Population Control and Gov't Assistance

farfromglorified

CorporateWhore wrote:

People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.

The "easy answers" to my questions above are, respectively, "don't eat at McDonalds", "tithe", and "don't fuck up the vasectomy". But "easy answers" don't give the government the right to forcibly alter people's bodies. Furthermore, there's a very big difference between "you can't have anymore babies" and forced surgery.

Look, I'm going to be optomistic and think you don't understand the can of worms you're opening here.

farfromglorified

yield2me wrote:

This problem seems like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. My wife is a teacher and she tells me about her kids in her classes (urban high school). When she asks the kids where they want to go to college many of them tell her that they'll just have kids and live off the government! What kind of message are we sending to these kids?

Oh sweet Jesus.

The "elephant in the room" is the insanity of these services to begin with and how they pit men against each other.

Do you not understand that you're suggesting these children should not exist, and justifying it by "the message" we're sending them???

If you want to remove the government services themselves, by all means I'll support you. But if you want the government in the business of forcing people to forfeit their fundamental rights at the state's discretion, I can only ask you how you expect to hold onto your rights?

CorporateWhore

farfromglorified wrote:

The "easy answers" to my questions above are, respectively, "don't eat at McDonalds", "tithe", and "don't fuck up the vasectomy". But "easy answers" don't give the government the right to forcibly alter people's bodies. Furthermore, there's a very big difference between "you can't have anymore babies" and forced surgery.

Look, I'm going to be optomistic and think you don't understand the can of worms you're opening here.

According to my idea, the government would have no right to alter anyone's body unless someone asks the government to. To get assistance for their massive litter of children, I'd say it's a fair compromise. How the hell should society keep paying for all of their kids?

That said, I don't support aborting babies - just keeping them from being born in the first place.

farfromglorified

cincybearcat wrote:

While in practice and reality I don't agree with it....

It's not really forced, because no one is forcing them to ask for governmental assistance...they are choosing and it would be their choice.

Please think about this for a minute. "Government assistance" is not always asked for, and that's the fundamental flaw of your logic here.

CorporateWhore

farfromglorified wrote:

Please think about this for a minute. "Government assistance" is not always asked for, and that's the fundamental flaw of your logic here.

If you're saying that we should get rid of government welfare and entitlements, I agree completely. Let's get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal welfare programs.

But, if we are stuck with them, then I see my idea as an option.

farfromglorified

CorporateWhore wrote:

According to my idea, the government would have no right to alter anyone's body unless someone asks the government to. To get assistance for their massive litter of children, I'd say it's a fair compromise. How the hell should society keep paying for all of their kids?

They shouldn't have to, and the services themselves create these kind of insane ideas. But you cannot take the leap from that to encouraging or forcing sterilization.

Look, you're proposing two very dangerous philosophies here:

1. That the act of having a child can be immoral.
2. That the state may bargain your rights for its services.

That said, I don't support aborting babies - just keeping them from being born in the first place.

Sigh......then you're no different than the leeches and looters you're railing against.

angelica

While people are looking through the lens of "I don't want my taxpaying dollars going there", it seems people are missing the very basics. Off the top of my head, some being "ojectivity", "understanding" and "awareness". A small-minded ego-centered view is very different than having an unbiased problem-solving goal.

farfromglorified

CorporateWhore wrote:

If you're saying that we should get rid of government welfare and entitlements, I agree completely. Let's get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal welfare programs.

Very much, yes.

But, if we are stuck with them, then I see my idea as an option.

No. Two evils cannot make good.

surferdude

farfromglorified wrote:

Sweet fancy moses......

I know it's irrational but I have a serious hate on for guys who don't step up to the plate and be a good parent. After I see the aftermath in the kids lives I really don't care about the father's rights.

yield2me

farfromglorified wrote:

Oh sweet Jesus.

The "elephant in the room" is the insanity of these services to begin with and how they pit men against each other.

Do you not understand that you're suggesting these children should not exist, and justifying it by "the message" we're sending them???

If you want to remove the government services themselves, by all means I'll support you. But if you want the government in the business of forcing people to forfeit their fundamental rights at the state's discretion, I can only ask you how you expect to hold onto your rights?

I'm not suggesting that these children should not exist. What I'm saying is that we should not enable these kids to have babies for the purpose of collecting a paycheck which is what is happening. I think there should be stipulations on the programs themselves. People seeking gov't assistance should have to hold a job, or their kids should have to complete high school to be eligible for the money etc. Those are just examples, not saying that is exactly what should be done but there should be some sort of accountability to receiving free money from the government.

farfromglorified

yield2me wrote:

I'm not suggesting that these children should not exist. What I'm saying is that we should not enable these kids to have babies for the purpose of collecting a paycheck which is what is happening.

YES!!! Please think about the "we" in your statement above, and then whose body you're proposing to alter.

If you do not want these people collecting paychecks for their babies, stop writing the checks.

I think there should be stipulations on the programs themselves. People seeking gov't assistance should have to hold a job, or their kids should have to complete high school to be eligible for the money etc. Those are just examples, not saying that is exactly what should be done but there should be some sort of accountability to receiving free money from the government.

There should be some sort of accountability in handing out that money, as well. Personally, I do not wish to put myself in a situation where I have to account for any kind of forced sterilization of another human being.

farfromglorified

surferdude wrote:

I know it's irrational but I have a serious hate on for guys who don't step up to the plate and be a good parent. After I see the aftermath in the kids lives I really don't care about the father's rights.

Then you've gone too far.

I am in no way defending the actions of dirtbag fathers. I'm simply asserting that I will not become his equal.

1970RR

cincybearcat wrote:

While in practice and reality I don't agree with it....

It's not really forced, because no one is forcing them to ask for governmental assistance...they are choosing and it would be their choice.

So what happens when people avoid governmental assistance due to these "surgeries" and are pursued for failing to provide for their offspring? Due we confiscate the kids or force the surgery & benefits?

even flow?

CorporateWhore wrote:

People should be legally able to have as many children as they want.

But, if they decide to have more than they can support and they ask the government for help, then with the support from the government they must also be required to have their tubes tied or a visectomy for men.

The easy answer? Don't ask the fucking government for help. But, if you REALLY REALLY need it, then you can't have anymore babies.

Say you are breezing right along through life, leading the American dream and then it ceases to be. Your children are about to starve. Should they just come and kill your children because you can't support them? Seems like this is where you are heading. Not my fault your company laid you off and now you can't make ends meet to feed your kids. Why should the onus be on my tax dollar. Lop their bloody heads off the parasites they have now become.

surferdude

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you've gone too far.

I am in no way defending the actions of dirtbag fathers. I'm simply asserting that I will not become his equal.

I'm not really either. But an afternoon with a baseball I might go for. I'm all for freedoms and finding ways to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions that freedoms allow.

farfromglorified

surferdude wrote:

I'm all for freedoms and finding ways to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions that freedoms allow.

Cool. Just don't let the latter contradict the former.

enharmonic

Google "Iron Mountain Report"

RockinInCanada

So how does this irrational arguement for forced sterilization in order to obtain government assistance work when someone who has five kids and is doing fine is suddenly laid off due to their corporation exporting jobs to other countries...this whole philsophy has so many holes in it for it ever to become reality....like really where do you draw the line....

Did this get leaked from a in office memorandum from the Whitehouse....it has about the same amount of intelligence put into it as the Iraq Invasion....

mammasan

cincybearcat wrote:

While in practice and reality I don't agree with it....

It's not really forced, because no one is forcing them to ask for governmental assistance...they are choosing and it would be their choice.

The problem is that there are hard working people who may fall upon hard times and do need government assistance for a period of time to help them get on their feet. Should they have to choose between a little help to get up and running or having the ability to have children.

VictoryGin

cincybearcat wrote:

Remove the economic incentive to have more children.

Create an education program that forces all individuals over the age of 14 that receive gov't aid to attend that covers all the issues that lead to needing governemnt assitance...sex ed, job training opportunities, life skills courses...etc.

Up front capital investment but will reduce the costs of the program longterm.

i used to teach a sex ed class for young new moms on welfare--it must vary by state then? it has been a long week. anyway, while that class was important because many of the women didn't know of these things, it also really emphasized the need for preventative measures as well as access. i think there should be comprehensive sex ed in schools and access to contraception for those who cannot afford it.