Well, how do you feel about those who are receiving social services, who keep having children that other people end up having to support? What would be bad about perhaps mandatory birth control or sterilization for those people? And only a temporary basis until they are no longer receiving those services and are able to care for themselves and a family?
Perhaps I am. I haven't done much research on the subject of sterilization thankfully.
Simply put, it's not your decision to make. Entities and individuals that receive tax dollars aren't subject to the will and dictate of John Q. Taxpayer by default you know.
Strange how some who wail, moan and label 3 percent tax increases as Class Warfare are on board with a proposition that would forceably sterilize those with incomes they find troublesome isn't it?From a logical point. Most of the mass murderers are from a well-to-do white demographic. So wealthy whites should not reproduce? Sounds sensible, eh?
I think that promoting free birth control (long acting like IUD or a matchstick size implant) for
welfare moms mught be wokable.
I don't agree with it being mandatory But I do think it should be encouaged.
Sure it is.That's not a reason.
IF I am supporting those children, then, yes, I AM INVOLVED, and I should have a say in the matter of whether I have to support more of this person's children or not.
You are just approaching this from a "moral" perspective instead of a logical one.
Sure it is.
No more than your right to dictate in which foreign conflicts the military sees fit to intervene, the dietary and excercise habits of medicare recipients, or the saving and spending patterns of social security beneficiaries.
Both actually.
You answered your own question. Those folks in question want a choice in the matter based on the given circumstance, not a surgery that would eliminate all possibility.What about those who moan and complaint about their "right" to an abortion IF they get pregnant? Why not sterilization?
You answered your own question. Those folks in question want a choice in the matter based on the given circumstance, not a surgery that would eliminate all possibility.
What about those who moan and complaint about their "right" to an abortion IF they get pregnant? Why not sterilization?
Certainly interesting how most advocates of such a proposition center their arguments strictly on the income of the parents. The concern for the child's well being seems completely disingenuous.
So basically, you are saying that you are perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies at the taxpayers' expense instead of preventing them to begin with? Hmmm. Interesting. Still isn't very logical though.
Sheesh, it was a simple analogy. The fact that certain individuals, entities and departments receive tax payer funds, does not render them subject to your whims and fancies. Simple as that.I don't see this situation as being the same thing at all. This isn't dictating how to spend money or military conflicts or anything like that. This is about people who are unable or unwilling to support their own families who keep adding to their family and relying on others to support them for all of their needs.
Logistically, this would be a benefit not only to the taxpayer but also to the welfare recipient and to the "potential" child that would be born into a cycle of poverty.
Your opposition is based upon moral grounds and nothing more.
Yup, I'd require it. Income and intelligence would be 2 immediate factors I'd use as criteria.
Sheesh, it was a simple analogy. The fact that certain individuals, entities and departments receive tax payer funds, does not render them subject to your whims and fancies. Simple as that.
Not everyone holds the same view of potential "benefits." Especially when another decides on their behalf.
Moral grounds, in addition to logical and legal implications. I'd be fascinated to learn of a legal provision that would allow the federal government to practice wanton discrimination in the form of stripping away reproductive rights based on income. Equal protection anyone?
Who said anything about tax payers paying for abortions?
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out the glaring, unsubtle flaws in your proposition. Individuals who want all prospects of procreating wiped clean would be sterilized as you proposed. Those who feel they should have a choice would avoid that route. The two stances are antithetical.So basically, you are saying that you are perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies at the taxpayers' expense instead of preventing them to begin with? Hmmm. Interesting. Still isn't very logical though.
I'm talking about people who are receiving social services. Obviously they aren't paying for their own abortions.
Can Medicaid cover my abortion? | Fund Abortion Now.orgMedicaid covers abortion in 15 states in the U.S. If you live in one of the states below, click on the state name to be taken to some instructions about how to enroll in Medicaid quickly. If you want to use Medicaid to cover your abortion, you must live in and have your abortion in the same state. Your Medicaid coverage will not follow you if you need to travel out of state.
If you do not live in one of these 15 states, your Medicaid will not cover your abortion.
Many clinics offer discounts for women who are enrolled in Medicaid.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out the glaring, unsubtle flaws in your proposition. Individuals who want all prospects of procreating wiped clean would be sterilized as you proposed. Those who feel they should have a choice would avoid that route. The two stances are antithetical.
Medicaid only covers abortions in 15 states.
Can Medicaid cover my abortion? | Fund Abortion Now.org
Legal implications, as mentioned before. The only recourse you have is calling up your congressman and encouraging him to alter the income qualifications for welfare, the amount of children that one is compensated for, or abolish it altogether. After that, it's hands off. Poor folks don't have to garner your approval in order to screw.Why not? They have proven that they are unable to care for themselves or any future children. "Just because" isn't good enough.
I'm sure that everyone can agree that a person who cannot take care of themselves would not be able to take care of any additional children. This is not a philosophical question.
Originally Posted by minnie616
Medicaid only covers abortions in 15 states.
Can Medicaid cover my abortion? | Fund Abortion Now.org
Minnie, that is really kind of irrelevant to my point; let's not turn this into yet another abortion thread.
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I'm talking about people who are receiving social services. Obviously they aren't paying for their own abortions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?