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 50 of 80 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 792

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

  1. #491
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,918

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Having children is a right. Getting government support for them is not.
    We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative. Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.

  2. #492
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Indeed it is coercion. As soon as it becomes either/or.
    If adding a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then what would you call it if FedGov were to simply just end the benefit program?

  3. #493
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative.

    Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.
    No, that would be called a false dichotomy. Federal welfare or "children starving in the street" (the overused liberal emotional appeal) is the biggest false choice of all time.

  4. #494
    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
    They have strings attached. They just don't have crazy people wanting to gut them up like a 6th grade biology classroom.

    If you think that is just as dangerous as massive sterilizations, then I suggest you find a time machine to 1930s Germany and stay put.
    You have heard of sub-dermal birth control, I'm sure. Then again, maybe not...
    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.

  5. #495
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,918

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If adding a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then what would you call it if FedGov were to simply just end the benefit program?
    Unconscionable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    No, that would be called a false dichotomy. Federal welfare or "children starving in the street" (the overused liberal emotional appeal) is the biggest false choice of all time.
    Then please tell me the true choice?

  6. #496
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Unconscionable.
    Why don't you just call them both "unconscionable" then, rather than equating the former with legal terminology that implies wrongdoing?

    It's one thing to shriek in horror at the thought of freebie restrictions, but it's another to repeatedly insist it's criminal. It's not criminal.

    Then please tell me the true choice?
    There are many mechanisms by which we could prevent children from literally starving to death in the streets. There's no dichotomous This or That choice.

    Your emotional appeal has been far too overused to try to defend federal welfare. Federal welfare benefits are not the fabric that holds the nation together. You said "we as a nation cannot allow children to starve" and I agree with you, children starving in public is unacceptable in our culture. Where I disagree with you is that it's either federal welfare programs or public starvation to death, which has been your and many liberals' self-evidently absurd appeal for a long time now. You should stop using it.

  7. #497
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative. Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.
    No. It's not. The options are simple: get support for your children/ don't have more that you can afford. I think the mentality people have these days is down right dangerous: it's this "something for nothing attitude." No one is entitled to anything. Life doesn't guarantee that people will be fed and clothed, and yet in 21st century America, even the fattest, sickest, most unhealthy people among us are guaranteed not only the essentials, but also comforts and luxuries. I might be able to go along with that much, but this mentality that people should not only get seemingly infinite entitlements, but also be free to birth more children for society to support is ridiculous.

    Putting a cap on someone's baby maker in exchange for doing what THEY SHOULD be doing is reasonable. If those same people were born before LBJ and his fellow Fabian socialites turned America into an idealistic mecca of government tit suckers, their children would have likely died at birth. Most of these wimmin don't want their boobs to sag from breastfeeding afterall.

    All I advocate is at least some level of personal responsibility. And people think it's coercion.

  8. #498
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,690

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post

    Putting a cap on someone's baby maker in exchange for doing what THEY SHOULD be doing is reasonable. If those same people were born before LBJ and his fellow Fabian socialites turned America into an idealistic mecca of government tit suckers, their children would have likely died at birth. Most of these wimmin don't want their boobs to sag from breastfeeding afterall.

    All I advocate is at least some level of personal responsibility. And people think it's coercion.
    That's not personal responsibility. That's thrusting unconscionable control over someone's body and making you God. Personal responsibility my bum. You whine about Fabian socialists (misunderstanding the concept completely), but all you sound like is a reincarnated eugenicist.
    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. #499
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,918

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Why don't you just call them both "unconscionable" then, rather than equating the former with legal terminology that implies wrongdoing?

    It's one thing to shriek in horror at the thought of freebie restrictions, but it's another to repeatedly insist it's criminal. It's not criminal.
    I didn't use unconscionable as a legal term.

    1
    : not guided or controlled by conscience : unscrupulous <an unconscionable villain>
    2
    a : excessive, unreasonable <found an unconscionable number of defects in the car>
    b : shockingly unfair or unjust <unconscionable sales practices>
    That's how I used it. I didn't say it was criminal.

    There are many mechanisms by which we could prevent children from literally starving to death in the streets. There's no dichotomous This or That choice.

    Your emotional appeal has been far too overused to try to defend federal welfare. Federal welfare benefits are not the fabric that holds the nation together. You said "we as a nation cannot allow children to starve" and I agree with you, children starving in public is unacceptable in our culture. Where I disagree with you is that it's either federal welfare programs or public starvation to death, which has been your and many liberals' self-evidently absurd appeal for a long time now. You should stop using it.
    The money for children to eat has to come from somewhere and homelessness is a very real possibility without government aide and then starving is not far off, while homeless.

    I've dealt with homeless teens and young adults who didn't have enough or anything to eat. I've taken them in because they were literally sleeping on park benches and starving. Homeless shelters are full and have limitations that don't provide a stay long enough for them to get back on their feet, especially in an economy like this.

  10. #500
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I didn't use unconscionable as a legal term. That's how I used it. I didn't say it was criminal.
    I was talking about coercion. If attaching a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then just ending the program is... what? Theft? A federal benefit never inherently the rightful property of the beneficiary. Any benefit program could end, the same way any government job could be eliminated.

    The money for children to eat has to come from somewhere
    Apparently not just from somewhere, but specifically from a federal benefit program... or else they'll starve to death in the streets.

Page 50 of 80 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... 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
  •