Save The Whales campaign. The U.S. is always giving money to other countries and sending people to places to help out the needy. The thing we need to remember is that countries hold grudges. We're trying to do so much at one time but it won't do anything if we can't stop fighting with other countries long enough to take a nice hard look at the big picture. We need a wake up call.
Yes, but I'm talking about the government not contributing to the cause. Save the Whales isn't a government program. I don't think countries don't hate us because they hold grudges against us. I think they hate us for what we're doing NOW.
Like Megan was saying, we have to approach other nations with respect and understanding of their cultures. We have to talk with them about global warming and how we as a world community can fix it.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:49 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
pahs-ScottW wrote:
pahs-KristaM wrote:
Wow Emily you put it perfectly, and this is probably the most complicated thing I've ever done in my life. But besides the point.. The number of people in our world has increased over the years, as stated on betterworld.net there are 140 babies born every minute! Now how do we control our population, or better yet how do we know what's right in the world? So here are my ideas.. make teens be on birth control. Now everyone knows that teenagers all over the world aren't ready to have children, but things happen.. but if at the school we had ways to give birth control pills to students we could prevent parents vs. child conflict and teen pregnancies. Also we should limit the amount of children parents can have depending on the amount of money they make. Sure, this sounds mean and unjust, but if you're only pulling in 20,000 a year should you really have 5 kids? No, yet some people do, and then get money from the government to help. Third is Education. If more people finished high school and went to college they would have the knowledge not to start families too young and not have too many children when they are ready. This would also reduce poverty and save many lives. Now this big group..The United Nations Population Fund works with governments and non-governmental organizations in 140 countries to promote reproductive health. Which means nothing to you unless I explain. These programs help to save lives, slow the spread of HIV. This helps to reduce poverty and stabilize population growth which is the idea of this writing. So all in all everything I mentioned would be creating more healthy and smart families, communities and a better world.
I don't think birth control is the answer. Do they even make birth control for guys? Just giving birth control pills to women is sexist and not right; the human body should not run on chemicals, and sterilization of the male/female population seems unethical. Maybe people should only be able to have a certain and then they should be sterilized or have a form a preventive surgery? What are your opinions on this?
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly sexist.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:52 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
pahs-ScottW wrote:
pahs-KristaM wrote:
Wow Emily you put it perfectly, and this is probably the most complicated thing I've ever done in my life. But besides the point.. The number of people in our world has increased over the years, as stated on betterworld.net there are 140 babies born every minute! Now how do we control our population, or better yet how do we know what's right in the world? So here are my ideas.. make teens be on birth control. Now everyone knows that teenagers all over the world aren't ready to have children, but things happen.. but if at the school we had ways to give birth control pills to students we could prevent parents vs. child conflict and teen pregnancies. Also we should limit the amount of children parents can have depending on the amount of money they make. Sure, this sounds mean and unjust, but if you're only pulling in 20,000 a year should you really have 5 kids? No, yet some people do, and then get money from the government to help. Third is Education. If more people finished high school and went to college they would have the knowledge not to start families too young and not have too many children when they are ready. This would also reduce poverty and save many lives. Now this big group..The United Nations Population Fund works with governments and non-governmental organizations in 140 countries to promote reproductive health. Which means nothing to you unless I explain. These programs help to save lives, slow the spread of HIV. This helps to reduce poverty and stabilize population growth which is the idea of this writing. So all in all everything I mentioned would be creating more healthy and smart families, communities and a better world.
I don't think birth control is the answer. Do they even make birth control for guys? Just giving birth control pills to women is sexist and not right; the human body should not run on chemicals, and sterilization of the male/female population seems unethical. Maybe people should only be able to have a certain and then they should be sterilized or have a form a preventive surgery? What are your opinions on this?
No! This would be against free will.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree with most of what everyone has said but i have some other things. I think that the hardworking and dedacating people in the lower class,if you want to call it, should get money for there family and there heath. The people in higher class that don't work or deserve it should have to pay higher taxes. This might help with the money issue. It might help the tax issue too since it would be the people who deserved to pay will. This is my thoughts and I believe this could help population since it will help the money issue in countries. It could aslo lead to other things like medical care help.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I believe that there are strong opinions in this area, but I also believe that birth control could be a major factor in reaching zero-population-growth. There has to be some way to control births, and unfortunately, not everyone will agree with a new idea. Nevertheless, something must be done, but I am at a loss for ethical ideas. Got any good proposals?
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
pahs-ScottW wrote:
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I believe that there are strong opinions in this area, but I also believe that birth control could be a major factor in reaching zero-population-growth. There has to be some way to control births, and unfortunately, not everyone will agree with a new idea. Nevertheless, something must be done, but I am at a loss for ethical ideas. Got any good proposals?
I don't think we want zero population growth. But anyhow, as I've repeated many times, people need informed!
pahs-ScottW wrote:
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I believe that there are strong opinions in this area, but I also believe that birth control could be a major factor in reaching zero-population-growth. There has to be some way to control births, and unfortunately, not everyone will agree with a new idea. Nevertheless, something must be done, but I am at a loss for ethical ideas. Got any good proposals?
I believe that the best two ways of birth control are condoms and abstinence.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
You make a great point, but there's always going to be that percent of the population that just doesn't care.
pahs-MarilynO wrote:
I agree with most of what everyone has said but i have some other things. I think that the hardworking and dedacating people in the lower class,if you want to call it, should get money for there family and there heath. The people in higher class that don't work or deserve it should have to pay higher taxes. This might help with the money issue. It might help the tax issue too since it would be the people who deserved to pay will. This is my thoughts and I believe this could help population since it will help the money issue in countries. It could aslo lead to other things like medical care help.
Good points.
Lucas, your idea would require the government to force women to put something into their body. I don't care if we're talking birth control or Cheerios here, that is simply too much power being put into the governments hands.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
You make a great point, but there's always going to be that percent of the population that just doesn't care.
I think that in every way we think of to help the population there's always going to be that percent that doesn't care. If only we could find something that opens everyone's eyes. I don't think half the US knows what will happen to the country if the population keeps growing like it is, I'm not even sure if I do completely.
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
pahs-MarilynO wrote:
I agree with most of what everyone has said but i have some other things. I think that the hardworking and dedacating people in the lower class,if you want to call it, should get money for there family and there heath. The people in higher class that don't work or deserve it should have to pay higher taxes. This might help with the money issue. It might help the tax issue too since it would be the people who deserved to pay will. This is my thoughts and I believe this could help population since it will help the money issue in countries. It could aslo lead to other things like medical care help.
Good points.
Lucas, your idea would require the government to force women to put something into their body. I don't care if we're talking birth control or Cheerios here, that is simply too much power being put into the governments hands.
You make a good point, but I'm not making it a law for this to happen, I'm saying as a choice to the women and/or men
condoms and abstinence are both very good ways to prevent births, but ,sadly, not enough people use these methods. Like it was said, we need to get people informed with new information and programs; we cannot stick with old ways, they obviously are not working.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
You make a great point, but there's always going to be that percent of the population that just doesn't care.
I think that in every way we think of to help the population there's always going to be that percent that doesn't care. If only we could find something that opens everyone's eyes. I don't think half the US knows what will happen to the country if the population keeps growing like it is, I'm not even sure if I do completely.
There's nobody that can for sure. I mean look at Y2K. That never happened. The only diffenence between that and this is that the situation that we're discussing is more backed up by science.
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
pahs-MarilynO wrote:
I agree with most of what everyone has said but i have some other things. I think that the hardworking and dedacating people in the lower class,if you want to call it, should get money for there family and there heath. The people in higher class that don't work or deserve it should have to pay higher taxes. This might help with the money issue. It might help the tax issue too since it would be the people who deserved to pay will. This is my thoughts and I believe this could help population since it will help the money issue in countries. It could aslo lead to other things like medical care help.
Good points.
Lucas, your idea would require the government to force women to put something into their body. I don't care if we're talking birth control or Cheerios here, that is simply too much power being put into the governments hands.
Agreed. We might as well call the US a tyrancy if that's what it ends up at. Since there is that choice now, about birth control, it all goes back to people being aware of the population. Most people who even use contraception don't use it because they care about the population, they just don't want a child. If we make them think of the way they are crushing our country to the ground, maybe they'll care.
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
You make a great point, but there's always going to be that percent of the population that just doesn't care.
I think that in every way we think of to help the population there's always going to be that percent that doesn't care. If only we could find something that opens everyone's eyes. I don't think half the US knows what will happen to the country if the population keeps growing like it is, I'm not even sure if I do completely.
There's nobody that can for sure. I mean look at Y2K. That never happened. The only diffenence between that and this is that the situation that we're discussing is more backed up by science.
Good reference. Plus, there's always those people that just think that the world's going to fix itself, and I mean there's no say that it couldn't! Who knows, by the time each country reaches its carrying capacity there might just be a new disease or something that kills off half the population!
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
pahs-MarilynO wrote:
I agree with most of what everyone has said but i have some other things. I think that the hardworking and dedacating people in the lower class,if you want to call it, should get money for there family and there heath. The people in higher class that don't work or deserve it should have to pay higher taxes. This might help with the money issue. It might help the tax issue too since it would be the people who deserved to pay will. This is my thoughts and I believe this could help population since it will help the money issue in countries. It could aslo lead to other things like medical care help.
Good points.
Lucas, your idea would require the government to force women to put something into their body. I don't care if we're talking birth control or Cheerios here, that is simply too much power being put into the governments hands.
Agreed. We might as well call the US a tyrancy if that's what it ends up at. Since there is that choice now, about birth control, it all goes back to people being aware of the population. Most people who even use contraception don't use it because they care about the population, they just don't want a child. If we make them think of the way they are crushing our country to the ground, maybe they'll care.
I believe that your method may be the only way, giving the government control over births may even be against the constitution, I don't really know.
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-MeganW wrote:
pahs-LucasB wrote:
pahs-CharlesD wrote:
It's not a matter of sexism on who takes birth control. The matter is that men cannot produce babies, and women can, so giving birth control to men isn't nearly as efficient.
Uh, yeah. Forcing women to take birth control is incredibly misogynistic.
This post was edited on: 2007-11-29 at 08:51 PM by: pahs-CharlesD
As of right now, nobody is forcing anything. I can see how it can be taken as sexist, but it's not the men that are giving birth. The women are the ones that are producing the baby.
Not only that, but say there is a birth control for just men. A married man gets it, and then his wife has an affair with a man that doesn't have it. That just defeats the purpose.
Are you kidding me? It takes sperm and eggs to make a baby, not just eggs. I believe this is a health class 101 area. What if a woman has birth control and a man has an affair with a woman who doesn't? Hmm doesn't this ring a bell.
I'm not saying that female-only birth control is the only way, and I'm not saying it's the best way, but I'm saying that just because some may find it sexist that doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be done. The point is, the birth isn't going to control itself, so the couple should have whoever they feel is more comfortable getting the birth control.
Well, there are other forms of contreception. I mean what ever happened to abstinence?
I agree 110% that abstinance is the best source of birth control, but to most people today, abstinence is a joke. What about condoms?
Hardly effective. People need to be more aware, especially people our age. The programs they have today to teach kids were directed towards kids in the 60s, no wonder they aren't effective.
You make a great point, but there's always going to be that percent of the population that just doesn't care.
I think that in every way we think of to help the population there's always going to be that percent that doesn't care. If only we could find something that opens everyone's eyes. I don't think half the US knows what will happen to the country if the population keeps growing like it is, I'm not even sure if I do completely.
There's nobody that can for sure. I mean look at Y2K. That never happened. The only diffenence between that and this is that the situation that we're discussing is more backed up by science.
Good reference. Plus, there's always those people that just think that the world's going to fix itself, and I mean there's no say that it couldn't! Who knows, by the time each country reaches its carrying capacity there might just be a new disease or something that kills off half the population!
The earth may go even further than that. What if all the stresses of overpopulation cause the earth to do something erratic, anyone ever see the movie "The Stand" by Stephen King. In it a super-germ kills the majority of the earths population. If something like a population-eradicating super-germ could exist then it would strike when the human population is densest. Most human life would be erased, and as morbid as it sounds, that may be the closest thing to less population growth than the world will ever get; unless action is taken NOW!
What do you think we could do though? I mean yeah, just talking about it here is raising our awareness, but what about the rest of the world's?
Megan and Scott, I agree with you both about the world possibly fixing itself, by decreasing our population immensely.
Just think of the world as a human. Humans get diseases all the time, and our bodies are made to help protect us from these diseases and make us live longer. In this case, we are the disease, because we cause harm upon the Earth. It seems as if the Earth is trying to defend itself against us, by causing hurricanes, tornadoes, global warming, ect. We have done so much damage, that it is trying to heal itself by getting rid of us.
Megan, it is always hard to raise awareness on such a touchy subject, most people don’t listen until it is too late.
Yes, Emily, I feel that you are right. Without change something bad will happen. I don't think there is anything else I can add to this topic.
pahs-EmilyF wrote:
Megan and Scott, I agree with you both about the world possibly fixing itself, by decreasing our population immensely.
Just think of the world as a human. Humans get diseases all the time, and our bodies are made to help protect us from these diseases and make us live longer. In this case, we are the disease, because we cause harm upon the Earth. It seems as if the Earth is trying to defend itself against us, by causing hurricanes, tornadoes, global warming, ect. We have done so much damage, that it is trying to heal itself by getting rid of us.
Megan, it is always hard to raise awareness on such a touchy subject, most people don’t listen until it is too late.
Exactly! I mean, the water in the earth obviously melted down after the ice age so who says that the population won't go down -- with our help.
I wish it wasn't such a touchy subject either, I mean it shouldn't be something that anyone can be embarrassed of.
JennaM
Nov 27, 2007 at 6:31 PM