FREE TAPATALK APP

slingblade · 9th May 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

I'm sorry you have had such a terrible situation. I admire you for having the wisdom and courage to know what you needed to do and to do it. I hope you won't mind if I say that I hope to never have to face such a situation myself, I don't know if I'm strong enough.

Personally, I don't know if I will go through with it myself. I have to be on birth control pills all the time for other problems anyway. I'll have to really look at what the health benefits and problems are.

I can't believe I was that smart, myself. I was only 21.

Thank you. Best wishes for your own decision, whatever it may be.

ETA: the health problems I had from it were due to faulty cauterization of the left fallopian tube.

I had a tubal pregnancy that went undetected--I remember when it burst through the tube, and the severe pain, but it was mis-diagnosed as "indigestion." The fetus died, and became a fetal tumor, attached to my left ovary. I also suffered severe endometriosis on the left side, necessitating a near-full hysterectomy at 36 (which was when they discovered the fetal tumor and removed it).

Other than all that

, I suffered no ill effects, and would not have, had the procedure been properly performed.

WildCat · 9th May 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

I found this news report. Is the same person you're talking about?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The part at 2:18 is just jaw-dropping...

Modified · 9th May 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The part at 2:18 is just jaw-dropping...

And with that, any possible sympathy anyone might have had for her is gone.

Estellea · 9th May 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Low cost is not the same thing as accessibility, and condoms are not something a woman has full control over.

Emphasis mine. I have to disagree; a woman absolutely has full control over condom use. So while accessibility to low cost female contraception is a barrier in many places, condom purchase is not.

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

You can't design a system around the rare exceptions.

Agreed.

Este

shemp · 9th May 2012, 07:06 PM

I think she and Octomom should have a joint reality show.

Puppycow · 9th May 2012, 11:39 PM

Well, we have been down this road before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Quote:

On 2 May 1927, in an 8-1 decision, the Court accepted that she, her mother and her daughter were "feeble-minded" and "promiscuous,"[4] and that it was in the state's interest to have her sterilized. The ruling legitimized Virginia's sterilization procedures until they were repealed in 1974.

The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In support of his argument that the interest of the states in a "pure" gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".[5] The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic[6], declined to write a dissenting opinion.

RandFan · 10th May 2012, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by xjx388

You can't force people to use birth control or force sterilize them. You can't force people to be smart and responsible. The problem is that people like this aren't forced to pay the price for their irresponsibility. Instead, they are given money, food and shelter which encourages further irresponsibility.

We have to break the cycle at some point. If that means that some people have to have their kids taken away from them and go homeless, then so be it. Until there are real consequences for irresponsibility, things like this will continue to occur.

Things like this will always occur. You can not eliminate social dysfunction. There are no utopias.

Societies that provide social safety nets are negatively correlated with dysfunctional societies.
Societies that do not provide social safety nets are negatively correlated with flourishing and healthy societies.

Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

RandFan · 10th May 2012, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by charles brough

Its a Florida case. A young woman lives alone with her fifteen kids all supported by the taxpayer, and she is pregnant again. Some of the older ones are a neighborhood nusance and cause trouble. The police come and she and her kids scream at them and won't talk with them about the problem. She threatens to sue for being "mishandled."

Without quibbling over the details, is such a situation acceptable? All the kids are being turned against the system that is supporting them. The girls would tend to grow up and live just like their mother. The boys would grow up impregnateing other females and too often tend to build a criminal record. Over time, this pattern has been expanding like a cancer to society.

What in our secular and Christian ideological system keeps us from ending this?
I propose that our secular system has grown over-humanistic. I think a real-world solution would be to sterilize such a women after the second child.

An anecdote to engender resentment of social programs and the poor. As good skeptics with critical thinking skills we of course get angry and demand solutions without even finding out how prevalent the problem even is. I'm curious, do the facts even matter?

Skeptical Greg · 10th May 2012, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

I think she and Octomom should have a joint reality show.

One stays home with all the kids while the other pursues a movie career ?

(NSFW)

'Octomom' Porn Video: 'I'm Excited For It To Come Out'

WildCat · 10th May 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

One stays home with all the kids while the other pursues a movie career ?

(NSFW)

'Octomom' Porn Video: 'I'm Excited For It To Come Out'

W____________T____________F?

slingblade · 10th May 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

W____________T____________F?

Well, people have always demanded she support her kids on her own. I'm not about to quibble with the way she chooses to do it. Because I'm not prepared to take on raising her kids, out of disapproval for her actions.

(I don't approve or disapprove; it's none of my business, frankly.)

EHocking · 10th May 2012, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

My ex-wife had herself sterilized when she gave birth to our second child.

A bit of a slap in the face for her next husband!

Mark6 · 10th May 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

A bit of a slap in the face for her next husband!

Her next husband (to whom she is still married) never wanted any children, so it worked out just fine.

EHocking · 10th May 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Her next husband (to whom she is still married) never wanted any children, so it worked out just fine.

You just can't take a compliment, can you?

charles brough · 10th May 2012, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Tony

Forced sterilization isnt necessary. You can institute compusory birth control, adoption and abortion as conditions to maintain benefits.

That would help, but women like that are not in control of their lives and would often continue to have babies. They would then begin to die of neglect or be taken away to be adopted. I suggest that we would soon have too many adoptable babies.

charles brough · 10th May 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Where do you draw the line? Not the two kids in the OP, but is it 5? 8? And how can it be judged that these kids will be a future burden?

My wife and I have 7 kids, and would have had 10 if not for miscarriages. We drew Family Allowance when they were young. All are now paying tax. A pretty good return on government investment.

I'm not defending the behavior of the woman in question, but you don't make social policy decisions because of the actions of an insignificant proportion of the population.

One of the differences in this amazing list of posts all in a few hours is that some come from those who believe economic/social growth comes from more human numbers and those of us, including myself, who see over-population as
now being mankind's most severe threat. (look up research of Dr. Graham Turner) , , ,

Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all.

sophia8 · 10th May 2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by charles brough

But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all.

And what is the extent of this "welfare mother problem" exactly? How much money is it costing the country overall, bearing in mind that "welfare mothers" spend all their cash in the local economy, helping to pay taxes and wages in their community, and that at least some of their children will grow up to become tax-paying workers?
Is it better or worse than, say, the "tax-avoiding banker" problem?

lionking · 10th May 2012, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by charles brough

One of the differences in this amazing list of posts all in a few hours is that some come from those who believe economic/social growth comes from more human numbers and those of us, including myself, who see over-population as
now being mankind's most severe threat. (look up research of Dr. Graham Turner) , , ,

Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all.

Oh I see. You have no idea of demographics then. That clears things up.

Macgyver1968 · 10th May 2012, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

W____________T____________F?

"Production on the film was temporary halted when a stage hand accidentally tripped and fell into Suleman's vagina. After several hours, firefighters were able to extract the young lad with ropes and ladders, and filming was able to continue."

J/k

RandFan · 10th May 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by charles brough

Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all.

The "welfare-mother-problem" has nothing to do with our depleting our resources. You are simply singling out a segment of society to blame. There is no nexus between welfare mothers that is greater than rich mothers and resources. Both consume them. Your argument strikes me as a fallacious appeal to consequences.

bookitty · 10th May 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The "welfare-mother-problem" has nothing to do with our depleting our resources. You are simply singling out a segment of society to blame. There is no nexus between welfare mothers that is greater than rich mothers and resources. Both consume them. Your argument strikes me as a fallacious appeal to consequences.

Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods.

If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most.

sgtbaker · 10th May 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods.

If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most.

Funny when you think about it, at one point, the tax payers were footing the bill for both.

RandFan · 10th May 2012, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods.

If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most.

Exactly.

shuize · 10th May 2012, 04:11 PM

While I personally think she is a leech on the system, Japan could probably use a few more people like her.

My nightmare scenario is having someone like her move in next to me.

charles brough · 11th May 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

While I personally think she is a leech on the system, Japan could probably use a few more people like her. My nightmare scenario is having someone like her move in next to me.

I agree.

Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. LionKing indicates it is supported by demographics. Rangan thinks welfare mothers don't have more kids than rich people. And Bookitty believes all kids should spend as much resources at rich kids do.

Shuize, do you think I should take all that seriously and try to deal with it or shall we just go on to another thread?

WildCat · 11th May 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

"Production on the film was temporary halted when a stage hand accidentally tripped and fell into Suleman's vagina. After several hours, firefighters were able to extract the young lad with ropes and ladders, and filming was able to continue."

J/k

MNBrant · 11th May 2012, 12:33 PM

its not all that uncommon. I don't see how having 15 kids on the public dole is news.

sophia8 · 11th May 2012, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

its not all that uncommon. I don't see how having 15 kids on the public dole is news.

Facts and figures, please. Not just your opinion.

sophia8 · 11th May 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by charles brough

Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all.

How did you get that out of my post? I believe I was asking for solid evidence of that claim.

(Oh, I see - you thought I was joking? )

AlaskaBushPilot · 11th May 2012, 03:21 PM

Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power.

There are more than three times the number of adoption seekers than there are adoptions. It would be more than that if people weren't so discouraged.

GodMark2 · 11th May 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power.

Originally Posted by US Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(emphasis not in original)

RandFan · 11th May 2012, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power.

Traffic laws were not enumerated either.

Skeptical Greg · 11th May 2012, 05:48 PM

Most traffic laws ( if any ? ) are not Federal, either..

Originally Posted by GodMark2

(emphasis not in original)

I don't ' welfare ' in that context, is the same as the post you are responding to ..

RandFan · 11th May 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Most traffic laws ( if any ? ) are not Federal, either..

The federal govt provides funds and requires states to enact certain traffic laws and guidelines for those funds. Likewise much federal assistance is administered by states and counties with the federal govt setting guidelines for the usage of the money.

NewtonTrino · 11th May 2012, 08:22 PM

Isn't this just racism in disguise?

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Traffic laws were not enumerated either.

Originally Posted by RandFan

The federal govt provides funds and requires states to enact certain traffic laws and guidelines for those funds. Likewise much federal assistance is administered by states and counties with the federal govt setting guidelines for the usage of the money.

Right, but the federal traffic requirements still have to fall under one of the enumerated powers, like the "general welfare" of the country. And the federal government can apply "pressure," but not "compulsion" to the states, whatever that means.

See South Dakota v. Dole

Battman · 11th May 2012, 09:29 PM

Just trying to get this thread back on track, can somebody PLEASE find this woman a new form of entertainment?!?!

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Battman

Just trying to get this thread back on track, can somebody PLEASE find this woman a new form of entertainment?!?!

Yeah, it's called porn...

lionking · 11th May 2012, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by charles brough

I agree.

Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. LionKing indicates it is supported by demographics. Rangan thinks welfare mothers don't have more kids than rich people. And Bookitty believes all kids should spend as much resources at rich kids do.

Shuize, do you think I should take all that seriously and try to deal with it or shall we just go on to another thread?

And you think the OP should be taken seriously? Restricting women "like her" to two children?

Oh, and four strawmen in one paragraph. Good show.

RandFan · 12th May 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by charles brough

I agree.

Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. LionKing indicates it is supported by demographics. Rangan thinks welfare mothers don't have more kids than rich people. And Bookitty believes all kids should spend as much resources at rich kids do.

Shuize, do you think I should take all that seriously and try to deal with it or shall we just go on to another thread?

Given that you are simply engaging in straw man arguments perhaps it would be best if you did leave.

9th May 2012, 03:59 PM	#41
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Weak Kitten I'm sorry you have had such a terrible situation. I admire you for having the wisdom and courage to know what you needed to do and to do it. I hope you won't mind if I say that I hope to never have to face such a situation myself, I don't know if I'm strong enough. Personally, I don't know if I will go through with it myself. I have to be on birth control pills all the time for other problems anyway. I'll have to really look at what the health benefits and problems are. I can't believe I was that smart, myself. I was only 21. Thank you. Best wishes for your own decision, whatever it may be. ETA: the health problems I had from it were due to faulty cauterization of the left fallopian tube. I had a tubal pregnancy that went undetected--I remember when it burst through the tube, and the severe pain, but it was mis-diagnosed as "indigestion." The fetus died, and became a fetal tumor, attached to my left ovary. I also suffered severe endometriosis on the left side, necessitating a near-full hysterectomy at 36 (which was when they discovered the fetal tumor and removed it). Other than all that , I suffered no ill effects, and would not have, had the procedure been properly performed.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Last edited by slingblade; 9th May 2012 at 04:08 PM.

9th May 2012, 07:06 PM	#45
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,989	I think she and Octomom should have a joint reality show.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

9th May 2012, 11:39 PM	#46
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,040	Well, we have been down this road before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell Quote: On 2 May 1927, in an 8-1 decision, the Court accepted that she, her mother and her daughter were "feeble-minded" and "promiscuous,"[4] and that it was in the state's interest to have her sterilized. The ruling legitimized Virginia's sterilization procedures until they were repealed in 1974. The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In support of his argument that the interest of the states in a "pure" gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".[5] The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic[6], declined to write a dissenting opinion.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

10th May 2012, 12:02 AM	#47
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by xjx388 You can't force people to use birth control or force sterilize them. You can't force people to be smart and responsible. The problem is that people like this aren't forced to pay the price for their irresponsibility. Instead, they are given money, food and shelter which encourages further irresponsibility. We have to break the cycle at some point. If that means that some people have to have their kids taken away from them and go homeless, then so be it. Until there are real consequences for irresponsibility, things like this will continue to occur. Things like this will always occur. You can not eliminate social dysfunction. There are no utopias. Societies that provide social safety nets are negatively correlated with dysfunctional societies. Societies that do not provide social safety nets are negatively correlated with flourishing and healthy societies. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

10th May 2012, 12:05 AM	#48
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by charles brough Its a Florida case. A young woman lives alone with her fifteen kids all supported by the taxpayer, and she is pregnant again. Some of the older ones are a neighborhood nusance and cause trouble. The police come and she and her kids scream at them and won't talk with them about the problem. She threatens to sue for being "mishandled." Without quibbling over the details, is such a situation acceptable? All the kids are being turned against the system that is supporting them. The girls would tend to grow up and live just like their mother. The boys would grow up impregnateing other females and too often tend to build a criminal record. Over time, this pattern has been expanding like a cancer to society. What in our secular and Christian ideological system keeps us from ending this? I propose that our secular system has grown over-humanistic. I think a real-world solution would be to sterilize such a women after the second child. An anecdote to engender resentment of social programs and the poor. As good skeptics with critical thinking skills we of course get angry and demand solutions without even finding out how prevalent the problem even is. I'm curious, do the facts even matter?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

9th May 2012, 04:38 PM	#43
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by WildCat The part at 2:18 is just jaw-dropping... And with that, any possible sympathy anyone might have had for her is gone.

9th May 2012, 07:02 PM	#44
Estellea Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,132	Originally Posted by Earthborn Low cost is not the same thing as accessibility, and condoms are not something a woman has full control over. Emphasis mine. I have to disagree; a woman absolutely has full control over condom use. So while accessibility to low cost female contraception is a barrier in many places, condom purchase is not. Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle You can't design a system around the rare exceptions. Agreed. Este

10th May 2012, 04:26 AM	#49
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,894	Originally Posted by shemp I think she and Octomom should have a joint reality show. One stays home with all the kids while the other pursues a movie career ? (NSFW) 'Octomom' Porn Video: 'I'm Excited For It To Come Out'
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

10th May 2012, 05:43 AM	#50
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg One stays home with all the kids while the other pursues a movie career ? (NSFW) 'Octomom' Porn Video: 'I'm Excited For It To Come Out' W____________T____________F?

10th May 2012, 05:51 AM	#51
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by WildCat W____________T____________F? Well, people have always demanded she support her kids on her own. I'm not about to quibble with the way she chooses to do it. Because I'm not prepared to take on raising her kids, out of disapproval for her actions. (I don't approve or disapprove; it's none of my business, frankly.)
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

10th May 2012, 06:01 AM	#52
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,419	Originally Posted by Mark6 My ex-wife had herself sterilized when she gave birth to our second child. A bit of a slap in the face for her next husband!
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,419	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

10th May 2012, 06:05 AM	#53
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,254	Originally Posted by EHocking A bit of a slap in the face for her next husband! Her next husband (to whom she is still married) never wanted any children, so it worked out just fine.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,254	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

10th May 2012, 06:31 AM	#54
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,419	Originally Posted by Mark6 Her next husband (to whom she is still married) never wanted any children, so it worked out just fine. You just can't take a compliment, can you?
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,419	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

10th May 2012, 06:34 AM	#55
charles brough Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: CALIFORNIA USA Posts: 555	Originally Posted by Tony Forced sterilization isnt necessary. You can institute compusory birth control, adoption and abortion as conditions to maintain benefits. That would help, but women like that are not in control of their lives and would often continue to have babies. They would then begin to die of neglect or be taken away to be adopted. I suggest that we would soon have too many adoptable babies.
	__________________ Brough, http://civilization-overview.com

10th May 2012, 07:08 AM	#56
charles brough Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: CALIFORNIA USA Posts: 555	Originally Posted by lionking Where do you draw the line? Not the two kids in the OP, but is it 5? 8? And how can it be judged that these kids will be a future burden? My wife and I have 7 kids, and would have had 10 if not for miscarriages. We drew Family Allowance when they were young. All are now paying tax. A pretty good return on government investment. I'm not defending the behavior of the woman in question, but you don't make social policy decisions because of the actions of an insignificant proportion of the population. One of the differences in this amazing list of posts all in a few hours is that some come from those who believe economic/social growth comes from more human numbers and those of us, including myself, who see over-population as now being mankind's most severe threat. (look up research of Dr. Graham Turner) , , , Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all.
	__________________ Brough, http://civilization-overview.com

10th May 2012, 07:55 AM	#57
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,289	Originally Posted by charles brough But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all. And what is the extent of this "welfare mother problem" exactly? How much money is it costing the country overall, bearing in mind that "welfare mothers" spend all their cash in the local economy, helping to pay taxes and wages in their community, and that at least some of their children will grow up to become tax-paying workers? Is it better or worse than, say, the "tax-avoiding banker" problem?
	__________________ "Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney

10th May 2012, 12:22 PM	#58
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by charles brough One of the differences in this amazing list of posts all in a few hours is that some come from those who believe economic/social growth comes from more human numbers and those of us, including myself, who see over-population as now being mankind's most severe threat. (look up research of Dr. Graham Turner) , , , Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all. Oh I see. You have no idea of demographics then. That clears things up.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

10th May 2012, 12:32 PM	#59
Macgyver1968 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,681	Originally Posted by WildCat W____________T____________F? "Production on the film was temporary halted when a stage hand accidentally tripped and fell into Suleman's vagina. After several hours, firefighters were able to extract the young lad with ropes and ladders, and filming was able to continue." J/k
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

10th May 2012, 12:37 PM	#60
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by charles brough Some here have criticized my relatively harsh, sterilizing proposal perhaps from the pro-population side or definitely the libertarian or anarchist thinking framework. But those of us concerned about our numbers rising as our ability to keep depleating our natural resources declines sense a need to stop the welfare-mother-problem most urgently of all. The "welfare-mother-problem" has nothing to do with our depleting our resources. You are simply singling out a segment of society to blame. There is no nexus between welfare mothers that is greater than rich mothers and resources. Both consume them. Your argument strikes me as a fallacious appeal to consequences.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 10th May 2012 at 12:39 PM.

10th May 2012, 01:24 PM	#61
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by RandFan The "welfare-mother-problem" has nothing to do with our depleting our resources. You are simply singling out a segment of society to blame. There is no nexus between welfare mothers that is greater than rich mothers and resources. Both consume them. Your argument strikes me as a fallacious appeal to consequences. Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods. If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

10th May 2012, 01:41 PM	#62
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,586	Originally Posted by bookitty Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods. If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most. Funny when you think about it, at one point, the tax payers were footing the bill for both.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,586

10th May 2012, 03:24 PM	#63
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by bookitty Exactly. Who really uses more resources? A low-income mother with 5 children in a two bedroom apartment who buys only groceries and school clothes, turns off unused lights to save money, never wastes food, and is reliant on public transportation. Or Mitt Romney's family (with 5 kids) who has a sprawling estate with several cars for every driver, no need to conserve energy or food and buys excessive consumer goods. If you're worried about resources, look at who is using the most. Exactly.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

10th May 2012, 04:11 PM	#64
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,322	While I personally think she is a leech on the system, Japan could probably use a few more people like her. My nightmare scenario is having someone like her move in next to me.
	Last edited by shuize; 10th May 2012 at 04:19 PM.

11th May 2012, 12:10 PM	#65
charles brough Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: CALIFORNIA USA Posts: 555	Originally Posted by shuize While I personally think she is a leech on the system, Japan could probably use a few more people like her. My nightmare scenario is having someone like her move in next to me. I agree. Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. LionKing indicates it is supported by demographics. Rangan thinks welfare mothers don't have more kids than rich people. And Bookitty believes all kids should spend as much resources at rich kids do. Shuize, do you think I should take all that seriously and try to deal with it or shall we just go on to another thread?
	__________________ Brough, http://civilization-overview.com

11th May 2012, 12:18 PM	#66
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 "Production on the film was temporary halted when a stage hand accidentally tripped and fell into Suleman's vagina. After several hours, firefighters were able to extract the young lad with ropes and ladders, and filming was able to continue." J/k

11th May 2012, 12:33 PM	#67
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,233	its not all that uncommon. I don't see how having 15 kids on the public dole is news.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,233

11th May 2012, 01:12 PM	#68
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,289	Originally Posted by MNBrant its not all that uncommon. I don't see how having 15 kids on the public dole is news. Facts and figures, please. Not just your opinion.
	__________________ "Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney

11th May 2012, 01:17 PM	#69
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,289	Originally Posted by charles brough Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. How did you get that out of my post? I believe I was asking for solid evidence of that claim. (Oh, I see - you thought I was joking? )
	__________________ "Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney

11th May 2012, 03:21 PM	#70
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power. There are more than three times the number of adoption seekers than there are adoptions. It would be more than that if people weren't so discouraged.

11th May 2012, 03:47 PM	#71
GodMark2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power. Originally Posted by US Constitution We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emphasis not in original)
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

11th May 2012, 05:44 PM	#72
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot Eliminate Federal Welfare programs, including corporate welfare. It is not an enumerated power. Traffic laws were not enumerated either.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

11th May 2012, 05:48 PM	#73
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,894	Most traffic laws ( if any ? ) are not Federal, either.. Originally Posted by GodMark2 (emphasis not in original) I don't ' welfare ' in that context, is the same as the post you are responding to ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 11th May 2012 at 05:51 PM.

11th May 2012, 07:02 PM	#74
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Most traffic laws ( if any ? ) are not Federal, either.. The federal govt provides funds and requires states to enact certain traffic laws and guidelines for those funds. Likewise much federal assistance is administered by states and counties with the federal govt setting guidelines for the usage of the money.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

11th May 2012, 08:22 PM	#75
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,803	Isn't this just racism in disguise?

11th May 2012, 08:46 PM	#76
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,289	Quote: Traffic laws were not enumerated either. Originally Posted by RandFan The federal govt provides funds and requires states to enact certain traffic laws and guidelines for those funds. Likewise much federal assistance is administered by states and counties with the federal govt setting guidelines for the usage of the money. Right, but the federal traffic requirements still have to fall under one of the enumerated powers, like the "general welfare" of the country. And the federal government can apply "pressure," but not "compulsion" to the states, whatever that means. See South Dakota v. Dole