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.
Require birth control?!, we dont even encourage it. Too many groups against sex ed in school, planned parenthood, the morning after pill and sterilization. Most insurance wont even pay for birth control and most doctors wont perform a tubal unless you are over a certain age and already have a bunch of kids. Groups claim the sterilization incentives repress women.
Quote:
And the problem I see with simply telling women that we won't pay for more than X number of children is that kids need food and shelter. What are we going to do, deny a baby food because we're upset with his mother? Or take the baby away? We already have too many children in foster care, and that costs money too.
I would hope that any female on welfare that knew she would not get additional assistance by having another child would not want to have another child and be happy to receive free birth control. Yes, take the baby away. What was the norm before the easy gov. assistance when a family couldnt afford to care for their children. In the long run the extra money for foster care programs instead of paycheck for reproduction just might decrease the incentive.
I would hope that any female on welfare that knew she would not get additional assistance by having another child would not want to have another child and be happy to receive free birth control. Yes, take the baby away. What was the norm before the easy gov. assistance when a family couldnt afford to care for their children. In the long run the extra money for foster care programs instead of paycheck for reproduction just might decrease the incentive.
I am interested in the cost difference between placing a child in foster care and giving welfare benefits to a parent. I don't know the numbers and am not sure where to look, but I did find this:
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT]"Nationally, the average annual cost of placing the children of a homeless family in foster care is $47,608, while the average annual cost for a permanent housing subsidy and supportive services for a family of equal size is about $9,000."
The paper is about homeless children, but I think the premise is the same. I don't know how much it costs to put one child through the foster care system through, say, age 16.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
People should be allowed to mate and have children as they choose. But these same people should have complete accountability in some way, shape, or form for all their offspring - no exceptions. Having children and abandoning them should be a crime subject to the harshest punishment. Having children and not providing for their basic needs without government assistance likewise ought to be handled the same.
If this was really the case today, and if it wasn't so easy for parents to neglect or ignore their children's welfare (whether or not due to ineptitude), people would make wiser decisions about sex and parenting.
Our world is far from ideal today, but concerning oneself with "evolution" of humanity is a ridiculous waste of time. Evolution is a theory with a ton of holes at best. Although eugenics may result in taller, stronger, and perhaps quicker thinking people in the long term, you lose genetic variability critical to survival and adaptability when you engage in it. What we consider genetic imperfections may in fact help with something we just don't know about or understand today.
Perfection like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I've talked about this a few times, but I was curious as to peoples opinions here.
If you take evolution to be true, then you believe in the science of "only the strong survive". However, are we really following this montra? We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and have children, thus passing their genes on to future generations, increasing the possibility of continuing the disease or disorder. This makes our species weaker over time doesn't it?
We are allowing people to live, through modern science, that would have never made it without the aid of modern medical assistance.
Now I can see both sides of this coin. I have family members who have childhood diabetes, so I understand her wanting to have a life and a child. However, for the good of the species, should she have a child.
Humans got to this point in our history by having bigger brains, and being physically fit and capable of adapting to our environment. However, by accepting the contamination of our gene pool by people who would never have made it to child bearing age, are we not handicapping ourselves in the future?
You can still go along survival of the fittest as societies keep living reproducing and dying. Why interfere with that? So what if someone that may have diabetes has a child? Let them, nature will either not allow that child to live long or a society that has progressed to help people live longer can help him/her live longer.
What is the point of this OP? Suggest we need now to control society to create a better breed? I do not know his or her race but what if we find that blue eye people tend to disseminate certain genetic deficiencies, should be not allow them to breed? How about if blacks tend to have certain genetic deficiencies also, exterminate them also? Well, I am hispanic, I have read how we do have a tendency to get certain diseases more easily than other, don't even bother exterminating my ethnic group my friend.
To me this type of question gives me the perception that OP writer believes he has not personal problem for him/her to be exterminated so why not find out of others do qualify so we can rid of them, not his group.
I fully agree, seems like some of the worst people have the most children. This goes back to my point as well, should the poorest parents be allowed to have children.
No one seemed to have a problem telling the Octomom she shouldn't have kids, because she clearly isn't mentally stable. However by law she could have all the kids she wants. Should she be allowed to do so?
Well freaking duh, of course not. And if I had a nickel for every mindless loser I've met/seen/known who should have been neutered at an early age, I'd be rich.
Wonderful idea to make having kids a privilege vs a right - but totally unworkable, unfortunately.
I've talked about this a few times, but I was curious as to peoples opinions here.
If you take evolution to be true, then you believe in the science of "only the strong survive". However, are we really following this montra? We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and have children, thus passing their genes on to future generations, increasing the possibility of continuing the disease or disorder. This makes our species weaker over time doesn't it?
Science does not tell us how to live. Your ignorance of evolution doesn't mean you can make claims like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
We are allowing people to live, through modern science, that would have never made it without the aid of modern medical assistance.
Now I can see both sides of this coin. I have family members who have childhood diabetes, so I understand her wanting to have a life and a child. However, for the good of the species, should she have a child.
Humans got to this point in our history by having bigger brains, and being physically fit and capable of adapting to our environment. However, by accepting the contamination of our gene pool by people who would never have made it to child bearing age, are we not handicapping ourselves in the future?
Genetic diversity is more important then someones perceived good qualities.
Nobody ever said "only the strong survive". The principle of natural selection and evolution that has brought us to where we are is that "those better equipped to survive and reproduce have a better chance of survival, and in any statistically valid sample, the survivors are more likely to be the individuals who are better equipped". That's how the system works if left alone. "Strong", in its widely understood meaning of "capable of lifting a heavy rock" has absolutely no relevance.
"Strong" can mean intelligent enough to comprehend and not mess with what natural order is trying to do, and leave it alone. If not left alone, the result can be unimaginable, and you don't want to be there.
Last week, in a neighboring community, a 21 y.o. woman, who had 3 other young children, gave birth to a baby in her mothers camp trailer......and then strangled it to death.
She stated her motive was that she couldn't afford another baby but people that knew her stated she wanted to leave town, thereby not wanting to be burdened by a baby. No one knew she was pregnant, no prenatal care, ect.
WHY WHY WHY could she not dropped the baby off at the ER for adoption?? She now faces the death penalty.
I can't get this incident off my mind. 21 y.o. with 3 kids? It seems like our society should have come farther than this with all the birth control options out there. Did any medical professional counsel her on the 2nd or 3rd child about having more kids? How could this have been prevented?
No everyone should not be having kids. But not because of perfect lineage, but ability to love and care for a child.
I agree. If the parent(s) have proven to be unfit, then their reproductive rights should be revoked. I don't like the idea of denying people the opportunity to reproduce right off the bat.
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.
