View Poll Results: A license to have children?

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    31 25.41%
  • No

    85 69.67%
  • Undecided

    6 4.92%
Page 42 of 80 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 792

Thread: A license to have children [W:81]

  1. #411
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,294

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    If you voted 'Yes', you support a fascist society.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    That's really their own fault, now isn't it? If they won't accept the conditions of government aid, they don't qualify for it. If they can't support the children they have because they won't comply with the aid requirements, then their children should be removed from their homes. I live in public housing. Quite a few of my rights, as a human being and an American citizen, are curtailed as a condition of my accepting public assistance-- you absolutely can force people to accept conditions for government aid.
    Wonderful.

    So what you are really saying is that women who cannot adequately raise their children (as judged by the state) must sterilize themselves or have their children forcibly removed from them by the government.

    No thank you.

    I would NEVER vote for that.

    Imo, every person has a right to the basic necessities of life...no strings attached.


    My solution is emergency government shelters.


    And think about it...which is going to cost more?

    Providing emergency shelter for her and her children?

    Or forcibly taking the children from their mother and having the state look after them?

    I'd say the latter by about 10 times.


    Your plan is neither compassionate nor cost effective.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 05:28 AM.

  3. #413
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    I'm not judging. I'm just offering the counter-argument you asked for. Naked self-interest often serves nicely where morality fails.

    I would actually support long-term temporary birth control being mandatory for people receiving benefits and free voluntary sterilization for people with inheritable defects or whom cannot raise children. It's just that such measures would be the limit-- the absolute furthest limit-- of negative eugenics programs I could support in good conscience. Anything else would be an infringement of peoples' inherent reproductive rights, which I would have to oppose as forcefully as I would oppose restrictions on abortion or birth control.
    I could get behind the temporary long-term birth control. You must remember that birth control is 100% effective though, and some people cannot even take birth control because of allergies or sensitivities and side effects from the hormones.

    Another option would be an IUD (intrauterine device), which is pretty effective but also can have complications.

    Sterilization, OTH, is 100% reliable. A woman can have her tubes ligated and the procedure is reversible in most cases if they leave enough length of fallopian tube.

    Another pro to mandatory birth control is it would probably be a lot cheaper than a sterilization procedure.

  4. #414
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    [QUOTE=Gina;1061504217]
    As Viktyr said,



    It was suggested earlier in the thread that a DNA database could be set up. Information collected from DNA analysis not income based.

    The applications are infinite when one group feels they have the right to limit the rights of others, not in their group. There is always the chance then, that one could fall outside the circle of those making the decisions.
    Good morning Gina! I don't think that would be an issue as, according to my scenario, it would ONLY be for those looking to collect welfare who have more than one child. I don't think the government would want to spend money sterilizing others, and for what reason would they want to do that?

    The ideas being espoused in this thread are quite frightening, Chris.
    We're just debating and talking about it. I don't know why anyone would feel frightened. In formal debate situations, you pick a topic, you pick a side and you go to it and attack it!

  5. #415
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I undedrstand yopur point.

    But what happens to those women that refuse to voluntarily sterilize themselves but do not (whether out of laziness, stupidiy or whatever reason) make enough money to adequately feed/cloth/house themselves and their children?
    Do they starve while living on the streets? Are their children forced to live in extreme poverty because their parents are pathetic and the government will not help without conditions being met?

    Imo, you cannot force people to have to do something to get the basic necessities of life.

    Emergency food/shelter/medical/dental should be for everybody - no strings attached.

    And I emphasize the word 'emergency' - as in government run 'flop houses' with 'soup kitchens' with attached medical/dental clinics.
    Why not? If they are not supporting themselves and are relying on the government/tax payers, why should they be able to have MORE children for US to support?

    I'm waiting for a GOOD answer to this question. Not "just because you can't do that." That's not a reason.

  6. #416
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Wonderful.

    So what you are really saying is that women who cannot adequately raise their children (as judged by the state) must sterilize themselves or have their children forcibly removed from them by the government.

    No thank you.

    I would NEVER vote for that.

    Imo, every person has a right to the basic necessities of life...no strings attached.


    My solution is emergency government shelters.


    And think about it...which is going to cost more?

    Providing emergency shelter for her and her children?

    Or forcibly taking the children from their mother and having the state look after them?

    I'd say the latter by about 10 times.


    Your plan is neither compassionate nor cost effective.
    Your plan is terrible because there is no way on God's green earth that you'll ever have enough "emergency housing" and supplies for ALL of those people and their children. We cannot even keep up with our own homeless population.

    The ONLY way to prevent these things is mandatory birth control or mandatory sterilization.

  7. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    First of all, the person who is on welfare (barring using it as a "stepping stone" which it was MEANT to be) has obviously made some very poor choices to begin with. So, okay, we'll let that go and help support this person because we are a kind and generous society who does not want to see anyone go hungry or homeless.

    That is fine. However, why on earth should this welfare recipient be allowed to continue to have MORE children? How is that logical in any way, shape or form? That is just like shooting yourself in the foot before running a race.

    I want to hear some LOGICAL reasons why mandatory sterilization/long-term birth control is NOT a good idea. I'll be waiting.

  8. #418
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    So far the only really good reason to reject this idea is government interference.

  9. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Your plan is terrible because there is no way on God's green earth that you'll ever have enough "emergency housing" and supplies for ALL of those people and their children. We cannot even keep up with our own homeless population.

    The ONLY way to prevent these things is mandatory birth control or mandatory sterilization.
    Of course you would have enough. You put one major shelter in every major city/regional area.

    If people need the food/shelter - they will have to get to the shelter.

    If they cannot make it - there will be volunteers in each region that can take them to the shelter.

    If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a state welfare facilty/service.

    If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a local charity.

    If that is not enough....too bad because that's WAY more then most people in the world have access to.

    BTW - this would not apply to those with mental/physical handicaps. They would still get welfare/disability checks.


    Are you seriously saying that to run government emergency shelters (which are basically safe, clean flop houses/soup kitchens) in each regional center is more expensive then virtually the entire welfare system of the United States?

    HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

    If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

    I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

    Here is evidence:

    'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

    Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

    The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 10:16 AM.

  10. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Of course you would have enough. You put one major shelter in every major city/regional area.

    If people need the food/shelter - they will have to get to the shelter.

    If they cannot make it - there will be volunteers in each region that can take them to the shelter.

    If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a stae welfare facilty/service.

    If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a local charity.

    If that is not available and no one will help a starving, homeless family...then they probably die.


    Are you seriously saying that to run government emergency shelters in each regional center is more expensive then virtually the entire welfare system of the United States.

    If you think that then you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Good lord! We don't have enough shelters NOW.

    So your plan is to just allow people to have as many children as they want while collecting welfare and to put them up in shelters? That's your plan?

    And I don't understand your "if they can't" scenarios. These are people who are already collecting services that I'm referring to. People who are already collecting yet are still having more children that they cannot support or afford.

    I don't think your plan solves any problems and probably just adds more.

Page 42 of 80 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •