WHATS WRONG WITH FAMILY PLANNING?

BIRTH CONTROL OR FREE FOR ALL?

http://www.blacklistednews.com/They_Want_To_Sterilize_American_Women%3A_Sterilization_Won%E2%80%99t_Cost_Women_A_Penny_Under_Obamacare/20494/0/38/38/Y/M.html


Conspiracy theorists and truth seekers hate birth control. Any time birth control is mentioned they protest against it seeing it quite simply as being part of a depopulation agenda. It is generally seen as being promoted by eugenicists and environmentalists. I would never put theses two things in the same sentence but the right wing truthers do: to them there is no difference between caring for the environment and hating people. All "greens" think that the impact humans make on the world should be minimised in order to preserve the earth in a healthy state. This means taking into account that there is a finite amount of water on this planet and if we do not curtail our numbers and our activities we will poison the water to such an extent that it will no longer support life: including us.

It seems perfectly acceptable to me to be able to believe in the need for birth control without being open to accusations of being in favour of slaughtering people. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is not killing someone. Terminating a living fetus is another matter, and it is the promise made under "Obamacare" to provide free abortions to all regardless of age that has upset people most recently. Before demoting this action to the status of an act of murder by the state opponents ought to take a moment to look at things from the position of the individual who undergoes the abortion. Should women made pregnant through rape be made to bring an unwanted child in to the world? What about a young girl who is "roofied"? Should she live with a child that was not made from love: indeed was made from an act of evil? Some women who find themselves pregnant outside of marriage could run the risk of being isolated by their families or beaten: if they are unlucky enough to be pregnant at an early age, it could stop them from having a life if parenthood is forced upon them. Individual rights, particularly the right to individual choice is at stake if the anti abortion lobby win their argument. Abortion is not being made compulsory, but I think that some anti abortionists feel that making access too easy will lead to some women having abortions and then regretting it, or using abortion as a contraceptive rather than some form of prevention.

If  proper contraception is used, no matter what form it takes it will help to prevent an unwanted birth. By restricting access to birth control methods there will be more children born in to misery and poverty. How can you be a loving parent if, at the back of your mind you are thinking that the child in front of you was a mistake? It's no use expecting adolescents to resist temptation, to wait until they are married. Some will, but there are plenty that won't. Whether through peer pressure or getting caught up in the moment some will have sex, maybe out of curiosity or from mistaking hormonal desire for love. Only a heartless, pious person could tell their pregnant teenage daughter that she made her bed so she will have to lie in it. It is even worse to make the girl have the child against her will. Mistakes happen and people should be allowed the opportunity to rectify them.


Some States make abortion more difficult because they say that they believe in the sanctity of life. In America the government can make one set of laws and the individual states make separate laws. There is sometimes conflict between the two. The Marijuana situation is a good example. Some states have legalized its use for medicinal purposes. There are even cannabis dispensaries. The government, however, (even though they and Britain are the biggest opium dealers on the planet) are against the use of weed and actively arrest sellers and users. The same kind of thing seems to be happening with abortion. Although the government want to make abortion accessible to everyone some states are legislating against abortion, or doing everything that they can to make it difficult.


http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/5/in-texas-abortionclinicsclose.html

http://www.alternet.org/texas-women-forced-use-ulcer-medication-induce-abortion-thanks-draconian-anti-choice-law

As the above link shows restricting access will result in some women taking extreme measures because they are scared. No woman should ever be put in that position. The right to self determination should come first. It doesn't even matter what a pregnant woman's reasons for wanting an abortion are: if, for any reason she feels that she cannot be a mother then she should have the right to make her own choice. Politicians have no right to tell her, neither do religious leaders. If people have a problem with that they also have a problem with democracy, with freedom of choice, with individual rights.

What about suitability to be a parent? Look at the way some people behave. Drug taking, alcohol abuse and promiscuity contribute to the number of unwanted births every year. Should irresponsible people who have children that they neglect, exploit or abuse just be allowed to keep reproducing? People who will not put their children first and see them only as a gateway to state benefits should not be allowed to be parents. Some kind of parenting exam should be brought in which is mandatory and should anybody fail they should not be allowed to have a family.  This leads to the thorny question of who would make such decisions. If social services are the people to decide what is to stop them from concluding that a pregnant woman will not make a good parent? Could we see a move from the present role of removing children from what are considered dangers to recommending terminations? This would certainly be in violation of individual rights. It could lead to ethnic cleansing or categorizing certain types as not mentally fit for holding certain views.Having children is everyone's right: so too should the right to not have children.

Going further from this, perhaps the state could determine character types that they consider antisocial and then sterilize whole swathes of the population. Who would they choose? Murderers, Rapists, child abusers? Probably not. Under the current legal system the highest jail sentences are given to thieves, particularly armed robbers who target banks. This tells you all that you need to know about the value system of the state that controls us. I have a feeling that if  birth control is not taken up by enough people there will be eugenicists that are in favor of the more extreme methods of population control. Do you think that I am exaggerating? They have already tried it.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/psyc/skinner.htm

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/13/opinion/la-oe-rubin-eugenics-mothers-day-20120513

So is there a balance to be found? The state, by which I mean almost every government in the world want to advance family planning in order to control our numbers. Many religions and civic groups are against it. Is the argument merely one of progression versus conservatism or is there more to it? An argument could be made that it is only relevant in a capitalist society. Eugenics has been around for about the same time as industrialism and as automatic machinery have increased it has led to the need for less workers. We are at the stage now where children will be born into unemployment. Industrialists want to play god and determine how many people should be born to keep their system running and to keep the elite, who don't seem to limit the size of their own families in the luxury that they are in now. In short, if we didn't have capitalism there would be no need for birth control.

Is birth control to be the thin end of the bat that is going to beat people into submission? It is a scarily Orwelian scenario. Is this what the anti abortionists worry about? Abortion is a very emotive subject which is why the chance of unwanted pregnancy should be minimized through birth control. Parents should stop complaining about their children being taught birth control at school and see it as a way of giving them more information with which to make a better informed decision. My view, having looked at both sides is that the safer option for us repressed people (everyone on less than $30 000 a year) is to go along with birth control until we can find a way to change the system that we live in and concentrate on what keeps us alive rather than on what makes a profit.

The governments best weapon in reducing population is not contraception. It is their everyday decisions that will sway youngsters. I have three children who have all told me they will never bring a child in to this world. Successive governments of all political persuasions have screwed things up so much they are creating disillusion. There is no future for them. No jobs, they can't afford a place of their own and they can't see any improvement in the future. What's more they shun social life in favor of sitting at their pcs involved in a virtual world because, I guess, they feel safer there than in the real world.

Maybe that is how we will die out. People will just lose the urge to continue unless we provide a world for them that seems worth having children in.