We are suffering from what is called an aging population do you think the government would combat this by doing the above? To help ease the finacial burden in the future?
2007-03-20 00:40:15 · 26 answers · asked by natasha * 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The reason I am asking this is not because I have watched too much TV etc, it is because of the whole hormones in the water system due to womens contraceptive pills.
This isnt a wind up, I was thinking about it this morning in the shower. It is a serious question.
2007-03-20 00:47:09 · update #1
Think about it this way, if you middle east wanted to disable the whole of the world they could. By sabbotaging our fuel supply, you saw how badly such a little thing affected us not so long ago.
It would be benificial to us as well. The population is growing older, and at the moment we arent reproducing at a fast enough rate; so that the babies of today will be paying taxes and 'supporting us' when we are old.
2007-03-20 00:57:55 · update #2
Sure, why not....
...the military gave their own men syphilis...
2007-03-20 01:24:47 · answer #1 · answered by Marsha Mellow 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
mmm thats interesting.
I haven't done much research into this but apparantly female hormones are used to clean water. If the government wanted to increase child births surely contraceptives wouldn't be given on the NHS and hospitals wouldn't practically frogmarch you to the clinic to get them?
Then again, IVF is free. The best way to ease the burden would be to cut costs from unnessary services now. They've already increased the pension age. Your right about the ageing population 1/4 of the UKpopulation are over pension age!
2007-03-20 01:28:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
OMG! I suggested a similar issue about the VERICHIP being the Mark of the Beast at the same time as CNN replaced into speaking about the Virginia college capturing. some authorities officials were on CNN discussing the opportunity of implanting a chip in the wrist of all college scholars to understand who "nuts up" and the position to discover them. i'm so adverse to that. Letting each body carry hid guns can be a more beneficial useful answer to the priority. Ex. I ensure that if someone is going right into a school or everywhere else with a gun and begins capturing, each body else round is going to tug out their guns and, in a united attempt, shoot the shooter. human beings received't pull a gun on someone at the same time as they know that each body round them is armed. What chance did those Virginia scholars have? What chance do any human beings have if someone pulls a gun on us and we do no longer have a gun to take care of ourselves basically to even the percentages?
2016-12-02 06:55:41 · answer #3 · answered by bulgarella 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they did that, what would we do with all the kids that survived the legal abortions? Why do they need to add anything to the water? A lot of kids are products of evenings that don't include a lot of water intake. Make more alcohol available and you won't need to add drugs to the water, just put in some ice and let it melt!
2007-03-26 11:41:46 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Ahab 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it's the other way round- excessive eostrogen in the water supply from pesticides or fertilisers (can't remember which) and the pill has reduced male sperm counts. It's just another thing the government can't fully control, rather than being something they did deliberately.
2007-03-20 00:49:21 · answer #5 · answered by CT 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hi,the aging population.I am 56 & will be classed has one of them.I have put in place savings for my retirement my husband works hard so we can save.When I was a kid there was too many of us.People do not need to have hordes of kids & why should they.I have two they are expensive to bring up.I do not begrudge them one penny same has your parents will have gone without so you could have the best.Finacial burden you better get saving has its going to get worse.
2007-03-26 00:08:38 · answer #6 · answered by Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about it -- our government deliberately increases fertility and at the same time keeps abortion legal. IF (and this would never happen) our govt put fertility drugs in the water, instead of 4 million unborn babies being cut up, there would be 8 million each year.
Get real!
2007-03-20 01:04:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Now, We have Open Borders, What would be the Purpose ? 15 Million from the South, couple extra million from the North. No Need !! God Bless America !!
2007-03-26 15:03:03 · answer #8 · answered by fuzzypetshop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doubt it - whatever is going on at the moment in Nature something is making many people gay, wonder if it is a natural response to peoples fears of over population...
2007-03-20 01:24:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is horrible. How awful would it be to get pregnant every time you turned around because of these fertility drugs.
More women would develop "headaches," just to avoid giving birth and fall deeper into debt.
That is crazy!
2007-03-26 14:15:49 · answer #10 · answered by kmf77 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not thers allsorts in the water as it is chlorine in some places -oops i mean flouride cos of kids teeth being bad so why not fertility drugs. lots of people find conceiving difficult so it would save on drugs and ivf praps!!
2007-03-25 12:51:55 · answer #11 · answered by Miss Karen Roe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋