PDA

View Full Version : Should Poor People Have Babies?



Debaser
04-19-2004, 09:01 PM
I sometimes hear people state that poor people should stop having babies because it's difficult for them to support themselves and their children without going on welfare.

I tend to greatly disagree with this stance. What do you all think?

irpker
04-19-2004, 09:02 PM
They can do as they please, as long as they do not rely on the benevolence of society.

FatFat Bastard
04-19-2004, 09:05 PM
limited number like 1- 2 even3 children is fine
5-15 children is not

simple basic and fair
same goes to applies to the rich people

earth has limited resources
haveing a population grouth that doubles every 20 years
is not going to help anyone

Debaser
04-19-2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by irpker
They can do as they please, as long as they do not rely on the benevolence of society.

Well, what if it were to put them on welfare for a somewhat extended period of time? However, during this time they were working as much as they could (single mother).

Al_Bundy
04-19-2004, 09:55 PM
Yeah - if they can support the number of children they have, without taking a cent of my tax dollars to do so, they can have as many children as they want. As soon as they start moving into my street, or they start begging for my change, its simple - I take care of the problem, and make society a better place for everyone.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
I sometimes hear people state that poor people should stop having babies because it's difficult for them to support themselves and their children without going on welfare.

I tend to greatly disagree with this stance. What do you all think?

If they can support it and not live off of welfare by all means. But if they can't support the kid and have to use my tax dollars to support it then no they should not reproduce.

Debaser
04-19-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
If they can support it and not live off of welfare by all means. But if they can't support the kid and have to use my tax dollars to support it then no they should not reproduce.

There are definately many circumstances in which people wind up being on welfare. Sometimes it is merely the way the system works. Not everyone on welfare deserves to be there, or brought themselves to be in that position. Yes, many people on welfare milk the system, but this is not true for everyone!

So, basically you think it is okay to deny people the basic right to reproduce (within reason at least, extremely poor people probably shouldn't be popping out 10 babies--1 to 2 seems reasonable).

You don't have anything wrong with restricting people who don't have money from doing one the most natural things man is born with (the innate feature of sustaining one's race)?

I think it's pretty sick people are obsessed over money in this manner. No, you can't have a child because you're too poor and don't have enough green pieces of paper :rolleyes:

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
There are definately many circumstances in which people wind up being on welfare. Sometimes it is merely the way the system works. Not everyone on welfare deserves to be there, or brought themselves to be in that position. Yes, many people on welfare milk the system, but this is not true for everyone!

So, basically you think it is okay to deny people the basic right to reproduce (within reason at least, extremely poor people probably shouldn't be popping out 10 babies--1 to 2 seems reasonable).

You don't have anything wrong with restricting people who don't have money from doing one the most natural things man is born with (the innate feature of sustaining one's race)?

I think it's pretty sick people are obsessed over money in this manner. No, you can't have a child because you're too poor and don't have enough green pieces of paper :rolleyes:


There is no "right" to have a child.

That being said, if you cannot support to have children, then why have them. It will be my tax dollars supporting them. When I have my family someday I want my money going to my family. Not going off to raise the Jones' down the street.

If they can afford to have the child and they happen to be poor then yeah go ahead and have the kid. But if they have one kid and can barely get by, they shouldn't be able to pop off another and start living off of welfare.

Also welfare needs a major reform and not be used a source of income.

Are you implying that I'm obsessed with money?

Al_Bundy
04-19-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
If they can support it and not live off of welfare by all means. But if they can't support the kid and have to use my tax dollars to support it then no they should not reproduce.

Thanks for the paraphrase :mad::D

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Thanks for the paraphrase :mad::D

Lol! I guess great minds think alike :D

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 10:25 PM
If Americans only had the children they could absolutely unconditionally afford no matter what happens in their lives, no one would have any, and our economy would be headed for the crapper.

Al_Bundy
04-19-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Lol! I guess great minds think alike :D

Yeah - my mind is great :D

Debaser
04-19-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
There is no "right" to have a child.

That being said, if you cannot support to have children, then why have them. It will be my tax dollars supporting them. When I have my family someday I want my money going to my family. Not going off to raise the Jones' down the street.

If they can afford to have the child and they happen to be poor then yeah go ahead and have the kid. But if they have one kid and can barely get by, they shouldn't be able to pop off another and start living off of welfare.

Also welfare needs a major reform and not be used a source of income.

Are you implying that I'm obsessed with money?

Stop with the 'right' business. Once again you are taking my words and twisting them. Yes, we all know legality wise it's not a right. Thank you for the clarification.

Like I have stated, not all people on welfare are lazy and deserve to be on it this system. However, there are certain situations in which some people become on welfare.

I just find it funny that some people wouldn't mind denying something that is wired into people; the innate feature of reproducing, due to money reasons. It goes to show you how disgusting our world has become...A world where one cannot evne reproduce because they don't have enough money. This was definately not the case many years ago when it was easy to live off the land, but now that is not feasable, is it?

I agree, if you're not able to afford a newborn, then you probably shouldn't be having babies. I also agree that welfare needs to be reformed. Too many people do milk the system, but many people benefit from it. In a perfect world everyone would have enough money, but this is just an idealistic approach.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Stop with the 'right' business. Once again you are taking my words and twisting them. Yes, we all know legality wise it's not a right. Thank you for the clarification.

Like I have stated, not all people on welfare are lazy and deserve to be on it this system. However, there are certain situations in which some people become on welfare.

I just find it funny that some people wouldn't mind denying something that is wired into people; the innate feature of reproducing, due to money reasons. It goes to show you how disgusting our world has become...A world where one cannot evne reproduce because they don't have enough money. This was definately not the case many years ago when it was easy to live off the land, but now that is not feasable, is it?

I agree, if you're not able to afford a newborn, then you probably shouldn't be having babies. I also agree that welfare needs to be reformed. Too many people do milk the system, but many people benefit from it. In a perfect world everyone would have enough money, but this is just an idealistic approach.


Times change and people must adapt. I'm not totally against welfare, it's just that the current state it's in is that it gets abused beyond belief. I know of several people that abuse the system and is dirt poor because the bitch chooses to be. She constantly pops out more children to get more children. This angers me beyond belief, I've seen it abused first hand which is I'm mainly against it.

A Username
04-19-2004, 11:15 PM
I believe the Clinton administration pretty much elminated the welfare program for poor woman who pump out 10 damn kids. Living off all those checks never needing to get a job.

But by all means let the poor people have children. I enjoy laughing at them as they give me my big macs or carrying my groceries to my car.

The world needs its ditch diggers to. - Sopranos

TrudyV
04-20-2004, 02:24 AM
No, that's child abuse.

And I don't think fat people should have sex.

skinnyguy101
04-20-2004, 06:30 AM
I agree with some of you out there, there is no right to have children. But if the person could barely take care of themself, they should think "if I'm too poor to take care of myself then I won't be able to take care of my baby." But there are idiots out there that can't even take care of themself and have lots of kids.

supergarr
04-20-2004, 07:31 AM
if you can't afford to raise a child then you should not have one. its pretty silly to think otherwise

jestros
04-20-2004, 08:16 AM
I dont think rich people should be allowed to have kids. In general, the kids turn out self centered and spoiled. Also you shouldnt be allowed to work more than 50 hrs a week, and you should be required to spend at least 2 hrs a day with your kids (if the TV's on it doesnt count)

CITADEL
04-20-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by jestros
I dont think rich people should be allowed to have kids. In general, the kids turn out self centered and spoiled. Also you shouldnt be allowed to work more than 50 hrs a week, and you should be required to spend at least 2 hrs a day with your kids (if the TV's on it doesnt count)

Ha, that's true. At least poor kids grow up modest, at least the ones that end up making something of themselves. Nothing is worse than a kid who is born into money, and they still think their better than everyone else.

Petey_G
04-20-2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
If Americans only had the children they could absolutely unconditionally afford no matter what happens in their lives, no one would have any, and our economy would be headed for the crapper.

Really? My mother raised 3 of us without taking a single cent from uncle sam...rethink your sentence...

eru
04-20-2004, 09:50 AM
1 child per family limit. The world is overpopulated enough as it is.

Nothing wrong with taking away someone's right to reproduce if they can't afford to raise their kin.

jestros
04-20-2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Petey_G
Really? My mother raised 3 of us without taking a single cent from uncle sam...rethink your sentence...
This is what he said:
absolutely unconditionally afford no matter what happens in their lives
So if your mom was in a car accident and paralyzed, she wouldn't need a single cent from uncle sam? Maybe you've got family that would step up, not everyone does.
I think you need to rethink your sentence

fkarcha
04-20-2004, 10:50 AM
Nobody is saying that you should have children is you absolutely uncondtionally afford them. Just that you have a stable financial situation to support your (future) children.

BIONIC MAN
04-20-2004, 03:24 PM
the people of enron,world com and other companies that went belly up they had plenty and im sure they had kids . so whether your poor rich or in between your not guaranteed you will have income to support them.

Debaser
04-20-2004, 05:51 PM
Obviously there's a difference between 1 kid and 5.

Here's my hypothetical situation again:


-Single
-High School diploma
-Okay job, close to welfare
-Wants to have a child before it's too late. Has to go on welfare for half a year (if she has a kid), but still holds a steady job and works.


Should she be able to have a child?

Jimineye
04-20-2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Obviously there's a difference between 1 kid and 5.

Here's my hypothetical situation again:


-Single
-High School diploma
-Okay job, close to welfare
-Wants to have a child before it's too late. Has to go on welfare for half a year (if she has a kid), but still holds a steady job and works.


Should she be able to have a child?

Single and wants to have a kid? What is she goign to a sperm bank? In that case no way, if she got married then sure, as long as she is off in 6 months or less. Not a day longer.

dixon
04-20-2004, 06:42 PM
Alot of poor people are poor because of not getting their act together, ie theyre not smart enough to get a half-decent job, or they spend all of their money on booze and cigs. These drug abusers and people with psychological problems (not mentally handicapped, but relationship disorders) ALWAYS (as a general rule) have more kids, or kids more frequently, and kids at a younger age than people who are well together. These people abuse their kids, or create alot of trauma in the home and the circle just continues, so you get more and more retard a-holes walking around the more generations we have.

Bionik
04-20-2004, 06:49 PM
If they're going to care enough about the child to ensure they can support it before having it, yes.

That's not usually the case ;)

BigKazWSM747
04-20-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
There are definately many circumstances in which people wind up being on welfare. Sometimes it is merely the way the system works. Not everyone on welfare deserves to be there, or brought themselves to be in that position. Yes, many people on welfare milk the system, but this is not true for everyone!

So, basically you think it is okay to deny people the basic right to reproduce (within reason at least, extremely poor people probably shouldn't be popping out 10 babies--1 to 2 seems reasonable).

You don't have anything wrong with restricting people who don't have money from doing one the most natural things man is born with (the innate feature of sustaining one's race)?

I think it's pretty sick people are obsessed over money in this manner. No, you can't have a child because you're too poor and don't have enough green pieces of paper :rolleyes:

Oh they can reproduce but they shouldn't expect a ****ing handout. If anything the poor parents that churn out babies are being cruel because they won't use birth control or get an abortion when they know that they are damning the kid to living hell and that they can not support it.

No one is forcing someone to not have kids. We are not saying castrate the poor men and tie the poor women's ovaries so they can't have kids. I am saying that they shouldn't have to expect society to prop up their kids because they were not responsible enough to have one when they were ready. Your problem is your associating society having to pay for children with children being born in the first place.

BigKazWSM747
04-20-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Obviously there's a difference between 1 kid and 5.

Here's my hypothetical situation again:


-Single
-High School diploma
-Okay job, close to welfare
-Wants to have a child before it's too late. Has to go on welfare for half a year (if she has a kid), but still holds a steady job and works.


Should she be able to have a child?

Maybe she should get hitched with the man she plans to have a kid with so that she can support it.

15u
04-20-2004, 07:39 PM
if you can't support a kid, you shouldn't have one.

Jcfreak_02
04-20-2004, 11:21 PM
I think people should act responsible when engaging in activities that directly lead to the creation of other expenses. Should poor people have babies? That is their decision if they want to bring a child into a world in their situation. Should we pay for it all? No way, people have failed to realize over the years that for every action there is an reaction. There is a difference between a helping hand and a handout, people today want handouts becuase they are there to be had. This expands far more into other issues, that people need to accept the consequences be it positive or negative for their actions. When their is always some government program to get them through their sitatuation, why would they stop? If I know I can get a free soda every day by asking a rich kid, why would I ever stop asking the rich kid? Poor analogy but I think you ge the point.

Al_Bundy
04-20-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Maybe she should get hitched with the man she plans to have a kid with so that she can support it.

Bump. If you cannot afford a kid, or if you cannot maintain a relationship so that the kid has one father in its lifetime and not 50, you don't get welfare. Simple.

honeybbqgrundle
04-21-2004, 01:01 AM
Welfare is part of our society. If you don't like it then a lot of you should take your own advice and move to a different country. Worry about your own lives and stop complaining that somebody's taking your tax money. What a bunch of babies.

milo34
04-21-2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Nothing is worse than a kid who is born into money, and they still think their better than everyone else.

Amen to that!!

Al_Bundy
04-21-2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
Welfare is part of our society. If you don't like it then a lot of you should take your own advice and move to a different country. Worry about your own lives and stop complaining that somebody's taking your tax money. What a bunch of babies.

Trouble is, what is paid out to bludgers in the form of welfare could be used for law enforcement, paying national debt, health care, getting the homeless - the real people who need welfare - off the streets, maintaining roadways etc. We need to do that, yet we also need to support these bludgers too. What is the solution to make sure there is enough to go around? Raise taxes? :rolleyes:

drags
04-21-2004, 05:14 AM
Having children is not just about how much its going to cost the family to support the kids, if that was the case no one would have any. If they people are not having children out of love they shouldn't even have them.
If you look at society in most western countries; the people who can afford to have children have barely any while the lower income earners have more.
Welfare is good unless people are abusing it and become dependant on it then it becomes are bad thing.
If you stop poor people or should i say lower class people from having babies withing a generation the country will vanish.

Lynne
04-21-2004, 06:28 AM
The government needs to keep their noses out of other people's affairs, period. It's no one's business how many children anyone has. More often than not, it's a single mother trying to raise several children because she made dumb decisions (no birth control). But I don't want to see the US government become anymore of a socialist institution than it already is by telling US citizens how many children they can and cannot have.

Al_Bundy
04-21-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Lynne
The government needs to keep their noses out of other people's affairs, period. It's no one's business how many children anyone has. More often than not, it's a single mother trying to raise several children because she made dumb decisions (no birth control). But I don't want to see the US government become anymore of a socialist institution than it already is by telling US citizens how many children they can and cannot have.

If she is stupid enough to do that, she should be stupid enough to deal with the consequences - i.e. no welfare. Economically, it is that simple.

supergarr
04-21-2004, 08:40 PM
OMG MY FRIEND JUST TOLD ME SHE IS PREGNANT. SHES ONLY 21. SHE CANT AFFORD A KID!! WTF??? :mad:

Debaser
04-21-2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
If she is stupid enough to do that, she should be stupid enough to deal with the consequences - i.e. no welfare. Economically, it is that simple.

So it's okay to de-humanize someone based off of their economic status?

Section 8
04-21-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So it's okay to de-humanize someone based off of their economic status?

Humanity is over-rated.

The average homo sapien is far less intelligent than the average feces-slingling chimpanzee.

Jimineye
04-21-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So it's okay to de-humanize someone based off of their economic status?

Not giving aid to someone is not de-humanizing them.

Al_Bundy
04-21-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So it's okay to de-humanize someone based off of their economic status?

Its not dehuminisation based on economic status; its called punishment for acting irresponsibly.

Snoopis
04-21-2004, 10:47 PM
The government certainly should not have any say in how many kids we can have. People just need to learn that if they DO have a kid at a time that they don't really have the money for it, they need to prioritize to make things work. They might have to quit smoking, or cancel satellite tv, maybe get a 2nd job.

A lot of people can't afford kids. My mom was pregnant with my sister when she was in high school, my dad only had a part time job at that point. About 4 years later I was born. As far as I know, they never received any handouts. I remember living in a tiny house, no cable tv, hand-me-downs, going to garage sales, lay-away... but no handouts. They're doing just fine now and so am I. Could they "afford" to have that first kid? You wouldn't have thought so. Regardless, I'm glad everything happened just the way it did. :)


Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Trouble is, what is paid out to bludgers in the form of welfare could be used for law enforcement, paying national debt, health care, getting the homeless - the real people who need welfare - off the streets, maintaining roadways etc. We need to do that, yet we also need to support these bludgers too. What is the solution to make sure there is enough to go around? Raise taxes? :rolleyes:

I agree that they are a burden to society, but not necessarily in the ways that you've mentioned. Welfare costs are minimal compared to healthcare and other issues. Of course, these same people are part of the healthcare costs, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Not only are these people a burden, but more importantly, THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE. We need people to contribute by earning and spending money.

Al_Bundy
04-21-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Snoopis
I agree that they are a burden to society, but not necessarily in the ways that you've mentioned. Welfare costs are minimal compared to healthcare and other issues. Of course, these same people are part of the healthcare costs, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Not only are these people a burden, but more importantly, THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE. We need people to contribute by earning and spending money.

Its called 'Work for the Dole' here in Australia. All the bludgers are in uproar because they can no longer leech off the system for free - they have to work like the rest of us tax payers. **** them.

Debaser
04-21-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Its called 'Work for the Dole' here in Australia. All the bludgers are in uproar because they can no longer leech off the system for free - they have to work like the rest of us tax payers. **** them.

If you looked at my post and hypothetical situation, you would see that the person was working at the time, but would need to go on welfare for a brief stint in order to have a child.

Apparently there is this stigma that everyone on welfare doesn't work and is extremely lazy. Yes, many are, but let's not generalize too much here.

Al_Bundy
04-22-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
If you looked at my post and hypothetical situation, you would see that the person was working at the time, but would need to go on welfare for a brief stint in order to have a child.

Apparently there is this stigma that everyone on welfare doesn't work and is extremely lazy. Yes, many are, but let's not generalize too much here.

There, you get maternity leave. Again, if she is having a child because she wants it, and she has no ability to support herself during the first six months before she throws the kid in child care or at someone to look after while she works, tough. She should have chosen a partner to support her while she was recovering, or she should have planned her finances better.

Eyes Open
04-22-2004, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by dixon
Alot of poor people are poor because of not getting their act together, ie theyre not smart enough to get a half-decent job, or they spend all of their money on booze and cigs. These drug abusers and people with psychological problems (not mentally handicapped, but relationship disorders) ALWAYS (as a general rule) have more kids, or kids more frequently, and kids at a younger age than people who are well together. These people abuse their kids, or create alot of trauma in the home and the circle just continues, so you get more and more retard a-holes walking around the more generations we have.

Yes, and why is it that they can't get their act together?

Maybe because they went to ****y public schools and didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college.

Therefore, you have a lot of poorly educated people, stuck in a reactionary relationship to life. If they had properly been educated, they would have better ability to problem solve and manage their affairs.

But, since public education funding just isn't a priority in the US, then you really can't expect to have a majority of the citizens exit the educational system with the neccessary skills to make a decent life.

It's pathetic how the focus in this thread about this reprehensibly unequal social system is aimed squarely on forced denial of reproductive rights.

Reproduction is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Why don't you advocate for the forced denial of reproduction of people who run businesses into the ground, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and rob from the people (Enron, Worldcom). Their actions have greater impact on the economy and our pockets than people who "abuse" welfare.

By the way, have you ever been on welfare? Do you think it's a lifestyle that's full of leisure and fun? Do you think that the structures these people live in are luxurious, the neighborhoods are exclusive and without much crime?

Yeah, it's a real dream life, being on welfare. (rolls eyes)

Al_Bundy
04-22-2004, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Eyes Open
Yes, and why is it that they can't get their act together?

Maybe because they went to ****y public schools and didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college.

Therefore, you have a lot of poorly educated people, stuck in a reactionary relationship to life. If they had properly been educated, they would have better ability to problem solve and manage their affairs.

But, since public education funding just isn't a priority in the US, then you really can't expect to have a majority of the citizens exit the educational system with the neccessary skills to make a decent life.

It's pathetic how the focus in this thread about this reprehensibly unequal social system is aimed squarely on forced denial of reproductive rights.

Reproduction is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Why don't you advocate for the forced denial of reproduction of people who run businesses into the ground, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and rob from the people (Enron, Worldcom). Their actions have greater impact on the economy and our pockets than people who "abuse" welfare.

By the way, have you ever been on welfare? Do you think it's a lifestyle that's full of leisure and fun? Do you think that the structures these people live in are luxurious, the neighborhoods are exclusive and without much crime?

Yeah, it's a real dream life, being on welfare. (rolls eyes)

Heres a thought. Maybe they should put their heads down in school and work a bit harder. I guarantee that there are people out there who attended public schools, actually did a bit of work and made something of themselves. I see just as many delinquents running around now who had rich ass parents who sent them to private schools, and they are essentially screw ups. Its not the economic background, its the dedication of the person that gets you educated.

irpker
04-22-2004, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Eyes Open
Yes, and why is it that they can't get their act together?

Maybe because they went to ****y public schools and didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college.

Therefore, you have a lot of poorly educated people, stuck in a reactionary relationship to life. If they had properly been educated, they would have better ability to problem solve and manage their affairs.

But, since public education funding just isn't a priority in the US, then you really can't expect to have a majority of the citizens exit the educational system with the neccessary skills to make a decent life.

It's pathetic how the focus in this thread about this reprehensibly unequal social system is aimed squarely on forced denial of reproductive rights.

Reproduction is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Why don't you advocate for the forced denial of reproduction of people who run businesses into the ground, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and rob from the people (Enron, Worldcom). Their actions have greater impact on the economy and our pockets than people who "abuse" welfare.

By the way, have you ever been on welfare? Do you think it's a lifestyle that's full of leisure and fun? Do you think that the structures these people live in are luxurious, the neighborhoods are exclusive and without much crime?

Yeah, it's a real dream life, being on welfare. (rolls eyes)

Ruh roh, it's time to call the marxist police!

Al_Bundy
04-22-2004, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by irpker
Ruh roh, it's time to call the marxist police!

ROFL!! :D
I was thinking this guy sounds a little red.... :D

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Eyes Open
Yes, and why is it that they can't get their act together?

Maybe because they went to ****y public schools and didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college.

Therefore, you have a lot of poorly educated people, stuck in a reactionary relationship to life. If they had properly been educated, they would have better ability to problem solve and manage their affairs.

But, since public education funding just isn't a priority in the US, then you really can't expect to have a majority of the citizens exit the educational system with the neccessary skills to make a decent life.

Damn, this post is a mix of truth and delusion. "..didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college"??? Who's fault is that? Were these grades to be given to them without effort? I totally agree that public schooling is a failure, but I consider it a flaw of design, it is a monopoly protecting the worst of the worst and preventing efficient and superior education from entering the picture.

"Public education funding" is not a "priority"?? We have increased public education funding, it is monstrous in terms of funding and yet it continues to be a failure. Explain why public schools can receive $8,000-13,000 per pupil and still not educate them, when private schools can do it for $2,000 and homeschoolers can do it for essentially nothing? That would be because money is not the problem, the system is.


It's pathetic how the focus in this thread about this reprehensibly unequal social system is aimed squarely on forced denial of reproductive rights.

Reproduction is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

We finally agree. The others who have posted against this idea attempt to argue that because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights that man does not have this right, not understanding that this document is not a complete list of natural rights, but a list of rights government COULD NOT infringe upon. It is a limitation on government power.

Reproduction is a definate right and it is sickening when people talk about trying to violate this right. If government can violate this right, what would stop them from violating any right they desire?


Why don't you advocate for the forced denial of reproduction of people who run businesses into the ground, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and rob from the people (Enron, Worldcom). Their actions have greater impact on the economy and our pockets than people who "abuse" welfare.

Because for such crimes, they should be criminally and civily punished. We have sufficient laws to punish those who have commited such crimes, we only have to act upon them.


By the way, have you ever been on welfare? Do you think it's a lifestyle that's full of leisure and fun? Do you think that the structures these people live in are luxurious, the neighborhoods are exclusive and without much crime?

Yeah, it's a real dream life, being on welfare. (rolls eyes)

This is not a compelling argument, for it is very evident that man will accept his position in life more often than work to change it. When you are born and raised in such neighborhoods, you often times accept it as normal.

And I can attest to the fact that while they are not taking trips to Europe, they are not living without. Being from an area which had a high housing project concentration, I witnessed people who did not have to pay for nearly every modern necessity and convenience which you and I pay for, so what little money they made was pure profit. Buying $3000 rims and $150 tennis shoes while living in the project is far from being poor. If I did not have to pay my mortgage, pay for food, pay for heating and cooling, pay for medical insurance, I too could live well on much less than I currently make.

Kane Fan
04-22-2004, 11:15 AM
it's simple
if you can't take care of yourself, you can't take care of yourself +1
so yes, poor people should take a few moments to think and stop having babies
if I were a bum I'd sure as hell try not to get any girls pregnant

jestros
04-22-2004, 12:22 PM
Something no ones addressed yet is that alot of pregnancys are unplanned. Especially for people who have them young,(like I did).

People get pissed about sex education in schools, believe that abortion is murder, and now it's wrong to have a kid if you cant afford it? WTF!!!??

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Something no ones addressed yet is that alot of pregnancys are unplanned. Especially for people who have them young,(like I did).

People get pissed about sex education in schools, believe that abortion is murder, and now it's wrong to have a kid if you cant afford it? WTF!!!??


Actually it is not responsible to have children when you are not capable of raising them, that being said, it is not anyone else's right to prevent you from having children. Freedom entails the right to act, but demands that one be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Social "safety nets" promotes irresponsibility for it buffers individuals from the true responsibility they should bear. Example, if you provide man with unemployment for 'x' number of weeks, it will take him 'x' number of weeks to find a job, for he will take his time to find jobs which meet his demands. Take this safety net away and a job quickly appears, even one that does not meet his standards. Why? Because starvation and homelessness don't sound so good.

jestros
04-22-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
Actually it is not responsible to have children when you are not capable of raising them
And you quoted me why? I didn't say whether it was resposible or not. I believe it is NOT.
My point was that conservatives dont want kids educated about sex, and contraception. They dont want anyone to have abortions. AND they dont want people to get welfare who can't afford children.
Anybody read catch 22?

ComfortEagle
04-22-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by jestros
... AND they dont want people to get welfare who can't afford children.

No, we want people who can't afford to have kids to NOT HAVE THEM.

It's just selfish for a woman who can't afford to raise a child to have one just because "she wants one."

jestros
04-22-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
No, we want people who can't afford to have kids to NOT HAVE THEM.

It's just selfish for a woman who can't afford to raise a child to have one just because "she wants one."
Ok, just for fun though..... What about a 19 year old young lady who gets prego, and doesnt believe in abortion? Leave out wether or not there was contraception involved, just say she didnt mean to get pregnant.
Here's my question, should the state make her give the baby up for adoption since she is poor?

ComfortEagle
04-22-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Ok, just for fun though..... What about a 19 year old young lady who gets prego, and doesnt believe in abortion? Leave out wether or not there was contraception involved, just say she didnt mean to get pregnant.
Here's my question, should the state make her give the baby up for adoption since she is poor?

Are we also assuming that she can get no financial aid from any family either? What are her near-future prospects (how quickly can she get off welfare)?

In a worst-case scenario, presumably she would want what is best for her child, right? Most likely that means adoption. Like I said before, it's selfish to have a child if you can't afford to support it.

Snoopis
04-22-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by jestros
And you quoted me why? I didn't say whether it was resposible or not. I believe it is NOT.
My point was that conservatives dont want kids educated about sex, and contraception. They dont want anyone to have abortions. AND they dont want people to get welfare who can't afford children.
Anybody read catch 22?

It's just a matter of responsibility. If a kid doesn't want kids, don't be ****in. Or just put it in her ass. If they knew they wouldn't get welfare and couldn't get an abortion, maybe they'd think about that.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Eyes Open
Maybe because they went to ****y public schools and didn't get the grades to be encouraged to go on to college.

Therefore, you have a lot of poorly educated people, stuck in a reactionary relationship to life. If they had properly been educated, they would have better ability to problem solve and manage their affairs.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. I go to public school, I earn my grades, people who slack off shouldn't be given A's to boost their self esteem. It is their own fault if they don't work hard enough in school to earn grades. If I can other people can too.


But, since public education funding just isn't a priority in the US, then you really can't expect to have a majority of the citizens exit the educational system with the neccessary skills to make a decent life.

Public education spending has gone up.


Reproduction is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

And which ammendment would this be in the constitution?


Why don't you advocate for the forced denial of reproduction of people who run businesses into the ground, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and rob from the people (Enron, Worldcom). Their actions have greater impact on the economy and our pockets than people who "abuse" welfare.

They can support their families, not live off taxpayers money.


By the way, have you ever been on welfare? Do you think it's a lifestyle that's full of leisure and fun? Do you think that the structures these people live in are luxurious, the neighborhoods are exclusive and without much crime?

It's not about whether it's a luxurious life being on welfare, it's about using tax payer money to support them.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Something no ones addressed yet is that alot of pregnancys are unplanned. Especially for people who have them young,(like I did).

People get pissed about sex education in schools, believe that abortion is murder, and now it's wrong to have a kid if you cant afford it? WTF!!!??



If people are going to have sex they need to be aware of the consequences. If you do not have the means to support a child do not egage in sexual activity.

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye


And which ammendment would this be in the constitution?



I agree with all of your post, except for this. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that you have a right to life? This document is not a complete list of man's natural rights, it was a protection included to codify which rights Congress COULD NOT abridge. It was a constraint placed on government, not a proclamation of rights.

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Ok, just for fun though..... What about a 19 year old young lady who gets prego, and doesnt believe in abortion? Leave out wether or not there was contraception involved, just say she didnt mean to get pregnant.
Here's my question, should the state make her give the baby up for adoption since she is poor?

No one should be forced to do anything. She should be responsible and willfully do what is necessary, whether this is adoption or support her child by all means necessary. Numerous women work multiple jobs to care for their children, if necessary. To claim that a person cannot raise a child on there own is an insult to the women who have done this. Is it the perfect scenario? No, but each person is responsible for their actions.

I am not a believer in the argument that a significant number of girls are disowned by family and thrown to the streets. Family will assist each other and enjoys helping those who truly try to succeed. This is the role of family, something we have discarded since the creation of the welfare state: children are educated by the state, mom, dad and grandma are taken care of at nursing homes.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
I agree with all of your post, except for this. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that you have a right to life? This document is not a complete list of man's natural rights, it was a protection included to codify which rights Congress COULD NOT abridge. It was a constraint placed on government, not a proclamation of rights.

True, but on a side note, where in the constitution does it say that we have to support people who can't afford to take care of kids on their own.

Al_Bundy
04-22-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Ok, just for fun though..... What about a 19 year old young lady who gets prego, and doesnt believe in abortion? Leave out wether or not there was contraception involved, just say she didnt mean to get pregnant.
Here's my question, should the state make her give the baby up for adoption since she is poor?

In a word, yes. Change her beliefs and get it aborted, or put it up for adoption. If its unplanned and she cannot afford it, its gone. Plain and simple.

irpker
04-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
True, but on a side note, where in the constitution does it say that we have to support people who can't afford to take care of kids on their own.

Two phrases.

The "necessary and proper" clause under Article 1 which lists powers of congress.

Also, in the general pre-amble of the constitution, there is a line that says : "to promote the general welfare"

They're not explicit, but it can mean whatever legislators want it to mean.

irpker
04-22-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Ok, just for fun though..... What about a 19 year old young lady who gets prego, and doesnt believe in abortion? Leave out wether or not there was contraception involved, just say she didnt mean to get pregnant.
Here's my question, should the state make her give the baby up for adoption since she is poor?

How does she expect to PREVENt a pregnancy without contraception?

The Pull-out method?

She should be sent to the gas-chamber and do society a favor by no propagating her genes that lack any mental capacity.

Debaser
04-22-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Excuses, excuses, excuses. I go to public school, I earn my grades, people who slack off shouldn't be given A's to boost their self esteem. It is their own fault if they don't work hard enough in school to earn grades. If I can other people can too.

[b]

Public education spending has gone up.

[b]

And which ammendment would this be in the constitution?

[b]

They can support their families, not live off taxpayers money.

[b]

It's not about whether it's a luxurious life being on welfare, it's about using tax payer money to support them.

Medford in no way constitutes the streets of Harlem. There is hardly equality regarding our schools (funding wise, teachers, etc.) The atmosphere for learning in a nice Medford neighborhood is much more condusive to learning than say, Harlem, New Jersey, etc. etc. Not to make excuses, but you have to put things in persepctive a little.

Debaser
04-22-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
There, you get maternity leave. Again, if she is having a child because she wants it, and she has no ability to support herself during the first six months before she throws the kid in child care or at someone to look after while she works, tough. She should have chosen a partner to support her while she was recovering, or she should have planned her finances better.

-Her partner ditched her
-She has the ability to support herself (she has a cashflow coming in, just she needs welfare for an extra boost).
-She plans here finances very well. Doesn't have any extra ammenities.

Why is she a bad person for wanting to reproduce?

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Medford in no way constitutes the streets of Harlem. There is hardly equality regarding our schools (funding wise, teachers, etc.) The atmosphere for learning in a nice Medford neighborhood is much more condusive to learning than say, Harlem, New Jersey, etc. etc. Not to make excuses, but you have to put things in persepctive a little.

The point isn't the neighborhood the person is in, it's the will of the person. A person living in Harlem should not have an easier time getting A's than me because they live in Harlem, they should have to work just as hard as I do to achieve them. If that person wants to earn A's then they must be willing to do the work to get them.

Spastic
04-23-2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
-Her partner ditched her
-She has the ability to support herself (she has a cashflow coming in, just she needs welfare for an extra boost).
-She plans here finances very well. Doesn't have any extra ammenities.

Why is she a bad person for wanting to reproduce?

If she has the ability to support herself, she doesn't need welfare. That is the problem. If she plans her finances well, she needs no government support. You're not helping yourself here.

Debaser
04-23-2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
The point isn't the neighborhood the person is in, it's the will of the person. A person living in Harlem should not have an easier time getting A's than me because they live in Harlem, they should have to work just as hard as I do to achieve them. If that person wants to earn A's then they must be willing to do the work to get them.

You're living in an idealistic world here. Harlem is not the streets of Medford and Ashland. You would have to be delusional to think so.

If you truly think this, then why is there so much failure among many urban schools, especially in say, Harlem? Is it that they're all lazy? Are they born lazy, and in no way has the system shaped them in any way, shape or form?

Debaser
04-23-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Spastic
If she has the ability to support herself, she doesn't need welfare. That is the problem. If she plans her finances well, she needs no government support. You're not helping yourself here.

She needs a bit of welfare for an extrat 'boost'. If it were up to you, would you deny her the ability to have a child?

Spastic
04-23-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
She needs a bit of welfare for an extrat 'boost'. If it were up to you, would you deny her the ability to have a child?

So, she needs a 'boost' at the expense of the truly needy? Nice. Like I said, you are not helping yourself. If I were the man shagging her, I'd deny her the right. If I was a policy maker, she can have the baby - so long as someone who can afford it without needing a so called 'boost' adopts it.

Debaser
04-24-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Spastic
So, she needs a 'boost' at the expense of the truly needy? Nice. Like I said, you are not helping yourself. If I were the man shagging her, I'd deny her the right. If I was a policy maker, she can have the baby - so long as someone who can afford it without needing a so called 'boost' adopts it.

So you say it's okay for her not to have a child because she's poor. Nice.

Jimineye
04-24-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
You're living in an idealistic world here.

Heh, I thought this was ironic coming from a liberal.


Harlem is not the streets of Medford and Ashland. You would have to be delusional to think so.

If you truly think this, then why is there so much failure among many urban schools, especially in say, Harlem? Is it that they're all lazy? Are they born lazy, and in no way has the system shaped them in any way, shape or form?

It's the will of the person to get good grades. If the person doesn't want to acheive them, then they shouldn't get them. I don't care what neighborhood someone lives in, it's their motivation that gets them through school and achieves their goals in life.

Debaser
04-24-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Heh, I thought this was ironic coming from a liberal.

[b]

It's the will of the person to get good grades. If the person doesn't want to acheive them, then they shouldn't get them. I don't care what neighborhood someone lives in, it's their motivation that gets them through school and achieves their goals in life.

I am not liberal, I am a centrist.

Most people's motivation is shot when they see all of the drug dealers, hookers, crime, and a horrible school system that run throughout their neighborhood. It's easy to fall into the life of crime in such neighborhoods.

irpker
04-24-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So you say it's okay for her not to have a child because she's poor. Nice.


Nobody is denying her the right to have a child. Propagating the species is a human function.

We're saying she shouldn't have a child if she's poor, because she'll have no means to support it. It will only hurt her in the long-run because raising a child is a 24-hour job and it's even more difficult to get an education to improve her socio-economic status.

axiombiological
04-24-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Two phrases.

The "necessary and proper" clause under Article 1 which lists powers of congress.

Also, in the general pre-amble of the constitution, there is a line that says : "to promote the general welfare"

They're not explicit, but it can mean whatever legislators want it to mean.

If you believe that these phrases can be construed any way the legislature wishes, then you advocate a tyranny of whim, for words can then be construed anyway a few men wish them to be. The "general welfare" clause is NOT to be construed to mean "welfare" as we know it today, as there are numerous references from the Founding men of our country who addressed this issue and plainly denounced the idea that the "general welfare" clause could mean anything the mind could fathom.


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
- James Madison, 1792

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed"
- Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

If you mean that our legislature does not give a **** about their true powers and does as they wish, then yes you are correct.

ComfortEagle
04-24-2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Most people's motivation is shot when they see all of the drug dealers, hookers, crime, and a horrible school system that run throughout their neighborhood. It's easy to fall into the life of crime in such neighborhoods.

You're right, the temptation to take the easy way out is pretty strong, especially when you don't have a decent household to push you through. Though, what you listed could also be a motivation to get the hell out of there, ie, work hard in school.

Houston and Dallas have a low turnover from freshman to senior years too, and in Texas, if you are in the top 10% of your graduating class you are garanteed a spot at any public university, which include the University of Texas, and Texas A&M, both of which are very good schools. So it's not like the kids are without hope. How hard do you think it is to make it into the to 10% in Houston ISD? A lot easier than it is in the suburbs. So my point is this: if the majority of kids put forth the effort to make it into the top 10%, the whole district would improve as a result.

This is why I think it's interesting that a lot of liberals think throwing money at public schools is the answer. In the 98-99 school year, Houston ISD spent about $700 less per student than Katy ISD (suburb of Houston), and guess which one is better? Average salary for teachers were the same in both districts (Katy spent like $400 more/year) (source (http://www.texasbest.com/schools/schools.html)). Internet in every classroom? Brand new computers, every two years?? Bull****.

There have been plenty of people that have come from nothing, in poorly performing school districts and ended up being successful. But if the students don't have the will do succeed, then no matter how much money you spend per student, your district is still going to suck.

Sorry, kind of off topic I guess, but I just got on a role...

axiombiological
04-24-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
I am not liberal, I am a centrist.

Most people's motivation is shot when they see all of the drug dealers, hookers, crime, and a horrible school system that run throughout their neighborhood. It's easy to fall into the life of crime in such neighborhoods.

Is there any way you could look at such environments and realize that they have been perpetuated by government social programs? Ever notice how the worst areas in states tend to be those where government programs are most prevalent?

Spastic
04-24-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So you say it's okay for her not to have a child because she's poor. Nice.

You cannot read either, obviously. I never said she couldn't have a child because she was poor, I said it was fine if she had kids if she put them up for adoption. Why is this so hard for you to understand?? You keep arguing the same dumb point rephrased, I keep giving you the same freakin' answer. If she is poor and she cannot afford to bring the child up, it would not be fair on the child to live in a situation like that.
If she is, as you postulated, in need of an extra 'boost' only, she is clearly not poor anyways. You haven't done anything at all to support your view in this argument. Want to know why poverty is becoming more and more common? Because people who cannot live within their means are ****ting out more kids. Want to know why millions of Africans died of starvation last decade? Many of them were children, whose parents could not adequetely provide for them.
Give me one compelling reason why someone who cannot afford to have children should be allowed to rely on tax payers to raise the kid? And don't give me that extra 'boost' crap. Its untrue. I want to be compelled. Try me.

Debaser
04-25-2004, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by axiombiological
Is there any way you could look at such environments and realize that they have been perpetuated by government social programs? Ever notice how the worst areas in states tend to be those where government programs are most prevalent?

What do you suggest to eradicate the problems? They are most prevalent in those areas because that's who needs them the most. Am I missing something, or maybe I am misreading what you're trying to convey?

Debaser
04-25-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Spastic
You cannot read either, obviously. I never said she couldn't have a child because she was poor, I said it was fine if she had kids if she put them up for adoption. Why is this so hard for you to understand?? You keep arguing the same dumb point rephrased, I keep giving you the same freakin' answer. If she is poor and she cannot afford to bring the child up, it would not be fair on the child to live in a situation like that.
If she is, as you postulated, in need of an extra 'boost' only, she is clearly not poor anyways. You haven't done anything at all to support your view in this argument. Want to know why poverty is becoming more and more common? Because people who cannot live within their means are ****ting out more kids. Want to know why millions of Africans died of starvation last decade? Many of them were children, whose parents could not adequetely provide for them.
Give me one compelling reason why someone who cannot afford to have children should be allowed to rely on tax payers to raise the kid? And don't give me that extra 'boost' crap. Its untrue. I want to be compelled. Try me.

Her only chance in her life to have a child would mean that she would need to be on welfare. Her job only pays her a very minimum amount; only enough to sustain her. In order to have a child, she would need to be on welfare for a while. She has no other kids and is living well within her means.

I am not saying that they should rely on tax payer money, but I think our world has become a sick place when something so natural and beautiful as having a child can sometimes be determined by how much money you have. A silly, green piece of paper with a President's face on the front. This is merly the intent of this thread. I don't think poor people should abuse the welfare system, or pop out rediculous amounts of babies. However, it's not fair to deny someone this God-given gift of creating new life based soley on their cashflow.

irpker
04-25-2004, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by axiombiological
If you believe that these phrases can be construed any way the legislature wishes, then you advocate a tyranny of whim, for words can then be construed anyway a few men wish them to be. The "general welfare" clause is NOT to be construed to mean "welfare" as we know it today, as there are numerous references from the Founding men of our country who addressed this issue and plainly denounced the idea that the "general welfare" clause could mean anything the mind could fathom.



If you mean that our legislature does not give a **** about their true powers and does as they wish, then yes you are correct.

I was talking about reality, and how the necessary and proper clause has led to the modern welfare state. While I wish they were not used in a manner to transform the American republic into a socialist state, the status quo is far different from the ideal powers of a bi-cameral legislature coupled with a court and executive branch.

axiombiological
04-25-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
What do you suggest to eradicate the problems? They are most prevalent in those areas because that's who needs them the most. Am I missing something, or maybe I am misreading what you're trying to convey?

My suggestion would be the gradual eradication of such programs, something few people enjoy to hear. You cannot make people more responsible so long as they know that security is merely a government program away, just as no social program can change the nature of people; it cannot make them responsible by giving them something.

This concept is foreign to people who have been raised to believe that people CANNOT survive without government security, that pre-1945 our country was nothing more than anarchy, until we were saved by our benevolent government.

The idea that those areas are the ones that need them most does not address the idea that such programs are perpetuating this problem, so the issue becomes cyclical: the more government aids them, the more they will demand. Also, I reject the idea that any area NEEDS social programs, they merely want them.

Debaser
04-25-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
My suggestion would be the gradual eradication of such programs, something few people enjoy to hear. You cannot make people more responsible so long as they know that security is merely a government program away, just as no social program can change the nature of people; it cannot make them responsible by giving them something.

This concept is foreign to people who have been raised to believe that people CANNOT survive without government security, that pre-1945 our country was nothing more than anarchy, until we were saved by our benevolent government.

The idea that those areas are the ones that need them most does not address the idea that such programs are perpetuating this problem, so the issue becomes cyclical: the more government aids them, the more they will demand. Also, I reject the idea that any area NEEDS social programs, they merely want them.

It is arguable that social programs perpetuate the problem, I'll give you that and I agree with it to an extent. There definately needs to be some reforms regarding many of our programs.

With that said, there has to be a reason why such places are in such disarray in the first place. I'll give you a hint, it's definately not from the social programs themselves.

axiombiological
04-25-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
It is arguable that social programs perpetuate the problem, I'll give you that and I agree with it to an extent. There definately needs to be some reforms regarding many of our programs.

With that said, there has to be a reason why such places are in such disarray in the first place. I'll give you a hint, it's definately not from the social programs themselves.

The origin of their problems is not the social programs, it is ideological, it is the cultural doctrine that they are victims and the lack of self-worth that comes from such ideology. It is the cultural acceptance of immediate gratification, of no moral guidance, of entitlement to the efforts of others by virtue of their color, status, place of birth, gender, choices, whatever they can construe to rationalize their position in life. The disdain for education, lack of work ethic and complete moral vacuum is the origin of their problems. No society can survive, save parasitizing off of another, with such a mind-set. This is something no government program can fix, it is something that must start from within.

The social programs only allow for such ideology to perpetuate itself. Give man the choice to depend on his own merits or starve, he quickly becomes a very capable person.

Al_Bundy
04-25-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Her only chance in her life to have a child would mean that she would need to be on welfare. Her job only pays her a very minimum amount; only enough to sustain her. In order to have a child, she would need to be on welfare for a while. She has no other kids and is living well within her means.

I am not saying that they should rely on tax payer money, but I think our world has become a sick place when something so natural and beautiful as having a child can sometimes be determined by how much money you have. A silly, green piece of paper with a President's face on the front. This is merly the intent of this thread. I don't think poor people should abuse the welfare system, or pop out rediculous amounts of babies. However, it's not fair to deny someone this God-given gift of creating new life based soley on their cashflow.

And again, you change the question after it has been answered in order to try and prove me wrong. Pick what its gonna be and stick with it: is it a planned pregancy or not? Does she have the cash to do it or not? If she needs to be on welfare in order to have the child, she doesn't get the child. How many more different ways can I put this before you begin to accept this? You said before she was a great financial planner and she needed an extra 'boost' and now all of a sudden she needs welfare?

If she shouldn't rely on tax payers money, you have answered your own question, end of story. Let me say this for what seems to be the fiftieth time: If she doesn't have the cash to support the kid, the kid can be born - so long as it is put up for adoption. Otherwise, she doesn't have it.

Debaser
04-25-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
And again, you change the question after it has been answered in order to try and prove me wrong. Pick what its gonna be and stick with it: is it a planned pregancy or not? Does she have the cash to do it or not? If she needs to be on welfare in order to have the child, she doesn't get the child. How many more different ways can I put this before you begin to accept this? You said before she was a great financial planner and she needed an extra 'boost' and now all of a sudden she needs welfare?

If she shouldn't rely on tax payers money, you have answered your own question, end of story. Let me say this for what seems to be the fiftieth time: If she doesn't have the cash to support the kid, the kid can be born - so long as it is put up for adoption. Otherwise, she doesn't have it.

It's a hypothetical question. I can change and adapt it as much as I want. It was merely used as an example and I quickly used it and I don't even remember my original situation I used. Anyways, it's irrelevant.

You haven't given a good reason why she shouldn't be able to have and keep the child (other than it uses tax money). My reasoning is that it's not fair to deny someone a child based on their socio-economic status.

Al_Bundy
04-26-2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
You haven't given a good reason why she shouldn't be able to have and keep the child (other than it uses tax money). My reasoning is that it's not fair to deny someone a child based on their socio-economic status.

Say what?? I have given you the brief outline - if you want me to go in depth into the microeconomic effects I could, but seeing as you cannot understand the basic premise there is no way you'll understand the technical analysis. Simple explanation for the last ****ing time: If she cannot support the child without welfare, thereby drawing the money away from the people that actually need it, she either aborts or puts the kid up for adoption. Thats it. I'm through, I'm done, I have washed my hands of you. Leave it.

Debaser
04-26-2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Say what?? I have given you the brief outline - if you want me to go in depth into the microeconomic effects I could, but seeing as you cannot understand the basic premise there is no way you'll understand the technical analysis. Simple explanation for the last ****ing time: If she cannot support the child without welfare, thereby drawing the money away from the people that actually need it, she either aborts or puts the kid up for adoption. Thats it. I'm through, I'm done, I have washed my hands of you. Leave it.

Ah, resort to personal attacks. That's real mature, I must say. Furthermore, why do you have two usernames?

Snoopis
04-26-2004, 09:00 PM
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts.... Self-government means self-reliance." --Calvin Coolidge

axiombiological
04-26-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
If she shouldn't rely on tax payers money, you have answered your own question, end of story. Let me say this for what seems to be the fiftieth time: If she doesn't have the cash to support the kid, the kid can be born - so long as it is put up for adoption. Otherwise, she doesn't have it.

This is a horrible concept. I am fully in support of eliminating social programs in order to place responsibility back in its rightful place, squarely on the individual. Providing security nets for people does not alleviate social problems, but perpetuates them, since man now realizes that there is a cushion for problems in life, unintentional or due to irresponsibility.

Allowing government to decide who can and cannot have children is a heinous concept. One, it grants a power to government that it does not have authority to wield. Government can only deprive life from one who has demonstrated a complete disregard for human value, such as the cases of extreme murderers. It cannot judge the worth of another's life, when this person has commited no crime against humanity. Two, it has the problem of subjectivism, i.e. who decides the cut off level of where a child can be born and where one must be killed? Such arbitrary standards are ripe for abuse. Three, it corrupts the concept of government, taking it from protector of individual rights, to violator of individual rights. If man does not have the right to life, then there is no moral grounds for any right.

Debaser
04-26-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
This is a horrible concept. I am fully in support of eliminating social programs in order to place responsibility back in its rightful place, squarely on the individual. Providing security nets for people does not alleviate social problems, but perpetuates them, since man now realizes that there is a cushion for problems in life, unintentional or due to irresponsibility.

Allowing government to decide who can and cannot have children is a heinous concept. One, it grants a power to government that it does not have authority to wield. Government can only deprive life from one who has demonstrated a complete disregard for human value, such as the cases of extreme murderers. It cannot judge the worth of another's life, when this person has commited no crime against humanity. Two, it has the problem of subjectivism, i.e. who decides the cut off level of where a child can be born and where one must be killed? Such arbitrary standards are ripe for abuse. Three, it corrupts the concept of government, taking it from protector of individual rights, to violator of individual rights. If man does not have the right to life, then there is no moral grounds for any right.

I don't agree completely with what you're saying, but you did a nice job in explaining yourself. Unlike Al, who keeps saying "well if she relies on tax payer's money, then she can't have a child." Well, elaborate on this a bit more and sell your opinion, sheesh.

skinnyguy101
04-27-2004, 05:35 AM
Hey what's up everybody? Al you aren't proving your point. Just relying on taxes isn't a descent arguement. Poor people have all kinds of effects on our society. This is where some of these criminals come from. These people have to eat so they steal for their food. What is worse is that some of these poor people are alcoholics and what money they get they spend on liquor. So when they're drunk their kids are bawling for food or walking in disgusting clothing around a filthy area. So if they're gonna have a kid they should be smart and think if they can't take care of a kid then give up for adoption.