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 74 of 80 FirstFirst ... 24647273747576 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 792

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

  1. #731
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,698

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    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.
    Please. In almost every other circumstance, you would say this is an overreach of government.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #732
    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 minnie616 View Post
    There are no tax payer funded abortions the Hyde amendment prohibits it.
    I love how people assume they can track money used in an organization or company.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-27-13 at 03:06 PM.

  3. #733
    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 Fiddytree View Post
    Please. In almost every other circumstance, you would say this is an overreach of government.
    Hardly. I'm enough of a meritocrat to limit rights in certain situations - such as when people lack the intelligence to exercise them properly.

    This is why I can't be a "true" libertarian. Some people need government to slap their hand and tell them not to do something.

  4. #734
    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
    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?
    Nope, it doesn't. Presenting people with a choice, no matter how unpleasant the effects of said choice is-- still a choice. They would not be forced to be sterilized. They would be asked to do something in return for the money they are receiving. For a change. Call it "earned income."

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    lol "as a libertarian.." shows how people put themselves into pigeon holes with labels. If I could choose unaffiliated as a title, I would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    This is rich. You calling my post hyperbolic. lulz never mind your silly examples of children starving in the streets.

    There-is-no-force if one chooses a particular option and subsequently receives something as a result.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    ..such as mom and baby's daddy having yet another child they cannot provide for. But you don't see that as a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    $everal grand each month for 18 plus years is extremely expensive. There doesn't need to be staff members "to record people going in and out" and whathaveyou. The current staff would suffice. The procedure would be as followed: welfare mom goes to dhs pregnant with second child and still receiving benefits, she agrees to tubal in order to receive benefits for second child. End transaction.

    Seriously. That's it.

  5. #735
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Nope, it doesn't. Presenting people with a choice, no matter how unpleasant the effects of said choice is-- still a choice. They would not be forced to be sterilized. They would be asked to do something in return for the money they are receiving. For a change. Call it "earned income."



    lol "as a libertarian.." shows how people put themselves into pigeon holes with labels. If I could choose unaffiliated as a title, I would.



    This is rich. You calling my post hyperbolic. lulz never mind your silly examples of children starving in the streets.

    There-is-no-force if one chooses a particular option and subsequently receives something as a result.





    ..such as mom and baby's daddy having yet another child they cannot provide for. But you don't see that as a problem.



    $everal grand each month for 18 plus years is extremely expensive. There doesn't need to be staff members "to record people going in and out" and whathaveyou. The current staff would suffice. The procedure would be as followed: welfare mom goes to dhs pregnant with second child and still receiving benefits, she agrees to tubal in order to receive benefits for second child. End transaction.

    Seriously. That's it.
    I guess it was too much to ask.

    You can choose undisclosed or private.

    Your words are an exaggeration, while I have the sad experience of taking in kids who were sleeping on park benches without enough food to eat.

    Not if the price is a surgical and permanent.

    I have never said I don't see a problem

    The last paragraph has nothing to do with Chris's suggestion of housing and feeding welfare recipients.

    Your winky up there, is ghoulish.



    Your winky is ghoulish.

  6. #736
    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
    I guess it was too much to ask.
    I guess people, like with everything else, choose to change definitions to fit their own world views. If force means to be given a choice, however, unpleasant, than I am being forced to work for my wages. Whatta sham.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    while I have the sad experience of taking in kids who were sleeping on park benches without enough food to eat.
    anecdotal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Not if the price is a surgical and permanent.
    don't worry about it. There are plenty of people who think with their amygdala while ignoring logical solutions; therefore, folks can continue to breed like rabbits while pushing the expense onto the rest of society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I have never said I don't see a problem

    The last paragraph has nothing to do with Chris's suggestion of housing and feeding welfare recipients.

    Your winky up there, is ghoulish.



    Your winky is ghoulish.
    yeah ..er ok.

  7. #737
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

    People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.
    Do you think part of the problem is that the gov gives enough money, per child to low income parent(s), that it's an incentive to actually breed for the extra money? Especially since they can make more that way, than being employed in some cases or at least live comfortable?

    Wouldn't it be easier to just cut back the money per child and reduce the incentive? Or would they continue to breed and simply unload the newborns onto the system burdening us further? I'm honestly curious what solutions sound compassionately viable?
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  8. #738
    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
    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.
    This doesn't have to be any different than low-income housing. There are apartment complexes (some of which are very nice BTW) in my area that are low-income housing. That is kind of what I'm thinking of.

    Why do they have to have social workers? I don't get where you are coming from with this. Welfare recipients automatically get a case worker but they don't have social workers unless there is some kind of issue. As it is now, welfare recipients don't live with case workers or social workers, so I don't see why any of that would have to change.

    As far as food goes, I'm not sure how much it would cost. I guess food stamps could remain the same.

    Let's not forget, these are just scenarios that we are discussing. It's nothing to get worked up about. Feel free to disagree but there's really no need to be "frightened" over conversation and debate. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things.

  9. #739
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    This doesn't have to be any different than low-income housing. There are apartment complexes (some of which are very nice BTW) in my area that are low-income housing. That is kind of what I'm thinking of.

    Why do they have to have social workers? I don't get where you are coming from with this. Welfare recipients automatically get a case worker but they don't have social workers unless there is some kind of issue. As it is now, welfare recipients don't live with case workers or social workers, so I don't see why any of that would have to change.

    As far as food goes, I'm not sure how much it would cost. I guess food stamps could remain the same.

    Let's not forget, these are just scenarios that we are discussing. It's nothing to get worked up about. Feel free to disagree but there's really no need to be "frightened" over conversation and debate. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things.
    All welfare recipients would live in such housing in a particular community?

    Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.

    I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.

    Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.

  10. #740
    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
    All welfare recipients would live in such housing in a particular community?
    They would live in different communities. Just like now there are apartment buildings that are specifically for Section 8 housing recipients.

    Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.
    I don't really see the need for this, unless there is some history of neglect/abuse.

    I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.
    Well, if it would be too expensive, then I would suggest sticking with food stamps.

    Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.
    I don't think it would be possible to have ALL of the welfare recipients in one community sharing one building. In my town, we have several low-income/Section 8 apartment buildings.

Page 74 of 80 FirstFirst ... 24647273747576 ... 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
  •