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 45 of 80 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 792

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

  1. #441
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    396

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

    I cannot believe this is realistically being discussed. I'm truly in awe. My initial reaction is "HELL NO".

    But, in any argument, I imagine the extreme example of the opposing view and decide if, in that case, it shouldn't be permitted then it's not a matter of 'if it should be done', but rather, 'when' it should be done.

    So I'm going to play my own devil's advocate and make an extreme example: A brother and sister want to have a baby. Do we as a society have the right to refuse them this privilege? Yes, I believe so.

    Though this isn't giving a 'license' to have a baby, it is restricting some from having children and not others, which is in essence the same. (?)

    Now I'm trying to think of all the ways that this is different from other situations in which I wouldn't think it's appropriate to restrict one from having a baby.

    An obvious difference is that they're related, ergo procreation will cause DNA mutations in their children. But isn't bad eye-sight a DNA mutation? Isn't being too tall or short a DNA mutation? There are literal thousands of DNA mutations. Is it a matter of the severity of the mutation? How is that decided? Perhaps my knowledge is simply too limited.

    Another obvious difference is that we as society reject the thought of incest. But I outright reject the idea that we should reject any privilege on that premise alone (societal discomfort).

    Are the rights to any others being infringed upon? Perhaps the right to the pursuit of happiness to the handicapped children of incestual couples. But again, this gets back to the root question of what's the difference between this situation and other situations?

    I will stick with my answer in a most uncomfortable fashion because I cannot give a logical reason why. The fact is that I do think in some cases, procreation should be limited. But I do not believe the government should impose its will, whatever its will may be, without just cause. Just cause being the infringement on the rights of others. So my beliefs are contradictory and I'm having a difficult time at the moment in rectifying that.

  2. #442
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    "no co-pay" does not mean free.
    I know but I was trying to get across the point the patient does not pay anything out of pocket at the time they get the BC.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  3. #443
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    yeah but who in this thread has suggested that anyone be forcibly sterilized? Certainly not me.
    This Alyssa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Okay. Whom do you trust to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
    So it starts with targeting people on a socio-economic basis. Then when others are determined to be unfit to be parents, they are included. The U.S. has already been there done that. We should stay as far away from the government deciding who should be sterilized as we possibly can.

  4. #444
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    I agree. WE should never go down that road again.

    That is why I think that no co-pay (free) birth control should be avaiible to all teens and adults...men and women both.
    Not mandatory however.

    The long acting types of BC which are more effective and more goof -proof should be encouraged.
    There is a new Male Birth Control that is said to 100 Percent Effective , lasts about 10 years and is completly reversible.
    Hopefull this prodcut is as good as the studies indicate and that it catches on.



    Read more:
    Male Birth Control: New Procedure Is 100 Percent Effective, Reversible
    In a study released earlier this year, when long term BC was offered for free along with condoms and pills, many women chose the long term method and of course the birth rate in the study group was reduced. I totally advocate for offering the long term methods for free.

  5. #445
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    In a study released earlier this year, when long term BC was offered for free along with condoms and pills, many women chose the long term method and of course the birth rate in the study group was reduced. I totally advocate for offering the long term methods for free.
    I agree. I posted the results of the study earlier in this thread.
    The up front cost of long term BC is quite a bit and a lot of women cannot afford it.
    But if were free or covered by insurance with no co-pay many more Women would opt for it.

    From the following article:

    But when cost and other barriers are lifted, the opinion notes that the Contraceptive CHOICE Project found that
    more than two-thirds of women age 14-20 chose LARC methods.


    The project, at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, recruited 9,256 women and studies the effect of free access to birth control methods.

    Perhaps the biggest consideration for women -- and especially adolescent girls -- is a contraceptive's upfront cost.

    At an average of about $700-$800 before insurance, the $10-$50 cost of a monthly pack of birth control pills can seem favorable.

    Without a reduced fee, the lowest price Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania can offer Mirena is $800, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, vice president for public affairs for the local chapter.
    Read more: Experts recommend women pick long-term birth control method - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  6. #446
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Okay. Whom do you trust to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    I agree. I posted the results of the study earlier in this thread.
    The up front cost of long term BC is quite a bit and a lot of women cannot afford it.
    But if were free or covered by insurance with no co-pay many more Women would opt for it.

    From the following article:



    Read more: Experts recommend women pick long-term birth control method - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Thanks minnie. I've been hit and running this thread while doing other things and I didn't see your post. I think it is worth encouraging the long term options. Reducing the cost, no or low co-pays or free to really low income women. The convenience and reversibility of those methods could go a long way to reducing unplanned pregnancy.

  7. #447
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,689

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post

    I don't think the government would want to spend money sterilizing others, and for what reason would they want to do that?
    We did it for decades at the behest of nurses, doctors, social workers, the intelligentsia, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The reasons were simple, but multifaceted. They claimed they knew through science and the social sciences that idiocy is hereditary, and that idiocy is one of the main contributing factors to criminal and deviant behavior, pauperism, and that children from those social misfits (typically poor whites, African Americans, homosexuals, the physically and the mentally disabled-all of whom were seen as one and the same) would only suck the goodness and resources of society. Through sterilization, education programs, and other social programs, it was assumed that you could effectively mold society into a more perfect race.

    Of course, what resulted were intentional power grabs by the professional class, where it was deemed necessary to hound families, take their children, deem them and the parents unfit for society, sterilize all of them. Sterilization could be done through a series of completely unrelated questions, all because the staff involved thought it absolutely necessary to destroy any chance for procreation. Before the practice was actually sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, doctors could literally ask mundane questions like "do you like movies?" and follow it up with "do you mind having an operation?"-without ever mentioning what it was they were going to do. Since sterilization was an accepted procedure for other illnesses, guess what the doctors or functionaries of the state pushed? The person would then have granted consent to sterilization. In decades down the road, after the Supreme Court decision was granted, doctors and social workers would convene with each other to determine whether or not this person or that person should be granted the right of having children. We have recordings of such professionals saying things like, "there's no way another child could make it in this family"....and then either lie about the procedure, or never mention it to the person involved. In North Carolina, we have scores of people that were never told that they were having such a procedure, their signatures were forged, but nevertheless, sterilization occurred anyway. After Supreme Court sanction of the practice, sterilizations throughout the United States soared. Certainly both government and the professional class wanted money spent on such procedures.

    You could say, "oh well, this is so different." But I would say, is it? The thrust of the sterilization movement did not affect white middle class, heterosexual, non-disabled people, and massively impacted poor or working class, homosexuals, colored people, or the disabled. Same population this is targeting, with the same rhetoric. "They know about it." But will they, actually? Have you ever found yourself battling for your rights because of a social worker's crusade against you? My family was nearly broken up when a concerned social worker got it in their head that they needed to separate our family, put my brother in an institution in another state, for the good of the family. He did it by strong-arming my folks, all illegally, certainly. It was a somewhat common practice in the region. Threatening families with benefit cuts, breaking up family etc etc. Once a judge got wind of the process they had gone through, that person eventually found themselves out of a job (of course, later going on to another similar position).Have you ever been the victim of accident or mistake at the behest of a lower-level government employee? Even in the schools, you wouldn't believe the crap that is pulled out of a misguided sense of social justice. As someone who has, or is intimately aware of enormous overreaches of legal power in regard to matters not at all unfamiliar to the experiences of the past generations, it would be folly to assume we could trust these people again with power they haven't employed in decades.

    Lastly, would you really want that as our moral policy? Consider the population that is not going to be affected by such a policy. Do you think they would be so willing to have their reproductive ability severed once they are conferred with a benefit in the public or private sector? I would assume not. Why? Because our human dignity is thus violated. Consider what you are telling many people: pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, die trying, or get government benefits while you cannot have children. You force people to choose between total pauperism or a violated body.

    You know, I am really intrigued that a collection of liberals and libertarians would feel in support of this. You ask the libertarian whether or not he has a right to own a gun, he will answer in the affirmative on the grounds of protection, recreation, and hunting. Now, protection is something no one would want to have to employ, and in many cases they do not have to. In most cases, they use it for recreation..an expensive toy. But when you ask certain libertarians on this site whether or not they support the government regulating whether or not you have children because you are receiving public funds, and suddenly their fervent protection of human dignity and liberty dissipates entirely. They don't sacrifice something potentially superficial like gun ownership, no, they support damaging your own body so you cannot do what human beings have done since the beginning of time and consider it one of the most important hallmarks of their lives. If you were to ask many of the libertarians if they want to ready access to booze, toys, and money, they all say yes, but ask them if we are granted the liberty to be parents, they say no. Such decadence and hypocrisy is astounding. Then there's the liberal. Usually the defender of the oppressed, supporter of the social net, haven to the social movements against oppression. On this site, apparently, some liberals have forgotten the indignities suffered by the traditionally oppressed at the hands of government, the intelligentsia, and the professional class.

    Now both groups are starting to support one of the biggest human rights violations in the past century alongside the Holocaust itself. This isn't a joke. The last sterilization occurred in 1981, a mere 5 years before I was born, 7 after my brother. Had my brother and I been alive in North Dakota in the 1960s, I would have possibly been sterilized, and my brother certainly would have. Some are doing it out of fear for resources being spent, others out of the belief that some are less than human, others still with the belief that humanity needs to progress and this is how you do it. Is this the policy you folks truly want?
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 02-25-13 at 03:26 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  8. #448
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,689

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

    Excuse me, 7 years before my brother was born.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  9. #449
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    We did it for decades at the behest of nurses, doctors, social workers, the intelligentsia, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The reasons were simple, but multifaceted. They claimed they knew through science and the social sciences that idiocy is hereditary, and that idiocy is one of the main contributing factors to criminal and deviant behavior, pauperism, and that children from those social misfits (typically poor whites, African Americans, homosexuals, the physically and the mentally disabled-all of whom were seen as one and the same) would only suck the goodness and resources of society. Through sterilization, education programs, and other social programs, it was assumed that you could effectively mold society into a more perfect race.

    Of course, what resulted were intentional power grabs by the professional class, where it was deemed necessary to hound families, take their children, deem them and the parents unfit for society, sterilize all of them. Sterilization could be done through a series of completely unrelated questions, all because the staff involved thought it absolutely necessary to destroy any chance for procreation. Before the practice was actually sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, doctors could literally ask mundane questions like "do you like movies?" and follow it up with "do you mind having an operation?"-without ever mentioning what it was they were going to do. Since sterilization was an accepted procedure for other illnesses, guess what the doctors or functionaries of the state pushed? The person would then have granted consent to sterilization. In decades down the road, after the Supreme Court decision was granted, doctors and social workers would convene with each other to determine whether or not this person or that person should be granted the right of having children. We have recordings of such professionals saying things like, "there's no way another child could make it in this family"....and then either lie about the procedure, or never mention it to the person involved. In North Carolina, we have scores of people that were never told that they were having such a procedure, their signatures were forged, but nevertheless, sterilization occurred anyway. After Supreme Court sanction of the practice, sterilizations throughout the United States soared. Certainly both government and the professional class wanted money spent on such procedures.

    You could say, "oh well, this is so different." But I would say, is it? The thrust of the sterilization movement did not affect white middle class, heterosexual, non-disabled people, and massively impacted poor or working class, homosexuals, colored people, or the disabled. Same population this is targeting, with the same rhetoric. "They know about it." But will they, actually? Have you ever found yourself battling for your rights because of a social worker's crusade against you? My family was nearly broken up when a concerned social worker got it in their head that they needed to separate our family, put my brother in an institution in another state, for the good of the family. He did it by strong-arming my folks, all illegally, certainly. It was a somewhat common practice in the region. Threatening families with benefit cuts, breaking up family etc etc. Once a judge got wind of the process they had gone through, that person eventually found themselves out of a job (of course, later going on to another similar position).Have you ever been the victim of accident or mistake at the behest of a lower-level government employee? Even in the schools, you wouldn't believe the crap that is pulled out of a misguided sense of social justice. As someone who has, or is intimately aware of enormous overreaches of legal power in regard to matters not at all unfamiliar to the experiences of the past generations, it would be folly to assume we could trust these people again with power they haven't employed in decades.

    Lastly, would you really want that as our moral policy? Consider the population that is not going to be affected by such a policy. Do you think they would be so willing to have their reproductive ability severed once they are conferred with a benefit in the public or private sector? I would assume not. Why? Because our human dignity is thus violated. Consider what you are telling many people: pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, die trying, or get government benefits while you cannot have children. You force people to choose between total pauperism or a violated body.

    You know, I am really intrigued that a collection of liberals and libertarians would feel in support of this. You ask the libertarian whether or not he has a right to own a gun, he will answer in the affirmative on the grounds of protection, recreation, and hunting. Now, protection is something no one would want to have to employ, and in many cases they do not have to. In most cases, they use it for recreation..an expensive toy. But when you ask certain libertarians on this site whether or not they support the government regulating whether or not you have children because you are receiving public funds, and suddenly their fervent protection of human dignity and liberty dissipates entirely. They don't sacrifice something potentially superficial like gun ownership, no, they support damaging your own body so you cannot do what human beings have done since the beginning of time and consider it one of the most important hallmarks of their lives. If you were to ask many of the libertarians if they want to ready access to booze, toys, and money, they all say yes, but ask them if we are granted the liberty to be parents, they say no. Such decadence and hypocrisy is astounding. Then there's the liberal. Usually the defender of the oppressed, supporter of the social net, haven to the social movements against oppression. On this site, apparently, some liberals have forgotten the indignities suffered by the traditionally oppressed at the hands of government, the intelligentsia, and the professional class.

    Now both groups are starting to support one of the biggest human rights violations in the past century alongside the Holocaust itself. This isn't a joke. The last sterilization occurred in 1981, a mere 5 years before I was born, 7 after my brother. Had my brother and I been alive in North Dakota in the 1960s, I would have possibly been sterilized, and my brother certainly would have. Some are doing it out of fear for resources being spent, others out of the belief that some are less than human, others still with the belief that humanity needs to progress and this is how you do it. Is this the policy you folks truly want?
    Thank you for sharing your story.
    I hope it was an eye opener for many of the posters on this thread.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  10. #450
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    like I said before, i voted no on the poll. I wouldn't trust anyone to make that decision, least of all the government. However, I have no issues with stipulations (such as sterilization) being added to the current system of public entitlements so long as people are not being forced.

    It is not coercion to require sterilization to receive a welfare check.

Page 45 of 80 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... 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
  •