Pro Choice

[Celebrity]

Why not just make sexually active citizens apply for a permit to raise children? You can still choose what to do with your body, but the state takes custody of the child if you exceed your legal capacity in child rearing. Happy now?

Related question which I stole from another forum (found on Google): Should there be a test or course that a person must pass before they can become a parent?

 

[ecofarm]

Great, now the CCP is trolling as well.

Thanks, Putin.

 

[Celebrity]

Great, now the CCP is trolling as well.

Thanks, Putin.

Neither Putin nor CCP. Maybe if you don't like the first question, you can answer the second?

 

[drtrmiller]

Your questions are overly generalistic for any substantive discussion. I think as soon as you start crafting a regulatory body or legislation with the aim of determining who in the general population has the legal capacity to reproduce, the problems will become apparent very quickly.

 

[Celebrity]

Your questions are overly generalistic for any substantive discussion. I think as soon as you start designing a regulatory body or legislation with that aim, the problems will become apparent very quickly.

Pro choice people are just as bad as pro gun people. They think their right is an inalienable one, and that no one else deserves to have rights before them. Pro choice people are willing to go to any length to make sure women can choose to not have children, up to and including barring men from the same choice.

If we have a mass shooting, we don't take the guns into custody, we take the mass shooter into custody after they massively shot up a school.

If we have a massive poverty problem, we don't take the children who are living in poverty into custody, we take the fathers into custody. We incarcerate fathers because we suppose we cannot afford to feed children. So isn't it a viable solution to stop doing that, and actually address the root problem by diverting federal spending to a more humane purpose rather than propping up the private prison industry?

 

[ecofarm]

Neither Putin nor CCP. Maybe if you don't like the first question, you can answer the second?

I'm noting that your proposal is similar to the CCP's One Child Policy. You might want to look at some of the criticism of that.

Regarding a test? No thanks. I own my body, not the state.

 

[Celebrity]

I'm noting that your proposal is similar to the CCP's One Child Policy. You might want to look at some of the criticism of that.

Regarding a test? No thanks. I own my body, not the state.

I know that it's similar to a one child policy. Not sure about the CCP.

We're the richest country and the world and we still struggle with childhood poverty. One in five children live in poverty and one in 30 are homeless. I don't think the rich will treat them any better than the government will. Just look at how that's gone so far. Rich people accumulate money while children continue to be the demographic which is overwhelmingly impoverished.

If a child living in poverty does have a home, it is nearly certain that child's parents are not making good decisions for the child, in which case CPS should step in.

Conservatives have been moaning and groaning about 'bullies' lately, and seem to think that if we can't notify the authorities of a mass shooting before it happens that we can pre-preemptively arm teachers to kill kids who attack schools.

If we're giving the government more power by arming teachers, why shouldn't we give the government more power by letting CPS seize children from incompetent parents? Trump wants to subvert due process with guns, and I'm not even suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is a set of criteria that determines whether or not a parent is fit to have custody.

NCCP | Child Poverty
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/one-30-american-children-homeless-report-says-n250136

 

[ecofarm]

I know that it's similar to a one child policy. Not sure about the CCP.

We're the richest country and the world and we still struggle with childhood poverty. One in five children live in poverty and one in 30 are homeless. I don't think the rich will treat them any better than the government will. Just look at how that's gone so far. Rich people accumulate money while children continue to be the demographic which is overwhelmingly impoverished.

If a child living in poverty does have a home, it is nearly certain that child's parents are not making good decisions for the child, in which case CPS should step in.

Conservatives have been moaning and groaning about 'bullies' lately, and seem to think that if we can't notify the authorities of a mass shooting before it happens that we can pre-preemptively arm teachers to kill kids who attack schools.

If we're giving the government more power by arming teachers, why shouldn't we give the government more power by letting CPS seize children from incompetent parents? Trump wants to subvert due process with guns, and I'm not even suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is a set of criteria that determines whether or not a parent is fit to have custody.

NCCP | Child Poverty
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/one-30-american-children-homeless-report-says-n250136

I don't see how allowing teachers to concealed carry is giving power to the government.

 

[drtrmiller]

You're suggesting that the incarceration rate, poverty, and child hunger may be mitigated through state licensure of reproductive rights among well-qualified adult individuals, but you have presented no evidence or research to support the notion that such extreme measures could ever outweigh the moral cost of imposing them.

While the idea is completely antithetical to my political beliefs, it's easy to imagine—strictly from a biological standpoint—how a centrally-planned reproduction system could indeed solve the problems you describe. Humankind has exercised reproductive control over a litany of species—from dogs to soybeans—over millenia, with the aim of producing offspring with the most desirable features.

So why not man exercising strict reproductive control over other men? As @ecofarm mentions, China's One Child Policy offers a comparative glimpse of such a system (albeit far more limited in scope), which can only exist in an extremely authoritarian and oppressive state. I'm sure many scholarly articles have been written on this policy, so you may want to start there with your research.

 

[Celebrity]

I don't see how allowing teachers to concealed carry is giving power to the government.

Public school teachers are employed by municipal government, and their pay is funded by taxpayer dollars.

Yes, some teachers work at private schools, but some don't. As far as I know, there is no debate over an armed teacher at a private institution.

The two debates involve public funding, ergo how much taxpayers should be funding guns and children. Should we really mandate that teachers carry a gun when we cannot afford to feed the kids they are teaching?

You're suggesting that the incarceration rate, poverty, and child hunger may be mitigated through state licensure of reproductive rights among well-qualified adult individuals, but you have presented no evidence or research to support the notion that such extreme measures could ever outweigh the moral cost of imposing them.

That is true, and I didn't intend to show any such evidence, and I'd be interested to see any evidence you have to the contrary.

While the idea is completely antithetical to my political beliefs, it's easy to imagine—strictly from a biological standpoint—how a centrally-planned reproduction system could indeed solve the problems you describe. Humankind has exercised reproductive control over a litany of species—from dogs to soybeans—over millenia, with the aim of producing offspring with the most desirable features.

I completely agree, and I'd like to see some evidence which supports that political belief.

So why not man exercising strict reproductive control over other men? As @ecofarm mentions, China's One Child Policy offers a comparative glimpse of such a system (albeit far more limited in scope), which can only exist in an extremely authoritarian and oppressive state. I'm sure many scholarly articles have been written on this policy, so you may want to start there with your research.

We already exercise strict reproductive control over men, just not women. Women essentially have carte blanche when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a child. Abortions are safer and more effective than they have ever been.
New Report Concludes Abortions Are Safe in the U.S. | Time

 

[ecofarm]

Public school teachers are employed by municipal government, and their pay is funded by taxpayer dollars.

Yes, some teachers work at private schools, but some don't. As far as I know, there is no debate over an armed teacher at a private institution.

The two debates involve public funding, ergo how much taxpayers should be funding guns and children. Should we really mandate that teachers carry a gun when we cannot afford to feed the kids they are teaching?

How about a no cost voluntary system?

 

[Celebrity]

How about a no cost voluntary system?

By "no cost," you of course mean a cost of increasing the severity of childhood poverty... you want to starve the poor out of existence, yes?

By "voluntary," you mean continue allowing women to opt out of parenthood, and continue preventing men from doing so?

 

[ecofarm]

By "no cost," you of course mean a cost of increasing the severity of childhood poverty... you want to starve the poor out of existence, yes?

By "voluntary," you mean continue allowing women to opt out of parenthood, and continue preventing men from doing so?

I mean let teachers with CC permits do so in class. No cost.

 

[Celebrity]

I mean let teachers with CC permits do so in class. No cost.

Right, but that's not really the main topic. I was just using it as an analogy, and as I said, teachers in private schools can already do it. The question is, why should it or should it not be mandatory for all teachers?

Is there some law which prevents a teacher with a CC permit from finding a job at a private institution and carrying a gun there, or an administrator, or maybe a contractor who works at the school?

 

[ecofarm]

Right, but that's not really the main topic. I was just using it as an analogy, and as I said, teachers in private schools can already do it. The question is, why should it or should it not be mandatory for all teachers?

It should not be mandatory and it isn't.

Is there some law which prevents a teacher with a CC permit from finding a job at a private institution and carrying a gun there, or an administrator, or maybe a contractor who works at the school?

I think you've lost the point of discussion here. It's not about providing opportunity for an individual teacher to carrt just because they want to. It's not about a "teacher's right to carry". It's about increased deterrence and risk reduction by allowing teachers to defend themselves and others. We can accomplish this at no cost, if that's the issue.

 

[Celebrity]

It should not be mandatory and it isn't.



I think you've lost the point of discussion here. It's not about providing opportunity for an individual teacher to carrt just because they want to. It's not about a "teacher's right to carry". It's about increased deterrence and risk reduction by allowing teachers to defend themselves and others. We can accomplish this at no cost, if that's the issue.

I think you've lost the point of the discussion. Concealed carry is an analogy. Look where you are, this is the abortion forum. Ask yourself if limits on parental autonomy should be enforced for men, women, or both.

 

[ecofarm]

I think you've lost the point of the discussion. Concealed carry is an analogy. Look where you are, this is the abortion forum. Ask yourself if limits on parental autonomy should be enforced for men, women, or both.

You put the topic in the OP. Your objection was cost. Is it wrong for me to point out a no cost option? I'd gladly take further objections if you want but, as you've noted, it was a side topic.

 

[Fledermaus]

I think you've lost the point of the discussion. Concealed carry is an analogy. Look where you are, this is the abortion forum. Ask yourself if limits on parental autonomy should be enforced for men, women, or both.

A single cure for all your ills... Celebacy.

 

[Celebrity]

You put the topic in the OP. Your objection was cost. Is it wrong for me to point out a no cost option? I'd gladly take further objections if you want but, as you've noted, it was a side topic.

I did not put any mention of guns in the OP. Regarding drtrmiller's post #4, I thought the analogy was fitting because apparently the OP was too general to induce a discussion. Then you jumped in. The point of the analogy was to aid the discussion about parenting... so where are you going with it? I thought maybe there was a point to your argument about CC. Not sure what it is anymore.

 

[ecofarm]

I did not put any mention of guns in the OP. Regarding drtrmiller's post #4, I thought the analogy was fitting because apparently the OP was too general to induce a discussion. Then you jumped in. The point of the analogy was to aid the discussion about parenting... so where are you going with it? I thought maybe there was a point to your argument about CC. Not sure what it is anymore.

You're correct. You did so in post #7, in reply to my post.

My point was it doesn't have to cost anything.

 

[AGENT J]

Why not just make sexually active citizens apply for a permit to raise children? You can still choose what to do with your body, but the state takes custody of the child if you exceed your legal capacity in child rearing. Happy now?

Related question which I stole from another forum (found on Google): Should there be a test or course that a person must pass before they can become a parent?

What? None of that makes any rational sense nor does it seem to have anything to do with pro choice or abortion. lol

 

[TheGoverness]

Why not just make sexually active citizens apply for a permit to raise children? You can still choose what to do with your body, but the state takes custody of the child if you exceed your legal capacity in child rearing. Happy now?

Related question which I stole from another forum (found on Google): Should there be a test or course that a person must pass before they can become a parent?

Lol, no that's ridiculous.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Pro choice people are just as bad as pro gun people. They think their right is an inalienable one, and that no one else deserves to have rights before them. Pro choice people are willing to go to any length to make sure women can choose to not have children, up to and including barring men from the same choice.

If we have a mass shooting, we don't take the guns into custody, we take the mass shooter into custody after they massively shot up a school.

If we have a massive poverty problem, we don't take the children who are living in poverty into custody, we take the fathers into custody. We incarcerate fathers because we suppose we cannot afford to feed children. So isn't it a viable solution to stop doing that, and actually address the root problem by diverting federal spending to a more humane purpose rather than propping up the private prison industry?

Your analogy is just dumb. I'm a man and I am pro choice, so I'm not the one that is going to make the decision to end a pregnancy. You know what is an unalienable right? To do what you want to your body and make your own health decisions. Something women who have an abortion are doing, their rights to make their healthcare decisions

 

[Lursa]

Why not just make sexually active citizens apply for a permit to raise children? You can still choose what to do with your body, but the state takes custody of the child if you exceed your legal capacity in child rearing. Happy now?

Related question which I stole from another forum (found on Google): Should there be a test or course that a person must pass before they can become a parent?

No respect for the Constitution at all then?

Just like there being no point in considering that the govt will ever have the power to force women to remain pregnant OR have abortions, none of that is a valid premise under the Constitution.

 

[Bodi]

Your analogy is just dumb. I'm a man and I am pro choice, so I'm not the one that is going to make the decision to end a pregnancy. You know what is an unalienable right? To do what you want to your body and make your own health decisions. Something women who have an abortion are doing, their rights to make their healthcare decisions

Men should have no say in the matter... even the label of pro-choice or pro-life is ridiculous. The harm that women can cause their unborn baby is too great.