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 46 of 80 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 792

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

  1. #451
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    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.
    Sterilization is meant to be permanent. Welfare is not meant to be permanent.
    That is too high a price to pay for someone who needs a temporary hand out when a long term type of BC could easily be used.
    Besides the stories of welfare moms having lots of babies just to get welfare are greatly exaggerated.
    The average family on welfare has 1.9 children the same as families not on welfare.
    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.

  2. #452
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

    People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.
    Can't do it. No how no way.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #453
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,703

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    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.
    That's exactly what it is. When you threaten benefits being lost unless they agree to have their bodies permanently altered in such a way as to never have the ability to have children, that is coercion.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 02-25-13 at 06:09 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

  4. #454
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,995
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    No license to have sex? Or, sans license for children, birth control in all forms is free?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  5. #455
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    That's exactly what it is. When you threaten benefits being lost unless they agree to have their bodies permanently altered in such a way as to never have the ability to have children, that is coercion.
    How are benefits threatened by enabling people to choose?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  6. #456
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    A license for parents is a good idea in broad theory, but it is not practical. Enforcement would probably cause more harm than good.

    Animal shelters require that you are prepared to handle a pet's needs. It is perverse that it is harder to adopt a soon-to-be-executed pet from the an animal shelter than it is to have your own child.

    The only practical solution IMO is comprehensive sex ed in K-12 schools that gives kids an understanding of the requirements for good parenting and a sense of how difficult it actually is. I like the idea of giving kids a sack of flour or a special doll for a few days so they can experience how much effort is required to adequately care for and protect a child. Of the course, the sex ed should throughly cover all the standard contraception options also.

  7. #457
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,703

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    How are benefits threatened by enabling people to choose?
    Choice between unalterable surgery or no money to clothe, feed, shelter the family? Are you joking?
    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. #458
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Choice between unalterable surgery or no money to clothe, feed, shelter the family? Are you joking?
    You neglected to answer the question...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  9. #459
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,703

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    You neglected to answer the question...
    My answer implied that it was not much of a choice at all. That should have been obvious.
    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

  10. #460
    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 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?
    I understand your concern, and this is a really well-written response, one of the best reasons to be against sterilization yet. I am going to assume that this is what you are referring to?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us...pagewanted=all

    The thing is though, this particular program was aimed not only at those collecting social services but those who were disabled or considered "slow" mentally. The plan, as I stated would not include those people, just those who were currently receiving social services with more than one child.

    I do agree though that sometimes there would be problems with defining just who should have the procedure, and some people who really shouldn't have the procedure might end up being sterilized.

    I also wanted to bring up the long-term birth control options.

    Long-Term Birth Control: New Implants and Patches

    These are also a good idea, and are not permanent (except for the last one).

    I was also surprised that no one mentioned the reversal success rates for sterilization. That would be one angle to attack it. Some tubal ligations can be reversed quite successfully, but others not so much as noted below.

    Pregnancy Success Rates After Reversal

    If the remaining fallopian tubes are healthy, and you and your partner do not have any other infertility issues, you have a good chance of becoming pregnant after tubal reversal.

    However, not every woman is able to become pregnant after tubal reversal. Age plays an important role in the ability to become pregnant after tubal reversal. Older women are much less likely than younger woman to become pregnant after this procedure. In general, pregnancy success rates range from 40% to 85%. When pregnancy does occur, it usually occurs within the first year. Success depends on several things, including:

    Your age
    Type of tubal ligation procedure you had
    Length of the remaining fallopian tubes, and whether they still work properly
    Amount of scar tissue in your pelvic area
    Results of your partner's sperm count and other fertility tests
    Surgeon's skill

    So I'm curious as to how you would feel about a long-term birth control option?

Page 46 of 80 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... 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
  •