I believe the drug theory has been tossed out the window. Arizona tested something rediculous like 82,000 people to find one lonely person tested positive for drugs. Florida tested 72,000 or so with 20 people testing positive. The states didnt reduce their caseloads abf spent more money testing than the denied cases saved them.
And what about men - do they have to do the same thing (they better or then it's totally discrimatory)?
Fortunately, there is NO WAY such a law would ever pass through Congress - let alone be signed by the POTUS...unless they all have political death wishes.
Last edited by DA60; 02-26-13 at 12:03 PM.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
It's not just ridiculous, it's horrific.
I don't see how such a law could pass, but the discussion is pretty chilling.
What is going to happen when we reach the carrying capacity of the planet?
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language
It is even more abusive and causes even more damage when they pour, snort or inject the stuff into their own bodies while they're pregnant. Why you are so protective over the fertility of those who by virtue of their fertility and their addiction are causing irreparable harm to the most innocent forms of human life... is odd.The mother that injects drugs, feeds a baby alcohol or in any way harms the child is going to jail for abuse. They've committed a crime and should be punished.
Obvious exaggeration.What you are refusing to acknowledge is the right for us not to have the government assault our bodies
If you believe these people are too impaired to make their voluntary medical choice in this matter, then you must feel they should not make any medical choice and perhaps should be assigned a conservator or guardian by the court. Correct?
If I decide to have a vasectomy, are you going to interfere? Doesn't seem like you would. But if someone offers me $300 to get a vasectomy, would you interfere? Would that be a case of someone "assaulting my body?" It's still my choice.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-26-13 at 12:49 PM.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
Explain to me HOW exactly birth control is an "assault" too please.
There is nothing unreasonable about taking birth control when you cannot afford children, and if you are relying on other people to support your children, then it is certainly not unreasonable to make birth control while receiving services mandatory. That is NOT an assault.
Just like anyone else who starts birth control, it would be under the supervision of a physician. If there were any complications or side effects, the BC can be discontinued, and another avenue pursued.
This is all just pure hyperbole. Birth control is one the SAFEST medicines we have out there and has been around for a LONG time. Most people can take them (or at least SOME form of them) without complications.
A woman doesn't have to be on welfare to abuse her unborn child and every woman who accepts welfare, as noted in Chelsea's post, will do it. Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor. That is what this policy would do.
Why are you so eager to hand over the power to determine who can have children and who cannot to the government?
It is accurate. That it is done in an operating room under anesthesia means the damage is confined to reproductive organs. It is the government using force on a person's body.
I was clearly referring to the government in that quote. Not that bogus "charity".
I won't be derailed. Since you quoted it, could you please respond to it?That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.
Then I will respond to the rest of yours.