The mentally retarded
Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State
Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)
Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)
Anyone failing a psychological test
Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)
Girls under 18
Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights
are you trying to put Maury Povich ect out of business
Of course a more sensible approach would be to abandon the welfare state and reckless immigration policies, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
So the human species, at least in America, continues to decline and may someday degenerate into something akin to what we saw in "Planet of the Apes."
I am disgusted that anyone could even consider banning a woman from having a child. Talk about not letting her do what she wants with her own body. If you are pro-choice and would support forced birth control you are a hypocrite.
Lawyers and politicians.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit."
- The Tick
What if the same "pro-choice" person was actually in favor of mandatory abortions as well?
Not everyone uses the same mentality for supporting abortion. For some people, it's not choice that's an issue. It's the belief that most people shouldn't have kids to begin with.
I'm not saying that's my position, but I do know some people who hold that position.
This is why the pro-choice label is misleading. Some people are just pro-abortion.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
No. The government has no business regulating what people do to their own bodies. The only exception should be when people pose a serious danger to others, for instance forced medication of dangerous and violent mentally ill persons can be justified. But forced sterilisation or birth control can never be justified - people having children can be annoying but it can never be dangerous to someone else.
I think the idea of forbidding people you consider inferior from taking part in basic parts of human life is simply disgusting. If we should have learnt anything from the 20th century it should be what that kind of supremacist mentality can lead to. Racial hygiene has been tried before and the results are scary.
I think this is a very slippery slope. We could easily end up having the government regulating everything, allowing only those who fit into the government-approved ideological view on what a good family is to have children. One can be cynical and think that it will never hit yourself, but as Martin Niemöller wrote in 1946:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
The poor complain; they always do
But that’s just idle chatter
Our system brings reward to all
At least all those who matter.
I picked a few where it mite apply, but I would be against this in any form as it violates the civil rights of an individual.
I do have one question. Someone said "no" to people on welfare because it is racist? The majority of people on welfare by far is whites? How would it then be racist? Is it because because of the higher rate of minority's per capita?
No Lives Matter
Actions have consequences.