I'm not talking about requiring everyone to do it. Only as a condition of recieving a check. Oh, and like I said in my post I knew I would catch flack for it.
Let me ask you three questions:
1. If someone cannot support themselves can they support another?
2. Would birth control go a long way towards stopping a cycle such as this?
3. If there is a way to end the cycle, and it is not required of anyone, why not do it? (nobody is being forced to do anything. Folks have a CHOICE whether to apply for aid or not.)
I understand the "taboo" nature of such a solution. That doesn't reflect whether it solves the problem though...
Birth control is a medical decision, and as such should be a decision made between an individual and their doctor. The government has no business in that relationship.
You presume there is a cycle, can you quantify that? Can you show us the nature of this problem that you're trying to solve? The evidence I've reviewed suggests that a vast majority of people on public assistance use it for a relatively short period of time, kids or no kids.
There's a couple flies in the house, but instead of grabbing a flyswatter and waiting patiently, you're suggesting a flamethrower.
I believe this solution is worse than the "problem".
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Birth control is a medical decision, and as such should be a decision made between an individual and their doctor. The government has no business in that relationship.
You presume there is a cycle, can you quantify that? Can you show us the nature of this problem that you're trying to solve? The evidence I've reviewed suggests that a vast majority of people on public assistance use it for a relatively short period of time, kids or no kids.
There's a couple flies in the house, but instead of grabbing a flyswatter and waiting patiently, you're suggesting a flamethrower.
I believe this solution is worse than the "problem".
So by do you think it is a good idea for someone who cannot support themselves to have another dependant a good idea or not? Or do you think it "is not our business"? Does it not become our business when the child becomes dependant on our tax dollars?
If you are not aware of the cycle I am referring then I don't know what planet you have been on....
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
So by do you think it is a good idea for someone who cannot support themselves to have another dependant a good idea or not? Or do you think it "is not our business"? Does it not become our business when the child becomes dependant on our tax dollars?
If you are not aware of the cycle I am referring then I don't know what planet you have been on....
It doesn't matter what I think about their decision about whether or not to reproduce. I would offer birth control, perhaps even encourage it. But the general public has no business interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, period.
I am aware that every single individual I personally know who has ever received support for their basic subsistence is now supporting themselves and their children through their own efforts. Even if the "cycle" you're referring to is prevalent enough to justify some action being taken to mitigate it, there are numerous options that would work better and without the massive civil liberty violation.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
numerous options that would work better and without the massive civil liberty violation.
Do tell! More effective solutions are always a good idea.
I do believe that it would definitely be a civil liberties violation to require people to do this. Just as it would be a violation to require drug tests. People choose to apply for checks just as people choose to work where drug testing is required. I don't understand the disconnect here... So do you folks think there is NO choice involved or something??? I don't think there is anything wrong with applying conditions to a handout. I think it is a good idea.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Do tell! More effective solutions are always a good idea.
I do believe that it would definitely be a civil liberties violation to require people to do this. Just as it would be a violation to require drug tests. People choose to apply for checks just as people choose to work where drug testing is required. I don't understand the disconnect here... So do you folks think there is NO choice involved or something??? I don't think there is anything wrong with applying conditions to a handout. I think it is a good idea.
No, there's no civil liberties violation in prohibiting people from breaking the law in order to receive benefits. That's not what you're suggesting.
What you're suggesting has the exact same problem as compelling people to renounce Christ in order to receive benefits. It is a religious freedom violation to be compelled - by government mandate or human survival needs - to choose between the options you would offer.
You still haven't demonstrated your "cycle" claim. You presented that claim, I'm asking you to quantify and support that claim. Show me that this problem even exists, and it's not something that you're just pulling out of your ass. You want me to provide specific solutions, I will need to understand what you think is the problem.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
What you're suggesting has the exact same problem as compelling people to renounce Christ in order to receive benefits. It is a religious freedom violation to be compelled - by government mandate or human survival needs - to choose between the options you would offer.
Eh, religion has absolutely nothing to do with having to support anyone??? That just doesn't make any sense so I will disregard.
"human survival needs" is what we are talking about!! If you cannot SURVIVE on your own then why should you be creating others who cannot survive on their own????
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
You still haven't demonstrated your "cycle" claim. You presented that claim, I'm asking you to quantify and support that claim. Show me that this problem even exists, and it's not something that you're just pulling out of your ass. You want me to provide specific solutions, I will need to understand what you think is the problem.
Again, if you don't think there are many recipients who were born of recipients then I don't know where you have had your head buried.... You want evidence that the sky is blue too? I'll try to find that too.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Eh, religion has absolutely nothing to do with having to support anyone??? That just doesn't make any sense so I will disregard.
Did I ever say that? No. Go tell a catholic woman requesting public assistance that she has to be on birth control and then ask me if there's a religious issue.
Quote:
"human survival needs" is what we are talking about!! If you cannot SURVIVE on your own then why should you be creating others who cannot survive on their own????
You would have a point if people who went on public assistance stayed on public assistance for an extended period of time. You're suggesting that this is 18+ years, that as soon as kids are old enough to move out, they get on public assistance themselves, and stay on it for the rest of their lives. This is the problem you appear to be trying to solve. I don't see this problem actually happening at all, let alone often enough to justify taking action against all recipients. Show me that this is a big enough problem that this form of eugenics is required to solve it. Either put up, or shut up.
Quote:
Again, if you don't think there are many recipients who were born of recipients then I don't know where you have had your head buried.... You want evidence that the sky is blue too? I'll try to find that too.
Please do. I want to know the full nature of this "cycle". I've known quite a few people who have accepted public assistance for basic subsistence, and NONE of the people I've known to accept it have perpetuated such a "cycle" - EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM IS SUPPORTING THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. ALL OF THEM.
ALL OF THEM.
I think you're overstating the problem.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
