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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Russ103, Feb 25, 2014.

  1. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  2. Russ103

    Russ103 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,595
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is priceless!:roflol:

    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.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,284
    Likes Received:
    19,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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 :)
     
  4. Russ103

    Russ103 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,595
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,284
    Likes Received:
    19,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.....
     
  6. banchie

    banchie New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is a bad approach that wouldn't work to solve any problems, and only create more for society.
     
  7. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13,820
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,465
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lot's of good points here, on both sides! (which is unusual...)

    Perhaps as a sort of compromise,...what if the government were to simply offer up free, or offer to pay for, reversible sterilization,
    including the initial operation and actual reversals upon request, for anyone and with no additional incentives?
    And perhaps also give people the option to partake in less-evasive procedures towards the same goal.

    Sure...it might not have as drastic an effect as it would have with additional incentives,
    and sure...offering it to everyone and including reversals might reduce its cost-effectiveness a bit,
    but I believe such a policy would still be an improvement over what we have today, plus it wouldn't come with all those icky issues posters have pointed out.

    -Meta
     
  9. banchie

    banchie New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,465
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You beat me to the punch. Yes, I think government paying for such options would be a good thing.

    I also wanted to add though, that the government could also help further by initiating a target educational campaign about their program,
    and as you suggested encouraging young adults to take advantage of the free options available.
    The problem isn't so much that the youth don't want to use birth control, it isn't so much that they are necessarily irresponsible either,
    as it is a human trait to be forgetful and a lot of times people are just completely unaware of what's available to them.
    So.....we inform them, and pay for the solutions as to not have the price act as a disincentive...

    -Meta
     
  11. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13,820
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,465
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As the saying goes, one attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar. Plus, I don't think the government ought to be in the business of "shaming people".
    As for the educational campaign, I was thinking more along the lines of college-aged people, or at least high-school aged.
    You can't really legislate what parents do or do not teach their children, and you can't expect parents to teach things if they themselves are uninformed.

    Furthermore, the whole idea of having the government pay for such measure in the first place is preventative in nature, right?
    We want to help people before they go and make their "irresponsible" mistakes, not shame them or their parents after.
    We want to give them easy access to responsible solutions, and we want to empower them to use those solutions, and in fact, knowledge is power, right?

    -Meta
     
  13. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13,820
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,465
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And no, I don't necessarily think the schools need to have anything to do with this educational process.
    There are other ways to inform the populous you know. All I'm saying is that
    what's the good of this optional government program, if nobody knows about?
    Though, then again, I'm sure word of mouth would eventually do its duty.

    Well, let's get a bit more specific here. What kind of "shame" are we talking about?

    Again, the idea is suppose to be for us to act before such dependency happens, as opposed to after.
    You still agree that preventative measures are superior to reactive ones, right?...

    Birth control need not be the only option offered, if that's what you're saying.
    But either way, would you happen to have any sort of data backing up the second half of your claim?
    Can you show that increasing access to birth control options specifically, leads to more children being born to parents who can't really take care of them?
    Seems counter-intuitive....

    -Meta
     
  15. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13,820
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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/
     
  16. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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....
     
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,465
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I doubt that, and even if it were true for 100% of the population, simply knowing it exists is not enough.
    It helps if one also knows the pros and cons of each option, and how to obtain them.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/birth-control_n_4070949.html (<- definitely read this one)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...5-women-dont-use-contraception_n_1904802.html

    2. Even if people know that birth control option exist, which options work best, and where to get them,
    if we are to then try to improve on the situation further by having the government pay for them, such a program would have no benefit if people don't know about that as well, right?.......And in fact, people don't know about it...
    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...e-women-about-birth-control-benefit-42215.htm

    Now see, ^this is the sort of thing I was talking about. Simply having officials talk to the people who are most at-risk about both the risks and their options,
    perhaps even encourage doctors to get in on the action,........BUT,......

    again,...why exactly would we want to wait until after people were pregnant or had kids they couldn't take care of?
    Again,...wouldn't it make more sense to take such measures preemptively,...??? Inform them on the choices before they make the bad ones???

    I would like to see some data backing up your claims of birth control access/education having a negative or no effect on the number of uncared for children.
    If you don't have the data, then you shouldn't be making the claims!

    As for it being the parents responsibility to teach their kids about birth control,...sure, it would be great if all parents did that, but they don't,
    and we cannot really legislate what parents do or do not teach their kids, can we?

    And if the parents don't teach their kids about the available options,...and if no one else does either,
    what we end up with is a vicious cycle of ignorance in which parents can't teach their kids because they themselves are uninformed.

    -Meta
     
  18. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    13,820
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "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
     
  20. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect that you would see more children--'Come on, Boo, I had it tied up, I don't need to wear any condoms."
     
  21. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  22. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  23. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  24. Crossedtoes

    Crossedtoes Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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?
     
  25. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page