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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
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....
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.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
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.
If you cant afford codoms you shouldnt be having sex.
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?
So you want me to explain a process I already said I disagreed with?
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.
True, and like I have said, I don;t agree with that plan.
However, playing devil's advocate...someone falls on hard time...gets gov't assistance...so long as they don;t have a kid while receiving the assistance, they wouldn;t have to have the surgery.
True, and like I have said, I don;t agree with that plan.
However, playing devil's advocate...someone falls on hard time...gets gov't assistance...so long as they don;t have a kid while receiving the assistance, they wouldn;t have to have the surgery.
Well I will play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate. What if the wife is already pregnant.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
You're way off base. The point is that people are having kids intentionally to get the government handout...that is a problem don't you think?
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
How do you prove this....how would you ultimately determine, without a doubt, this was the case?
I said in an earlier post in this thread that my wife who is a teacher at a very urban school, has girls in her class that when asked about college tell her that they will just have babies and go on welfare like their mom or aunt does! This kind of thing is a reality, it's happening.
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
I said in an earlier post in this thread that my wife who is a teacher at a very urban school, has girls in her class that when asked about college tell her that they will just have babies and go on welfare like their mom or aunt does! This kind of thing is a reality, it's happening.
I am not saying it does not happen...but really to prove this and deny assistance because you have the belief that someone is doing this...nothing sort of legal statement admitting to this would approve of any action towards the party involved...just saying you would be walking a very tight line with this type of mandate....so tight I do not think it is possible.....
Does anyone acknowledge we have social nets in place in our countries for reasons? There's a lot of blame going on in this thread and not quite as much understanding.
As for girls having children "deliberately to get the government handout", as one of "those girls" the messed up psychology involved goes wayyyy, wayyyy deeper. This is about girls who have serious problems, not girls who are looking to subsist on social assistance. It's clear that many sanction inhumane practices in order to "solve" these problems, and again I will say that thankfully those in power understand base psychology when it comes to such subjects.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Cool. Just don't let the latter contradict the former.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
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....
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.
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.
cross the river to the eastside
If you cant afford codoms you shouldnt be having sex.
Wow...if your advice were valid you wouldn't even be here.
So are you saying that condoms should be made available through our tax dollars?
-Enoch Powell
Of course not. Buying condoms with tax dollars is ridiculous.
I'm just saying that people predate condoms. So I'm not sure what miller's pre-condom predecessors were supposed to be doing.
So you want me to explain a process I already said I disagreed with?
True, and like I have said, I don;t agree with that plan.
However, playing devil's advocate...someone falls on hard time...gets gov't assistance...so long as they don;t have a kid while receiving the assistance, they wouldn;t have to have the surgery.
my rents could afford condoms, they chose not too because they knew i was the coming of the republican messiah.
Well I will play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate. What if the wife is already pregnant.
What were their ancestors who predated condoms supposed to do?
Saying "republican messiah" is kind of like saying "swiss cheese balloon". The first term contradicts the latter.
Pre-existing conditions get a pass.
You just blew my mind.....
Ok.
No condom, no problem.
That's why God gave women a mouth
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Just what I was thinking....
You're way off base. The point is that people are having kids intentionally to get the government handout...that is a problem don't you think?
How do you prove this....how would you ultimately determine, without a doubt, this was the case?
I said in an earlier post in this thread that my wife who is a teacher at a very urban school, has girls in her class that when asked about college tell her that they will just have babies and go on welfare like their mom or aunt does! This kind of thing is a reality, it's happening.
I am not saying it does not happen...but really to prove this and deny assistance because you have the belief that someone is doing this...nothing sort of legal statement admitting to this would approve of any action towards the party involved...just saying you would be walking a very tight line with this type of mandate....so tight I do not think it is possible.....
As for girls having children "deliberately to get the government handout", as one of "those girls" the messed up psychology involved goes wayyyy, wayyyy deeper. This is about girls who have serious problems, not girls who are looking to subsist on social assistance. It's clear that many sanction inhumane practices in order to "solve" these problems, and again I will say that thankfully those in power understand base psychology when it comes to such subjects.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!