What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.

And what happens if someone does not fulfill the "requirements?" Will CPS take their baby away?

A lot of "us DCUM people" don't even think about having a baby until they are in their late 30's and making 500k+/year. Will a $500 incentive really be enough for them to give up 4 hours a week, 12 weeks in a row and learn things alongside 19 year old McDonald's workers? I don't think so.
Unless you literally plan to have babies taken away at birth, anyone with a decent income will not bother. So then it will basically become a "requirement" for poor people only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the people who hate babies and children are evidence that there is something deeply wrong with our society.

How so? Everyone is different. It takes all kinds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sleeping in the same bed with your significant other is highly overrated.

Agree! Also having separate bathrooms is helpful.

My friend designed a master bedroom with 2 bathrooms.

“Master” bathrooms are gross and I would never want to live in a house where there was a bathroom in my sleeping space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.

And what happens if someone does not fulfill the "requirements?" Will CPS take their baby away?

A lot of "us DCUM people" don't even think about having a baby until they are in their late 30's and making 500k+/year. Will a $500 incentive really be enough for them to give up 4 hours a week, 12 weeks in a row and learn things alongside 19 year old McDonald's workers? I don't think so.
Unless you literally plan to have babies taken away at birth, anyone with a decent income will not bother. So then it will basically become a "requirement" for poor people only.

All of you who wait so long to have kids then your kids are special needs, ADHD,Autistic. Then, those of us who had children while our eggs were healthy have to pay for all these totally useless kids who will never be contributing members of society. You should have to pay triple taxes for all their special needs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once a month every person in an exclusive relationship should be able to sleep with someone else without any repurcussion

[phone]

There would be less divorces this way

It’s not true and been studied.

Because women easily get laid and men just get more frustrated that they neither get it at home nor out of the home or their once a month person get too serious/crazy. If they try to make it not 1 person go back to point #1.

What are you blabbering on about?

Giving free passes monthly sounds amazing. I would hook up with our neighbors son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting a driver's license should be much, much, MUCH more difficult than it is. Too many people who don't know how to stay in their lane, don't know what lane they should be in, distracted or zoned out, and a danger to themselves and others.

YES YES YES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When building a new home, make the kitchen the largest room in the house! It’s where everyone ends up when we entertain!

Hard agree!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When building a new home, make the kitchen the largest room in the house! It’s where everyone ends up when we entertain!

Hard agree!!

And bedrooms don’t need sitting areas! Give me a house with a practical layout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the people who hate babies and children are evidence that there is something deeply wrong with our society.

How so? Everyone is different. It takes all kinds.

Because it is a more commonly held opinion among young people now than those who like, much less want, kids. I wonder if it's a result of a combination of factors: more adults now didn't have siblings, so they are less exposed to children in their immediate circles (nephews, nieces, etc). Young working adults have moved to urban centers and only interact with other young working adults instead of a multigenerational neighborhood environment. Our society caters to the 20-30s set- bars, expensive restaurants, etc. Our government makes it too expensive to have kids and allows the penalization of mothers for doing so by not requiring parental leave among other things. Our culture also isolates mothers, partly by the shaming as seen on this thread (raise your kids by yourself, because male partners shouldn't have paternity leave, and continue to raise them by yourself until they're 3, and then keep them away from anywhere they might interact with me including restaurants, but also do this on your male partner's single income with no government handouts, and also somehow pay for college). People would rather have a dog and call it a child rather than have an actual child. It just seems deeply unnatural to me. Children should be cherished. People don't have to have kids if they don't want them, but the aggressive hatred of kids is sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.

And what happens if someone does not fulfill the "requirements?" Will CPS take their baby away?

A lot of "us DCUM people" don't even think about having a baby until they are in their late 30's and making 500k+/year. Will a $500 incentive really be enough for them to give up 4 hours a week, 12 weeks in a row and learn things alongside 19 year old McDonald's workers? I don't think so.
Unless you literally plan to have babies taken away at birth, anyone with a decent income will not bother. So then it will basically become a "requirement" for poor people only.

All of you who wait so long to have kids then your kids are special needs, ADHD,Autistic. Then, those of us who had children while our eggs were healthy have to pay for all these totally useless kids who will never be contributing members of society. You should have to pay triple taxes for all their special needs!

PP you quoted here. "Young healthy eggs" are no guarantee. I had my son at age 26 and he was diagnosed with ADHD in his late teens. My college roommate had her son at age 27 and he is autistic.

[Anonymous]

I think private adoption can be unethical. I think there is something weird about people spending tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a baby and when if that same money may have gone into the hands of the birth mom they may not have made the same decision. Especially when we are talking about young moms who are pressured into making these huge decisions. If we don't think kids can vote until they are 18 how can we expect a 14 year old to truly understand the ramifications of placing a child for adoption.

I think it is wrong that adoptees can't access original birth certificates or are bound by closed adoptions and denied access to their genetic history by a contract they never consented to.

I think there are even more ethical issues when we are talking international adoption and there is no real way to verify babies aren't trafficked.

I think it is horrible that there are essentially kid re homing groups on FB where folks just re-adopt their adopted children. All done privately with zero oversight.

I am not saying there are not a lot of good situations that come out of adoption but there is a LOT of potential for ethical issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should go back to fat shaming for the health of our insanely obese country.

Oh, when did we stop? I must have missed it.

My understanding was that regular shaming of fat celebrities and family members was still going on (despite there being a significant lack of any evidence at all that shaming people helps them lose weight or that losing weight significantly improves health across a population).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.

And what happens if someone does not fulfill the "requirements?" Will CPS take their baby away?

A lot of "us DCUM people" don't even think about having a baby until they are in their late 30's and making 500k+/year. Will a $500 incentive really be enough for them to give up 4 hours a week, 12 weeks in a row and learn things alongside 19 year old McDonald's workers? I don't think so.
Unless you literally plan to have babies taken away at birth, anyone with a decent income will not bother. So then it will basically become a "requirement" for poor people only.

Noone is taking babies away. It's an incentive, and yeah, it will be more beneficial to the poor. You cannot simultaneously take women's right to choose away from them while also giving them zero tools (to either prevent the pregnancy, or to get parental education). I'd levy a fine on the parents who can't make time. Maybe fine the fathers more. It can go back into the class fund. Or pay for childcare for the poor. You have this weird vision of a dystopian world. I am imagining a world where women regain their autonomy by not having so many unfair burdens placed on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.

And what happens if someone does not fulfill the "requirements?" Will CPS take their baby away?

A lot of "us DCUM people" don't even think about having a baby until they are in their late 30's and making 500k+/year. Will a $500 incentive really be enough for them to give up 4 hours a week, 12 weeks in a row and learn things alongside 19 year old McDonald's workers? I don't think so.
Unless you literally plan to have babies taken away at birth, anyone with a decent income will not bother. So then it will basically become a "requirement" for poor people only.

Noone is taking babies away. It's an incentive, and yeah, it will be more beneficial to the poor. You cannot simultaneously take women's right to choose away from them while also giving them zero tools (to either prevent the pregnancy, or to get parental education). I'd levy a fine on the parents who can't make time. Maybe fine the fathers more. It can go back into the class fund. Or pay for childcare for the poor. You have this weird vision of a dystopian world. I am imagining a world where women regain their autonomy by not having so many unfair burdens placed on them.

Um, what?

[Anonymous]

I think it’s wrong to intentionally breed dogs & sell (or buy) the puppies. There are millions of unwanted animals, tens of thousands of which are euthanized every year in the US alone. If you want a dog, go to the pound/animal shelter and adopt one (then get it spayed or neutered!).