- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
...even though it would probably save them money in the long run.I think financial incentives for sterilisation would still upset those whose focus is on taxpayer dollars being wasted ....
...even though it would probably save them money in the long run.
In the real world, I mean, not their fantasy world where they don't have to pay for anything.
Well, as someone who prefers small government, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that society should not be paying a woman to have or not to have children - that should be a decision she makes wisely, with planning, and an understanding of what motherhood/parenthood involves and requires of her. That said, it's clear there are an abundance of irresponsible people in western society so some government involvement to protect children is a necessary evil.
There's a difference between protecting children and punishing the irresponsible. We ought to do both.
Considering the number of irresponsible is huge, just how would you "effectively" punish them?
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.
Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.
The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.
Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
Actions have consequences. If you breed without being able to care for the resulting child, why should anyone be surprised when there are serious negative consequences for their lack of responsibility?
This isn't Casino. You don't have the right to violate people's bodies, because they have children.
For one thing, no right is sacrosanct (with the possible exception of this one). We take away people's lives, liberties and property if it is warranted, always respecting due process and going through a court of law, and with the idea that individual rights should be maximized at all times and restricted or suspended only when most necessary.
For another thing, this particular individual right creates another individual that inherently has rights. As a function of respecting individual rights, we usually recognize that one person's exercise of his/her rights cannot trample another person's rights. So what I think we are doing is overvaluing one right (to reproduce) even to the blatant detriment of the new individual's rights, in some cases.
how do you determine who should/shouldn't have children?
or who should be allowed to raise children?
How so? By implant, which would have a better chance of effective follow-thru, or by some other method that could be circumvented (i.e.: pills, etc.)?I think we should make it simple and non permanent, people can and do improve their situations. I would make birth control a mandatory requirement to receive government assistance. If you cannot afford to support yourself and existing family you sure do not need to be adding to it.
DaveFagan, Fiddytree, Gathomas88, Henrin, Van Basten
WTH is wrong with y'all??
I posted a mandatory sterilization thread, and much to my surprise, I was booed down. Apparently reproductive rights are a touchy subject.
How so? By implant, which would have a better chance of effective follow-thru, or by some other method that could be circumvented (i.e.: pills, etc.)?
DaveFagan, Fiddytree, Gathomas88, Henrin, Van Basten
WTH is wrong with y'all??
The options were heavily tilted in the direction of forced or incentivized sterilization practices. I do not want us to go down that dark road of human rights violations again,
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.
Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.
The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.
Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.
Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.
The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.
Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
We don't need the state to enforce birth control and sterilization. We can start by returning to the value of family, and using extremely strong peer pressure against loose sexual conduct that results in unwanted pregnancies. This is a societal issue, and one only society can fix, not government. It's starts with the home, and the family. It starts with returning to actual values, and morals. That's what we're missing, and that's what we need to get back.
Your response echoes several others that have been provided thus far, which essentially says fix families rather than restrict them. This is a politically correct answer, not to say it's a bad one per se, because I do agree with it, and I have a tendency to very much agree with the others who have given this answer, but the question then becomes "how?" How do we suddenly return to this? What do we actually DO to change our culture?
Specifically, for example, what would your plan do about the 22-year old train-wreck polysubstance addict who is having unprotected sex as often as possible, with as many men (who are also addicts) as possible?
Some babies are being abused and permanently neurologically damaged from the moment of conception onward. Why are all human rights subject to restriction in certain cases, except this one, which is sacrosanct?
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?