Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Father Of 30 Wants A Break From Child Support  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...break-child-support-140439765.html

OK, what do you do with people like this? This guy is going to cost society a fortune in terms of welfare, schooling etc. And let's not forget that, in all likelyhood, many of his kids are likely to be deadbeats as well (stats show that children of single mothers have a much higher likelyhood of ending up badly).

So apart from the simple, snide comments of "cut 'em off", what are we realistically supposed to do with people like that?


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Don't let him off the hook for the child support (obviously). Not that it'll do much - the state will be paying for most of the cost of taking care of the kids anyway unless their mothers are far more capable people than their father is (and admittedly, that wouldn't take much).

But other than that, I really don't see how you can do anything about this after the fact. Unless you're going to make laws against having kids without the ability to pay for them (and talk abut the ultimate government intrusion into the bedroom), this sort of thing will be able to happen.

What you might be able to do is mandate sterilization for routine failure to be able to make child support payments. Won't do anything about the children that are already in the world, but in this case it would have prevented another nine from being born. And the cultural stigma of it might just be an effective deterrent.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2642 times:

As a former colleague from Nothern Ireland told another colleague (from South Africa), who was notorious for borrowing large amounts of money from his housemates without paying it back: (musical Belfast accent) "I want my money back tomorrow. If not I´ll get it back Belfast style!". The South African, after being briefed on what "Belfast style" (*) meant, paid back next day.

My opinion: You stick it in, you are responsible. He should have cut his bollocks off in time if he wouldn´t want to pay.

Jan


(*) Belfast style: At least a very good beating in soime back alley by several paramilitaries during the civil war. It could escalate to a "kneecapping" (shot into the knee joint from the back, so that the knee joint got busted or the leg placed over a curb stone and the knee crushed with a sledgehammer) as the last warning, or, finally, a bullet in the head out in a lonely place in the hills. Talk about Mafia style.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6626 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

He's a productive S.O.B. I'll give him credit for that, but god almighty the women he was productive with must be dumb as a stump.

User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families. I would be willing to bet money that all 12 of them came from single parent families. I would also be willing to bet that many of those 11 women have children from other men.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):


My opinion: You stick it in, you are responsible. He should have cut his bollocks off in time if he wouldn´t want to pay.

The funny thing is that for women get it the other way around! Let someone stick it in? Suddenly she's not responsible, the state/parents/healthcare have to pay for her abortions, emergency contraceptive or she can get TANF in the US but for the man. He should have his manhood taken away! I'm sure we won't see the same uproar that we did after Rush called that woman a slut.

I certainly don't have any solutions to this problem, I doubt there is anything you can do about it except give the mothers welfare.


User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
I certainly don't have any solutions to this problem, I doubt there is anything you can do about it except give the mothers welfare.

Not a solution in my book; it's enabling. Desmond Hachett is a turd and a loser and everything else people on this thread are saying about him, but a lot of the responsibility for this mess is on the women.

In the U.S. there are plenty of women who get themselves knocked up with complete irresponsibility, because, mirabile dictu, our government pays them to do that.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):

Not a solution in my book; it's enabling.

These things have to be stopped before they start. You can't let 30 kids starve on the streets just because their parents are deadbeats.

Absolutely it is the government, simple economics, if you want more of something -subsidise it. Subsidising single motherhood by poor women gives you poor women with lots of children. How would you phase something like this out though?


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day ago) and read 2469 times:

First and foremost, in order to stop this guy and others like him; failure to adequately support your children should be a criminal offense. Yes, he should go to prison if he can not care for his progeny.

Next, we have to look at our entitlement state. We have to look at it, dismantle it, and rebuild a system that encourages productive behaviour and discourages destructive behaviour.

A common, economic axiom is that if you want to discourage a behaviour, you tax it. The inverse, as noted by QFA380, is that if you subsidize a behavior, you encourage it. Now, I'm not saying we tax motherhood or childbirth, in fact, we should encourage people to have children. It is how we can sustain a growing economy. But, those entering society must, eventually, contribute to the economy and society, rather than take.

But, how do we do that? We have lost a generation. The war on poverty has absolutely decimated the inner city. Few work. And few are expected to work. We pour money into these areas with the false hope that money alone is the answer. But, by giving money, without condition, we are encouraging behaviours that are, not only destructive to the recipients, but to society as a whole.

An example. I've a friend who is a teacher. He teaches 'at risk' kids. These are kids that have been kicked out of their schools because they were too disruptive or violent. Outside my friend's classroom door are 2 security guards that help maintain order in this class.

In the wake of some shootings here in town this passed week, we were discussing his class and students. He mentioned that if a student, who does not have a diagnosed learning disability, is 2 grade levels below his age (i.e. a 16 year old in the 8th grade), the guardians receive an increased payment in order to help them deal with this non-disability disability. So, what's a guardian to do?

We need to pay attention to the activities we encourage and subsidize.

There is no easy fix. It has been over a generation in the making, it won't be unmade in an election cycle.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families.

Also the logical endpoint for a society in which women aren't empowered enough to demand that he use a friggin' condom.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
First and foremost, in order to stop this guy and others like him; failure to adequately support your children should be a criminal offense. Yes, he should go to prison if he can not care for his progeny.

The trouble with this is that if he goes to prison, he can't pay child support.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
But, how do we do that? We have lost a generation. The war on poverty has absolutely decimated the inner city. Few work. And few are expected to work. We pour money into these areas with the false hope that money alone is the answer. But, by giving money, without condition, we are encouraging behaviours that are, not only destructive to the recipients, but to society as a whole.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):
In the U.S. there are plenty of women who get themselves knocked up with complete irresponsibility, because, mirabile dictu, our government pays them to do that.

You are both exactly right. We are literally selectively breeding people who are good at nothing but --ready for it?-- breeding!

The first thing that we need to accept is that people are going to have sex and that expecting them to stop is not valid social policy. That's the bit that conservatives can't get; punishing the kids of irresponsible parents isn't going to stop the parents from being irresponsible. I work in these communities every day as a physician. I know the mindset. Many of these mothers are teenagers who had a baby basically as a pet, or as a tool to try to keep the baby daddy (isn't it sad that "baby daddy" is now a part of regular vocab?) in a relationship, or so that people will think they're all grown up, or know they aren't a virgin. And boys get girls pregnant basically to "tag" them.

The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support. Not the children themselves, but the parents. The first rule of welfare should be: to be on welfare you must be on a reliable form of birth control. The second rule of welfare is that you do not keep kids that you have while on welfare. They are removed as soon as the cord is cut; you never see them, and they go to good adoptive parents. There also needs to be a way of dealing with repeat offenders (forced sterilization after three? I dunno.) You can have as many kids as you like as long as you pay for them yourself.

Within about 40 years, we'd see the end of the ghetto. It's draconian, but it would work.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
he can't pay child support

He isn't paying anyway. Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support

How? They have committed no crime. And, I'm not sure I want to live in a society that has criminalized having a child.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The second rule of welfare is that you do not keep kids that you have while on welfare.

I'm going to disagree. I grew up in a household that took a form of welfare money (WIC). We all turned out ok. As soon as we were old enough to fend for ourselves (read that as: in school and capable of walking to and from school on our own) my Mom took a part time job. She was home when we got home. As we got older, she went full time. Long story, short: our family became productive members of society and have given back way more than we took.
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

What point is that? Do we set preconditions to WIC, SNAP and all the other 'assistance' programs?

Whatever happens, something has to change, because we are encouraging a set of behaviours that are devastating to families and communities.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
I'm going to disagree. I grew up in a household that took a form of welfare money (WIC).

My question is: why would a parent have kids if they are going to need WIC? WIC should exist for people who have kids and who have come across hard times, not for people who want the government to pay for their new baby and the next six.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

And cost money for the taxpayers. A mandatory vasectomy would make more sense. Too bad it's considered a violation of his "civil rights," but imprisoning him isn't.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

BTW, wasn't this the dude who said he "didn't mean" to father 30 kids?

Yeah... You just accidentally tripped and fell on top of all those women, right?


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
My question is: why would a parent have kids if they are going to need WIC? WIC should exist for people who have kids and who have come across hard times, not for people who want the government to pay for their new baby and the next six.

Fair point. We came across the Atlantic and my parents added another after we were here. But, I seriously doubt they added my sister t qualify for more aid. In fact, her arrival may have pushed us over. Don't know, I was busy paying with sticks. Th

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Good question. Who decides what that point is and when it is reached?

I say, before a dime is dispersed, the 'baby daddy' must be identified. Then he can be held to account and tossed in jail if he can't provide support. That takes him out of the baby making equation.

This can't and shouldn't be easy, but eventually, the word 'family' will re-enter the lexicon of the inner-city (and, I don't pretend this is just an inner-city issue, I'm sure Appalachia is just as screwed up) and we can start building our communities again.

But, of course there has to be political will to say 'no more'. And, that's just not going to happen.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
And cost money for the taxpayers. A mandatory vasectomy would make more sense. Too bad it's considered a violation of his "civil rights," but imprisoning him isn't.

I'd go for the vasectomy (and let's not forget the tubal ligation for the more prolific breeders on the female, but you're right...won't happen. I assure you, tossing his ass in jail will be less costly to the state than another cradle to grave baby.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

The real men are the ones who support his children through taxes and performing social services... they are the real fathers of those children. The guy is just a clown.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 2196 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 12):
I say, before a dime is dispersed, the 'baby daddy' must be identified. Then he can be held to account and tossed in jail if he can't provide support.

The last thing we need is more people in jail. We have the largest prison population per capita in the world. No more putting nonviolent offenders in prison. It has to stop. Snip it and be done with it.

The other side of the coin has to be liberal access to birth control.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
So apart from the simple, snide comments of "cut 'em off", what are we realistically supposed to do with people like that?

Time for the state to 'invest' in getting this guy a forced vasectomy/castration. Doesn't sound nice but it has to be done.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families. I would be willing to bet money that all 12 of them came from single parent families. I would also be willing to bet that many of those 11 women have children from other men.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support.

There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily). I'm very much opposed on punishing those on welfare whose kids were conceived before they were on welfare. Bottom line is that its not fair to punish kids just because their parents are poor.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The first rule of welfare should be: to be on welfare you must be on a reliable form of birth control.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
He isn't paying anyway. Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

Put him in prison and it costs the taxpayer more than it would cost for a vasectomy. Give him a castration/vasectomy and let him spend the rest of his insignificant life paying (some of) the child support costs.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

   Making lots of babies that the state has to support isn't a valid career option.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Two. Women as a whole need to have an average of 2.1 children to maintain a constant population. Poorer people can have less children than that, richer people can have slightly more. People on benefits shouldn't have any children while the state supports them, though i guess this depends on how much state support they are receiving.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
BTW, wasn't this the dude who said he "didn't mean" to father 30 kids?
Yeah... You just accidentally tripped and fell on top of all those women, right?

  



repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily). I'm very much opposed on punishing those on welfare whose kids were conceived before they were on welfare. Bottom line is that its not fair to punish kids just because their parents are poor.

I agree completely. Punishing the children is the Conservative answer. Take away their food, their schools, their healthcare. That isn't going to stop irresponsible people from having kids.

You have to punish the PARENTS, not the kids. And I agree, 9mo moratorium after going on welfare.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
I agree completely. Punishing the children is the Conservative answer.

Oh crap, here you go again. I was hoping to keep this thread non-political.

Speaking as a conservative, I reject your notion - utterly. It comes from your own self-righteousness.

My suggestion: For unwed mothers: If you become pregnant while on income assistance, you will lose such all such assistance. Your child will be given over for adoption by parents who want a child and can give him a good home, and if there are no takers right away, the funds that would have gone to you as assistance will be diverted to fund the child's stay at either foster care or an orphanage. And you lose your qualification to receive income assistance - forever. Such irresponsibility will not be subsidized.

For unwed fathers - particularly deadbeats - Same deal. No more foodstamps - those funds get diverted to the kid's welfare. If you owe more in child support than you can afford, we should think about some form of debtors prison, where you will be clothed, fed and housed, but be made to work full time at whatever jobs the prison contracts - picking vegetables, cleaning roadsides, etc. The wage will be fair, but 100% will go to supporting the child(ren).

Voluntary sterilization can gain you back a few privileges, but not all.

The conservative in me squirms at such harsh, statist measures. But over the past few generations, out of wedlock children to parents who are irresponsible and unable to afford children has become more and more of a problem. We could maybe tolerate tolerate it when it was a few percent of all births, but now it's 41%. It's got to be shut down.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3331 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
The conservative in me squirms at such harsh, statist measures. But over the past few generations, out of wedlock children to parents who are irresponsible and unable to afford children has become more and more of a problem. We could maybe tolerate tolerate it when it was a few percent of all births, but now it's 41%. It's got to be shut down.

41% in the US. Other industrialized countries don't have these issues to that extent and in fact many aren't having enough children and run the risk of being extinct relatively soon, Japan comes to mind. You also discount that the fact that more and more people simply aren't getting married because they fail to see the point.

I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

You can't have it both ways, you can propose all the things you mentioned eariler in your post which will probably end up costing the taxpayer more than the status quo. You want to cut them off but (not necessarily you) conservatives don't want them learning proper sex ed either and subsidizing the pill, the patch or even the birth control needle which works for about 3 menstrual cycles would be the cheapest option. The latter two don't have to be taken every day which I will concede that I would fear with someone on welfare missing pills.

That could have prevented the birth of all of these kids (99% perfect use) at far less cost. I get you don't feel you want to pay for that but it is far cheaper than investigating and mandating even a vasectomy for a man (the cheapest of the sterilization procedures and even they fail sometimes).

The reality is that people are going to get it on, dumb or smart, fertile or not. It is the reason that humans dominate this planet and its simply in our nature so stopping sex is a waste of time. I saw a girl last week taking the pill on the tram and she was 17 or 18 and I have to say that she has her s*it together, because whether or not she is having sex at least she is limiting her chance of an accident.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
Two. Women as a whole need to have an average of 2.1 children to maintain a constant population. Poorer people can have less children than that, richer people can have slightly more. People on benefits shouldn't have any children while the state supports them, though i guess this depends on how much state support they are receiving.

Here is the problem though, the better off you are the less children you have. Also mandating how many children one has is something China does

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The last thing we need is more people in jail. We have the largest prison population per capita in the world. No more putting nonviolent offenders in prison. It has to stop. Snip it and be done with it.

  

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily).

Easy solution mandate contraception when receiving welfare. Even though it can fail, the chances are reduced significantly, I wonder if male contraception will be out soon so both genders can protect against pregnancy with condoms of course



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

You can't interfere with the conception process, there are far too many connotations with that - far too many parallels in history that you don't want to be associated with.

What you can do is sequester any and all income both parents have above a basic level of living - paying for cable? Nope, not any more. Got a new iPhone? Nope, not any more. Etc etc etc. When you come off welfare, then you can have nice things. Here's your basic tv and DVD. Here's your library pass. Here's your community college IT room pass. Here's your inbound-only phone line.

Don't give the parents money - give them what they need, but only at a level thats basic enough to survive comfortably on. A state owned property. Plastic furniture. OTA tv. Basic ingredients for three meals a day - have someone actually deliver those ingredients, don't let them shop for it with state money. Go as far as state issued clothes - no bling, just ordinary no-brand jeans, tshirt etc.

These people need to realise that living on state aid is not a nice thing. It helps you to live, but not to enjoy that living. The goal is to get off it as soon as they can.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
and rebuild a system that encourages productive behaviour

LOL, he is productive, by all means  


besides that, the state cannot do a thing. That is what a free society has to accept and see nthat the se children become, unlike their father, respoonsible citizens.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
That is what a free society has to accept and see nthat the se children become, unlike their father, respoonsible citizens.

In order for that to happen, the children have to be removed from that environment in order to break the cycle.

But, Liberal judges refuse to do that. Liberal activists claim that a child is almost always better with its parents.

Let's all be very clear on this...it is Liberal, social policies that have brought us to this point. (see Doc, I can do it too)

Back on point...we can't forceable sterilize anyone, especially a non-violent offender. We can criminilize 'failure to support' and remove that person from society (for a bit). Yes, I know our prisons are full of non-violent offenders, but our streets are full of unsupported children who can only guess at their lineage and have little hope of breaking out of the cycle.

Hell, instead of prison, make it a freaking work camp. Dig a hole here, fill the hole there. I don't care. Prevent these deadbeat dads from making more babies.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 2049 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
Hell, instead of prison, make it a freaking work camp. Dig a hole here, fill the hole there. I don't care. Prevent these deadbeat dads from making more babies.

It has nothing to do with liberal or social or whatever. A country that observes the basic human rights must not even think about forced sterilization, work camps or similar. No offense, but the US locks up too many people already for minor matters which in most European countries would not even qiualify for a police questioning.

OTH - we recently had a thread here about an Indian couple living in Norway which had their kid taken away. Norway is liberal, it is a socialist society and it does exactly that. I think instead of locking up adults for petty crimes, the money should be spend educating children and if their parents can't do it, forcing their kids to live in an unbearable environment, the state should take the obligation.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 22):
It has nothing to do with liberal or social or whatever. A country that observes the basic human rights must not even think about forced sterilization, work camps or similar. No offense, but the US locks up too many people already for minor matters which in most European countries would not even qiualify for a police questioning.

I agree with you in that we should never be going down that road. But the fact of the matter is that you have millions of people having kids who have no business having them, and they end up being themselves a problem because their stupid parents are unable to raise them properly.

Some 100+ years ago, the Progressive movement was started with the practice of forcible sterilization and incarceration of undesirables. Margeret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an icon of Progressivism, has the following quotes to her credit:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On motherhood:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

That was the Progressive solution. I think everyone agrees that such heavy-handed tactics (of which Hitler's Holocaust was but a logical 'next step') are distasteful in the extreme - even to today's progressives (although I'm not sure why that is).

The conservative solution would be to attack those things that encourage irresponsible pregnancy. All these safety nets, which were put in place for the noble cause of helping those who are truly in need, have been abused.

100 years ago, this particular gentleman in question would never have fathered so many kids by so many women. After the first few children, whose care would almost certainly have fallen to his maternal grandparents, he would have been found and shot. If he escaped that fate, he would be ostracized by everyone in society, because of the stigma associated in irresponsibly fathering multiple children and leaving the mothers to fend for themselves. It did not happen that often back then because the consequences (financial and social) would be very much present in the kids' minds, before they found their way behind the haystacks.

Today, young girls see having kids of their own as some sort of 'proof of adulthood' (as if physical ability were the same as mental maturity), some sort of romantic dream, or just a life-size doll, with little thought to the consequences. And guys like to tag every willing piece of ass they can (and brag about it), and they don't need to stick around.

I think most would agree that if we can get irresponsible childbearing to have serious social and financial consequences once again, the incidence will come down without the need for drastic measures such as forced sterilization.

So circling back to the question - How do you do that?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

I disagree. If you are committed to each other, why not actually make the commitment? That's all marriage is - it's an overt and explicit promise. And yes, you should hang in there and make it work for the sake of the kids if life is not so rosy 10 years down the road. It's called responsibility. You started a family, you need to stick around and finish the job until the kids are old enough to strike out on their own.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
So circling back to the question - How do you do that?

I wasn't going to say that actually but let me phrase it this way - pretty much on the date 67 years ago the US Army liberated Germany from a hoard of criminals that took over Germany 12 years before. They picked out certain groups of people and did all that what some here suggest. The rest is history and the basic human rights are paramoiunt and have to be obesreved by any Government, certainly by a democratic elected. To be honest, I'm a bit disturbed about some replies here.

I think no one has the recipe aginst such people, but someone fathering 30 children with 11 women is rather an exeption.

Teach values at school, be more liberal in general, take the under privilged along when building a society, spend the money on social workers rather than jailing someone who cannot take care of his kids which then automatically produces catch 22 because that guy will not get a job because he was jailed and then he really cannot take care of his children, even if intended.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 2034 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):
Teach values at school, be more liberal in general, take the under privilged along when building a society, spend the money on social workers rather than jailing someone who cannot take care of his kids which then automatically produces catch 22 because that guy will not get a job because he was jailed and then he really cannot take care of his children, even if intended.

But that is what has produced the current problem. How do you correct that?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3331 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
I disagree. If you are committed to each other, why not actually make the commitment? That's all marriage is - it's an overt and explicit promise. And yes, you should hang in there and make it work for the sake of the kids if life is not so rosy 10 years down the road. It's called responsibility. You started a family, you need to stick around and finish the job until the kids are old enough to strike out on their own.

That's your opinion but with the divorce rate the way it is, its not a very serious thing to begin with. That commitment can be there without a wedding and most couples will enter in a common law relationship. I stand by the commitment can be there without needing a legal obligation.

Also of course a couple should stay together and try to work it out, but if it gets to the point that the relationship with the parents is that cancerous a child is going to think that is normal and project that perception of normality on society. I'm not saying that either parent should abandon their children but having parents who love their kids but stay in a loveless often abusive marriage often makes the success of those kids far worse. A joint custody arrangement is not ideal but it can work better.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6476 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 2030 times:

The irony though is that state sponsored "birth control" is considered evil and socialist. Instead, society will pay far more money to care for all these children who this man can't possibly pay for. Imagine if more of these women were using birth control, most of these births would never have happened.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
It did not happen that often back then because the consequences (financial and social) would be very much present in the kids' minds, before they found their way behind the haystacks.

It happened plenty back then. Massive government run orphanages of the late 1800's and early 1900's are proof. And as you mentioned, many other illegitimate children were just dumped on grandparents and other family....no different than today. The big difference between then and now is people married at a very young age, so there was less opportunity to run around and get in trouble. On average, people had far more children back then, then they do today.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 27):
It happened plenty back then. Massive government run orphanages of the late 1800's and early 1900's are proof. And as you mentioned, many other illegitimate children were just dumped on grandparents and other family....no different than today.

The Illegitimate birthrate in 1917 (the first year they were officially recorded) was 2% of all births. 3.5% in 1930, 3.8% in 1940, 4% in 1950, 5.3% in 1960.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf

The latest rate is 41%, overall, and much higher than that among certain groups. Clearly, the trend exploded in the past 50 years. So yes, it is VERY different.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

I disagree. One of the reasons we're at this point is because the State has taken the place of the father. It wasn't a long time ago when some of these women would have a baby in order to force the man to take some responsibility and support he child and the mother. Yes, this was a fantasy in some cases, but in many cases the father took his place and cared for the child.

When the State began paying women to have babies, the father was only necessary as a biological unit. He no longer felt a need to care for the baby and the mother, because the State had supplanted him. And, the State would punish him (and the family) if he had the audacity to take a job and care for his burgeoning family.

No, the family unit is important. I don't care what the mix is, so long as the parents are committed to each other and the children and there is a legal structure surrounding and protecting them.

It's time to understand what is causing this problem. It is time to deal with it. Unfortunately, any who attempt to tackle this problem in the inner-city (where we have lost a generation of Blacks) will be labeled a racist.

ON a lighter note: a local talk show host has asked why some local urologist hasn't built an advertising campaign around this guy and given him a free 'snip'.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6476 posts, RR: 24
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
The Illegitimate birthrate in 1917 (the first year they were officially recorded) was 2% of all births. 3.5% in 1930, 3.8% in 1940, 4% in 1950, 5.3% in 1960.

Again, this all goes back to my point of people getting married much later in life. People are still reproducing just as they were before, the big difference is being married or not. The big difference is that before if you knocked someone up, you were often "forced" to marry them. While this kept the illegitimate birth rate down from a pure statistics view, it did not necessarily make for a healthy society. Lots of married people produced lots of children that they could not afford back then. The solution then was simply to put the child to work at a very young age. My great-grandparents did exactly this. They had seven children, but were dirt poor immigrants. They survived on a combination of charity and putting their children to work. My grandfather dropped out of school at the age of 12 to work in a factory.

I'd also argue that the illegitimacy statistics are increasingly difficult to compare. For example, an un-married 40 year old woman goes to a sperm bank and conceives a child. She'll count as an illegitimate birth, but it's not like the pregnancy was an accident. Or a gay couple in Virginia hires a surrogate to carry a child for them. It will count as an illegitimate birth even though the child will be raised by two loving parents.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
I think most would agree that if we can get irresponsible childbearing to have serious social and financial consequences once again, the incidence will come down without the need for drastic measures such as forced sterilization.

But wouldn't that put our country on a serious road to demographic and economic shrinkage? As is now, women's fertility rates are nearing all-time lows. The U.S. has a female fertility rate of just barely 2 which barely allows for population sustainment.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
No more foodstamps - those funds get diverted to the kid's welfare.

I would say no food -- but anyway, I am not uptight about treating all children the same. My children should come before children whose fathers did not make the proper arrangements. It is a fairness issue about me vs. that father.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
The latest rate is 41%, overall, and much higher than that among certain groups. Clearly, the trend exploded in the past 50 years. So yes, it is VERY different.

Our society has a very large, new compulsory government generosity program. At the limit, nobody would like to work -- our evolutionary imperative is to laze around, shop for clothes, eat fast food and have lots of children. Life for the bottom 25% has gotten much, much better. In the 1930s if you didn't hustle a little bit, you could easily end up starving or freezing to death. People of all races planned children more carefully.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
USER PROFILESEND INSTANT MSGADD TO RESP MEMBERSSUGGEST DELETIONQUOTE SELECTED TEXT_

fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 3037 posts, RR: 7
Reply 29, posted Mon May 21 2012 12:37:34 your local time (2 hours 25 minutes 20 secs ago) and read 40 times:


Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

I disagree. One of the reasons we're at this point is because the State has taken the place of the father.

Exactly. Taxpayers are those babies' father and the man's father as well.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Speaking as a conservative, I reject your notion - utterly. It comes from your own self-righteousness.

It's not Democrats looking to cut food stamps, SCHIP, VFC, and other such programs. It's Republicans.

As it happens, I agree with your idea, as well. That would also be acceptable. The point is that the children MUST NOT suffer for the sins of their parents.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
The conservative in me squirms at such harsh, statist measures. But over the past few generations, out of wedlock children to parents who are irresponsible and unable to afford children has become more and more of a problem. We could maybe tolerate tolerate it when it was a few percent of all births, but now it's 41%. It's got to be shut down.

The liberal in me also squirms at it, but I agree. The issue, however, is not marriage. My next-door neighbors are a committed couple with two kids who aren't married and yet they receive no government assistance. The test is not marriage, but financial responsibility.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
But, Liberal judges refuse to do that. Liberal activists claim that a child is almost always better with its parents.

I can even agree with that. It drives me crazy. See? I'm not actually a liberal.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
That could have prevented the birth of all of these kids (99% perfect use) at far less cost. I get you don't feel you want to pay for that but it is far cheaper than investigating and mandating even a vasectomy for a man (the cheapest of the sterilization procedures and even they fail sometimes).

I believe that reliable birth control should be mandatory for receipt of any sort of government assistance. However, there are not many good reversible options available for men. There is some promising work in the direction of male contraception in the last few years, but it will be several more before it can go to market, assuming it's found to be safe.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):
I wasn't going to say that actually but let me phrase it this way - pretty much on the date 67 years ago the US Army liberated Germany from a hoard of criminals that took over Germany 12 years before. They picked out certain groups of people and did all that what some here suggest. The rest is history and the basic human rights are paramoiunt and have to be obesreved by any Government, certainly by a democratic elected. To be honest, I'm a bit disturbed about some replies here.

I am going to say it again: JUST BECAUSE THE NAZIS DID A THING DOES NOT MAKE IT BAD. The Nazis forcibly sterilized people for intrinsic characteristics; things that people cold not control. For being born. Nobody here is suggesting that. We are suggesting it as a solution for CHOSEN BEHAVIOR, which is very different. By your argument, because the Nazis put people in prisons (camps) we should never do so.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 27):
The irony though is that state sponsored "birth control" is considered evil and socialist.

Again a Conservative cause. And don't try to deny it, Dreadnought. It's not the left that push abstinence-only plans. It's not the left that has been making every attempt possible to shut down Planned Parenthood, make it difficult for insurance to cover contraception, etc.

The idea that simply waggling a finger at people and telling them to stop having sex is going to work is beyond absurd.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
I disagree. If you are committed to each other, why not actually make the commitment?

In the case of my next-door neighbors, they refuse on moral grounds. They will not exercise a right that is not extended to all Americans.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

Some 100+ years ago, the Progressive movement was started with the practice of forcible sterilization and incarceration of undesirables

Does that make you a progressive from 100+ years ago too?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
we should think about some form of debtors prison,
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):

Voluntary sterilization can gain you back a few privileges, but not all.

We're still talking about removing someone's ability to reproduce, ever, because someone (who would this be?) has decided through some formula or another that their progeny would be or already are a drain on taxpayer money. Or imprisoning them because they cost the taxpayer too much money (how is this different from the 19th century besides who holds the debt?) And how exactly do you arrive at an accurate judgment as to whether a person's "contribution to society" matches that which they're received from it?

A lot of what's being proposed in this thread (not just the posts I quoted above, so don't feel singled out Dreadnought) seems to depend on the government making some sort of cost-benefit analysis on your basic value as a person for the fact of receiving the government's services. Are so many people really comfortable with that?

[Edited 2012-05-21 13:54:58]

User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
It's not Democrats looking to cut food stamps, SCHIP, VFC, and other such programs. It's Republicans.

These, and other programs have given us these problems. Conservatives don't want these programs eliminated. We want these programs to be responsible. Want want these programs to encourage behaviour that is beneficial to society. Are these programs beneficial to society, as they are administered now? No. They subsidize 'baby making'.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I believe that reliable birth control should be mandatory for receipt of any sort of government assistance.

But how do you compel it? Christ, we can't get a frigging drug test for welfare recipients without the ACLU and every other alphabet-special-interest group screaming racism and elitism.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
It's not the left that has been making every attempt possible to shut down Planned Parenthood, make it difficult for insurance to cover contraception, etc

Our beef with Planned Parenthood is their support of abortion.

The restrictions that some Conservatives want to impose on contraception are based on religious belief and extend to religious organizations. That is a Constitutional issue. How can the government compel a religious organization to provide contraception if it goes against their dogma/doctrine/teachings?

If Planned Parenthood and other such organization want to provide contraception to its clients, they are free to do so. But, they should expect some push back when they expect public money to fund such things.

That having been said, I would be all for introducing birth control into the water if it would cut down on 'baby making'. I'd stuff condoms into those damn mailers the Post Office delivers every week. Salt-peter, anyone?

Once again, we are subsidizing behaviour that is destroying the fabric of the family and the community. It has to stop.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):

These, and other programs have given us these problems. Conservatives don't want these programs eliminated. We want these programs to be responsible. Want want these programs to encourage behaviour that is beneficial to society. Are these programs beneficial to society, as they are administered now? No. They subsidize 'baby making'.

All I can see the Republican House trying to do so far is just take money out of them, which isn't exactly the same thing as you're describing.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 33):
Are so many people really comfortable with that?

Here's what I'm uncomfortable with. Policies that reward stupid, irresponsible behaviour. Policies that allow a man to skip out on his obligations because the State has taken over those obligations.

Yes, it's draconian, but at some point a society has to say 'enough' or that society will collapse on itself. These children are on track to be 'cradle to grave' social takers. Yes, some may overcome the adversity that their 'biological units' have heaped upon them, but that's a long shot so long as they're kept in that environment.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 35):
All I can see the Republican House trying to do so far is just take money out of them, which isn't exactly the same thing as you're describing.

Yes. If I take money away from you, I force you to be more efficient. I force you to look at your processes, your rules, your regulations and I force you to make some pretty tough choices.

Maybe we can get to a point where we are helping these kids instead of enabling their, so-called, parents.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6476 posts, RR: 24
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
Yes. If I take money away from you, I force you to be more efficient. I force you to look at your processes, your rules, your regulations and I force you to make some pretty tough choices.

Maybe, but you'll also get more abortions (something conservatives hate), more babies thrown in dumpsters and more babies dropped off at doorsteps of hospitals, etc.

I also seriously doubt getting rid of welfare will make men more responsible for their illegitimate children. Do you really think most men are thinking "gee, I can bang this chick without a condom because welfare will provide"? Or are they really just thinking "Damn, this chick is hot and I want to bang her"?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
If Planned Parenthood and other such organization want to provide contraception to its clients, they are free to do so. But, they should expect some push back when they expect public money to fund such things.

But Planned Parenthood is vastly cheaper than paying for welfare, schooling, jails,etc that come when all these children are brought into the world.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The last thing we need is more people in jail.

   Not to mention that the threat of jail probably wouldn't be all that effective. A vasectomy, on the other hand...it would seem that the sort of people who have lots of kids with different women tend to do so because they see themselves as some sort of sex god, and there's nothing that can ruin that image faster than being neutered.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):

I wasn't going to say that actually but let me phrase it this way - pretty much on the date 67 years ago the US Army liberated Germany from a hoard of criminals that took over Germany 12 years before. They picked out certain groups of people and did all that what some here suggest.

There is a HUGE difference between sterilizing certain groups of people based on genetics and sterilizing those who have made the conscious choice to have children that they cannot support. To avoid the Nazi sterilization campaign, well...you couldn't. You were either in the group they were targeting or you weren't. Not at all the same as just choosing to use birth control unless you're capable of properly supporting a child.

Not that I'd support forced vasectomies for just missing a child support payment - I definitely don't - but circumstances like this are clear signs that the person involved just doesn't care, and then it's entirely justified in my mind.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
If Planned Parenthood and other such organization want to provide contraception to its clients, they are free to do so. But, they should expect some push back when they expect public money to fund such things.

They should expect push-back when they seek public money to fund contraceptives?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 33):
Does that make you a progressive from 100+ years ago too?

The difference is that, as Doc pointed out

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
The Nazis forcibly sterilized people for intrinsic characteristics; things that people cold not control. For being born. Nobody here is suggesting that. We are suggesting it as a solution for CHOSEN BEHAVIOR, which is very different.

Add the early-20th century progressives to that group. They wanted to limit the growth of the black population, the feeble-minded, and other groups that they did not approve of by virtue of their existence. The solution I suggested is 100% based on your own actions and decisions, not on things that are beyond your control. I also made it a point to say that you could voluntarily be sterilized to redeem some of your lost priviledges, the state would not make that decision.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 33):
A lot of what's being proposed in this thread (not just the posts I quoted above, so don't feel singled out Dreadnought) seems to depend on the government making some sort of cost-benefit analysis on your basic value as a person for the fact of receiving the government's services. Are so many people really comfortable with that?

As Doc and I have both pointed out, we are both very squeemish about such a solution - and we are generally on completely opposite sides of every issue. But how else are you going to slow or stop the ever-accelerating trend of children being born to people who have no business having kids? That is the point of this thread. It is very easy for you to judge us to be awful people for considering the options while having no better option to offer.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Again a Conservative cause. And don't try to deny it, Dreadnought. It's not the left that push abstinence-only plans. It's not the left that has been making every attempt possible to shut down Planned Parenthood, make it difficult for insurance to cover contraception, etc.

Birth control is something I agree mostly with Democrats on. I am against government-funded moneys to go to groups such as Planned Parenthood, but that is mainly because I see them as a special interest group with an agenda - government should not be funding that. I agree the abstinence-only thing is silly, but at the same time kids should not be taught that free programs exist in case you get into trouble. They should instead be taught "if you do something stupid, like have a child at 16, you are going to be living in a cardboard box eating dogfood the rest of your life."

As for insurance, nobody is making it difficult for insurance companies to offer contraception. If an insurance company wants to offer condoms and abortion and doctors in clown suits as an available option package or as part of their basic coverage, that is perfectly fine by me. What I have an issue with is government mandating that all policies should include it. As I've said before, I support an individual mandate, but only for catastrophic coverage. People should pay for their own birth control. Having foreseeable, reasonably low and regular expenses covered by insurance companies is like requiring car insurance companies to pay for your gas and tires. All it will do is encourage people to drive Hummers and do daily donuts in the parking lot, when they no longer have to pay the bill.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
The restrictions that some Conservatives want to impose on contraception are based on religious belief and extend to religious organizations. That is a Constitutional issue. How can the government compel a religious organization to provide contraception if it goes against their dogma/doctrine/teachings?

If an organization is run by Jehova's Witnesses, should they be permitted to deny insurance that covers blood transfusions? Should organizations be permitted to deny vaccine coverage based on religious beliefs? How come birth control gets special treatment?


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):

As Doc and I have both pointed out, we are both very squeemish about such a solution - and we are generally on completely opposite sides of every issue. But how else are you going to slow or stop the ever-accelerating trend of children being born to people who have no business having kids? That is the point of this thread. It is very easy for you to judge us to be awful people for considering the options while having no better option to offer.

The way I see it it's not the social apocalypse people make it out to be, that occasionally it takes a lot of taxpayer dollars to cover for some idiot having too many children. At least, if it's properly managed. You make it sound as if aforementioned idiot is unable or unwilling to take care of his kids, that's it- they'll be sucking away precious taxpayer dollars for the rest of their lives. I say not necessarily, if communities can be properly managed. Create incentives for job growth in low-income neighborhoods. Spend money on keeping kids in school. Support birth control initiatives. Encourage conscientious local policing. Don't jump straight to some governmental vasectomy apparatus, prone to bias and mistakes like any other government apparatus, when humane options are still available.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):
What I have an issue with is government mandating that all policies should include it.

Why contraception, then? This issue has come up time and time again in recent months due to all the bills considered and passed in both state and federal governments, and it's always been about contraception and nothing else. It would have been easy to try and expand that to exempt all non-catastrophic coverage. It would have been the perfect time to start a national conversation about what insurance companies should be required to include in their plans. Yet nobody did it. No bills and, to my knowledge, no amendments to other bills. No pundits on the talk shows arguing over that subject. They were just going after contraception. Why is that?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
The way I see it it's not the social apocalypse people make it out to be, that occasionally it takes a lot of taxpayer dollars to cover for some idiot having too many children. At least, if it's properly managed. You make it sound as if aforementioned idiot is unable or unwilling to take care of his kids, that's it- they'll be sucking away precious taxpayer dollars for the rest of their lives.

Believe me, if you take a walk in my shoes and see how these communities are, you'd change your tune.

I'd add one more rule: NO CHILD MAY HAVE CHILDREN. You are under 18 when you have a kid, the kid is gone. Teenagers do not keep to keep their kids. The biggest risk factor for being a teen parent is having been the child of same.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 37):
Maybe, but you'll also get more abortions (something conservatives hate), more babies thrown in dumpsters and more babies dropped off at doorsteps of hospitals, etc.

You're right. Not the best solution. But, as distasteful as abortion is to me, it is allowed and it is an option. Truth is, it's only a little more distasteful than some of the other remedies that have been put forward. But, you know what, maybe we'll also see more adoptions or maybe, just maybe, we'll see more responsibility.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 37):
I also seriously doubt getting rid of welfare will make men more responsible for their illegitimate children.

This isn't going to change just because Papa-State cuts some funds. It will require society and community to turn this around. Social pressures, education and some tough love.

There is no panacea.

Quoting Mir (Reply 38):
They should expect push-back when they seek public money to fund contraceptives?

Let me rephrase. Planned Parenthood has tied itself to abortion. It is their number one go to point (I know, some personal experience). The organization is synonymous with abortion. So yes, when they solicit public funds, they should expect push back and they should be expected to jump through some hoops to prove those public funds aren't funding abortion. Sadly, some folks/organizations will be upset either way because it is against their belief system to support contraception. That is the world we live in. And, it is the world that Planned Parenthood has to navigate when it seeks public funds.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
If an organization is run by Jehova's Witnesses, should they be permitted to deny insurance that covers blood transfusions? Should organizations be permitted to deny vaccine coverage based on religious beliefs? How come birth control gets special treatment?

Yes, they should. That is their belief system. If someone doesn't like it, that someone can go work elsewhere.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 44):
Let me rephrase. Planned Parenthood has tied itself to abortion. It is their number one go to point (I know, some personal experience).

No it is not. In fact, most PP locations don't even offer abortion.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 44):
Yes, they should. That is their belief system. If someone doesn't like it, that someone can go work elsewhere.

So an employer could say: "We don't believe in medicine or surgery at all." You're fine with that.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
The way I see it it's not the social apocalypse people make it out to be, that occasionally it takes a lot of taxpayer dollars to cover for some idiot having too many children.

And, the starry eyed liberal point-of-view (not an attack on Newark727, per se, but on Liberalism). Really, this isn't that much of a problem. It's not something that something that more money can't fix. Please get your collective heads out of the sand. Babies are having babies. Males are abandoning their females after they mate. This is going to destroy a culture.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
At least, if it's properly managed.

Managed by whom?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
You make it sound as if aforementioned idiot is unable or unwilling to take care of his kids, that's it- they'll be sucking away precious taxpayer dollars for the rest of their lives.

Really? You think this person is capable of supporting 30 children until they are 18? You think the various mothers can? This children will be supported by the State through various programs until they reach adulthood. And, then, sadly, the statistics say some will be supported by the state's penal system.

This is a cycle we have to break. Have to. It is not optional. I said it before and I'll say it again...we have lost a generation of the Black community in our inner-cities. Can we afford to lose another? Can we, as a society, survive if another generation of Blacks spirals into this abyss we call social welfare?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
I say not necessarily, if communities can be properly managed.

Again, managed by whom? I'm ok with the community managing itself through its families and churches and the larger community, but I'm guessing you want to manage it through more government intervention.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
Spend money on keeping kids in school

I'd love to keep these kids in school. You think throwing money at the schools is going to do that? The money we've spent on education is staggering, yet, we are getting no where.

Arguably, education is the most important thing we can offer to these (and all) communities, but clearly, we are doing it wrong.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 41):
Support birth control initiatives.

I'm all for it. How do we compel the use of birth control? Because, that's what it will take: compulsion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
Believe me, if you take a walk in my shoes and see how these communities are, you'd change your tune.

And that Doc, is why I respect you (whether that means anything to you or not). You are a re realist. We'll make you a conservative-liberal yet.   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
NO CHILD MAY HAVE CHILDREN.

Damn straight.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 44):
So yes, when they solicit public funds, they should expect push back and they should be expected to jump through some hoops to prove those public funds aren't funding abortion.

We have laws on the books banning any public money going to fund abortion. Those laws have been around for a while, and Planned Parenthood as taken federal money while being in compliance with them. And yet people still want to defund Planned Parenthood.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 44):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
If an organization is run by Jehova's Witnesses, should they be permitted to deny insurance that covers blood transfusions? Should organizations be permitted to deny vaccine coverage based on religious beliefs? How come birth control gets special treatment?

Yes, they should. That is their belief system. If someone doesn't like it, that someone can go work elsewhere.

And there is no way that could possibly be abused, is there?  

Let me propose an alternative: if you open your doors to all comers, and you're not providing a religious service, you're not a religious institution, no matter what religion you might claim to be affiliated. If you don't like that, you can either restrict yourself to serving only the customers of your particular religion, or you can start providing religious services. And then you can apply whatever religious dogma you want on your employees.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
So an employer could say: "We don't believe in medicine or surgery at all." You're fine with that.

Yup, go work somewhere else. Or secure your own insurance. You knew, or should have known, the score when you signed on.

Sorry Doc, that's just the way I roll on First Amendment issues. If the organization is taking a principled stance based on it's belief system, the government has no compelling right to interfere.

Oh, there are exceptions, especially when you get to parents' rights vs. children's' rights and withholding health care. It's complicated. But, I'm very careful around the First Amendment, it is the keystone to our freedoms.

This is why we have courts.

And, for the record, parents that withhold health care and/or vaccinations because of their belief system need to reevaluate their belief system.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 47):
Let me propose an alternative: if you open your doors to all comers, and you're not providing a religious service, you're not a religious institution, no matter what religion you might claim to be affiliated. If you don't like that, you can either restrict yourself to serving only the customers of your particular religion, or you can start providing religious services. And then you can apply whatever religious dogma you want on your employees.

Getting away from the subject of our prolific father and his 11 paramours and their 30 off-spring, but you lost me....

Which institution are you referring to? The Catholic Church that runs thousands of schools and hospitals based on their faith? Where anyone of any faith can be educated or tended to. Where all the Church asks of its employees and its clients, is that they accept that, because of the Church's beliefs, some services can not be rendered.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
Why contraception, then? This issue has come up time and time again in recent months due to all the bills considered and passed in both state and federal governments, and it's always been about contraception and nothing else. It would have been easy to try and expand that to exempt all non-catastrophic coverage.

The Dems wanted the minimum coverage to have everything, including psychiatric care, contraception, dental etc.

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
It would have been the perfect time to start a national conversation about what insurance companies should be required to include in their plans. Yet nobody did it. No bills and, to my knowledge, no amendments to other bills.

The GOP were not allowed to bring any amendments to the floor. Dems controlled the entire process with a supermajority.

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
No pundits on the talk shows arguing over that subject.

They argued about it on Fox News, I know. Charles Krauthammer went into it frequently.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
So an employer could say: "We don't believe in medicine or surgery at all." You're fine with that.

Sure. And you are free to look for work elsewhere.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
Sorry Doc, that's just the way I roll on First Amendment issues. If the organization is taking a principled stance based on it's belief system, the government has no compelling right to interfere.

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Under your proposal, there would be no employer-sponsored health insurance in the USA, period. That would be disastrous.

The trouble is proving that this is a principled stance and not a financial get-around. You'd be amazed how often people claim "religion" when it's nothing of the sort.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
Under your proposal, there would be no employer-sponsored health insurance in the USA, period. That would be disastrous.

And, that would not have been a bad thing. But, that cat is out of the bag and it has become common place for employers to provide health benefits for their employees. Oh well. But, we're not talking about any employers, we are talking religious institutions who happen to employ people.

But again, if UPS were to suddenly say...we are out of the healthcare insurance providing business for our employees, I basically have 2 choices: stay on and deal with it or find another employer. What's the problem?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Absolutely, but I'm not swinging.

I used to tell my local Jehovah Witness door to door salesman that his right to bug me ended at my property line, which is well away from my door, and, at the time, enforced by my, departed and vastly misunderstood, 75 pound Dobermann. But, I never tried to stop him from moving on down the road to spout his nonsense. I never tried to get the city council to shut him down.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 47):
Let me propose an alternative: if you open your doors to all comers, and you're not providing a religious service, you're not a religious institution, no matter what religion you might claim to be affiliated.

So basically you are saying that Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity are not a religious institution. Good job 

The very essence of the Christian faith is to help those in need - without asking them if they are Christian and rejecting those who are not.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
Under your proposal, there would be no employer-sponsored health insurance in the USA, period. That would be disastrous.

That is the intention of Obamacare - last study I saw indicated that 71% of all businesses intend to terminate all employee-sponsored healthcare insurance because of Obamacare. Seriously, do you think this was not intentional? Of course it was.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
Sorry Doc, that's just the way I roll on First Amendment issues.

Well then try this First Amendment issue on: I want to start a company. I want to provide my employees with health insurance, and law requires that that include certain things with it. No problems. Except that my competitor down the street happens to be run by a guy who claims to be religiously opposed to providing certain things to his employees in the health insurance coverage he gives his employees. Excluded is contraception and abortion, but also conveniently included are the expensive things like surgery, medical tests, etc. So his healthcare costs are a lot lower than mine, and thus he has a legally-protected competitive advantage, all because of his religion. Now how is that not a state endorsement of religion?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 49):
The Catholic Church that runs thousands of schools and hospitals based on their faith?

They can base whatever they want on their faith. A catholic hospital is not a religious institution. It is, first and foremost, a hospital, and it should be treated like any other hospital with regard to what insurance is required to cover.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
So basically you are saying that Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity are not a religious institution.

They're a charity. Whether they're religious or not is no business of the government's.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 50):
The Dems wanted the minimum coverage to have everything, including psychiatric care, contraception, dental etc.

And yet the GOP singled out contraception for their anger....

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 50):
The GOP were not allowed to bring any amendments to the floor. Dems controlled the entire process with a supermajority.

A bill was brought to the House floor (or it might have been the Senate - don't remember offhand) talking about removing the requirement for contraception shortly after that whole spat with the Georgetown student testifying went down. I don't recall the Democrats having a supermajority then. I know the democrats don't have a supermajority in all the states that have passed laws on this very issue in the past year.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Unless you're going to make laws against having kids without the ability to pay for them (and talk abut the ultimate government intrusion into the bedroom), this sort of thing will be able to happen.

I don't think that's government intrusion at all. In my humble opinion it's quite simple. If you're incapable of supporting yourself, why should people who can pay, pay for you plus your offspring, most of whom will learn that their paycheque comes in the mail? Don't abort the babies. But put women on mandatory birth control while she's on public aid, and if she doesn't come in for her follow-up shots suspend her payments. Have a contingency plan for the oopses that are likely to happen, but this will DRASTICALLY cut the number of babies. It would also significantly reduce the number of women who cross the border simply to drop their babies here, and then every three years have another one because that's what the law currently permits. Provide men with condoms (ultimately cheaper than public aid for 30 children), and if he has children redirect his payments to the baby mama. After a few rounds of that you'd think he'd get the picture. Male birth control is on the way too, and should be made mandatory for men on public aid. You want to come off the pill and have a family? Show society that is putting the food in your mouth that you can be a productive member of society and boom, no more birth control.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 30):
But wouldn't that put our country on a serious road to demographic and economic shrinkage? As is now, women's fertility rates are nearing all-time lows. The U.S. has a female fertility rate of just barely 2 which barely allows for population sustainment.

Permitting a generation of dependents to spawn more dependents is not going to solve any economic or demographic shrinkage.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
It's not Democrats looking to cut food stamps, SCHIP, VFC, and other such programs. It's Republicans.

A great many people on those programs are getting hand outs, and do not need them.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 55):
I don't think that's government intrusion at all.

It would mean the government would have to determine the standard for who is financially capable of having a child. That is a lot of government intrusion - much more than I'm comfortable with.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):

Again, managed by whom? I'm ok with the community managing itself through its families and churches and the larger community, but I'm guessing you want to manage it through more government intervention.

A pertinent question both for my proposed solutions - and yours as well. Unless I have you mistaken for someone else, you want compulsive population control among the poor? That's a massive government intervention too. How do you think it should be done? Who would be in charge?


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

I really believe we are one family, and if some of us choose to have children, the rest of the family can put our hands out and be paid by that family member doing the reproduction, in advance of our sevices. Figure each kid costs $50,000 just as a round number. If not able to pay, that family member can be chained to a chain gang to perform menial tasks for the community at minimum wage until the debt is paid. It would take several years at minimum wage, per child.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 54):
They're a charity. Whether they're religious or not is no business of the government's.

I agree - so why is the government insisting that they are not religious? In the case of the Missionaries, the people who work there are nuns - the work they do is entirely, 100% religiously motivated. They don't proselytize, they simply help others, sleep, help some more, without asking for anything in return. Their possessions are limited to: three saris (one to wear, one to wash, one to mend), a pair of sandals, a crucifix and rosary. They also have a plate and metal spoon, a canvas bag, and prayer book. In cold countries, possessions also include a cardigan. Denying their religious motivations is insulting.

[Edited 2012-05-21 19:38:56]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 56):
It would mean the government would have to determine the standard for who is financially capable of having a child. That is a lot of government intrusion - much more than I'm comfortable with.

No determination needed. If you're on public assistance and without an income...you're not financially capable. And if you like that would include ME at the moment, being a medical student. If you don't want the government to say you need to go on birth control, then don't apply for government assistance. The government already mandates by proxy which doctors senior citizens can see, which hospitals you can go to, and which medications you can take. It's very similar to saying if you don't want to pay your taxes then you don't get to benefit from them by using things such as using roads, airports, television, and your utilities.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3331 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
The very essence of the Christian faith is to help those in need - without asking them if they are Christian and rejecting those who are not.

I wish that were true and while it partially is there is much intolerance done in the name of Christianity. It's not just limited to them but many other religions.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 55):
I don't think that's government intrusion at all. In my humble opinion it's quite simple. If you're incapable of supporting yourself, why should people who can pay, pay for you plus your offspring, most of whom will learn that their paycheque comes in the mail?

China does similar with their one child policy and that is very freedom restricting.

Is the generic point here to save taxpayer money or regulate behavior that some of you do not like. If its to save money then so many steps can be taken in other areas of government to achieve this which would be heaps more effective. Other entitlement programs cost far more than this.

If you look at statistics I would say education is the best and probably the only way to curb this issue, more educated people have less children.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 49):
Which institution are you referring to? The Catholic Church that runs thousands of schools and hospitals based on their faith? Where anyone of any faith can be educated or tended to. Where all the Church asks of its employees and its clients, is that they accept that, because of the Church's beliefs, some services can not be rendered.

Then they are quite free to close their hospitals, or to cease being affiliated with them.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 55):
A great many people on those programs are getting hand outs, and do not need them.

Agreed. Some do. Cutting the program and improving means testing and fraud detection are two different things.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 55):
I don't think that's government intrusion at all.

I have to agree. It is only in this century that governments have said: "We'll intrude into your bank account and pay for all the kids you like."

If we are to be a country of equal opportunity, it has to start with kids having access to healthcare and education. But it also has to start with kids having parents who actually WANTED kids. Not pets, not meal tickets, not "I'm an adult" badges.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
I agree - so why is the government insisting that they are not religious?

It's not so much insisting that they are not religious as not treating them any differently from a similar secular charity. The work they do is good, no doubt about that. And it's that on which they should be judged, not on the fact that they carry a cross and a rosary around.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 60):
If you're on public assistance and without an income...you're not financially capable.

Okay, that's easy enough. But do you really think that a guy motivated to have 30 children would stop because he couldn't collect welfare? Incentives or disincentives require people to be thinking a certain way in order to work. If people don't really care about the carrot that's being dangled or the stick that's being brandished, they won't change their behavior.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I am going to say it again: JUST BECAUSE THE NAZIS DID A THING DOES NOT MAKE IT BAD. The Nazis forcibly sterilized people for intrinsic characteristics; things that people cold not control. For being born. Nobody here is suggesting that. We are suggesting it as a solution for CHOSEN BEHAVIOR, which is very different. By your argument, because the Nazis put people in prisons (camps) we should never do so.
Quoting Mir (Reply 38):
There is a HUGE difference between sterilizing certain groups of people based on genetics and sterilizing those who have made the conscious choice to have children that they cannot support. To avoid the Nazi sterilization campaign, well...you couldn't. You were either in the group they were targeting or you weren't. Not at all the same as just choosing to use birth control unless you're capable of properly supporting a child.

The motto was "Unworthy Life" - now, who decides which life is worthy and which is unworthy? You did not need to belong to "certain groups" - like Roma, Jews, Homosexual, a down syndrome was enough to "qualify".

I am really stunned about some contributions here, as if basic human rights do not play a role. "Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar" "Human dignity is untouchable" is written as an eternal paragraph in our constitution, cannot be changed not even by a 100% majority in parliament.

I guess you have to live with this guy, if you like it or not. A society of about 350 million people has to tolerate it and make the best of it. .



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
The motto was "Unworthy Life" - now, who decides which life is worthy and which is unworthy?

No determination on what life is worthy and what isn't is being made. Nobody is being killed.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
You did not need to belong to "certain groups" - like Roma, Jews, Homosexual, a down syndrome was enough to "qualify".

I don't think you choose to have Down Syndrome. That's what we're talking about - consequences for chosen actions, and egregiously bad chosen actions at that.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
I am really stunned about some contributions here, as if basic human rights do not play a role.

How about the rights of the 30 children involved here? To be raised by a single mother, without anything in the way of support from their father? Or to be raised as foster children, shuttled around from home to home unless they're lucky and manage to stay with one family for a while? The effect of such an upbringing on children is fairly well documented, and it's not wrong to try and discourage that.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
I guess you have to live with this guy, if you like it or not. A society of about 350 million people has to tolerate it and make the best of it. .

If it were just one guy, or a few guys, we'd do exactly that. But it's not.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Mir, you can turn it whichever way you want, whatever is suggeested here is what we call "Stammtisch" in German and violates basic human rights. It does not fit a democracy, if realised it would bring the USA down on the same level with China.

In a democracy that upholds the spirits of the founding fathers there's no way to stop Eddy Rabbit. If you like it or not.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 66):
whatever is suggeested here is what we call "Stammtisch" in German and violates basic human rights.

How so? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to found a family. What the man mentioned in the OP did is not that - his children belong to many different families. So he's not covered there. I can't think of any other documents, apart from the constitutions of individual countries, that might have something to say on the matter.

If you're not comfortable with the idea, that's understandable - I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself. The possibility exists for misuse (one of the reasons I don't ever want the government deciding ahead of time who can have kids and who can't), and that would have to be carefully guarded against.

But ultimately, this man is doing harm to people. He's doing harm to the women he impregnated by not being able to help them raise their child, he's doing harm to the children by not being there for them, and he's doing harm to society by leaving them with the bill for properly raising 30 children. If it were just that last part about leaving society with the bill, I'd be much more inclined to see it your way. But the harm to mother and child are just as real, and I can't support sitting back and letting someone display such wanton disregard for the well-being of women and children. A message has to be sent that society will not stand for that sort of thing. I don't believe that the threat of jail will work, therefore something else must be found as a deterrent.

If you've got any other ideas besides just letting the harm continue, we'd certainly love the hear them - there are no easy solutions here.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinephette From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 49 posts, RR: 4
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1659 times:

He made a commitment when he procreated
There are no excuses.
If I have to be held accountable for the things I do in life, so should everyone else.
It's that simple...

Or chemical sterilization..

Is that snide?
  


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):

I don't think I've ever agreed with an entire post of yours before...




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

I find it ... amusing that some on this thread actually advocate forced surgery as a means to an end - what are you going to do, restrain the man until the general anaesthetic kicks in (which you dont normally have for a vasectomy)? Thats a risk in itself, a stressed patient undergoing a GA...

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3269 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

I would be willing to pay for one 'mistake' or even two but at some point we have to say no particularly to mothers.....we aren't paying for any more. If you have any more then I suggest you bdget really well.

I went to college litterally across the street from a public housing project and it was becoming a right of passage for 13,14,15 year old girls to get pregnant. Four generations of females living in the project with no adult males in sight.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 54):
Well then try this First Amendment issue on: I want to start a company. I want to provide my employees with health insurance, and law requires that that include certain things with it. No problems. Except that my competitor down the street happens to be run by a guy who claims to be religiously opposed to providing certain things to his employees in the health insurance coverage he gives his employees. Excluded is contraception and abortion, but also conveniently included are the expensive things like surgery, medical tests, etc. So his healthcare costs are a lot lower than mine, and thus he has a legally-protected competitive advantage, all because of his religion. Now how is that not a state endorsement of religion?


We are not talking about an individual that runs a business; we are talking about a religious organization that runs a business. There is a rather substantial difference. I have no problem with the arrangement so long as the ownership remains single or within a family/community unit (not corporate).

But, I'll bite: in my humble, non-attorney, opinion, it is not a state endorsement of religion, it is state apathy of religion. You are free to practice your atheism and reap all the rewards and/or deal with the consequences of said atheism. Much like your hypothetical religious person gets to enjoy rewards and consequences of his choices.

These are the types cases that we rely on the courts to navigate.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 57):
Unless I have you mistaken for someone else, you want compulsive population control among the poor? That's a massive government intervention too. How do you think it should be done? Who would be in charge?


No, I don't want population control among the poor, at least not mandated by the government. I want the poor (and everyone else) to control the population on their own. I want the State to stop subsidizing baby-making. I want the State to hold dead-beat fathers accountable. I want the State reward behaviour that enhances the community and society. I want the affected people to exercise self-control and responsibility.

I'm advocating a community approach to this problem. It is an overly intrusive and 'altruistic' state that gave us this problem.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
I don't think I've ever agreed with an entire post of yours before...

See, we'll make a sensible person of you yet!  
Quoting moo (Reply 70):
I find it ... amusing that some on this thread actually advocate forced surgery as a means to an end - what are you going to do, restrain the man until the general anaesthetic kicks in (which you dont normally have for a vasectomy)? Thats a risk in itself, a stressed patient undergoing a GA...

As you said, vasectomies normally aren't done under GA. But that is something that would have to be worked out - I don't think it's insurmountable, but I'm not a medical professional.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):
We are not talking about an individual that runs a business; we are talking about a religious organization that runs a business.

Religious organizations are composed of individuals, are they not?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):
You are free to practice your atheism and reap all the rewards and/or deal with the consequences of said atheism. Much like your hypothetical religious person gets to enjoy rewards and consequences of his choices.

What legal rewards would there be for atheism?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
As you said, vasectomies normally aren't done under GA. But that is something that would have to be worked out - I don't think it's insurmountable, but I'm not a medical professional.

Here is a home vasectomy kit:

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
Religious organizations are composed of individuals, are they not?

Which, in association with each other, becomes an organization.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
The motto was "Unworthy Life" - now, who decides which life is worthy and which is unworthy? You did not need to belong to "certain groups" - like Roma, Jews, Homosexual, a down syndrome was enough to "qualify".

All of those are inherent characteristics and not based on chosen behavior. Nobody here suggests sterilization or imprisonment based on inherent characteristics. We suggest it based on chosen behavior. The punishment is neither cruel nor unusual since it is directly targeted at the specific behavior.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
I am really stunned about some contributions here, as if basic human rights do not play a role. "Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar" "Human dignity is untouchable" is written as an eternal paragraph in our constitution, cannot be changed not even by a 100% majority in parliament.

Does that mean you can't throw anyone in jail? Make anyone do work? In fact, Germany forces all citizens to either serve in the military or do civilian service. Is that "forced labor?"

No, this is not about "human dignity." This is about punishing a crime. The crime is willful child neglect or abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who does such things should not be permitted to sire any further children.

Quoting moo (Reply 70):
I find it ... amusing that some on this thread actually advocate forced surgery as a means to an end - what are you going to do, restrain the man until the general anaesthetic kicks in (which you dont normally have for a vasectomy)? Thats a risk in itself, a stressed patient undergoing a GA...

Most patients going in for surgery are under stress, so I don't understand what you mean. In this case, the option would vasectomy or jail. My guess is he'll choose vasectomy.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):
No, I don't want population control among the poor, at least not mandated by the government. I want the poor (and everyone else) to control the population on their own.

Wishful thinking. We tried that in the past. It led to poor people reproducing to the point that they were literally dying in the streets for lack of food, sanitation, and healthcare. Go to Bangalore today and you will see exactly what happens when you adopt your policy.

http://pvhramani.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/a-poor-family-living-in-a-dilapidated-shanty.jpg

And this is a tame image.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
Does that mean you can't throw anyone in jail? Make anyone do work? In fact, Germany forces all citizens to either serve in the military or do civilian service. Is that "forced labor?"

What for? Making children like a rabbit? No child support? Not really. This guy would never need to work again, at least not as long as he has to support his children. He qualifies for welfare, as do the children and their mothers and that's it. POnly people with a high enough income who refuse to pay child support could eventually go to jail. Before that happens he can pay and usually most sentences under 2 years are on probation anyhow. We do not "throw" people in jail in this country and we fare well with that.

No, we cannot make anyone work. Military draft or alternate civilian service is no forced labor and abolished anyway, no military draft, no civilian service any longer.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
No, this is not about "human dignity." This is about punishing a crime. The crime is willful child neglect or abuse

What is the logic behind "throwing" someone into jail for this? That makes it only worse since that person would be even less employable and even less be able and capable of earning his income. Plus he would cost $ 100 plus per day, that money is better spent on helping the children and the mothers.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5597 posts, RR: 19
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The first rule of welfare should be: to be on welfare you must be on a reliable form of birth control.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
Easy solution mandate contraception when receiving welfare.

Easier said than done. The moment anyone tries to enact this it will end up in court with very much predictable outcome.

This is no different than dumping billions upon billions of useless aid to Africa yet no one even dares to suggest that finding a true long-term solution would be start telling the people that they should have only as many children as they are capable to provide for.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
Nobody here suggests sterilization or imprisonment based on inherent characteristics. We suggest it based on chosen behavior. The punishment is neither cruel nor unusual since it is directly targeted at the specific behavior.

My country is getting quite a lot of flak from all kinds of "human rights" activists for castrating CONVICTED child RAPISTS... I can't imagine the uproar all those bleeding hearts would raise the moment you start to mess with people who "only" take the welfare system for a ride.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
As you said, vasectomies normally aren't done under GA. But that is something that would have to be worked out - I don't think it's insurmountable, but I'm not a medical professional.

My wife is a medical professional, and her response was "why would any surgeon wish to risk a major bump in their fatality figures by doing an elective surgery on a patient that has not elected to do it and is not voluntarily on your table - thats a severely stressed patient right there, put them under GA and you are raising the odds significantly that they will die just from the GA alone."


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 76):
Plus he would cost $ 100 plus per day, that money is better spent on helping the children and the mothers.

Paid for by whom? Why should the government threaten me with violence if I refuse to pay my taxes, but this guy has no obligations at all? If we don't have a policy to physically shackle him, I propose we create one. If I would be shackled as a "upper middle" income person, he too should be shackled. It should be clear where he stands in society -- at the very bottom IMO. If he walks free, that is insulting to most people.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 79):
Paid for by whom?

The tax payers, who else? I am just describing the situation as is. I am not offering solutions. But the society you have in the USA will be more violent the less you invest into the future of underprivileged children.

Ever thought that it is not the fault of the child that her/his parents are irresponsible?

Unfortunately, we live in a society that is rapidly losing its values. We don't talk anymore, children are parked in front of TV sets and their parents are ignorants, consume drugs, watch TV and never learnt to be responsible citizens.

Forgive my irony, at least this guy is communicative. But the tax payers are the ones who foot the bill in any case and multiple times, You pay for over policing, for excessive jail terms without getting a safer society in return, in contrary, your society gets more violent the more people you jail. .

You pay for supportung people who have no other income, I could continue that list. Your society won't solve all these problems by jailing men who sire more children than they can support.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
You pay for supportung people who have no other income, I could continue that list.


Maybe we need to stop that. Or, at least look very hard at the policies we use and the assumptions we make when determining who we pay and how much.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
Your society won't solve all these problems by jailing men who sire more children than they can support.


It will most certainly stop that one person from producing another child.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 80):
Ever thought that it is not the fault of the child that her/his parents are irresponsible?


No one is saying we have to punish the child. In Fr8mech's perfect world, the child is taken away from the parent(s) who can't take care of it and removed from the cycle. But, that, will not happen.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 76):
No, we cannot make anyone work. Military draft or alternate civilian service is no forced labor and abolished anyway, no military draft, no civilian service any longer.


Maybe, we need to change that.

This problem is much larger than one irresponsible male fathering 30 children with 11 equally irresponsible females. There is a cycle that needs to be broken. There is an entitlement mindset that needs to be eliminated. We need to stop rewarding women for having babies that they can't afford to properly raise. Those children need to be removed from the environment that just fosters more of the same behaviour. We need to make it painful for a male to walk away from his paternal obligations, whether the children are removed from the environment or not. And, somehow, we have to return the paternal instinct to the males in this environment.

You can throw all the money you want at the problem, it won't be fixed until we fix the psychology of the issue.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1377 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
Maybe we need to stop that. Or, at least look very hard at the policies we use and the assumptions we make when determining who we pay and how much.

You have to treat all people equal. One of the basic matters in a democracy.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
It will most certainly stop that one person from producing another child.

yes, but for long and on which grounds will you jail him? Last time I checked the US did not operate a Gulag, but I can feel tha flak on that remark already.....   

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
No one is saying we have to punish the child. I

in real life it happens every day. There is no perfect world.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
We need to stop rewarding women for having babies that they can't afford to properly raise. Those children need to be removed

How? On which legal base? What's next'? Stop people from watching TV 20 hours a day?



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1356 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
You have to treat all people equal.


No, you have to treat them fairly. How is it fair to leave a child in that environment? How is it fair to encourage women to continue to have babies they can't support? How is it fair to allow a male to walk away from his responsibilities? Democracy is about fairness, not equality. Socialism is about equality.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
yes, but for long and on which grounds will you jail him? Last time I checked the US did not operate a Gulag, but I can feel tha flak on that remark already.....


Jail him on failure to provide adequate support.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
How? On which legal base?


How did we start paying women to have babies? You turn it off. Then you take the child away until such a time as the woman (or family) can adequately provide for the child or until the child is legally adopted by another family. Harsh? Yes. Effective? I don't know. Let's try it. Let's see what happens when we take away the incentive to squirt out babies once a year.

Oh, I can hear the ACLU and every other alphabet-advocacy group scream about it, but their alternative is to keep on throwing money down a hole that keeps getting bigger and deeper. Eventually, we will all fall in.

What we are doing now is not working.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6897 posts, RR: 13
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

anything more than replacement value of the parents. The world has too many people and it is necessary to curtail excess breeding. Compulsory sterilisation should occur on completion of the second gestation. Hard decisions need to be made now, but that's another story..

This guy should be placed on the sex offender register so he can be identified, ostracised wherever he goes, and chemically castrated/snipped by court order.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5094 posts, RR: 12
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 84):
anything more than replacement value of the parents. The world has too many people and it is necessary to curtail excess breeding.

Horse-shit. So long as the family can support and properly raise the children, more power to them.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 84):
This guy should be placed on the sex offender register so he can be identified,

That's an idea...



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 76):
What is the logic behind "throwing" someone into jail for this? That makes it only worse since that person would be even less employable and even less be able and capable of earning his income. Plus he would cost $ 100 plus per day, that money is better spent on helping the children and the mothers.

I don't want to put him in jail. I want to snip his vasa deferens and keep him from making more children that he can neglect.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 77):
Easier said than done. The moment anyone tries to enact this it will end up in court with very much predictable outcome.

I agree. It will require a constitutional amendment stating that Welfare is not a fundamental right and that conditions may be placed on its receipt that do not apply to citizens who are self-supporting. Good luck getting that past the Democrats.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 82):
You have to treat all people equal. One of the basic matters in a democracy.

Treating people equally is a fallacy. If, heaven forbid, you fall on the ground in cardiac arrest, am I to refuse to give you CPR because if I were to do so, then I'd have to give EVERYONE CPR? No, that is not "unequal treatment." What you do is you apply the rules equally. The rules should be: No kids you can't afford or snippy-snippy. Doesn't matter what color your skin is, where you go to church, etc.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
This problem is much larger than one irresponsible male fathering 30 children with 11 equally irresponsible females. There is a cycle that needs to be broken. There is an entitlement mindset that needs to be eliminated

Bingo. "If you come on hard times, we will help you out, but we will not pay for every kid you have."

The other half of this is, of course, a living wage.


User currently offlinephatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1343 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1225 times:

We've had this discussion before about something similar. The women, IMO, hold more responsibility for not keeping their thighs closed. I would recommend he and the other women and get themselves tested for you-know-what, soon he won't be only worrying about how he will pay for child support.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1211 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
The other half of this is, of course, a living wage.

Meaningless term. There is no American who doesn't make enough to eat. Rice is cheap.

People who want more than that have every opportunity in this country to get it using marketable skills. Renting a private apartment, owning a car or purchasing a home are achievements, not rights. Paying rack rate private college tuition these days is an achievement, not a right. K-12 is a right, although we should talk more about that.

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 87):

Great, great point.

[Edited 2012-05-24 05:24:10]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Child Support/ No Passport Question posted Sat Sep 6 2008 15:07:37 by MCOflyer
The Child Support Agency posted Mon Dec 17 2007 15:11:50 by Sbworcs
Larry Birkhead Is The Father Of Dannielynn posted Tue Apr 10 2007 21:46:48 by AeroWesty
New Member Of Congress Wants Koran For Swearing-In posted Fri Dec 1 2006 20:20:41 by Falcon84
Father Of School Shooter Arrested posted Fri Oct 13 2006 05:56:09 by Johnboy79
Father Of All Time posted Sat Aug 5 2006 02:54:10 by Greasespot
Lawsuit Seeks Right To Decline Child Support posted Thu Mar 9 2006 04:31:50 by Flyingbronco05
Man Punches Teachers Aide: Gets Father Of The Year posted Wed Jan 25 2006 22:21:36 by Airlinelover
Father Of "American Taliban" Asks Bush 4 Clemency posted Fri Jan 20 2006 01:56:13 by Airlinelover
Father Of 77 Gives Family Planning Advice posted Thu Jul 28 2005 00:32:27 by Alcregular
Man Punches Teachers Aide: Gets Father Of The Year posted Wed Jan 25 2006 22:21:36 by Airlinelover
Father Of "American Taliban" Asks Bush 4 Clemency posted Fri Jan 20 2006 01:56:13 by Airlinelover
Father Of 77 Gives Family Planning Advice posted Thu Jul 28 2005 00:32:27 by Alcregular