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 56 of 80 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 792

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

  1. #551
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,962

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chelsea View Post
    Actually, no you dont. Im also a taxpayer or rather my husband is now, You are not reaching into your pockets and handing me money... in fact for the most part China is! You're not paying a dime towards welfare in all likelihood. You probably paid for some nonsensical mealworm experiment. Who are you to control anything pertaining to my life, especially anything pertaining to my health or natural rights? BC can have horrible side effects. Depo causes blood clots, osteoporosis and BMD loss, migraines and can increase breast cancer risks. IUDs can cause cervical cancer and become imbeded i the uterus requiring surgery. Most progesterone BC in pill form cause risls for blood clots, pulmonary and other embolisms, problems with the liver and kidneys, along with the ever present risk of allergic reaction and life threatening ectopic pregnancies. If taken too long into the first trimester some raise risks of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. And tubal ligation is much more dangerous than a vasectomy.

    Why should whatever minute contribution your personal taxes might make to welfare funding give you any right to control or coerce me into possible health risks?
    Well said Chelsea. A taxpayer's dollar does not earn them the right to assault another person's body with a surgery or impose medicine that could do great harm.

  2. #552
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    03-11-13 @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    420

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

    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.

  3. #553
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,962

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    What is to stop someone who is on welfare - but wants a baby - from going off welfare, having the baby and then going back on it?

    And what is to stop her doing this over and over again?

    Or are you people actually forcing women to be permanently sterilized to be eligible for welfare?
    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.

  4. #554
    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 Gina View Post
    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.
    So if an 18 year old woman gets laid off in a city she just moved to and just needs to go on welfare for a month until she can find a job - she has to be permanently sterilized to get one lousy welfare check?

    That's ridiculous.


    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 01:03 PM.

  5. #555
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,962

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    So if an 18 year old woman gets laid off in a city she just moved to and just needs to go on welfare for a month until she can find a job - she has to be permanently sterilized to get one lousy welfare check?

    That's ridiculous.


    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.
    Yes, that's it in a really ugly nutshell. Her reproductive rights for money. No mention of men, thus far, either as applicants for welfare or as the father of a baby of a woman who applies for welfare.

    It's not just ridiculous, it's horrific.

    I don't see how such a law could pass, but the discussion is pretty chilling.

  6. #556
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:56 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    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

  7. #557
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    We cannot prejudge what a person will do. It's been said many times in this thread, being on welfare is not a crime. Taking advantage, exploiting a person's desperation is immoral.
    Is it immoral to make a warm place for a homeless addict to stay (at a residential treatment center) contingent on them actually entering treatment? There are all sorts of rational contingencies we put on people who need and accept help.

    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.
    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.

    What you are refusing to acknowledge is the right for us not to have the government assault our bodies
    Obvious exaggeration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Well said Chelsea. A taxpayer's dollar does not earn them the right to assault another person's body with a surgery or impose medicine that could do great harm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    More exaggeration. The procedure offered to be paid for plus an extra few hundred dollars of cash is called "the right to assault another person's body." Um, no.

    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 01:49 PM.

  8. #558
    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 Gina View Post
    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.
    Birth control is NOT a surgical penalty. IF ANYTHING, having more children that you cannot afford to support is a penalty and a punishment to the child.

    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.

  9. #559
    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 Chelsea View Post
    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.
    Most drugs are out of your body within 24-48 hours. The only drug that really stays in your body long enough to test positive for is marijuana.

    Do you SERIOUSLY believe that only 20 people receiving social services do drugs out of 72,000? That is naive at best.

  10. #560
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,962

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Is it immoral to make a warm place for a homeless addict to stay (at a residential treatment center) contingent on them actually entering treatment? There are all sorts of rational contingencies we put on people who need and accept help.

    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.

    Obvious exaggeration.

    More exaggeration. The procedure offered to be paid for plus an extra few hundred dollars of cash is called "the right to assault another person's body." Um, no.

    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.
    You know which part of her mission I'm speaking to, but I'll spell it out. Offering a person desperate for their next fix or hit, $300 dollars for their reproductive ability is immoral. It is taking advantage of them.

    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".

    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.
    I won't be derailed. Since you quoted it, could you please respond to it?

    Then I will respond to the rest of yours.

Page 56 of 80 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... 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
  •