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 65 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 792

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

  1. #641
    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=ChrisL;1061511087]
    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    What is your point here? If she is still living under her parents welfare, then she isn't collecting it herself. Therefore, she is not using any additional taxpayer monies and does NOT have her own claim to welfare benefits.



    I don't understand how this point goes against long-term birth control. Welfare fraud happens. No plan would be perfect.



    Good Lord! I already said that when someone applies for benefits for a child or children, that is when the sign a form to agree to implantation of a long-term birth control method (the pill would probably be least preferable option), have the device implanted and see a physician on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Anyone who is on birth control is supposed to be under the care of a physician anyway, so that is nothing out of the ordinary.




    Then the children become her family's issue and not the state or the taxpayer since she has not opened her own claim. Again, long-term birth control, NOT sterilization. There is a BIG difference there.




    OMG!



    These same loop holes exist NOW.



    If you're talking about sterilization, then you are not addressing me. Like I've said about a billion times I'm talking about LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL.



    This is just silliness. Having a person who cannot afford to have children use birth control is just plain old common sense. You must know this.
    I am NOT talking about long-term birth control.
    I am talking about the law you seem to agree with that the state can sterilize anyone that wants welfare.
    I could care less about the birth rate in this context.
    I care about what is right and wrong.
    And welfare sterilization IS wrong.


    And you are not understanding my points.

    My point is that a grandparent (who would not need to be sterilized or maybe already is) could become the legal guardian of all the children that their children and grandchildren have. That way they could claim welfare for themselves AND for their dependents.

    Meanwhile, the parents of these children could live for free in their parents/grandparents home(claiming they were renting a room or something - which they were not) that the state pays for.
    Yes, they would have to look after other expenses - but the state would pay their rent.
    And they could have as many children as they wanted (provided they did not apply for selfare) and simply turn over custody to their grandparents who can raise them at the state's expense - all without ANY of them having to be sterilized.


    Imo, there is no way this program would either save the government money OR significantly lower the long term birth rate among the poor.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-26-13 at 08:23 PM.

  2. #642
    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 DA60 View Post

    I am NOT talking about long-term birth control.
    I am talking about the law you seem to agree with that the state can sterilize anyone that wants welfare.
    I did not direct my question at you - you just answered it.


    And you are not understanding my points.

    My point is that a grandparent (who would not need to be sterilized or maybe already is) could become the legal guardian of all the children that their children and grandchildren have. That way they could claim welfare for themselves AND for their dependents.

    Meanwhile, the parents of these children could live for free in their parents/grandparents home(claiming they were renting a room or something - which they were not) that the state pays for.
    Yes, they would have to look after other expenses - but the state would pay their rent.
    And they could have as many children as they wanted and simply turn over custody to their grandparents who can raise them at the state's expense - all without ANY of them having to be sterilized.
    Okay, well I'm NOT referring to sterilization. I'm referring to long-term birth control.

    As far as the rest of your argument, that stuff happens NOW. No plan is going to be completely foolproof. It most certainly would cut down on the problems though.

  3. #643
    Sage

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) wrong it involves a victim and a assailant that are SEPARATE

    trying to legislate something for the woman or the zef makes the LAW make one of the other a victum. TOTALLY different.
    Whatever it is you think you're arguing, I am advocating that, because prenatal exposure to harmful substances causes irreparable brain damage, fetuses should be afforded protections from maternal substance abuse under states' child abuse laws.

    2.) again can you point ot where i asid its ok to abuse frugs while pregnant? LMAO

    thats right i didnt, just another thing you are making up,
    You are completely unable to comprehend my posts, apparently. I never suggested "you think it's okay," what I'm addressing is that you appear to be insisting that nothing be done to intervene when it's happening, whether it's "okay" or not according to you. It would be similar to saying "I think abusing children is wrong, but we should leave the abusers alone out of respect for the abuser's rights."

    what i DID say is that unsound mind people shouldnt be entrapped, again please stay on topic and dont randomly make things up lol

    CONTRACTS can be voided and illegal if it can be proven one party was entrapped or not of sound mind and you want permanent medical procedures to take place, YES thats illogical
    I've reiterated my position countless times in this thread and you're still having trouble figuring it out, apparently. My position is that fetuses should be protected from their mothers' substance abuse and some sort of intervention and liberty restriction/suspension is warranted to prevent further permanent brain damage to the babies addict mothers are carrying.

    There is nothing whatsoever "illogical" about that. You just don't agree with it, for some bizarre and unsubstantiated reason or another.

  4. #644
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    It's NOT against any constitutional rights since collecting taxpayer dollars to support your family is NOT a right.
    Equal protection anyone? Wage discrimination? Bueller?

  5. #645
    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]

    I can also admit that I am wary about the government being involved in even that minor amount, but I also don't see it as being the "nightmarish" situation that others describe when simply prescribing birth control.

    I think that the "people have the right to have as many children as they want, to bring children into a bad situation and to force others to pay for them through taxpayer money" or that somehow use of birth control when receiving public assistance is an "assault" on someone is a LAME argument against.

  6. #646
    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 a351 View Post
    Equal protection anyone? Wage discrimination? Bueller?
    Is wage discrimination legal under federal law? What equal protection argument?
    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.

  7. #647
    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 a351 View Post
    Equal protection anyone? Wage discrimination? Bueller?
    Yes, equal protection. We are protecting them and ourselves and their future children.

  8. #648
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I don't see why it can't be if someone is collecting taxpayer monies to support children. Long-term birth control is a simple solution that normally has little if any complications.

    Like I specified earlier, if there were any kind of complications, the birth control can be stopped because these people would be under the care of a physician like anyone else who takes birth control.

    It's simple. If you can't support your children and yourself, and you want public aid, then use birth control so that you aren't a burden on society and so that we can limit the suffering of children.
    Yes on a simplistic level that sounds logical, but in reality it isnt that simple. First of all if the person has a religious reason for not taking birth control then what? And say that the person took the birth long term birth control method and it had a adverse effect on their health? So after all the medical needed to hopefully fix that new problem or perhaps they needed no extra care but the method just didnt go over well for whatever reason what are you suggesting next? Or perhaps they went ahead and took the long term birth control and were happy with getting that paid for? What did you fix?

    So where would your logic end? Should the Government also put conditions on other public benefits? Should we require the military to take long term birth control?

  9. #649
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,923

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Weird...never thought I'd see so many "Libertarians" supporting a policy that would intrude on the most fundamental "natural rights" a person has.
    Neither did I. Quite surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What's immoral is continuing to have children that you cannot afford to support and to rely on others (or FORCE others and strangers) to support your family. Not only is it immoral to do that to other people, but it is immoral to do it to your own family too. It is absolutely disgusting behavior.
    Your answer to this is to uniformly sterilize all welfare recipients? You don't find that disgusting?

  10. #650
    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 ChrisL View Post
    Okay, well I'm NOT referring to sterilization. I'm referring to long-term birth control.

    As far as the rest of your argument, that stuff happens NOW. No plan is going to be completely foolproof. It most certainly would cut down on the problems though.
    Completely foolproof?

    As I have pointed out. In theory - a family could have baby after baby, turn official custody (in name only) over to a grandparent, have the state pay to raise the children and provide free room for everyone. All without having to be sterilized.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-26-13 at 08:38 PM.

Page 65 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... 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
  •