- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 57,651
- Reaction score
- 32,201
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
bristol palin?
Oh good Lord. Here we go. :roll:
bristol palin?
Then you understand very little about the basic human as an animal. Every animal including humans have the natural urge to procreate.
It is not up to the state to tell anyone they can or cannot breed unless they give up that right by committing a crime.
Your reasoning is flawed if not typical of the modern day progressive. Who complains about the Christian right and it's "morality" being forced into to law for things like abortion and the death penalty etc.
The argument that the government has to use forced birth control against women (what about men?)
who are in one way or another unable to take care of their children doesn't hold. There are far less intrusive options available that will just as effectively make sure that children are not raised under indecent conditions.
We can help the families, provide treatment and therapy for the problems that renders them unfit for raising children. If the parents are so far out that they cannot be helped we can take away the children as it happens already.
There are no good reasons for forced sterilisations.
By the way - who has been known to use forced sterilisation? Nazi Germany and the Chinese occupation forces in Tibet - is that a club a democratic and civilised country would like to join?
BTW severly mentally retarded people can't have sex. It's illegal as they are unable to consent making the act rape.
But you may have already knew that. So I'm wonderinng at what point you would class a person as Severly mentally disabled.
How about physically disabled? you got a problem with that too?
No the natural urge is not, "Oh gee I wish I had a child I think I'll go have sex." The urge is to have sex. In the natural world, procreation is the consequence of sex, but sex is what is desired.
Yes, I gathered that this is your opinion, though I'm not sure if differs much from mine. Many people who would be deemed unfit to be parents would be so because of some crime they committed, particularly against children.
Okay go ahead and explain why it is flawed.
Committing a crime you give up your rights. Accepting aid in the form of a government hand out is not.
Well it seems we both think it should be used more, I just draw the line a little further than you.
Then you understand very little about the basic human as an animal. Every animal including humans have the natural urge to procreate.
You misunderstand. The government should not be able to tell anyone they can or cannot breed.
Now if you were required to sign a contract and give up your reproductive rights, say in the case of welfare. I would have no problem as long as it is voluntary and not forced.
The government wouldn't be doing it. It would be "we the people," who end up paying for the services that these deadbeat parents absorb out of our personal tax dollars.
Giving up reproductive rights should be a condition of accepting welfare. And, last I checked, welfare was voluntary.
And yet you support things like AA?
That a bit hypocritical don't you think?
Or am I worng?
Thats what I said. This way it is not forced, or a government mandate.
Now if you were required to sign a contract and give up your reproductive rights, say in the case of welfare. I would have no problem as long as it is voluntary and not forced.
And yet you support things like AA?
Or am I worng?
Thats what I said. This way it is not forced, or a government mandate.
We spay/neuter animals all the time. I have zero problems with doing it temporarily to human animals that have demonstrated, by their actions, that they are incapable of caring for children.
And you can have that opinion. My opinion is the opposite.
PS Animals have no rights. It was an example of nature, not rights.
Affirmative action? I don't see the connection.
Well of course that's how it would be done in the case of welfare, but if somebody really needs the assistance, the distinction between forced and voluntary blurs a bit. But the fact would remain that they can't support a family and shouldn't be forcing others to support their growing family.
Are we animals or not animals? Pick one and stick with it.
Where do you get that? I've specifically stated several times in this thread that I don't support racial quotas.
That's what I said originally and you had a hissy fit.
I think that women who accept welfare should sign a contract not to reproduce. If they get knocked up, their benefits are cut off.
I also believe that first time child abuse offenders should not be allowed to breed. One strike, you're out.
Because the question was not addressed to you.
I know it was not addressed to me, and incidentally it applies to neither of us because neither of seem to believe in affirmative action. My question was what supporting affirmative action would have to do with supporting regulating reproduction. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Would somebody who believes in having more minorities in jobs and schools have to be opposed to reproductive regulation in order to be consistent? I don't see how.
That is why I asked if I was wrong.
You did read the whole thing right? :2wave:
Wait wait I get it. You associate reproductive regulation with eugenics, which historically wanted to use reproductive regulation to reduce the numbers and influence of minorities. If that's the case you would simply be wrong because reproductive regulation doesn't have to be supportive of eugenics.
But it would control indirectly the birth rates of many minority's. I am certain many would love to see it done for that reason.
Blackdog said:But it would control indirectly the birth rates of many minority's. I am certain many would love to see it done for that reason.
A hissy fit?