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.
100%. I think it's a much better investment to entice those on public assistance to get a lump sum of say...5 or 600 dollars to NOT have kids while on public assistance. I think for every kid one has on public assistance, the amount of time they can be on assistance should be cut by about....6-9 months.
If you want to have a huge clan, do it on your own dime.
The public assistance is there more for the child/children but, the mother of course gets to benefit from it too so, if you penalize her unfortunately it penalizes the child/children. There's also the question of how does she realistically not get pregnant unless she practices birth control and if so, who pays for that. Expecting her to just abstain or pay for it herself (even with the $500-600 she would get) is going to happen.
Most all the though the biggest problem with the idea is that it assumes the mother is a U.S. citizen which becoming less and less the case. Women come to the U.S. illegally now (either pregnant or they get pregnant) and when the baby is born here, the infant is automatically a U.S. citizen even though the mother isn't. That being the case, the mother is allowed to stay here with the child (for I think 5 years, that's what it used to be any way) and is elligible for assistance (housing, food, healthcare). The way it ends working now, it actually encourages to have more children so she can stay in the U.S. on assistance (and at some point even receive career training and day care if the child/children are still below school age).
I'm a Big Brother in the Valley Big Brothers/Big Sisters program here in Arizona. I've known of mothers that are here illegally enrolling their daughters (not sons) in the program so that they can get matched up with a bi-lingual Big Sister for a role model. Normally a Big Sister is there for a father and daughter when no female figure is present in the childs life. The opposite is true for Big Brothers (which is much more often the case).....they're there for a mother and son when no male figure is present for the child. I can understand the program allowing this because, it benefits the child with school and any peer pressure they may run into that the mother may not be able deal with all that well (even more so if she's not bi-lingual like the child is or will be). It makes sense on that issue but, same time it's one more program the mother will benefit from, every time the Big Sister picks her child up for the day (or even weekend) and brings her back, often with more than she left with (clothes, toys, etc.).
I am not making excuses -but i think in order for them to get over the addiction- jail time or sterilizing them is not the answer. The answer is wtih group therapy and counseling and finding out the REAL underlying issue. Drug addiciton seems to be self treatment for someones problems- not just the symptom.
People self medicate and don't even know why and what their real troubles are. I think drug counseling works much better than jail because it makes one aware of ones damage, which is one step closer to not repeating the same mistakes.
I believe you should not have children until you can afford them- i absolutely think offerring these babymakers money to not get pregnant is a viable option. I would like to cut off All aid to them if they keep choosing to have children they cannot afford, but the trouble is, can you punish these innocent children because of skank lousy mothers getting knocked up? Can you not feed them because mom can't keep her legs closed? The answer is no, that is not humane. But you can require her to follow certain rules to get money. Perhaps one is- not getting pregnent.
Right now in the USA mental health is largely neglected. There are many reasons for it-- primary reason being psychology and psychiatry are incredibly imprecise soft sciences. We could stand to have more research $$ dedicated toward solutions. Secondary reason is the patient themselves- the difference between physical disease vs behavioral disease, and all gray areas between. I understand what you're saying but when a crime is perpetrated by an addict or otherwise mentally ill that does not erase the crime or culpability. DWI is classic example. You need to defend the victims of these mentally ill folks as much as you'd see earnest rehab programs for the mentally ill.
There's no magic pill to cure addiction or stupidity for that matter. There's a horrible policy in place that allows mentally ill people to roam the streets (becoming the victims of sociopaths or engaging in sociopathic behavior) ever since they wholesale changed the rules on institutionalization. Essentially this meant the $$$$ burden of proof was put upon the medical community daily to justify detention in a psychiatric facility. The criteria is strict= are they a danger to others? How are you going to know until the kill someone? I think that's a tough row to hoe and not very practical.
My grandparents were psychiatric nurses during that change over in the 70's and I give more weight to their input on the subject than a lawyer from ACLU. Not because ACLU is inherently flawed, but because they got too myopic on this subject. IMO when you've demonstrated yourself to be unfit for civilization through repeated non compliance with the law, violence or self harm you've demonstrated an individual need to be removed from it because the responsibility that goes hand in hand with those rights is too great a burden.
This thoughtless change in policy translated to hoards of mentally ill people being turned out into a world they were ill equipped to deal with and eventually winding up in prison because they proved themselves a danger in confrontations in society. Ask cops how many people they deal with that are mentally ill-- the awful truth, they're better experts than therapists. You need to look birdseye view at what a GYnormous shell game this has become avoiding funding for social programs where the $$$ burden shifts to ER's, then back to a courthouse, and ultimately the prison system.
It's wrong, it's foolhardy, and it squanders $$$ every which way all the while serving no one (not the addict, not society, not the system). We all lose. Children should not be the biggest losers in the mess adults make over policy. There's no point in having a pretense of civilization at all if we cannot commit ourselves to a safe environment for children to exist. Pedophiles are another example. Your individual rights (and mine) aren't more important than theirs. Equal defense needs to happen here.
Focus again on my words in prior post-- ill parents (regardless of label) are inflicting themselves on their own progeny. Their progeny are innocent. Until they're proven well they lose custody rights for any given disease when neglect and abuse are determined in any other case. When addiction prior to conception will maim or harm a child it needs to be viewed in the same light as if this were a child services case about to happen. Until addiction is sussed it also makes them unqualified as liver recipients for good reason.
-----------------------
As for whomever up there (in a post I lost track of) assigning the burden of blame to women because they biologically function as incubators-- there are more than one set of legs needing closure. It's completely irrational to expect addicts (defined- complete lack of self discipline) to be able to exercise restraint. That's the nature of the disease- get it? Catch-22.
All pregnancies (addicts, unfit parents, unwanted in general)- moot point if men kept their zippers up, right? Let's see every man committed to abortion free world make a pledge to only have sexual relations with women who consent to bear their children. Shall we hold our breath???
Every time you use this logic you debunk your own point so enough about that already. Classic excuse to allow irresponsible men off the hook & scapegoat women. Wrong for women, wrong for men, wrong for children, wrong for society. You couldn't be more wrong save for blaming God for what people do to others and themselves in Gods name. Failure to see the full spectrum of blame assignment mimics the same myopic foolishness of your political opposite. Rude awakening; you're identical to your 'enemy'.
Right now in the USA mental health is largely neglected. There are many reasons for it-- primary reason being psychology and psychiatry are incredibly imprecise soft sciences. We could stand to have more research $$ dedicated toward solutions. Secondary reason is the patient themselves- the difference between physical disease vs behavioral disease, and all gray areas between. I understand what you're saying but when a crime is perpetrated by an addict or otherwise mentally ill that does not erase the crime or culpability. DWI is classic example. You need to defend the victims of these mentally ill folks as much as you'd see earnest rehab programs for the mentally ill.
There's no magic pill to cure addiction or stupidity for that matter. There's a horrible policy in place that allows mentally ill people to roam the streets (becoming the victims of sociopaths or engaging in sociopathic behavior) ever since they wholesale changed the rules on institutionalization. Essentially this meant the $$$$ burden of proof was put upon the medical community daily to justify detention in a psychiatric facility. The criteria is strict= are they a danger to others? How are you going to know until the kill someone? I think that's a tough row to hoe and not very practical.
My grandparents were psychiatric nurses during that change over in the 70's and I give more weight to their input on the subject than a lawyer from ACLU. Not because ACLU is inherently flawed, but because they got too myopic on this subject. IMO when you've demonstrated yourself to be unfit for civilization through repeated non compliance with the law, violence or self harm you've demonstrated an individual need to be removed from it because the responsibility that goes hand in hand with those rights is too great a burden.
This thoughtless change in policy translated to hoards of mentally ill people being turned out into a world they were ill equipped to deal with and eventually winding up in prison because they proved themselves a danger in confrontations in society. Ask cops how many people they deal with that are mentally ill-- the awful truth, they're better experts than therapists. You need to look birdseye view at what a GYnormous shell game this has become avoiding funding for social programs where the $$$ burden shifts to ER's, then back to a courthouse, and ultimately the prison system.
It's wrong, it's foolhardy, and it squanders $$$ every which way all the while serving no one (not the addict, not society, not the system). We all lose. Children should not be the biggest losers in the mess adults make over policy. There's no point in having a pretense of civilization at all if we cannot commit ourselves to a safe environment for children to exist. Pedophiles are another example. Your individual rights (and mine) aren't more important than theirs. Equal defense needs to happen here.
Focus again on my words in prior post-- ill parents (regardless of label) are inflicting themselves on their own progeny. Their progeny are innocent. Until they're proven well they lose custody rights for any given disease when neglect and abuse are determined in any other case. When addiction prior to conception will maim or harm a child it needs to be viewed in the same light as if this were a child services case about to happen. Until addiction is sussed it also makes them unqualified as liver recipients for good reason.
-----------------------
As for whomever up there (in a post I lost track of) assigning the burden of blame to women because they biologically function as incubators-- there are more than one set of legs needing closure. It's completely irrational to expect addicts (defined- complete lack of self discipline) to be able to exercise restraint. That's the nature of the disease- get it? Catch-22.
All pregnancies (addicts, unfit parents, unwanted in general)- moot point if men kept their zippers up, right? Let's see every man committed to abortion free world make a pledge to only have sexual relations with women who consent to bear their children. Shall we hold our breath???
Every time you use this logic you debunk your own point so enough about that already. Classic excuse to allow irresponsible men off the hook & scapegoat women. Wrong for women, wrong for men, wrong for children, wrong for society. You couldn't be more wrong save for blaming God for what people do to others and themselves in Gods name. Failure to see the full spectrum of blame assignment mimics the same myopic foolishness of your political opposite. Rude awakening; you're identical to your 'enemy'.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post...if i could rep you again, I would.
As to men in this debacle.....speaking for myself, I only spoke of women because as of now there is no temporary birth control for men besides condoms. And addicts are not going to slip on a condom, nor are they likely to be around when the baby comes, much less pay child support. If they had a depo provera type shot for men, I would be all for them getting in on this program, too. If we are talking vasectomies, truthfully I don't think many junkies are going to sign up for that.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post...if i could rep you again, I would.
As to men in this debacle.....speaking for myself, I only spoke of women because as of now there is no temporary birth control for men besides condoms. And addicts are not going to slip on a condom, nor are they likely to be around when the baby comes, much less pay child support. If they had a depo provera type shot for men, I would be all for them getting in on this program, too. If we are talking vasectomies, truthfully I don't think many junkies are going to sign up for that.
As far as I know vasectomies can be reversed much more economically than tubal ligation in women. Maybe the real test of it's viability is to ask that brother of yours if he'd go for avoiding child support, condoms, and be paid $300? See how it flies.
I think the worst junkies (best candidates) would go for it. They'd sell their own mom's down the road for a can of coke. Sad fact.
I'm more suspicious of chemical tampering of the body than mechanical means because the side effects are straightforward. Depo shots for men... even these shots for women can have unintended consequences down the road. Are we 100% certain it won't contribute birth defects 15yrs from now for instance? Whatever system used it should retain the potential to work their way back to responsible fertility if they commit themselves to clean and sober.
No part of me wants vengeance upon them or locked into a lifestyle by dehumanizing them even further than they've done to themselves-- it's about preventing victims caught in the cross fire of insanity. Social darwinism needs to be shown as a voluntary choice. 12 step programs are available everywhere to remind them about free will. Any critique I've offered- avoid the fate of the norplant program.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,088,557 times
Reputation: 36028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
Works for me. They should have paid me all those years I didn't have kids. Having children is a very selfish thing to do with the environment falling apart.
As far as I know vasectomies can be reversed much more economically than tubal ligation in women. Maybe the real test of it's viability is to ask that brother of yours if he'd go for avoiding child support, condoms, and be paid $300? See how it flies.
I think the worst junkies (best candidates) would go for it. They'd sell their own mom's down the road for a can of coke. Sad fact.
I'm more suspicious of chemical tampering of the body than mechanical means because the side effects are straightforward. Depo shots for men... even these shots for women can have unintended consequences down the road. Are we 100% certain it won't contribute birth defects 15yrs from now for instance? Whatever system used it should retain the potential to work their way back to responsible fertility if they commit themselves to clean and sober.
No part of me wants vengeance upon them or locked into a lifestyle by dehumanizing them even further than they've done to themselves-- it's about preventing victims caught in the cross fire of insanity. Social darwinism needs to be shown as a voluntary choice. 12 step programs are available everywhere to remind them about free will. Any critique I've offered- avoid the fate of the norplant program.
Oddly enough I don't think that he would agree to it. Somehow he has managed to overcome his fear of needles to inject god knows what into himself -- but I don't think he would get a vasectomy.
I can only imagine how many children he might have had if it weren't for abortion, luck and/or some form of female provided birth control. As it is, I often tell my mother that she should be grateful that my brother was not female -- otherwise my parents would be no doubt be raising four or five kids well into their elder years.
I'm OK with sterilization.....but many junkies do see children as a way for a place to stay, or a way to extort money from family members i.e. 'I need money for the baby'.
Actually, if one is thinking in terms of genetics and Darwinism, it's not a bad idea at all. Why should these genes be passed down?
Interesting because the few people i have seen who's parents were drug addicts, none became addicts, perhaps because they saw firsthand what is does to families and people?
I don't know, i am sure the genetics are there, but the aware-ness is as well.
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.
Shall we hold our breath???
