|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 8/3/2009 11:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
So what do you do with a woman who's pregnant and doesn't fit the selection process criteria?  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 11:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 63026
I don't know the answer to this... One of my best friends got their niece due to circumstances I won't go into It's weird but if that never happened, I'd never met the family, and then the past year would of been so different for me...  |
Date: 8/3/2009 11:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 44960
Why not pass a law where its only legal to have children 3 days a week, for instance Monday, Wednesday & Friday. Otherwise Abort!!  *Spirit*  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 12:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
Well think about the good ole colonial times in America when familes had up to 10 kids... 10 kids, food comes from the land, and going hunting, maybe a trading post.... Each kid helped out with chores, Boys old enough went hunting or ran the household with the father was out, girls did the sewing and the cooking.... Hard work was instilled in the kids, Land was passed down through generations, family had values, they worked together as a family... Unfortuantly all those values were mainly lost due to the Modernization of America.... And now some people can't even handle 1 or 2 kids..... |
Date: 8/3/2009 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62722
Well, they have tried everything from birth control, to adoptions, I know it is difficult but if only they taught morals, responsibility and accountability.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 1:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 64514
don't forget psychiatric evaluation, I agree with what your saying maybe then we could save the lives of thee children but what can we do about it? chastity belts? I know a girl that has 13 kids and one on the way, her mother has 7 of them and her brother has 5 and one of the fathers has 1 ( all have different fathers). its a sad world we live in. I also agree with PsyGuy and lil'wolf  |
Date: 8/3/2009 1:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 35720
YES YES YES. Not just anyone should be allowed to be a parent.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 1:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
I'd like to add my sister was 17 when she had her first kid... The father's grandma and grandpa raised him and he turned out to be a great kid and he was no burden to them.. Now my sister has 2 more kids that she raises on her own and does pretty good with them. |
Date: 8/3/2009 2:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I don't think you would be able to find an acceptable way to implement such a policy.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 3:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 12806
Who would get to play God??? Who do you think should be the one to decide who can and cannot have kids??? That is like deciding who lives and who dies!!!!! Many fine people have been born to families who could not afford to raise them. I grew up in a single income family with 7 kids and we took in a niece to boot. We didn't turn out to be criminals..... In fact, the exact opposite happened.... We learned to appreciate everything we get because we know how hard things are to come by, unlike many who have everything handed to them. What about the elderly? They are a burden on society (at least on a society that sees everything from a materialistic view).... Perhaps we should do something about them too.... Let's just get rid of all the kids who don't make A's and B's on their report card (they will likely grow up to be useless anyways). After all, we can't have anyone lowering our standard of living now can we?....... Oh wait.... Let's think a minute..... some of these children may actually grow up and accept Jesus as their saviour and become Children of God!!! I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to tell God how I prevented His child from being born... It is a good thing they didn't think this way 2000 years ago or Joseph and Mary would never have been allowed to keep their child..........  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 3:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 62881
A program like this would require government implementation and I don't know about you, or other's here, but the government is already stepping into areas that I don't believe they belong in as it is. No...Wouldn't want the government involved in that aspect of my life and I know many others that wouldn't want it either.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 3:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 61933
In all honesty, I don't agree, because I was one of those parents that had my child too young, was no where near financially secure, and did have to have people help me alot. But looking back, had this been something that had existed when I became pregnant, my life MAY be different now, BUT I would never have my BEAUTIFUL daughter. She is the light of my life. And if anything, she HELPED me get my life to where it is today. I would not change one trial, hardship, or despair, if it meant that I would not have that little girl in my life.  |
Date: 8/3/2009 3:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 63201
I'm gonna go with Raybone on this one. I take offense to this post and the message it conveys. I'm a single parent, not by choice but by circumstance, I at one point was on welfare and I live on disability and a part-time job. I manage to take care of my kids just fine without "burdening" anyone. No one gets to play God but God Himself. I was never supposed to have children due to a partial hysterectomy when I was 17, but God chose to bless me with 2 miracles. The government butting into my life more than it already does would be a good cause for me to move to a different country where love is more valued than materialistic ideas and possessions.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 3:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
I find this post offensive in so many ways!! Simply put under your view I shouldn't be a mother at all because, I'm single. And because, I'm single it must mean automatically that my children are going to become druggies, welfare receipients, young parents, and will never amount to anything other than a bad spot on the economic growth process. Gee thanks for those words of encouragement. I guess I'll just stop now and not teach them moral values since, I must have none of my oww. Again this post is the most offensive thing I've read here in a long time, this is absolutely deplorable imho. Thanks for renewing my faith in humanity.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 3:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
That should be own not oww. |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 4:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I concur with the majority in that this kind of governmental interference is downright icky. A simple two word credo could alleviate the "problems" cited in this post: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Of course, our government has no interest in promoting that other than through Health Care Reform, right? One of Obama's czars (in some pseudo- science agency) has advocated putting a sterilizing compound in drinking water. Nutrition education, end of life counseling, no coverage for natural healing methods -- those aren't an individual's choices to make, right? Oh, but, just if we could find some "acceptable way to implement such a policy"????? Citizens of the United States, do you find government-run health care (insurance  ) ACCEPTABLE, or not?God Bless.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 13636
I was not ready to have my daughter, and neither was my husband (boyfriend at the time) but we rose to the occasion, and our daughter is probably one of the most well behaved, well adjusted children in her age group. Sure, she's a spaz, but what 2 year old isn't sometimes? I was on Medicaid when I was pregnant with her, then when she was 2 months old, I got a job paying more than my MIL made, along with insurance and a 401k. Now, my husband and I are expecting our second child, and he makes more than both of his parents combined. Who's to say that we should've not had our kid? I do agree that there should be a license to have kids, but I don't know if those exact qualifications should be used. I know many people that fall into those 'no no' groups, that are better parents than even my inlaws were when they started having kids at 30.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 61977
In my opinion this post was written in poor taste and is very stereotypical to place all people in one group. What about the children who have serious problems although they are a product of a marriage and have financial stability? Believe me it does happen and is out there. I personally think that the label you are placing on individuals is incorrect. However, I do agree that some individuals shouldn't have children and it is a shame. However, I am powerless over others and their actions in addition to their common sense. To mandate such a policy would inhibit our freedom as a people in this country, and there is no way that there could be such a policy, that would be fair and democratic for our society, IMO!  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 5:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 61977
Oh and BTW, there is no perfect family or perfect parents or parent. Perhaps, there are ideal circumstances; yet even under ideal circumstances families have problems, people have problems and people are flawed. Therefore, no matter what you may think would be a result of such policy would not decrease the systematic approach to family dynamics, suffering and the like. Unless to you this is all about the money and taxes we pay as people. If it is, I would like to say that life is priceless. |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 5:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
I'm sorry ML I totally disagree. I am the perfect mother I decided that I would go ahead and give them valium man that's my new best friend to watch them fly higher than a kite!! Woohoo I'm training them early  |
Date: 8/3/2009 5:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 36850
In a perfect world, things would be just that, perfect. But it's not and sometimes things happen that we can't control, we can only take steps to try and make it better. A selection process of who can and can't have children, not going to happen and doesn't need to happen, it's a bad idea. I agree that the "gene pool could use a little chlorine", but probably because I've been in contact with those that I wish would be removed.lol Really are some crazy people. There are some things that sound good in theory and that's where they need to stay. Who's to say that the dictator of the gene pool doesn't need to remove their own genes?  |
Date: 8/3/2009 6:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 63366
Ok ML and TADA how about putting a limit on the number of children per couple say a max of 2-3 so we stop overpopulating the planet.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 6:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 61933
I had to come back to this and state something else that was mentioned in another comment. This would be no different than playing god. Who are we to decide when a child is born. Who are we to make that divine decision that a person does not meet the "standards" for raising a child. God knows that I would have failed that standards check in a heartbeat, and yet feel I have done better with my daughter then some people who would have passed the standards, when they had their children. Doing this is no different than abortion in my eyes. Its preventing the birth of a child, and in some scenarios based on standards - would lead to an abortion. I do feel there are people out there that point blank don't even care or don't want their children. This is evident in an acquaintance of mine, who had a daughter 6 months before my own daughter was born, but at 7 months of age decided it wasn't what she wanted and gave the girl to her parents, and the child now refers to her own mother as her "sister" and knows nothing of the truth. But should that child have been prevented to come into the world? Absolutely not, she is loved and cared for. As for the problems with assistance and such, they are in place to help people out, and to label it such a "burden" is complete ignorance. I myself have had to use the services of a government, if only for a short while. Infact, my daughter was born on and CURRENTLY has health insurance through the state. Which, let me say, is REMARKABLE coverage. I even used WIC and foodstamps for a time. For that I supposed I should apologize to the taxpayers for being a burden?! I'm sorry but when you see some of the PREPOSTEROUS things that our tax dollars go toward, putting these things that HELP the American people as the burden seems so selfish. I agree that some people have been known to abuse it, but don't assume that everyone that has and DO abuse it. As for being given to a grandparent/parent to care for, if these standards were true when my mother was pregnant with ME, she would have failed more miserably than I would have, and you would not have me frolicking around on USM :P hehe Frankly I'm glad that there is no selection process for having kids, I love my life too much, and my daughter :P lol |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 6:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 61977
Disinformer, I may never have children and I choose to live my life helping children. Therefore, I feel as if I have done my duty to the planet. How would it be moral and ethical to limit a person to a certain amount of children? Change religion and people's belief system? You cannot dictate such things within this country. Inplausible and unlikely. Does anyone know how the population control is affecting the males in China, in addition to the women? Or is that even revelant? That is what I thought... |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 6:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 16845
So.....I'm curious. How would one 'prevent' people from becoming parents? Yes there is birth control. But unless the pill police are there every day who's to say the woman would take them? Who's to say a couple would use barrier methods? And even then we all know they aren't 100% course there's always the more invasive procedures. Tubal ligation/vasectomy. But then reversal (If people became 'fit' enough to parent) isn't always affective... Then there's the pesky question Bcar posed. What happens if someone becomes pregnant and wasn't 'licensed'?... I agree, some people shouldn't be parents. But I don't think it's a good idea to implement something such as this.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 16845
and actually I also know of several occasions where a tubal and/or vasectomy failed....years after the fact. So even then...... |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
No Dis I have a much better solution in fact..... Ugly people aren't allowed to procreate that would solve a lot of problems as well.... Or I know Dis!!! Let's make sure men and women can't get together then no one would have kids.... |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 12103
I think this should apply to the parents who are druggys...the women who you can tell are cracked out, with craters in their face, missing teeth (cause of too much drugs).. I'm talking about the women who just sleep with men for drug money and have 5 children by 5 different men. But for the women who get pregnant because they are just irresponsible, I think that's a different thing. That brings tough times, but that's life. If it was a perfect would, we would all be happy, not go hungry, and be financialy stable..but we know that's impossible. Even if you let this "stable couple" have children, who's to say they'll be together forever? If they have a good job, who's to say maybe they'll loose it?  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 7:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
Actually Texas Angi I seen not so pretty people with some pretty kids, and I've seen some pretty people with the weird looking kids...It is strange.. |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 7:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 13636
LOL Ang. I bet the people here arguing that we should limit the amount of kids, are the same people that don't agree with same sex marriage. That's it. Legalize same sex marriage, and there will be less 'bad parents'. Problem solved. |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
You don't like my solution to the problem? That's too bad psyguy!! My kids are gorgeous but then again they are blond haired and blue eyed well except Calvin someone messed up in the pool and gave him hazel eyes  |
Date: 8/3/2009 7:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 42519
Only the girls who go on the Maury show to prove paternity but cant figure out between 17 guys that the baby is theirs. Oh wait. They already have a baby... My bad.  |
Date: 8/3/2009 7:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
Do I think there are a lot of people who have babies who really shouldn't have them? Absolutely. Do I think the government should step in and start dictating our reproductive activities? Absolutely not. How is this going to be enforced? What if I'm in a relationship but I'm not "cleared" to have children? Am I obligated to be on birth control? Are they going to monitor my birth control intake? What happens when people, who will assuredly continue on having unplanned pregnancies, accidentally get pregnant? Do they get fined? Do they get the baby taken away from them? In which case, are poor people going to turn into baby factories for rich people who can't have kids, since there almost certainly will be preferential treatment towards rich people in the granting of permits? This is veering into totatlitarianism territory. There are direct and indirect ways of promoting policies. I prefer indirect methods- education & public awareness. Such strategy requires more planning and smarts to implement, but is not oppressive.  |
Date: 8/3/2009 7:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
No. People will never learn to be self-policing unless they are forced to make good choices. Furthermore, I bristle at anyone dictating decisions for others, especially of a personal nature.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 7:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
actually my friends niece falls in the whole not-so pretty parents, and druggies....Yet she is the one of the most precious young girls I've ever seen... |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 8:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
OOh I can't stand Maury...Though I wonder how much is real, and how much is fake drama... But god why would anyone put themselves in that situation to began with... Oh wait cause maybe the parents didn't instill any values in them to begin with.... |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 8:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 42519
I have 2 kids. I am no longer with their father. *which I need to get my tag fixed over that.* we never got married. We were together for 7 years and we decided to split ways and leave on talking good terms rather than do the hard things like court and hating each other. I am doing my damndest to raise my kids to be good people. I have been blessed with a man who loves me for many reasons but one of the top ones was I did have kids. During my single months, I was a burden on many people. I moved back with my parents and the 5 of us lived in the house where 7 kids were raised. I had to pay all the past due bills like the power and gas cause they were all in my name and I received no help from the kids' father. I got on the food stamp program, child care program and it was a long climb back up to evens. I shouldn't have kids right? Since the beginning of this year, I have purchased my first home, made a family with my beau and my 2 kids. I work at a non desirable but good job for the insurance so my kids can be covered if anything was to happen to any of us. I have gotten off all state aids and am making ends meet between Beau and myself, we are making everything work, and its been blissful the whole time. He wants to have 15 kids. Who is to say we cant have kids. He has had a past. Many GOOD people have had a "Past". Doesn't mean they are bad people. Just mean that they are people. I have seen many people who IMHO shouldn't have become parents, and I have seen many people try so hard to be parents who were perfectly fit to be parents that can't or find it hard to be parents. |
|
Date: 8/3/2009 8:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 42519
Ooops. My bad. I had 4 sisters, so 5 kids total, so 7 people living in my parents home growing up. |
Date: 8/3/2009 10:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 7710
I think as long as a couple are married they're entitled to have children- it's a God-given right.  |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 1:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 23101
Of course, because there should always be other people making our decisions for us... I see your point that a lot of times children grow up in circumstances that aren't ideal, and that sometimes it can turn out badly. Yes, it can be a burden on tax payers. BUT, I think it's ridiculous to take away the privilege of having children from someone because someone doesn't see there criminal history, their income, or there relationship status as up to par for society. People make mistakes, and that's all there is to it. But having a child truly does change people, and to say that because they become a burden on tax payers we should limit the right to have children to only people who fit a certain stereotype is very ignorant. Maybe you don't agree with it, but saying that you should take away someones right to have children is ridiculous to me. Every situation is different, and to say that everyone that isn't rich, perfect history, and happily married will mess up their children is insane. How about we just take away everyones right to make decisions, and leave it up to someone else because there are people that don't agree with others actions... Right.  |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 2:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Yes Deb, those are individual choices, which is why there would be no acceptable way to implement a policy which forced people (directly or indirectly) not to have children, or to eat certain foods etc. since it would conflict with citizens’ personal autonomy. That’s not to say campaigns could not be launched to encourage healthy lifestyles and responsible parenting, or to provide accurate and comprehensive sex education and support for parents who may feel overwhelmed. |
Date: 8/4/2009 5:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 16916
I am not sure how this could be controlled. I am pregnant now and not exactly financially secure but trust me, I will find a way! I understand that people shouldn't subject their children to drugs, abuse, alcohol, etc. But sometimes things happen..I might have to ask the state for some help in the beginning till' I get on my feet. I fully plan on finishing my degree and having a stable relationship and life for my child and I see nothing wrong with asking for a little bit of help until then.  |
Date: 8/4/2009 5:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 32806
To procreate is a fundamental part of our place in nature. To attempt to justify stopping any group or section of society from having children is disgusting and disgraceful.  |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 5:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 32806
Maybe you should look at how society can support these disadvantaged groups instead of disadvantaging them even more??? I think that by attempting to justify limiting who can and who cannot have children you should take a long hard look at yourself. |
Date: 8/4/2009 7:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 22852
@}~~ LilWolf said it best! Parents need to take responsibility and TEACH children, respect for others as well as for themselves, manners, responsibility, self pride, accountability, you know, teach them and not just pop them out, send them to school and expect others to teach them values. As for welfare. I believe all those on government programs should be drug tested.  |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 8:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, DP, in your first comment you used the word "implement" (as in "enact" and now you are using the word "forced" in regard to a policy which would result in what this post is discussing. So, going off your first comment to this one, what I see you saying is that of course a policy should be enacted which encourages such as this post advocates, but that there is no way to force (as in "the power to coerce, persuade, convince" people into complying with such a policy. Is that correct? God Bless. |
Date: 8/4/2009 8:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 27414
Great idea.  |
Date: 8/4/2009 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 44960
Comment #50!! Just Couldn't Resist!!  *Spirit* |
Date: 8/4/2009 9:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 49172
So, theoretically, it seems like a good idea, but the fact of the matter stands that it isn't possible. There are very few people who are responsible in every aspect, but to say those of US (me included) who aren't don't deserve to have children is a little harsh. I'm twenty years old, I have a ten week old, AND I'm on WIC. I qualify for food stamps. I just moved back in with my parents. Just because I qualify for government assistance doesn't mean I don't deserve my son. There are systems in order in our country to try and combat all of the negative things you're talking about. Maybe we shouldn't focus on PREVENTING the pregnancies, but reworking the system to aide and inform those in the situations you're talking about.  |
Date: 8/4/2009 12:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 64723
I have to say I disagree for the most part. I was a single mom for the first 7 months of my daughters life, by choice. I had state medical insurance and used WIC. I also went to college full time and worked full time. Then I married a man with a criminal background, who adores my daughter. No, my daughter was not a planned pregnancy, but I made the best of the situation and now she is a very very smart, funny, well rounded four year old. If this selection process was in place my daughter would not be here. Besides I know a woman who has been married 10+ years, and has a child my daughters age. She hates being a mother. She did it because she felt like it was the next step. Just because you are poor and live in a bad area does NOT mean you cannot love your children and raise them the way they should be raised.  |
Date: 8/4/2009 12:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 46486
Something should be done about it, but seriously.. what can the government really do? However, I think America running like China wouldn't be a bad idea sometimes.  |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 2:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
As I said above, Deb. Government initiatives to encourage responsible parenting could be acceptable (depending on the content) as well as policies designed to support parents in providing the care their children need. While it would be desirable to live in a society where fewer people had children they could not afford to take care of, any advantage of imposing such a rule upon people would be outweighed by the damage done to personal autonomy. |
|
Date: 8/4/2009 3:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
So, DP, you believe as long as the person is making a choice based on what they personally want to do, without any regard to whether the government policy approved of their choice or not, then if they chose to do that which the government policy approved of it is a win/win situation? God Bless. |
Date: 8/4/2009 3:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 55297
I was 17 when I got pregnant for my daughter... She was unplanned but a lovely gift. A year later, I find out I am expecting again, and my son was born. I was nowhere near ready for my daughter, but I worked parttime, went to college part time, and lived at home. But I supported her, she never went without. Then my son came along, I married his father, and he now adopted my daughter. His daughter. We are struggling financially, still living at my parents, hes working, Im trying to find a job, but still, with out limited finances, we still put food on the table, clothes on our childrens backs and they have never once went without anything. So we are struggling financially, we are money poor, but we are rich. And we are making it.  |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 3:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Pretty much, yes. |
Date: 8/5/2009 5:53:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52140
Raybone, the elderly can't help that their here and I'm sure they actually contribute to society. As for your Jesus logic, thats why there should always be a separation of church and state. You can't base every decision for a secular society on faith or the hope that person will accept Jesus.  |
Date: 8/5/2009 6:00:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52140
FieryMom, people like you that take care of their children and are responsible, I applaud and respect. However, I do have a problem with people (especially some in my own family  ) that have kids and never grow up. I can name several examples (to save time I won't) but here's one from my own personal family: a brother that gets a girl pregnant, acknowledges that she's his but won't get a job and and the mother knows that he won't pay child support so why even bother. Then he gets another woman pregnant twice and the only way they survive is by living off welfare and food stamps, and selling their food stamps so that they can buy dope. Their kids are being raised by her mother because of the continuous domestic abuse, it would be one thing if those people were 18-25 and eventually realized the absurdity of their actions. But they're not, they're 37 and 31... Its people like this that I have the problem with. |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 6:11:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52140
Deb, I am all for personal responsibility, but unfortunately, it sounds too good to be practiced. |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 6:22:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52140
Frosty Angel, its not bad to use government assistance, but its the people that use them all the time to be taken care of ALL the time and don't work. I'm starting to wonder if I grew up in a different environment... Because the people that I knew, that developed this view, had kids and their kids were raised by grandparents or in and out of foster care and were drug addicts. Mohters that had men in and out of the house. And some of my childhood friends were "assaulted" by those men. Drugs and alcohol were very common where I come from... Many of yall's stories are benign compared to the ones I was referring to. |
Date: 8/5/2009 6:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52140
lol I love you Miss Priss  |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 7:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Hmmmm. Pretty much, huh? So if our wonderful legislators who came up with "Cash for Clunkers" came up with "Cash for Clippers" -- a $4500 payment for anyone who had the government sterilize themselves VOLUNTARILY -- that would work for you, DP? God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 10:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 4144
i know a lot of people who should have never had kids. but to take away that right? no, i don't think so. i do think the government should limit the ammount of kids a woman on public assistance can have. i know a woman that just had her 7th. kid and she has never held down a job. only 2 of the kids (the first two) have the same father (maybe) and she dumps them off on her mom 90% of the time. after she saw how much money she got every month she just kept having more. so, i do think there should be a limit on that.  |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
*4,500 even. |
|
Date: 8/5/2009 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Nope, how about a policy whereby if you want a sterilisation the government will do it free of charge? That way you’re not bribing people to have themselves sterilised, but those who want to will have no financial barriers in the way. The 4,5000 could be better served in providing education and resources to would-be parents so that they are better able to take care of the children they do have. |
Date: 8/5/2009 7:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I think this issue, as is reflected in many of the posts and my own thoughts, comes down to law vs. values. Laws are that which can make a person do or not do something whether they want to or not. Values cannot be enforced; they can only be manifested by choice, yet many have effects that are just as important as laws. I think the Founding Fathers took for granted a lot of values and morals that were strong then and are much weaker now.  |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 8:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
LOL Sterilization paid for by government IS AVAILABLE NOW, DP. As you can see by plenty of the responses here, it just ain't bin utilized nuff. God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 10:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
So anyone can go in and ask to be sterilized and have it done free of charge? Excellent. |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 1:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Where did you read "anyone"? Just another miscalibration of words, right? Just as the Cash for Clunkers program has guidelines one must meet in order to "cash in", so does being sterilized by government-funded procedures, e.g., qualify for state medical coverage, already have children, are over a certain age, has thought this through "clearly", etc., etc. So why aren't the people whom these commentators here know who qualify to be sterilized not getting sterilized? What's in it for them? Where is the initiative? God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 2:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I did not put “anyone” in quotation marks, thereby implying you’d used the word Obviously certain guidelines would be in place (you would have to understand the ramifications of your decision, be an adult, etc.) but if someone who wants to get sterilized can do so and have the government pay for it, then it’s win/win. ( but they have to want to in the first place, it shouldn’t be a case of the government bribing them) |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 2:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
You mean like bribing people to buy a new car? God Bless |
|
Date: 8/6/2009 3:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
No, I don’t. |
Date: 8/6/2009 8:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I think it stinks when a parent bails out and leaves the children to be raised with one parent. ESPECIALLY when its the woman that does it. Now with that opinion being said, No, I don't think there should be a selection process but I do think that women as well as men NEED to learn the word "BIRTH CONTROL"  |
|
Date: 8/26/2009 12:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 7710
There cannot be a separation of church and state on those who practice a faith that would not allow a selection process. The Government has absolutely NO right to decide who can get pregnant and who can't. What a horrible society this would become |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
