Then what is it?

And throwing money at a problem never fixes it.

-S-

 

All countries redistribute wealth in one way or another. It's simply a matter of degree.

 

that would also open up more jobs...


but what if you accidently get pregnant? my first son wasn't planned

 

Once you're alive, sure, but not everyone should have a right to have a kid. Why should we give a crack whore the right to have a kid? Or the convicted career criminal? Why should a girl who didn't pass 8th grade and no deals drugs when she's not working at the local Quik Trip be allowed to have a kid? Just because she was drunk and didn't make the guy she met at the party wear a condom?

I don't agree with that.

-S-

 

NO SON FOR YOU!! ONE YEAR!!!

Perhaps they'd give you a provisional license...and if you passed the test, all would be forgiven. If you didn't, maybe you should have to go to child-rearing school at night. Kind of like Bonehead English.

 

Like a dog?

Unless there is sound medical reason...forced sterilization is immoral.

It's every human beings right to reproduce.....and the most basic instinct we posses.....that being the wish to procreate, thus ensuring the survival of the race or species....depending on point of view.

 

In the system I outlined in the other thread, the procedure could be reversed at say, 21 under certain conditions. No criminal history, no drug history, or if drug history, must show proof of being clean for at least one year or one or two years without any other felony convictions, etc. The prospective parent just has to show that they are responsible. You could still accidentally get pregnant after 21, but not if you were busted on cocaine possession 6 months prior.

-S-

 

Immoral based on who's standard? And our species is in no danger of being wiped out.

-S-

 

no, i don't agree with crack whores or crimals being able to have kids, you know that. but the state should take those kids away.

but then again, that crack whore might wake up a few years after the sterilization, and decide to change her life. she gets married, has gone through college and now wants a child... so what then?

 

Funny thing is, you don't have to agree with that

You don't have any right to determine who can and can't have children and neither does anybody else

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm really glad you and everybody like you don't hold positions of power, cus I can guarantee you'd be worse than the Nazi Regime

 

Which is why I chose 'healthier' as the word to describe the kind of redistribition I had in mind.

 

Maybe we can prevent little Nazi's like you for procreating (not really live long and prosper). Get real the whole idea is totally out of the question and makes no sense at all..this thinking has no place in a free world.Your controling nature is showing and lacks control of itself.

 

Maybe it's better to approach this from an economic standpoint. Provide strong financial disincentives for having too many children...rather than incentives the way we do now.

Or perhaps we should offer financial incentives for NOT having children.

But none of this makes much sense in the U.S., where the birth rate is relatively low. If you could do it in the Third World, I'd be all for it.

 

So now the child is a burden on the state, forced in to a foster home system that is sorely underfunded and always overwhelmed.

And I said above that the procedure would be reversible. If Jane CrackWhore cleans up, has one year free of drugs, a stable home, one or two years with no convictions, and is financially able to have children and is with a guy who she wants to marry, whatever, then she goes in, gets the procedure reversed and she's able to start who new life.

-S-

 

On the basis that no human being has the right to repress the survival instinct of another.....unless on sound medical grounds....as stated.

Oh no? A quick trip by someone infected by Ebola from Zaire to, say, America....on a plane.....would be very effective.....but that's beside the point.

 

So people should be so free that they are free to destroy the lives of children?

I have yet to get any logical reasons why this should not be allowed, only emotional ones. "You can't do that...you just can't! It's just...not right!"

"Why?"

"Because...it's just...not!"

That's all I hear. People get horribly upset when children are abused or left in trash cans or toilet stalls or are found in dingy old houses where they've been locked up with 6 other brothers and sisters and no clean water, or beaten to death, but all your other solutions are only reactionary. Fix it after it's already happened. But it makes more sense to prevent the problem in the first place than to deal with it after it occurs.

-S-

 

Or just adapt as a whole race...you know, the Human one....and provide a more ideal environment for all children to be born into.

 

So explain to me why those least able to have and properly care for children should be allowed to procreate unhindered?

And you're right, it is beside the point. You referred to the right to procreate as a means of ensuring our survival. A super bug has nothing to do with that. There are 6 billion plus on this planet and if there is a massive plague, we are not going to be saved by the pimps and prostitutes pumping out as many kids as they can.

-S-

 

Which my 'plan' would allow for. Children are only born to parents who can take care of them, not who will go to the state and demand more assistance because they were to irresponsible to use birth control.

-S-

 

No emotions; the reason state was that in America we live in a free world.
Have you ever hear the thinking that it is better that 100 people go free that were guilty, then one person that was innocent be imprisoned. The thinking here runs in the same vein.We must NOT allow your judgements to infringe on the rights of others.That freedom extents to harm in some cases, such is the cost of the very freedon that allows you to think and speak in this manner here. I respect your opinion however I do not agree with it in light of what I understand to be our privileged rights.