Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is my humble proposal for the fastest way to end welfare while still improving the lives of all children in the US.
Since it's okay by society rules for me to sleep around, maybe the men should get forced to get vasectomy if they get over $7K behind in child support or have more than one they refuse to pay for. Innocent children should not be forced into poverty because their dads leave them. PERIOD.
The rules should apply to ALL men regardless of race, education, socio-economics, work history, whatever. They get only one "chance" to screw up one kid by being lazy or whatever motivates men to cheat their OWN kids. But the main point is that there are standards of responsibility and the first option will make all the abortion debates moot. Women with kids have a hard time working and even more so with special needs kids. Women make less money anyway so it's time to make the men pay. Women who can't get pregnant won't have abortions, so that moral issue goes away too.
If ANY men who sow their wild oats can't keep making kids, then it benefits EVERY taxpayer in the long run.
lol...Don't worry I am not going to check on the answers but I think this the ONE solution everyone avoids....Yes, I even think the rule should apply to women. In modern age, no one woman needs more than 2 kids or 2 pregnancies. FYI, I only had 2 and my tubes are tied. I was married but marriage is not permanent either.
You can not force someone to have a vasectomy.
If a woman wants to have children and she takes care of them and doesn't pawn them off on everyone else or give them up for adoption all the time then I say let her go for it. Some woman don't mind having children some do that is a choice and not for anyone else to say. Even if she gives them up for adoption or pawns them off on someone else, that is another choice, however I still feel for the children.
As far as a man having to pay child support they go by his income. If he ain't paying then who fault is that his true but you can't force someone to have a vasectomy. You could set up a program where they could get one voluntarily but you can't force them.
This is America you start taking people rights away the next thing you know you will be losing your rights. That is how it starts little by little.
As far as Abortion I think it should be illegal. The rights are still there she can leave the country.
And my point would be that one can REALLY like sex and still maintain a sense of humor. I posted a truth "Abstention=100% effective, safe, cheap (or free as needed), easily obtained birth control with no side effects" meeting your criteria, the fact that it is unlikely to be used is of no consequence. Therein lies the humor, at least in my mind as well as a number of others. And as jtur88 so ably pointed out it also works with crime, the poverty/welfare problem, and obesity.
These are factual solutions to real problems, sorry the associated humor escaped you.
These are factual solutions to real problems, sorry the associated humor escaped you.
Dano
It is highly commonplace on these boards for people to offer adminishments as if by doing so they have solved the problem. And humor is the furthest thing from their minds.
What you have offered may very well be "factual", but does nothing to solve any real problems.
It would seem to me, that the one that ran the highest risk of becoming pregnant, would be the most concerned. If they are not, why should the other person worry?
And my point would be that one can REALLY like sex and still maintain a sense of humor. I posted a truth "Abstention=100% effective, safe, cheap (or free as needed), easily obtained birth control with no side effects" meeting your criteria, the fact that it is unlikely to be used is of no consequence. Therein lies the humor, at least in my mind as well as a number of others. And as jtur88 so ably pointed out it also works with crime, the poverty/welfare problem, and obesity.
These are factual solutions to real problems, sorry the associated humor escaped you.
Dano
And did you and your wife abstain after you were done having kids (if you had any)?
And, btw, it doesn't meet my criteria because there are plenty of side effects to not having sex. Plenty. Sex is a normal, healthy expression of affection and love, and increases intimacy between partners. A woman should not have to deny herself that part of her life because she runs the risk of getting pregnant and there is no other 100% option. And for all the people on here talking about promiscuity (mostly men, I believe), there is no place for that in this discussion. This not about who is having how much sex with whom, and it's no one's business who is. Sex, I believe, falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness. There are people who believe a woman who has had more than 10 partners is promiscuous, and there are those who believe a woman who has had any more than the 1 man who is her husband is promiscuous.
Regardless, the point is not that abstention exists, but rather that there is no reason that science and pharmaceutical companies cannot create several forms of birth control that would meet my given criteria, and that simple act would solve a host of world problems. It comes down to $$$$.
And finally, I actually have a great sense of humor. But I don't think the idea of forcing someone to become sterilized or abstain from sex due to archaic morality rules set by prudish men is even remotely funny, because I thought I was still living in America. Sorry you can't see that.
And did you and your wife abstain after you were done having kids (if you had any)?
Kinda personal don't you think? No and yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3
And, btw, it doesn't meet my criteria because there are plenty of side effects to not having sex. Plenty. Sex is a normal, healthy expression of affection and love, and increases intimacy between partners. A woman should not have to deny herself that part of her life because she runs the risk of getting pregnant and there is no other 100% option.
I see. While I totally agree with your points, the 'side effects' you cite would never make the list (of side effects) for an FDA approved treatment. The fact remains that it is choice (as in pro-choice?) that precludes one from using this method of birthcontrol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3
Regardless, the point is not that abstention exists, but rather that there is no reason that science and pharmaceutical companies cannot create several forms of birth control that would meet my given criteria, and that simple act would solve a host of world problems.
I would be interested in seeing a cite to support this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3
It comes down to $$$$.
From a pure business prospective I would say you're absolutely wrong about the profit potential. We're discussing a product that would potentially be used by nearly half the propulation from age ~14 to ~60; The profit potential is huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3
And finally, I actually have a great sense of humor. But I don't think the idea of forcing someone to become sterilized or abstain from sex due to archaic morality rules set by prudish men is even remotely funny, because I thought I was still living in America. Sorry you can't see that.
Sorry I didn't see any sign of a sense of humor in your post. I did not nor would I suggest that anyone be forced to do anything of the sort! I do believe that it is about choice- FREE CHOICE. If you choose to have children you can't afford that is your free choice. I would not force anything on the mother. My free choice is to decline to pay for them unless I'm the father. I would be in favor of a publicly funded program that offered Voluntary sterilization for either gender.
The best way to end the unwanted pregnancies, is to allow fathers to opt out completely of the unwanted childs life.
A woman has options, the mourning after pill, abortion, and adoption.
A man has no options. If I'm involved in a unwanted/unplanned pregnancy (and yes, condoms break, vasectomys reverse themselves, and women lie about birth control), then I'm screwed. I have no say in the matter. If I want nothing to do with the child, then I am still forced to pay child support for a child I didn't want.
Women have all the power when it comes to pregnancy, and I think thats wrong.
Men have the option not to have sex without protection. I recently read an article regarding the use of condoms and you would be shocked at the number of men who would rather assume that the woman is using birth control and take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy rather than use a condom. I was completely mystified and dumbfounded by the results.
Condoms may break but it's pretty rare. If the girl says she takes birth control and you use a condom there is no problem. If she gets pregnant you can assume that it's not yours. And in case, abortion exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
