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 66 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 792

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

  1. #651
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    1.)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.)You are completely unable to comprehend my posts, apparently. I never suggested "you think it's okay," what I'm addressing is that you apparently are insisting nothing be done to intervene when it's happening. It would be similar to saying "I think abusing children is wrong, but we should leave the abusers alone out of respect for their rights."



    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.
    1.) i know what i was arguing you seemed to drift and drift further way, i said pages ago, using drugs while prgenant is wrong, that doesnt translate into offering unsound mind people sterilization though. They are not the same.

    2.) can only go by what you say, write more clear
    wrong again, im fine with steps being taken but NOT money offers to addicts. Nothing has changed, only the stuff you wrongly assume.

    3.) i understand it fine, Im fine with punishing pregnant women who abuse drugs, offering money to addicts for sterilization is 100% illogical as i already factually substantiated
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #652
    #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
    Yes, equal protection. We are protecting them and ourselves and their future children.
    LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.

  3. #653
    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.) i know what i was arguing you seemed to drift and drift further way, i said pages ago, using drugs while prgenant is wrong, that doesnt translate itno offering unsound mind people sterilization though. They are not the same.

    2.) can only go by what you say, write more clear (says the guy with no punctuation)
    wrong again, im fine with steps being taken but NOT money offers...
    So now you're fine with "steps being taken." What "steps being taken" are you fine with that will prevent further harm to the addict mother's fetus?

    Here's what you said last time:


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian
    2.)To stop a woman who is set on doing things that will irreparably damage her fetus from doing so, one or more of her rights/liberties must be suspended or terminated. So what are these "other ways" that would be effective in assuring no further harm to the fetus?
    2.) depending on what "damage" to the fetus you are talking about there are none that id be willing to let this country pursue that i know of, nor would i want it to pursue it.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-26-13 at 08:39 PM.

  4. #654
    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=FreedomFromAll;1061511207]
    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?
    Hmmm. That's actually a good point. I haven't thought of that angle yet. But I could still say that they are using public assistance; and WE are not obligated to support them on their terms. WE do it out of the kindness of our hearts and sympathy and because we want a healthy society. There is nothing wrong with stipulations in order to receive the benefits IMO.

    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?
    That can happen to anyone who takes birth control, and they would be under the care of a physician. Most of the time, complications are relatively minor. Serious complications are relatively rare. If there are complications, there are MANY methods to choose from. If the rare instance should occur where there are no viable birth control options, exceptions could be made, and a box of condoms wouldn't hurt.


    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, then everybody's happy. What's the problem? The person is not bringing more children into a bad situation and is not using additional public assistance.

    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?
    The military WORKS to earn their money. They give back in a BIG way. That is not even remotely comparable.

  5. #655
    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
    LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.
    No, there are plenty of "poor" people who don't collect welfare. As if requiring birth control is "class warfare." Give me a break.

  6. #656
    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
    LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.
    You can have as many children as you like as long as you don't expect anyone else to support them, or are you implying that we should be expected to support everyone's children?
    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. #657
    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
    The government has no right to impose, force, coerce a permanent surgical solution on citizen. There is force being applied. Receive help to feed her children by submitting to the will of the government, exercised on her person, or they go hungry.
    Perhaps I am assuming too much. You clearly do not comprehend the definition of force. If someone already has children they cannot afford, requiring that they get their tubes tied before they receive more funding is hardly "fascist" as some people seem to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    The imposition of financial limitations, she can't be on welfare above a certain level of income, fine. But this what you are talking about is invasive.
    These government tit suckers are draining the coffers dry right along with the corporate bail outs and illegal wars. The government needs to be downsized. And people apparently need incentive to do what even animals manage: maintain their own family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I agree, birth control,condoms, pills and longer term should be be free and easy to get for low income people. They will take advantage of it, as was shown in the study minnie posted.

    The government doesn't and shouldn't have a right to exercise its control via surgery. That is not too much to ask.
    People should not be free to breed while expecting a hand out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    No, and I didn't say providing and care for the children was punishment. Requiring surgical procedures is though.
    It is not punitive. Most of these people would be better off with less children anyhow, not to mention the savings for everyone else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I guess the idea is to make them pay as painfully and as egregiously as possible.
    Poor strategy. Hyperbole adds nothing to your argument.

  8. #658
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    That's all I was asking you. What "steps being taken" are you fine with that will prevent further harm to the addict mother's fetus?
    as i already answered POSTS ago, besides making drug abuse illegal while pregnant i said

    " depending on what "damage" to the fetus you are talking about there are none that id be willing to let this country pursue that i know of, nor would i want it to pursue it.
    But again it depends on what you are referring to specifically."
    and my answer was about protection period not just from addicts

    there are no forced medical or medicine treatments id support
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #659
    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
    as i already answered POSTS ago, besides making drug abuse illegal while pregnant i said
    " depending on what "damage" to the fetus you are talking about there are none that id be willing to let this country pursue that i know of, nor would i want it to pursue it.
    But again it depends on what you are referring to specifically."
    and my answer was about protection period not just from addicts

    there are no forced medical or medicine treatments id support
    Can you please be a little more specific? Drug possession is generally already illegal. What actual steps would be taken to prevent an addict mother from further damaging her fetus? Jail? Involuntary commitment?

    It's like pulling teeth here.

  10. #660
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    then you just answered your own question then, fight for welfare or child care or tax reform then you dont step all of over the constitution and rape someone of their personal freedom, liberties and rights.
    That is how this works sadly. Once they collect or even attempt to collect their rights and liberties are forfeit. Again, this has been shown many times over and this is really no different. It a bit more alarming perhaps, sure, but you will notice it's really just more of the same old thing. Welfare has always been a game of the amount of strings attached to it.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-26-13 at 08:47 PM.

Page 66 of 80 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876 ... 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
  •