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.
The whole point is that you can't forcibly sterilize someone.
What's the problem with mandatory bc, without sterilization?
If you needed temporary help, or if you didn't have the wherewithal or lifeskills to figure it out, would you be willing to opt out for permanent sterilization?
If you were, you'd be very foolish.
You don't know what the future will bring for yourself, let alone someone else.
Sterilization can be reversed. BC such as you suggest, involves hormones, and risks. In addition, there is no force...nobody is forcing them to get assistance, and they could still get help...just not additional funds for more kids born on the dole.
What conservatives believe is that freedom and personal responsibility are two sides of the same coin.
Perhaps more should be done to change our welfare system that discourages marriage to men with limited incomes as these are often the only available partners for these women.
YOU: "I didn't know chielgirl was a Christian hater. Because someone doesn't believe in the Christian ways, that makes them haterz? Why not discuss the topic instead of attacking other members who disagree with certain points of view?"
CHIELGIRL: "But to deny support for those born, who have a hard enough time of it is disgusting. It's always so good to deny support to those who need it most. Do they do that in the country where you live? And tell me, are you Christian? Seems that they frequently go hand in hand."
It would seem the different opinion of Chielgirl is that Christians (C's as she refers to them), are fond of denying support to those who need it most.
Since it's been established many times on this very forum that Christians give a greater percentage of their income to charity and volunteer more that any other group, how can you possibly defend her comments without sharing her hate for Christians?
I call bullcrap on the bolded sentence. Conservative Christians are the most hypocritical people to walk the face of the earth. Besides that, if a Christian makes a donation, they expect something back in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
So now that you're an atheist, what keeps you from becoming a Darwinist and believing that only the strong should survive?
Back up.
You're calling someone an atheist. Get a clue.
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, better yourself, nobody is going to make a living for you, understand?
Last edited by NoJiveMan; 06-18-2013 at 03:18 AM..
Since it's been established many times on this very forum that Christians
give a greater percentage of their income to charity
Not quite. Conservatives tithe more to their houses of worship. Take Romney...all those millions he deducted for "charity" went to the Mormon church.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.
For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.
The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.
Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving. James Peron: Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?
Sterilization can be reversed. BC such as you suggest, involves hormones, and risks. In addition, there is no force...nobody is forcing them to get assistance, and they could still get help...just not additional funds for more kids born on the dole.
Sterilization for women is major surgery.
There is a limited chance of reversal depending on the method used.
There are also associated costs for surgery, etc.
I know, I had myself sterilized.
How about you start with getting yourself sterilized, against your will, since that's what you want to inflict on others.
How about corporate welfare that takes much more of our GDP?
No need to respond.
Last edited by chielgirl; 06-18-2013 at 03:13 AM..
And if they have more, you want to hurt the child?
Let me get this straight.
C's don't want birth control, abortion, to support anyone born...
I have no problem with women being forced to use the norplant or other subcutaneous birth control if on any benefits (welfare or unemployment) since they can't take care of themselves, how can they take care of others. Once they're able to take care of themselves, the bc can be removed.
But to deny support for those born, who have a hard enough time of it is disgusting.
It's always so good to deny support to those who need it most.
Do they do that in the country where you live?
And tell me, are you christian?
Seems that they frequently go hand in hand.
He said that the dependent children would be sent to an orphanage. My father in law grew up in an orphanage. I would offer that an orphanage would provide more discipline, better role models,and a better education than the welfare mothers are providing currently.
I am all for birth control and support abortion. Why? - fewer liberals and criminals
Sterilization for women is major surgery.
There is a limited chance of reversal depending on the method used.
There are also associated costs for surgery, etc.
I know, I had myself sterilized.
How about you start with getting yourself sterilized, against your will, since that's what you want to inflict on others.
How about corporate welfare that takes much more of our GDP?
No need to respond.
"Against his will"?
Ken is not asking the government to support him and his children. The welfare mothers, on the other hand, are asking for tremendous financial support. In effect, the welfare mother would be agreeing to the "terms" of financial support- elimination of further pro-creation.
Such terms could be purely voluntary, as one would have to decide whether they wanted to keep recieving funds and agree to a TAHBSO or give up the financial support.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-18-2013 at 01:52 PM..
Reason: rude/discuss the tipic, not other posters
People don't think. Anyone who is irresponsible enough to have multiple children out of wedlock and on the dole would gladly drop a few of them off at an orphanage and keep it moving. People better be careful about what they're asking for.
Not quite. Conservatives tithe more to their houses of worship. Take Romney...all those millions he deducted for "charity" went to the Mormon church.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.
For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.
The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.
Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving. James Peron: Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?
I have no idea what you are basing your ideas about pledging or tithing on? Most churches do not take the money we give and use it to spread hate. Have you even looked at a church budget or have you seen how much is given to charities, both local, national and international? Believe me, with what it costs to run a successful house of worship, what is given to good causes and money set aside for future use, there isn't a lot left for spreading hate. Of course there are exceptions, just like there are with everything, but without the support of churches most charities would be broke...
orphanage? does that mean you propose to kill the mothers as well?
That's one way to make sure they have no more babies they can't support. Sterilizing them would be a more civilized thing to do.
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.
