Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

It's not luck or random chance. It's called values and responsibility. Pass it on.

Name for me one child who has picked his or her parents out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

No one is forcing someone to get on birth control. But IF you want to receive welfare, and there's no medical indication that birth control would harm you, why not make birth control a condition of welfare? Serious question.

Just as if we choose to drive a car we must get a drivers license and car insurance. No one is forcing you to drive and to have those things. But if you choose to drive, you have to play by the rules. What if BC is a condition of welfare? What right does that violate? We're not talking about state forced, secret, irreversible sterilization, but a temporary medication that, while receiving public assistance, prevents pregnancy. Why is that so horrible? You can take it out and go off welfare tomorrow if you wish.

Gee, if people want to be treated for medical issues, maybe they should have to buy insurance. That seems logical, too. Yet without an insurance mandate, any dumbs clutching his chest will get treated. And when the bill for that medical care bankrupts him, he'll qualify for medicaid.

Not sure how that relates to the above. I support the ACA. So let's try again:

How does it violate an individual's rights if, as a condition of receiving public assistance, they must get on government provided, government paid, temporary, fully disclosed, removable birth control for the duration of said assistance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

No one is forcing someone to get on birth control. But IF you want to receive welfare, and there's no medical indication that birth control would harm you, why not make birth control a condition of welfare? Serious question.

Just as if we choose to drive a car we must get a drivers license and car insurance. No one is forcing you to drive and to have those things. But if you choose to drive, you have to play by the rules. What if BC is a condition of welfare? What right does that violate? We're not talking about state forced, secret, irreversible sterilization, but a temporary medication that, while receiving public assistance, prevents pregnancy. Why is that so horrible? You can take it out and go off welfare tomorrow if you wish.

Gee, if people want to be treated for medical issues, maybe they should have to buy insurance. That seems logical, too. Yet without an insurance mandate, any dumbs clutching his chest will get treated. And when the bill for that medical care bankrupts him, he'll qualify for medicaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

No one is forcing someone to get on birth control. But IF you want to receive welfare, and there's no medical indication that birth control would harm you, why not make birth control a condition of welfare? Serious question.

Just as if we choose to drive a car we must get a drivers license and car insurance. No one is forcing you to drive and to have those things. But if you choose to drive, you have to play by the rules. What if BC is a condition of welfare? What right does that violate? We're not talking about state forced, secret, irreversible sterilization, but a temporary medication that, while receiving public assistance, prevents pregnancy. Why is that so horrible? You can take it out and go off welfare tomorrow if you wish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Is this a serious question?

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

It's not luck or random chance. It's called values and responsibility. Pass it on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that. In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure. That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent. If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window. How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them? The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Pointless to debate this crap.
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's rights are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's ethics are going to be compromised.
Somebody's ideals are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.

Anonymous wrote:No but don't give additional $ for new babies.