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.
Doesn't matter, taxpayers in every country should be able to decide not to support deadweights. I'm tired of paying for people having kids they can't afford.
This is the mindset and ultimate goal of control freak politicians.....we pay for deadbeats make them buy insurance....we pay for deadbeats cut off their balls.
This is the mindset and ultimate goal of control freak politicians.....we pay for deadbeats make them buy insurance....we pay for deadbeats cut off their balls.
To many sheeple allow it to happen.
I actually disagree with this. As ghastly as it sounds, natural selection keeps a population healthy. In humans we have taken away too many opportunities for natural selection to take place. Yes, we're "above" animals and all that, but we still should take situations like this seriously--nothing good comes from people like this woman and whoever is impregnating her burdening society.
Maybe I've just spent too much time in the rural South here lately, but I really think it's dangerous for us to trust some members of society with such a sacred responsibility as raising children. There's gotta be a balance between Nazi-like eugenics and just letting unfit people breed like dogs for the sake of so-called human rights.
Our government in America today works AGAINST the improvement of the species, to the point of practicing reverse-eugenics. It rewards bad behavior that maximizes the least productive and the most costly members of society, while heavily taxing any family where both adults work hard and achieve career success (to the point of discouraging work). We all know that if you work hard and are productive and don't have too many kids, you are taxed to the point where you STILL can't retire early and enjoy life. If you never work a job and start breeding children soon after puberty, government will send you a bigger check for every additional child you impose on society. We have hundreds of programs at each level of government to reward bad behavior, and punish productive behavior.
Imagine if you could make a new nation, and limit it to only those who are productive/willing to work, mentally healthy, intellectually adequate and law-abiding. It would be a virtual paradise, and the working class wouldn't have to lose half their income to pay for Big Government to deal with all the dependence and disruption. But of course we can't have that; how could Big Government justify itself and remain in power/wealth?
But how about if your government leaders did everything they could to ensure those qualities for their citizens over time, using advances in medicine, technology and incentives? After a period of time, those citizens who couldn't make the cut--like the career criminals who currently spend their lives cycling through jail/crime/jail/crime--would be sent somewhere else (like England used to send n'er-do-wells to Australia). In effect, living in your nation would be a reward shared by those who EARNED it, while those who burden others could go anywhere they like (to burden their new comrades, instead of us).
You'd get the same benefits as the "new" nation, without any downside of oppressive government. The citizens could then spend their time and resources on IMPROVING the human condition (instead of enslaving productive citizens for the benefit of non-productive ones). Imagine an education system that focused on developing people who later are given the resources to cure cancer and mental illness, or develop cheap and renewable energy, or prevent birth defects, or delay the body's aging mechanisms to the point where we live 100 years in excellent health?
We all would like to be smarter, healthier, more hardworking, mentally stable and happy--which is not saying that those who are not, are bad. But if you could ensure your children have these advantages, why not? Everyone in society would benefit. There would still be plenty of diversity, but frankly society doesn't need ANY serial killers, or schizophrenics, sociopaths, pathological narcissists, etc.
Could there be a better way to ensure that the future is not populated with criminal, dependent, sickly, intellectually stunted examples of what humans should ideally be--which is exactly what current Big Government policies are working toward?
scary if as reported by daily mail. they're treating her like a feral cat. i feel bad for the kids, but we can't start letting others decide who should breed and who should not.
Why not, in this case she already has 6 kids, in all fairness the father(s) should also be sterilized if they aren't around or don't contribute to supporting her and her brood.
BTW the taxpayers have no choice in supporting her or her family do they?
Her "reproductive" rights aren't an issue as she has already reproduced 6 times.
Doesn't matter, taxpayers in every country should be able to decide not to support deadweights. I'm tired of paying for people having kids they can't afford.
I agree, take care of your own or don't have them. Where are the father(s)?
Do they still make an implanted birth control medicine that works for weeks or months at a time? If they do then this could be a work around solution. I wonder what the legality would be if a woman needing welfare was required to have the medication implanted as a condition for receiving welfare? If they produce a male birth control medication that works without serious side effects and can be implanted then require that for the men requiring welfare. A forced surgical procedure in this case seems extreme.
Even her court appointed attorney, and her doctors think this is a good idea. She has already had 6 kids that have been removed from the home, and the doctors say that pregnancy could kill her. Sounds like she has serious mental, and physical, issues.
Do they still make an implanted birth control medicine that works for weeks or months at a time? If they do then this could be a work around solution. I wonder what the legality would be if a woman needing welfare was required to have the medication implanted as a condition for receiving welfare? If they produce a male birth control medication that works without serious side effects and can be implanted then require that for the men requiring welfare. A forced surgical procedure in this case seems extreme.
Why is it extreme. She has 6 kids already. If you have the resources: money, time, intelligence, patience and love to have 6 kids or 100 go for it. If your an average working stiff, 6 kids seems a bit much these days and if your mentally challenged and on welfare 6 kids is probably too many and I don't see how not having 7, 8 or 9 is infringing on your reproductive rights. Have a tubal is not a big deal, outpatient procedure. I had a tubal after my second child. I wish the government would have volunteered to pay for it.
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.
