A way to cut unwanted children, crime, and abortion at the same time

Planning? so what - who says you have to plan, have a job, and money for kids - is that what they do in the rest of the world? No they do not!

How is giving birth selfish? Sounds like you would rather prevent life in the first place, especially for those who do not fit into your 'idea' of how people should be. What are you, a fantasy dictator or something?

 

This is priceless!

So how does a couple, or single mother/father raise a child from birth without money? Not that many people have trust funds from rich parents out there. Most have to earn their own.

 

I like my idea of giving all males a vasectomy as soon as possible after birth ...then THEY would be free to "whore around"...

But wait! They believe they're free to "whore around" now! It's the WOMEN who would be 'whoring around" .

Do all people "whore around" or do most NORMAL people have sex?? Or is just women who "whore around"


BTW, look up the stats, christian REPUBLICAN conservative women have abortions,...Yuppers, they "kill babies", too

 

This would be voluntary for all males and females alike. And my main goal would be to cut down on crime and save the tax payers billions in the long run. Everyone is free to "whore around" with or without this scenario anyways.

Pointless post.

 

Originally Posted by Russ103
As the very title of this thread suggest it would cut down on abortions. It's the left that's into killing babies,


And I pointed out that your silly attack on the "left" is just that, silly, since conservative REPUBLICAN women have abortions , too.

Maybe facts are just pointless for you.....

 

It is a bad approach that wouldn't work to solve any problems, and only create more for society.

 

A life-changing operation is not something I want the government in charge of. Frankly---we don't want to cut our chances of populating our nation.

I think birth control that does not rely on responsibility could be encouraged and paid for. IUD's for one. When I was young and on welfare they encourage "Norplant"--5 rods stuck within the arm that worked continuously for 5 years. This was crucial for me at the time as I was constantly forgetting my pill, not picking up my pills, holding off to start the pack until the "right day came". I was bound to have another baby. The Norplant worked in spite of my irresponsability because I didn't have to remember anything---though it basically put me in early menopause. The symptoms reversed after I had them taken out---but I know what to look forward to now

Of course--Norplant is not sold here any more. But I would advocate a birth control with the same attributes made available and paid for.

 

Hmm, last time I looked the right was deeply embedded into killing babies where ever they find them. It is interesting to note that the right has a string of politicians involved in that baby killing business, so I really am amazed you didn't know that. Are you aware President Bush aborted his son? That Romney was involved in an abortion cleanup company he profited from? That 40% of Republican women want abortion to proceed? Attempting to use a broad brush is just wrong.

 

I am not for schools or government to teach children to use birth control. Its not the business of government to be the parent. Its when you have someone who makes the wrong choices and is now dependent on taxpayers----their business becomes our business. I think shame goes much farther then easy access to birth control---but society seems to think that is a bad thing....to shame someone for having sex with someone who they hardly knew.

 

I don't see how shame is such a bad thing....if what you choose to do results in dependancy on other people and a child without a stable home. Shame is good when it is fitting. I wish I had someone to give me a little shame---most people tend to admire the "single woman who has to do it all".

But no, I don't think schools should butt into what is the job of the parent. Birth control is not universally considered the answer---and frankly since we've had easily accessible birth control and abortion---we have more children in unstable homes and more welfare dependancy---so the problem isn't that young people don't have accessible birth control. The problem is morals and government shouldn't teach those.

I have no problem with young people taking birth control if the parent views it as necessary. But let schools teach what they are supposed to teach and parents can instill the values they deem best in their kids.

 

Birth Control needs no advertising to the general populous---they all know its there.

But when it comes to some sort of easy to manage birth control--it should be mentioned by a caseworker to the single woman who walks through the door to appy for assistance. For example: "Ms Johnson, I notice you are pregnant (or have children) and you don't have the means to support yourself or your children and they are without a father. Studies show that children brought up in a two parent--a committed mother and father in the home--face less obstacles in life and the parents by working together are able to financially and emotionally support their children. We advocate that you look into this "birth-med". It is free, prescribed by your doctor and would prevent further situations that cause harm to you, a potential child and the taxpayers who foots the bill"

It isn't "US" who should be talking to someone else's child about birth control. Its the parent. Like I said....birth control discussions from government officials to our children have not resulted in a drop of unwanted children or children in broken homes. Single women are having babies like crazy and latching on to welfare.....at a phenomenal rate. Yet schools have been talking sex and birth control since I was in middle school in the mid-70's. The problem does not lie where you say it does. Put the onus on the parent where it belongs. It can't make things worse. And it might make it better.

As far as data---I'm not saying there is a correlation between easy access to birth control and increased out of wedlock mothers (yet--frankly I think there is an indirect correlation). In the 60's 2% of whites and 25% of blacks had children with no father in the home. Now we are at about 40% of whites and over 80% of blacks. In the 60's birth control was not easily accessible. The more we educate--it seems the more that percentage goes up.

So obviously---we are not on the right track. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pear-from-households-across-america/?page=all http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

 

Well, if we want to pretend, then your idea misses that your spayed drug addicts are still going to commit crimes and be poor, so I will counter you with the nuclear option--literally, not figuratively. Nuke Chicago, New York, DC, Philly, LA and Memphis and by golly our problems get much more manageable

Oops forgot Detroit....

 

this is simply cutting losses on the current generation, and severly reducing a generation of un parented children becoming a problem in 12-20 years from now.

 

"1960s - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'[edit]
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the United States, a flurry of legal actions in the 1960s and 1970s changed the landscape of reproductive rights: in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.
In 1965 millions of unmarried women in 26 states were still denied birth control.[29] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[30] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[31] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[31] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[32] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[33] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[34] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.
In 1970, Congress finally removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[35] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[36] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_the_United_States


"......Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...from-households-across-america/#ixzz2uuIC8R8M
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pear-from-households-across-america/?page=all

 

I suspect that you would see more children--'Come on, Boo, I had it tied up, I don't need to wear any condoms."

 

there will always be a few botched v's.... but overall, it's a fairly standard procedure with very low fail rate.


What I do believe would happen is an increase in STD's (because they don't have to wrap it up) beyond that.... I love the idea of POS people voluntarily having their tubes tied..... $2500 (or whatever) cost vs millions supporting a kid over 18 years they can't or won't, just to have the cycle repeat with another 3 (*)(*)(*)(*) fruit being born.

 

I have no problem with elective sterilization but I would put a cap on it. If you already have 3 kids, society really doesn't benefit that much from stopping you from the 4th. I would put the age range lower--say 25.

 

I hear ya.... I would buy into that, too.... because there's a lady out there with for cooter-fruit out there, thinking, at 39 y.o., she may as well get her tubes tied for some quick lottery money....

I think 18-21 would be a great age range for it too...


honestly, I think a vesectomy as a highschool graduation gift would be great for a son going off to college. At least then, parents don't have to worry as much about their son sticking their dick in crazy, knocking her up, and being forced to quit school so he can pay for the kid. Then, as a wedding gift.... give the reversal to your kid.

 

Pursue this crackpot scheme with your own money. You don't have the right to demand I hand over my money.

- - - Updated - - -

You people DO understand that you can go out there right now and offer to pay people $2,500 to get their tubes tied, yes?

 

now while I whole heartedely agree that there is no way this program would ever get initiated.... the govt spends more money feeding unwanted kids than they would in offering an incentive to section 8 trash. Because we all know, they won't sacrifice cigerrette money for condoms, but they certainly are not going to stop screwing, either.