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 73 of 80 FirstFirst ... 23637172737475 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 792

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

  1. #721
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,948

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post

    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.
    Do you really think you could just say to heck with religious freedoms "WE are not obligated to support them on their terms? "
    Don't you think if our government tried to mandate BC for welfare recipients that the Catholic Church would be up in arms and would take the case all the way to the SC?
    Last edited by minnie616; 02-27-13 at 10:01 AM. Reason: typo
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  2. #722
    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 Alyssa View Post
    yeah where's my damn check-- Why the hell should i work at all when i can just sit on my keister and collect a friggin check instead? I've worked a number of unpleasant jobs to keep my family over that limit when my husband's checks were smaller. My neighbor gets SSI. Not a thing wrong with this bitch other than chronic laziness and a sense of entitlement. She's healthy enough to play sports, keep up her garden, and cheat on her boyfriend who has a job. She also gets foodstamps and medicaid. Meanwhile, I'm up by 6 each morning. It's nothing more than subsidizing less than average.
    I've seen it tons of times. I know a particular person who used to collect disability because of a car accident and a supposed "back injury," and she worked as a house cleaner under the table. She also had a HUGE problem with pill popping. I haven't seen her in years, so I don't know what she's up to now. Last I knew, she had 4 kids though.

  3. #723
    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 minnie616 View Post
    Do you really think you could just say to heck with religious freedoms "WE are not obligated to support them on their terms? "
    Don't you think if our government tried to mandate BC for welfare recipients that the Catholic Church would be up in arms and would take the case all the way to the SC?
    So now we're bringing religion into the mix, huh? Nice move Minnie. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it is still a CHOICE. Don't collect public assistance if it's against your religion.

  4. #724
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,948

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    So now we're bringing religion into the mix, huh? Nice move Minnie. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it is still a CHOICE. Don't collect public assistance if it's against your religion.
    You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.
    I understand you think this a good plan to help keep more children from being born into poverety and that your intentions are good but but I am pointing out why mandating Long Term BC is a not a realistic solution.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  5. #725
    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 minnie616 View Post
    You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.
    I understand you think this a good plan to help keep more children from being born into poverety and that your intentions are good but but I am pointing out why mandating Long Term BC is a not a realistic solution.
    Oh, because the Catholics won't like it? They also don't like taxpayer funded abortions, but those happen too.

  6. #726
    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 minnie616 View Post
    You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.
    lol please don't go there. People are free to use religion as an excuse not to use BC if they want to, so long as they fund their own stupidity.

  7. #727
    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 Henrin View Post
    No, I was right on the mark. You want to pretend that a being a wage earner is somehow comparable to getting services at someone else's dime. To do this you have to ignore why the wages are given to worker, what has happened with welfare in the past and in the present and just how paying for something for others in such a way as welfare makes them more like children, not like workers. Tell me, what do think happens when someone is paying for your survival? Who do you think has the control in such a situation? I will give you a hint, its not the person getting something. If you are not pretending here than you just don't understand ownership, control structures and just how wages behave.
    Exactly.

    A reminder to those who are somehow confused by the definition of wage EARNER: welfare recipients earn nothing. They are not entitled to welfare because they do not earn it. If stipulations are put on welfare, those stipulations do not equal coercion because one) no one is entitled to welfare and 2) because they are given a choice. And don't give me crap about children starving in the streets. Enough with the outrageous hyperbole, thanks very much.

  8. #728
    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 Alyssa View Post
    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.

    These government tit suckers (hyperbole) are draining the coffers dry (more hyperbole)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.

    People should not be free to breed (still more hyperbole)while expecting a hand out.

    It is not punitive. Most of these people would be better off with less children anyhow, not to mention the savings for everyone else.

    Poor strategy. Hyperbole adds nothing to your argument.
    There are many ways force can be exerted and surely as a parent, you know that they are not all physical. You must present your kids with unpalatable choices to get them to do what you want and therefore know what a valuable tool that kind of force is. This choice is more than unpalatable and the results are physically permanent, which is something a parent would be arrested for doing to their kids. Does that clarify how it is force? Or am I assuming too much?

    A policy of fertility for food is very punitive. It's not up to you or the government to decide who is better off with more children or not. As a libertarian, that you are arguing for government to perform forced surgical procedures in exchange for benefits, is very surprising.

    My statement was accurate. Forced surgical procedures are egregious, while your descriptions, as noted, are the very definition of hyperbole, having added zero to your argument except to highlight your exaggerated sense of anger.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    That is kind of what I liked about DA60's idea about community-based shelters, kind of like housing but on a larger scale where all basic necessities are provided, doing away completely with the current check and food stamps system. Then it is almost assured that the money is being spent on an as-needed basis and on a temporary basis, of course, until a person can get back on their feet without making their situation worse.
    Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

    And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.

  9. #729
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,948

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Oh, because the Catholics won't like it? They also don't like taxpayer funded abortions, but those happen too.
    There are no tax payer funded abortions the Hyde amendment prohibits it.
    Last edited by minnie616; 02-27-13 at 02:52 PM.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  10. #730
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    There are many ways force can be exerted and surely as a parent, you know that they are not all physical. You must present your kids with unpalatable choices to get them to do what you want and therefore know what a valuable tool that kind of force is. This choice is more than unpalatable and the results are physically permanent, which is something a parent would be arrested for doing to their kids. Does that clarify how it is force? Or am I assuming too much?

    A policy of fertility for food is very punitive. It's not up to you or the government to decide who is better off with more children or not. As a libertarian, that you are arguing for government to perform forced surgical procedures in exchange for benefits, is very surprising.

    My statement was accurate. Forced surgical procedures are egregious, while your descriptions, as noted, are the very definition of hyperbole, having added zero to your argument except to highlight your exaggerated sense of anger.




    Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

    And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.
    I've about had it with the whole "libertarians can't support this policy BS" because it's bunk. Libertarians are about choice...you steal taxpayer money, you obey the rules. Either way, you have government involvement - whether it's to enforce reproductive responsibility, or contribute to all the wasted red-tape of providing public funds to people. YOU CANNOT REMOVE GOVERNMENT FROM THIS TRANSACTION WITH EITHER ROUTE! Why is this SO hard to see?

    You can be a libertarian and STILL be a meritocrat. They're not mutually exclusive.

Page 73 of 80 FirstFirst ... 23637172737475 ... 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
  •