just me wrote:We'd be well on our way to a solution by increasing funding to family planning. Offering long-term birth control options to teens and women for "free" will lower the unwanted pregnancy rate dramatically.
My daughter and I were talking about this topic yesterday. We both feel that people should be licensed in order to have a kid. There are too many ignorant and dependent types crapping out kids, and it costs the State a metric lot of money to care for them.
For example, my step-son who was adopted by my spouse comes from a family of ten or eleven (the number keeps going up, it was eight when he was the youngest). His mother has children by four or five different fathers. All the kids are in or have been in the foster system. My step-son clearly was a product of fetal alcohol syndrome.
Straight up. Mandatory birth control, mang. But then again, I'm an evil Nazi-communist-liberal-fascist.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Straight up. Mandatory birth control, mang. But then again, I'm an evil Nazi-communist-liberal-fascist.
No you just have basic common sense. I think most people would agree with you. The problem is as old as social welfare itself and yet we never seem to be able to get anything done about it.
Google the Desmond Hatchett case and you'll see that there is no law against having as many kids as you possibly can. At age 31 he had 30 kids with 11 different women and there's not a damn thing the taxpayer can do to stop him. His child support maxs out at 50% of his income. Some the children get about $1.49/month from him.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: My daughter and I were talking about this topic yesterday. We both feel that people should be licensed in order to have a kid. - Doc
Agree a thousand percent. I'd like to design the program that leads up to the licensing.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
just me wrote:We'd be well on our way to a solution by increasing funding to family planning. Offering long-term birth control options to teens and women for "free" will lower the unwanted pregnancy rate dramatically.
My daughter and I were talking about this topic yesterday. We both feel that people should be licensed in order to have a kid. There are too many ignorant and dependent types crapping out kids, and it costs the State a metric lot of money to care for them.
...
Straight up. Mandatory birth control, mang. But then again, I'm an evil Nazi-communist-liberal-fascist.
- Doc
The state controlling who can have kids and forcing people to be sterilized, temporarily or no, with the implicit threat of violence is pretty darn high up on the evil Nazi scale, yeah.
Did it occur to you that once you hand over the power to government officials to decide who and who is not fit to have children than the people in charge of those decisions might not use that power for the socio-economic engineering you think justifies it? Maybe some Democrats might be in charge and, for example, believe that anyone who harbors your political views is unfit to raise a child. I mean, to be frank, saying the government should sterilize poor people is a pretty good sign to me that someone is probably not a great role model for the country's children. I don't like the thought of such a person influencing impressionable young minds.
Out of curiosity, do you apply this logic to beneficiaries of all government welfare? That's basically everyone depending on how broadly you define welfare, but it's especially true of the wealthy. I tried to see of Ajax would apply this logic to the beneficiaries of corporate welfare for the Milwaukee Bucks owners and their families. They received hundreds of millions of dollars in financial benefit from the taxpayers. They alone received the equivalent in government welfare that thousands upon thousands of poor people combined receive. Should they be sterilized for being such welfare queens? Ajax wouldn't bite. His animosity is directed towards a stereotype of poor minorities and this proposal is merely a means to the end of punishing them. It isn't held for even remotely ideologically consistent reasons.
The state controlling who can have kids and forcing people to be sterilized, temporarily or no, with the threat of force is pretty darn high up on the evil Nazi scale, yeah
Like I said, good luck getting anything done about it.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
EAllusion wrote:The state controlling who can have kids and forcing people to be sterilized, temporarily or no, with the implicit threat of violence is pretty darn high up on the evil Nazi scale, yeah.
Did it occur to you that once you hand over the power to government officials to decide who and who is not fit to have children than the people in charge of those decisions might not use that power for the socio-economic engineering you think justifies it? Maybe some Democrats might be in charge and, for example, believe that anyone who harbors your political views is unfit to raise a child. I mean, to be frank, saying the government should sterilize poor people is a pretty good sign to me that someone is probably not a great role model for the country's children. I don't like the thought of such a person influencing impressionable young minds.
Out of curiosity, do you apply this logic to beneficiaries of all government welfare? That's basically everyone depending on how broadly you define welfare, but it's especially true of the wealthy. I tried to see of Ajax would apply this logic to the beneficiaries of corporate welfare for the Milwaukee Bucks owners and their families. They received hundreds of millions of dollars in financial benefit from the taxpayers. They alone received the equivalent in government welfare that thousands upon thousands of poor people combined receive. Should they be sterilized for being such welfare queens? Ajax wouldn't bite. His animosity is directed towards a stereotype of poor minorities and this proposal is merely a means to the end of punishing them. It isn't held for even remotely ideologically consistent reasons.
I absolutely haven't given it much thought because it's realistically an impossibility. I'm just chit chatting and bitching about idiots who are draining the coffers of morally good programs. It's akin to me bitching about an oversized military, or corporate welfare, or the degradation of America's infrastructure. I'm a registered Democrat and will vote people into office who will do nothing but enable the people I despise, but it's the price we pay for the world in which we live. I'd rather we have the current situation than force people into the street. It's cheaper to keep the welfare revenue stream open and flowing rather than deal with the crime and anarchy that would ensue if we shut it off.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: I absolutely haven't given it much thought because it's realistically an impossibility. I'm just chit chatting and bitching about idiots who are draining the coffers of morally good programs. It's akin to me bitching about an oversized military, or corporate welfare, or the degradation of America's infrastructure. I'm a registered Democrat and will vote people into office who will do nothing but enable the people I despise, but it's the price we pay for the world in which we live. I'd rather we have the current situation than force people into the street. It's cheaper to keep the welfare revenue stream open and flowing rather than deal with the crime and anarchy that would ensue if we shut it off.
- Doc
There's a rather famous Supreme Court case (Buck v. Bell) where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion that upheld the right of the State of Virginia to forcibly sterilize a woman who the state decided was an imbecile. The famous line from the ruling, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" is considered one of the worst things Holmes ever penned and stains his general reputation as a great justice. Sadly, this is one area (willingness to limit free speech being the other) where progressives seem to be more inclined to step over the line than conservatives.
ETA: Not to say Holmes, a great defender of the freedom of speech, reflects this. My comment is based on more recent studies showing the younger and more liberal a person is, the more likely they are to support limits on a person's rights to self-expression.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa