Should we combine greater welfare with breeding restrictions?

Look... I believe that our government exists to promote the general welfare, and that defense from disease-causing microorganisms is as basic an American right as is defense from a foreign military...

But I also believe that there are already too many people in this country and this world, and that welfare programs are expensive.

How about licenses to be a parent? How about mandatory community service for anybody who brings more than two or three children into our world?

No, I'm not a kook.

Did you know that here in Texas, the only form of "birth control" offered to women on welfare is sterilization? Wouldn't that money be better spent on teaching women how to avoid unwanted pregnancy before it happens?

a woman can get a condom at Albertson's or HEB or 7-11 for about 50 cents. How much more available can they be?

Are you aware that abstinence-only education is propagating the myth that condoms don't work? I believe that if a parent is on welfare, condoms as well as birth control should be free. Hell, they should be free for everyone regardless. And while we're at it, education for males as well. Why is it you automatically assume it is the woman who must be the responsible one and not the male?

offered to a woman on welfare was sterilization.

I responded to your post by saying where I live any woman can get a condom for about 50 cents.

Then you responded by saying why am I saying it's the woman's responsibility?

To which I respond -- WTF????

Incidently, I don't believe condoms should be free. I think if you can't afford the 50 cents for a condom between the two of you, then perhaps you shouldn't be taking the chance of becoming a parent.

And I also think that everyone at least by high school knows that you should use a condom when having sex if you don't want to have a baby. People don't use them because they don't like to or they don't have one nearby. It's not because they don't know about them.

Also, I have one kid and he was conceived through a condom, so I know they don't always work.

Here in Texas, the money given for welfare support is roughly 250.00 per month. Fifty cents might not mean much to you but to someone with that kind of limited income it means a great deal.

Once again, the reason I stress education is for the excuses you offer. People must be taught to understand that condom use isn't just about preventing pregnancy. They also protect against sexually-transmitted disease. People need to learn how to use condoms properly. Condoms degrade over time. Applying one improperly can result in tears and holes. Using inappropriate lubricants can result in degradation. Abstinence-only education is many times the only sex education teens and adult couples with limited incomes receive. That has got to stop. People must be made to realize that the best way to prevent pregnancy (aside from no sex) is a combination of the pill AND condoms.

And yes, I do mean that men as well as women need to be made to realize that both of them are equally responsible for sexual choices and results. Quite often it is not the female who does not want the condom, it is the male, because using a condom "doesn't feel good".

As for birth control being free, it should be for everyone. I stand by that.

Why not start one state at a time? :sarcasm:

Actually from what I understand most of the population growth in the U.S. is contained in generally the immigrant, and lower class communities. Provide everyone in this country better overall education, better job training, universal health care, mandatory sex education for kids starting at 13, and keeping abortion legal will solve the problem's the OP mentions without legislation.

Keeping the poor in situations of bad education, no health care, no sex education, no abortions, no job training, etc will keep the birth rate up.

education and easy access to contraception is a good plan. Restrictions on fertility not a good plan.

without children.

If you stop or cut deductions for children, because children cost the economic system more to get them up and functioning, it will be called a tax hike.

If you cut taxes for Singles without children, that will hurt already under-funded social "personal development infrastructure" programs even more, thus exacerbating the problem that you set out to solve by cutting their taxes in the first place.

Do you know any single people without children who got married and had a kid for tax reasons?

It isn't necessary to have "a kid for tax reasons" to get the benefits of the write-offs.

Other than CHEAP Labor, why is it in the interests of the state to reinforce ANY and ALL motives for child-bearing?

The OP is essentially about reducing overpopulation. A response stating that a start would be to remove unfair taxes against single childless people implies that it is one cause of overpopulation, which means that it also implies that people have children for tax purposes.

People have children for lots of different reasons, but I highly doubt you can find one who did so for that reason, therefore those taxes have no bearing on the argument.

Please post a bond, too, for having your body removed from the street when you collapse in your old age. Your property should not be protected by police officers more than ten years younger than you, and no firefighters should be allowed you when you're in your eighties unless they're in their seventies. The a-la-carte version of coexistence is as childish as it is unworkable and selfish.

Raising children is very expensive and time-consuming, and EVERYONE benefits from having the next generation if they live long enough.

This is an argument much more befitting a reactionary or libertarian: fuck other people, I should only have to look after myself. Well, there's some fairness to that approach, but those who subscribe to that belief never seem to admit all the advantages they get from the sacrifices and efforts of other people, and they don't seem to be willing to pony up the requisite cash to opt-out of certain communal efforts.

I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but she's right about a few things and one of them is this: it takes a village. You don't like it? Go live in a cave, but make sure the cave isn't sharing in any services provided by the rest of us and don't forget to pick up after yourself.

No man is an island, and very few are even somewhat peninsular.

Should you also not have to pay taxes to support public education? How about paying for policing and prosecuting crimes against children? Then there are those school lunches; they're fiendish thievery from the hard working citizenry.

My spouse and I are both over six feet tall, and the short guys are giants; there may very well come a day that you're glad they're around to help you to your private quack.

You know it's an effective incentive: tax rate up 5% for every kid. :sarcasm:

There once was a woman who begat
three babies named Nat Tat and Pat.
It was fun in the breeding
but hell in the feeding
when she found there was no tit for Tat.

doesn't bode well for believing you're "not a kook". I'm not real sure about responding to the rest of the OP until I see an answer to this.

Saying 'breeding' might be emotionally satisfying to you, but it does nothing but put roadblocks into getting people to listen to you. You have to decide then, if your purpose is to rant or convince.

even though the OP is making the very same argument the eugenicists made in the early 1900's

And the OP seems unconcerned about the connotations of the word "breeding", which historically has been applied to reproduction by ethnic minorities

I never said nor would I want race or class to determine who has babies.

but that is a right wing position long taken by racists in the south. Here in Virginia sterilization was mandatory for people instutionalized for their mental health or because they were mentally retarded not too long ago. George Bush the smarter supported this aspect of "family planning" as well.

As to the poor, you are buying into a misconception that welfare is used to have unlimited numbers of babies. I really think that is rare if it happens at all unless there are other social factors involved. You would have more of a point if you insisted on sterilization for those abusing drugs or who abuse their children than merely for the poor.

He didn't say it was racist. He said it was used by racists. It is a term used in conjunction with the idea of "improving the species"

Most people talk of other people "having children". It's, at the very least, odd that you would refer to it as "breeding" and it shows an ignorance concerning the politics of sexual reproduction; an ignorance that makes you have little cred on this issue

That's an amazingly horrible idea.

Could possibly enforce with propriety and justice the licensing of parenthood.

of those who advocate for limits on "breeding"

Of course they couldn't. It would be a total disaster.

:thumbsup:

:wtf:

Like in a wildlife management program? :eyes:

How very humane of you.

And, YES, it's extremely humane to manage procreation sensibly.

Americans actually have cut down the birth rate a great deal. We get alot of growth through all forms of immigration.

When it comes to population, America isn't the problem.

Also, like others in the thread, as a Mother and a Woman I find the term "breeder" and "breeding" incredibly insulting.

for requiring a license to post on the internet. :rofl:

(i am, however, in favor of unlicensed READING of the internet. Maybe you'll learn something. And yes, you are too a "kook")

a complete handstand on 'abortion on demand' though.

I'm guessing you have a desire for a large family. Unfortunately, you don't live in a vacuum and space and resources are finite.

My desire for a particular family size has nothing to do with my opinion that your proposal is odious fascist bullshit. Your proposal is odious fascist bullshit, and sense you appear to be serious about it, that would make you an odious fascist idiot.

with no sense of responsibility and no appreciation for the condition of our environment.

I on the other hand, have your posts that prove that you are an odious fascist idiot.

The fact that you'd call responsibility "odious" proves you're a selfish bastard.

Not only are you an odious fascist idiot, you are manifestly dishonest in debate. I never said responsibility was odious, I said that government enforced breeding restrictions are odious fascist nonsense, and that those proposing them are odious fascist idiots.

rex seems oblivious to the fact that "breeding restrictions" have only been supported by fascists.

I see the No True Scotsman reference, but I don't understand your point

it's a ridiculous premise, the OP is meeting with little support, and you are on the right side of this argument.

To think that we have DEMOCRATS supporting government restrictions on birth. :eyes:

:crazy:

Resources and space aren't infinite for you just because you have no kids. Out of curiosity, what's your footprint?

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html

Unfortunately, any asshole with a sperm and an egg can make a baby.

which means you do or do not have children when you choose. The problem is that our culture seems to have moved into thinking its OK to have children without consideration of ability to care for them. And it ends up being generation after generation after generation bread in poverty in perpetua. I don't know how you change that. It's not a matter of saying "you're not allowed to have children" it's a matter of individuals making the choice to RESPONSIBLY have children and perhaps, out of consideration for the environment and mankind, consider limiting their progeny.

:thumbsup:

To me it is poor form to announce to the poor that they can't have children because they can't take care of them as if they alone are guilty of the conditions that make it so. If we are born into the middle class and have those advantages, it's too easy to point at those not and make it a rule they shouldn't have children.

And it is not permanent either. You can't predict the future. Maybe today it looks like you can take care of them, but later things change and you can't. Look at the Depression. Who would have said that everyone who had children in the years before it started shouldn't have, because they should have known they would not be able to take care of them down the line.

And that's not what I'd propose.

yours? From my post:

"It's not a matter of saying "you're not allowed to have children" it's a matter of individuals making the choice to RESPONSIBLY have children and perhaps, out of consideration for the environment and mankind, consider limiting their progeny."

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to do anything, just the opposite as a matter of fact.

"guilty" of the situation they find themselves in.

God forbid a poor person might find joy and solace in the eternal and repeating cycle of life and take joy in helping their children excel, right?

which means a couple of million of women a year might be forced to have abortions.

after years of not using any BC, and no results, we figured one of us had a problem. Never got it checked out though. I wouldn't trade her for the world either.

As I said earlier, I don't think our tax policies should be discriminatory on this issue, but aside from that the best **most* effective way to control population is to provide for a valid set of basic human rights: appropriate education, health care, and safety.

Ignorance and disadvantage breed dysfunctional families. Healthy Families are **the** necessary, though not sufficient, factor in our well-being as a nation. Healthy Government is a sufficient, though **not necessary**, factor in same.

I'd almost back you up on this. Seems like everyone is in an all-fire rush to be a baby factory. Families with three kids or more, all who look like they're separated by two years or less. I just want to shake them and say "have you heard about the ongoing over-population problem we're facing?"

But then, if we're going to live in a free society, we have to let people have the families they want. Letting government have any control over how we procreate is a bad, bad idea. If they can mandate that families with three or more children serve the community (which is essentially a criminal punishment when it's not voluntary), they can also have to power to maybe decide that everyone can have two children, and only two children and MUST have two children. That would suck for people like me who don't want to have any.

People who would choose the word "breeding" rank up there with those who grimace at diapers,referring with distaste to "fecal material".

How about we just have neighborhood minders with cattle prods that prevent anyone from engaging in sex. Or get rid of all the clinics that assist those childless couples who insist on thwarting nature. Yeah, this whole urge to merge--that's the problem.

/somewhat sarcastic reply

Perhaps you're ignorant to the fact that one can have non-procreative sex?

to be a little more specific.

Greater control over the lives of other people is what got us into this pickle, and increasing that level of control will not make it better. I know that's our answer to everything though. Increase spending here and there, get more people into this and that, more efficiency, etc.

Lets be realistic, the government does not exist to promote the general welfare. It exists to expand. That is exactly what your plan would do, increase state power. Oddly enough, if it succeeded over a period of time, there would be fewer people, meaning less power for the state. Then the state would have to dictate that everyone have more children.

The corporation works the same way. They're just different(I think, can't be too sure anymore) forms of control.

No, we're going to have to get out of this one voluntarily. Seeing as we've already given so much of our lives to the state and corporation, we have a ways to go.

In spite of their protests against government economic regulation. They would love to dictate who can and can't have children. And we know which race they would not disproportionately impact and disproportionately find "responsible enough" to reproduce.

I get as upset about this kind of discussion as I do ones where people want to restrict access to birth control and abortion. You don't get to make that choice for other people.

i mean, other than you?

sorry.

Why not a general breeding restriction, enforced through mandatory abortions as in China, on the entire population?

Wow. Now I think you're here just winding us all up. Good for a laugh.

he just doesn't want to spell out what effective breeding restrictions would mean. Sorry if I won't buy his premise because of the obvious implications. He also appears to only want to impose his 'breeding restrictions' on 'people on welfare', which is a long standing code phrase for 'the blacks'.

And we should have active population controls BEFORE doing something like China does.

Kiss them, knead them, say sweet things to them - for tomorrow your desired procreational policies will take effect. It's for humanity. Quit crying.

edit for the usual typos

The birth rate goes down with prosperity. There's an instinct to have kids to care for you in your old age, and have as many as possible so one of them will survive (when poor, that they might not survive is a factor). That can be overcome if you know you have security. Countries with national health and such don't have an overpopulation problem any worse than ours. In fact, they need immigrants, so their birth rate is down - for instance, the U.K., Sweden and Canada. So this is a solution without a problem, fortunately.

The Third World has the population explosion - greater prosperity throughout the world is the solution.

Which is why I'm not all against immigrants and their sending $$ they make here back home - it gives them a foundation to build on for a better life back in that country, leading that country to a lower birth rate eventually - not harmful to our economy (probably helpful, in fact) and good for the planet.

And aging populations will be a problem.

Do you raise retirement age? Do you import people from the developing world? What happens in those countries if you pick the best and brightest from those countries? Could they send their money back?

It's not going to be as easy as increasing prosperity for at least 6.5 billion people, and more in the years to come. We're not going to be able to do that and not have a greater impact on the environment, no matter how "green" we get. We can't need immigrants, and then let them send money back to their countries. That money would have to stay here in order to increase the prosperity, or else why bother with immigrants? Unless at some point the entire world is one united state, then there would be no here or there. The flip side to that being that to create such an infrastructure would again require an even larger impact on the environment.

Physical reality still counts.

I think we should give anybody that needs it enough to live in a decent manner, with no restrictions whatsoever. I do favor restrictions on the accumulation of wealth, if that helps.

Actually, they don't even print it, it's just a matter of changing the numbers on some magnetic media somewhere these days. Money has no actual connection to anything real at all.

The USA barely spends anything on social welfare, comparatively.

Corporations get the much larger share.

is eventually going to become a necessity. I'm kind of surprised at people who dismiss the idea out of hand, because we can't keep breeding ourselves into oblivion. The US population has gone from 200 million to 300 million just in my lifetime, and I find that scary.

It's true that right now, there's no way that licensing of parenthood could be accepted; but some day the public may see it as a necessary evil. IMO, better a controlled legal experiment than chaos.

I would never want to get to China's situation (forced sterilizations and abortions, etc.)

What's so wrong about mandating community service for having children, when those children impact the community so significantly? And, no, such service shouldn't be restricted to poor people or minorities.

would really be effective or useful--maybe. But not a deterrant to having children, that's for sure. I don't know what the answer is, but some kind of public support for the idea would be essential.

For a semi-realistic science fictional treatment of this idea, see John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar. In that work, he proceeds from the idea that overpopulation becomes such a huge issue that the US public supports a eugenics-based program of restricted reproduction. People with genes for 'defective' traits are not allowed to reproduce, and in 2010, the gene for color-blindness is added to the list, causing some mild controversy. He wrote it in 1969, so it's an interesting read to see how his predictions are both off and on in places.

At least not in the so called first world. Once a society gets to a certain level of education and prosperity it's birth rate slows, halts, and even reverses in many industrialized nations. All without legislation. The best population control is prosperity.

The overpopulation problems are not occuring in the United States, or Denmark, or Japan. They're occuring in places like India and China who are on the hub of prosperity but still have the population growth of a developing nation. Once their prosperity reaches a certain point, even their populations will slow and halt.

I'm aware that much of western Europe and Japan have had virtually zero population growth for some time now. But the US went from 200 million in 1968 to 300 million in, what, 2005? We're growing at around 1% per year, that's almost 3 million new people per year, and at this rate will hit 500 million in 2048 or so. How are we going to sustain so many people when we can't do an adequate job now? Something's got to give eventually, and I'd rather see a rational controlled experiment in population growth than the alternatives.

I remember reading something in fifth or sixth grade that said the population of the world was something like 2 billiob people and by the year 20 something it would reach 6 billion, and I thought there's no way.

And now here we are withg 6 million people and we'll be 8 billion soon.

There's no way we can just keep growing this way forever. Something will have to be done at some point.

There are 150 million people living in one little river delta called Bangladesh. There's no way to have a prosperous people living like that. There just isn't.

edit: and no, for the purposes of this discussion, a marriage license doesn't count.

Having children, however, does.

to the baby getting place so a more competent and wealthier person can take care of him/her.

Afterall, you're not qualified.

that one statement kinda exposed you a little bit.

how about you set a fine example, and start by ridding the earth of yourself?

Such drastic bullshit would never become necessary if we took a smart approach to population growth.

of the excess people? I'm not willing to say there's too many people in the country since I'm not willing to look anyone in the face and tell them they're one of the too many. That said, birth rates are going down and I believe that that's a good thing.

It doesn't follow that there aren't too many people just because you have a psychological hangup.

just because you say its so. We can take care of all of the people on the planet. Of course this won't be true indefinitely which is why birth rates, IMO need to decline, and to some degree are.

Where the hell do you think the next generation of workers and voters is going to come from?

Do you think only people who are as rich as Barbara Bush should be allowed to produce offspring? How have hers turned out?

What is expensive is treating the production and early training of the next generation of citizens as though it's a silly, self indulgent hobby of silly, self indulgent women. It is not.

It is the basic work of the human race, and it's about time you and others realized it.

"Where the hell do you think the next generation of workers and voters is going to come from?"

Where did I say that there should be no children at all?

"Do you think only people who are as rich as Barbara Bush should be allowed to produce offspring? "

No, nor did I say so.

"What is expensive is treating the production and early training of the next generation of citizens as though it's a silly, self indulgent hobby of silly, self indulgent women. It is not."

I believe that lots of procreation IS silly and self-indulgent. Too bad if that offends you.

It will be a lot of fun to watch.

The income tax system is designed to provide a basic allowance for food, clothing and housing. That's why a married couple in the past had a lower exemption than two people filing singly. It was presumed that two single people were living in two separate establishments.

The exemption for a child dependent is meant to cover basic costs and as such is pretty laughable. To suggest that I had more children to increase my tax exemptions is as laughable as the old right wing charge that welfare mothers propagated endlessly to increase their benefits.

The alternative to having individuals raise children is to have children raised in institutions. Science has shown this is not a good way to raise homo sapiens. Unless raising children is to be a privilege of the rich, then some way must be found to make it affordable for the average person.

Have you scheduled your vasectomy yet, Mr. Goodheart? Or do you just like to talk the talk as opposed to walking the walk?

you know, people on welfare. that get some of his tax money.

you know.

them.

:hi:

I'm waiting for an answer Mr. Goodheart.

I laud you for "stopping". Now, are you ready to guarantee that you will never impregnate another woman again?

has fallen everywhere else where women have good education.

So for underdeveloped nations, education for girls is paramount if they want to slow population growth.

That and access to reliable birth control not dependent on their husbands' permission.

I dealt with the OP's flame-bait proposal for our own country downthread.

Hekate

Where ever women have access to education and contrception, birth rates are dropping to replacement levels or below. Yes, there are people having more than two or three children but there are a lot of people having one or none.

I'm not sure why you use the term "welfare" in your post. In this context, it recalls the charge that women on welfare had child after child to increase their payment.

/approves?
//I don't
///eugenics = bad

We only let the "desirable" people breed. Nope, not eugenics at all.

I never said anything about selecting people. In fact, I stated the opposite... that restrictions should be universal.

If not for immigration the United States population would get smaller every year. This is also true of all the wealthiest countries in the world.

The psychological need to propogate decreases as infant mortality decreases. The more assurance people have that their children will survive, the less the feel the need to produce more offspring.

Reality has demonstrated that the simplest way to control human population is to ensure health and well-being. This is contrary to what common sense may tell us, but it has been proven entirely accurate.

and generally, the "solutions" prescribed tend to be aimed at the wrong areas.

Population tends to be a non-problem in developed countries, because developed countries tend to have declining birth rates. In societies where access to birth control is fairly unrestricted, population controls itself.

In poorer societies, the old fashioned idea that large families are good tends to linger.

In short, arguing for "population control" in the United States is rather redundant, unless, of course, you are concerned about the illegal immigrant portion of the ledger. Meanwhile, it is not a bad idea to work to help poorer nations to regulate their populations, but we have to do it in ways that make sense to them, not in ways that make us look like a bunch of yuppie busy-bodies trying to assuage our own misguided consciences.

as license requirments.

What do you believe the precise amount of people in the U.S. should be? What is that number based on? Who came up with that number?

Why forced community service only for parents?-- why not forced community service for everyone-- we're all in this together, right? Not just parents-- not just anyone on welfare, but everyone...

You seem to imply that's it's only parents and those on fixed income who are 'draining' us, but let's be honest-- we all do drain the system and we're all in this fix together, so let's all man up and do a nice tenner together.

(except you, right...?)

Everything someone does can be said to affect someone else, where do we draw a line in the sand?

and realize that people with limited education and financial means have a tendency to have large families, fucking is free entertainment everything else costs you money. Maybe you should work on educating the next generation of poor so they will take more pleasure in making and spending money over fucking.

in how to have compassion, how to get over themselves, humility,a realization of how their excess creates the very 'breeding issue' they so get upset by.Teach the self absorbed rich there is no such thing as an elite,they are just people,hairless monkeys like the rest of us are. Why not Teach these rich fools , how to share,how to give stuff without strings or expecting a "return on an investment" which is thinly veiled control games, how to let go,and how to stop controlling others lives, and how to not be a greedy fucking narcissistic overweening ambitious,lazy ,hedonistic,deceptive,asshole hiding from the consequences of his actions,in a suit, in a gated community..Howabout no more corporate welfare, golden parachutes or bailouts from 'buddies' that do nothing but insulate the rich from facing the disasters wrought by their own denials of their own failures.Howabout getting these faux 'productive' leisure class pretentious overbearing twits to realize they are no better than any of us are really and deserve nothing better than what any of us get? Howabout that? How about making these narcissistic pampered self declared elitists GROW the fuck UP ,Pay up for their excess,and SHUT the fuck UP??

into the military, where they can be cannon fodder for the perpetual wars of the owners of Amurka?

I think we seal the borders, have a lottery to choose 200 million people to be deported and then enforce zero population growth by forced sterilization.

or how about we just euthanize anyone with less than $65,000 annual income?

I am not a kook.

are the ones that seem to bring the most into the world. They care nothing for the quality of life the child is brought into, they care more about fulfilling their societal expectations. So maybe changing those expectations can do something about it?

We will either figure out population control voluntarily, since we're already way beyond carrying capacity, or we'll have it figured out for us. Right now, microbes, the main form of life on this planet, are mutating and 'finding' more and more efficient means of entry and takeover of our bodily systems. Perhaps as a corrective course.

The economic benefits of having many children when you're poor are well-documented. If you are truly interested in the answer to your question, you could do some research.

And we already know how to end overpopulation - end poverty. As a populations standard of living increases, its birth rate decreases. This has happened in country after country.

What I'm saying is how people don't look beyond their own immediate situation and see what life is going to be like for that child. All they're doing is propagating a cycle of poverty and despair. I mean, look at Africa. Children die horrible deaths and someone says to themself, 'here and now would be a good time and place to have a kid.' People who are more educated do make decisions like this. Purposefully not have kids because they feel they can't provide them with a decent life. That shows it's ignorance on the part of the poor. That and the biological drive.

"What I'm saying is how people don't look beyond their own immediate situation and see what life is going to be like for that child"

What you're saying is not true. You only can say it because you are ignorant of the facts. It is better for the children in a poor family to have as many siblings as possible, It is better for the entire family to have as many children as possible. You claim it is ignorance that makes poor families make the smart economic decision (to have children). You are the one who is ignorant.

But what if you had to watch four of your children die horrible agonizing deaths to have one that made it out of childhood? I don't know, but if it was me, I'd think this is not a good time to have kids. I'd have a hard time putting four of them through that, to get to the one 'good' one.

Also, it's not economics alone that determines kids being birthed. There is also a social stigma associated with not having children in many poor quarters. Both here, and especially abroad.

You'll do the gene pool a favor.

you should have to win a lottery to breed or pass some sort of genetic fitness test or reach a certain level of education... then they could reverse the sterilization. I don't think that having children should be a right anymore.

because honestly, you wouldn't be high on my list if you're so grossed out by spit-up and dirty diapers.

So you're trying to tell me that you're NOT grossed out by spit-up or by dirty diapers? That's a little weird. Both of those are perfectly legitimate things to be grossed out by.

but I think your plan would probably work, in theory.

This would be a great quote of mine to retort back to me with in a smoking thread.

:hide:

How fitting that you would like women to be more sterile. :D

Don't you have 3 kids? You must be extra smart with really good genetics, superior to most folks, and thus more worthy of reproducing.

I could never support such a measure.

By that standard white affluent men living in the United States would be among the very first to be castrated.

:hide:

Too many people in this world, eh? You including yourself in that "too many" group? Go bump yerself off then.

OR, instead of deciding you inherently have a right to exist while others don't, ask yourself what the problem is. Why is too many people a problem? Because there aren't enough resources to go around, right?

The logical result of that line of thought is to ask who is using more than their share of resources. Here's a hint: it ain't the so-called welfare queens, no matter how much you like to create that reality in your head.

If you are consuming more resources in your life than some third world family with 3 kids, you probably need to shut up about how "the world" has too many people, and about how those other baby-producing people need to be punished so you can maintain your lifestyle.

I didn't say, anything, whatsoever about race. Nor did I say class should determine who should be allowed to have children. I wouldn't seek racial goals with any population disincentives, so the people in this thread crying "eugenics" are as equally silly as yourself.

Share of resources? What's a "share of resources"? My concern is that CUMULATIVELY the burden of population is too great. Capitalism plus some basic level of welfare should allocate resources while we make responsible population choices.

Nobody would be "punished" to maintain my lifestyle. Responsible population monitoring is for the benefit of baby-producing people, as well.

You didn't say "class should determine who should be allowed to have children."

You just kind of threw in the "welfare programs are expensive" line in a discussion of why some people should be punished for having more children, because you thought it looked nice on the screen? ;)

Here we have the problem of not enough resources to go around, and you think the solution is for capitalism to determine who gets to use those resources. So rich people deserve to maintain a higher lifestyle, consuming maybe 100 or 1,000 times the resources of a family in another country. And your equitable solution is that we punish one of those people for being pregnant too many times - because they are infringing on your resources, which capitalism says you deserve more than they do.

Capitalism should allocate resources - and you don't see anything racist or classist about that. Have you looked at racial equity in the world? Capitalism wouldn't exist without racism and classism, that's what it's been built on for centuries.

Perhaps you're a Communist and not a Democrat?

slavery, sweatshops, and genocide to clear land of pesky indigenous people who were preventing us from making money off the natural resources here?

That's interesting.

If you're so disenchanted with capitalism why are you using that computer?

It's not capitalism, itself, that exploits people. We can adopt measures that make those processes fairer and more responsible, too.

That's the whole point, to accumulate wealth, which we accumulate from other people with less privilege than we have.

So if you come from a poor family someplace where you can't afford a decent education, and I have tons of inherited wealth, guess which one of us is more likely to work in a sweat shop? Not me!

So instead of working in the sweat shop, I buy the sweat shop. And when your day's labor adds $100 value to the product you are making for me, I'm going to turn around and only pay you $10 for that labor, or maybe $50 if you are lucky enough to live in the US, and I will pocket the rest. That's the system. If I paid you the actual value of the work you did, I wouldn't turn a profit.

The people with the power, the capitalists, they aren't going to make that process fair and responsible, because if it were fair, they'd be as likely as you to be working in that sweat shop. They aren't going to allow that to happen.

If you all had the same opportunities as me, the powerful capitalist, and if you started with the same resources in life (inherited wealth, which was earned through genocide and slavery and discrimination over centuries), I'd be screwed. I wouldn't have anyone whose labor I could exploit. Perhaps equally troubling, if we were all equal I'd have to live with a landfill of my own trash next to my own house. As a capitalist, I really prefer to locate my trash in other peoples' neighborhoods. Some of it's toxic, you know. And it's kind of ugly. I don't want that spoiling my view. Would you?

I belive that the United States needs to encourage more population growth. We need more people to support social security. I'm planning on having 4 kids.

Some of you people think the earth, money, space, and resources are inexhaustible. They are not.

It doesn't seem to me that we are running out of resources. We are definitely not running out of space. You are seriously discounting technology. As technology gets better, each person leaves a smaller and smaller footprint on the earth. I'm certain my resource footprint is smaller than my grandfather's 50 years ago.

'Absinance only' assures us that the youth of our country will know NOTHING about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

By sterilization, do you mean only the mothers but not the fathers?

But, of course, you are targeting only the mothers because you have "breeding" in your OP title. Remember.... it takes 2 to make a baby.

Who said anything about sterilizing people, or killing them, or forced abortions? My suggestions were licensing and community service.

Or at least low-cost birth control. I doubt you'd find such draconian measures as you suggest necessary if it were as easy to get condoms and other b.c. devices as it is to get a bag of chips from a vending machine.

"How about mandatory community service for ANYBODY who brings more than two or three children into our world?"

What part of "anybody" confuses people here? The people who have accused me of eugenics owe me an apology.

When you do community service for using up more resources and polluting more than someone with 4 kids in Uganda, you can start another thread on this topic. You aren't superior to them, you aren't in a position to decide they need to be punished for being such a strain on the system. You are more of a strain on the system than they are.

To answer your original question: No. We've already tried forced sterilizations for "undesirables" in this country, and it just isn't American or humane.

What we as a nation ought to be doing is making birth control education mandatory in junior high and high school, instead of keeping our kids ignorant.

We ought to be making contraceptives for women dirt cheap instead of letting insurance companies refuse to cover the cost.

We ought to make it the law of the land that if a person wants to be a pharmacist then they must fill every legitimate prescription handed over the counter, instead of refusing contraceptives on the basis of their religion.

Instead we want to penalize poor women for having kids that they can't get contraceptives to prevent in the first place.

Hekate
:argh:

This thread is making my blood pressure rise. At least the OP finds himself outnumbered here.

Hekate

but I take consolation in that I'm correct.

The people crying "eugenics" and "racist" here obviously can't read.

Did you read my post about education and making birth control actually available?

When it comes to the planet's ability to sustain 6.5 billion people, I personally think the human race is heading for a species die-off.

But when it comes to individual people, I believe in education and available contraceptives.

I can't do anything about the former, but as to the latter I am a lifelong supporter of Planned Parenthood, and I can tell you it is an uphill battle in this country to just keep family planning in any form legal. And that's a systemic problem emanating from the right-wing.

Hekate

Deal?

And to some extent you probably should.



But in a way you have provided food for thought. If, after all, the government is in the business of determining who can and cannot get married, why shouldn't they also be in the business of determining who can and cannot procreate? Eh? :shrug:

breed /brid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, bred, breed·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to produce (offspring); procreate; engender.

That's why people-- especially women--take exception to the use of the word and feel insulted.

If someone wants to deliberately insult a couple with a large family, they can refer to the way they "breed". As in: "Eight children?! They breed litters (on that side of town) (in that religion)!"

The only other times I hear any variation of that word used with people is when someone (usually referring to good or bad manners) remarks on so-and-so's "good breeding" or "bad breeding". As in: "That teenager is so polite, and displays such good breeding. Her mother must be raising her right."

Dogs and horses breed and are bred. Human beings "produce (offspring); procreate; and engender" -- and "have babies" or "make families". Sometimes dictionaries neglect important colloquial usage.

Hekate

You know, we're never not going to be animals.

"Dogs and horses breed and are bred. Human beings "produce (offspring); procreate; and engender" -- and "have babies" or "make families"."

If we didn't feel the need to direct the breeding habits of other species in terms of their potential productive capacity for the benefit of a single animal species, we probably wouldn't have to separate ourselves from life.

...the word "breed" for what humans do, I don't think. Just as wastewater control engineers wouldn't use the word "manure" to describe what flows into their facilities from our toilets. Manure is what farmers shovel out of their stables.

I'm aware we are animals. But we use language for many purposes -- to inform, to discuss, and sometimes to insult and offend.

When I referred to a species die-off upthread (and I really meant to say population crash, but it was late) I was reaching for a scientific, distancing, sort of term to describe what I believe Mother Nature is going to exact from us for overpopulating and overcrowding the Earth beyond the planet's means to sustain us. Rabbits or goats introduced to an island ecosystem with no natural predators will happily reproduce in great numbers, until all the food is gone and the waters are fouled with their waste. Then most of them starve or succumb to disease. The population crashes. The survivors live on what is left, and the environment begins to recover somewhat -- even with goats, who scour a landscape pretty efficiently. The Earth is our island ecosystem, and I think we all know where my thoughts are going with this.

To return to my point about language usage: If the OP was aware of the insulting connotations of his words, then he knew that his statements were flame-bait and shouldn't be surprised at the resulting outrage. If the OP was not aware, he has now been informed and should rephrase his opinions so that his ideas come through and people can discuss them. Otherwise he is being disingenuous in stubbornly sticking to his original statement.

Hekate

Let's look at what's implied here:

verb (used without object)
to produce offspring: Many animals breed in the spring.
to be engendered or produced; grow; develop: Bacteria will not breed in alcohol.
to cause the birth of young, as in raising stock.
to be pregnant.

Just because you found one definition that doesn't explicitly state that it's used primarily for animals doesn't mean the history of the word doesn't carry that meaning. In other words, your ignorance of the history of oppression might be the cause of you using a derogatory term, but it doesn't excuse your defense or continued use of that term, once you've been informed of its implications.



-- Milton Meltzer, Slavery, A World History

If you, as a white person or as a man (just a wild guess here), or a man who can pass as white, are being told by people that aren't white men that language you are using has racist and/or misogynistic overtones it's probably best to listen to them and learn from it, instead of arguing that you are in the better position to judge that than women, or people of color.

Medicaid. By an exponential amount. More than TANF (welfare), Food Stamps, WIC...all the rest combined don't add up to the cost of Medicaid per year. There's our problem, and it's only going to get worse, now that the boomers are retiring.

Retiring Boomers don't go on Medicaid. They go on Medicare.

And actually the most expensive welfare program is the DOD. The combined cost of all of the welfare for the poor is still less than 1% of the total combined state/federal budgets. Defense, close to 50%.

My Economics of Social Welfare teacher was telling us about Medicaid fraud amongst middle class elderly...They dispose of their assets through trusts, etc, and go on Medicaid, b/c Medicare doesn't cover nursing home costs.

as opposed to what we spend on guns as opposed to butter. Oh and BTW the elderly dumping assets before and after age 65 is what is known as a legal loophole. Not fraud. Lawyers actually advise it to elderly middle class people. A doc saying he's in two places at once and collecting medicaid payments from both places is fraud. A health care company over-billing is fraud. A prosthetics maunfacturer who gets payment for no services rendered because it's a shell company is fraud. Rich people steal more than poor people could ever dream of stealing.

Welfare is not expensive, especially when you compare it to things like, oh, say the military budget. Welfare takes up 0.8% of the federal budget, while the military, when you add up not just the regular budget, but spending on various hardware, etc. winds up being nearly half the federal budget. Hmmmm, which is in more need of pruning, a big huge tree, grown out of control, or that little tiny twig?

Second of all, putting "breeding restriction" on people is simply another form of eugenics, as abhorrent an idea as any that came out of mankind. It harkens back to Nazi Germany, Aryan Nation crap. Do you really want to go there?

I would suggest that you really rethink this proposal of yours in light of the real facts, not just those that are pumped into your wide open, susceptible brain.

You lie.

You are calling for "breeding restrictions" on a certain class of people. Just because that class of people isn't based on race or ethnicity, but instead on income doesn't make it any less of a eugenics program. Spin it, rationalize it, lie to yourself, but the sad fact of the matter is that whenever you call for "breeding restrictions" you are advocating for a eugenics program.

Oh, I noticed that you didn't touch the facts concerning welfare costs that I mentioned, why is that?

I did NOT call for breeding restrictions on a certain class of people. I said ANYBODY.

Look at your original post. You are calling for breeding restrictions for a certain class of people, those who receive welfare. Do you deny what is up there for all to see?

Thus, you are calling for a eugenics program. You are calling for breeding restrictions based on whether or not somebody receives federal aid. That is a eugenics program. Why are you denying what is up there for everybody, including yourself? Do you deny your own words?

General welfare.

And anybody who doesn't think government programs are expensive has his head up his ass.

Perhaps you can enlighten me for further discussion.

As to the second part of your statement, I stand by my numbers. Sure, in dollars and cents, any government program is expense. But in relative amounts, welfare is one of the cheaper programs going. If you want to cut money out of the federal budget your best bet and biggest bang for the buck is going after the military. Talk about a nest of waste and corruption.

But noooo, you want to pick on the weakest, most vunerable segment of our society. Aren't you a fine specimen of caring and compassion:eyes:

What part of ANYBODY don't you understand? What prevents you from reading the previous sentence, except bullheadedness to make a stupid strawman point?

You were referring back to your OP, but instead of mentioning that, one hundred odd posts later you're referring to "previous sentence" as though to the it were the post immediately above, rather than the OP. A bit better directions, like referring to it as the "OP" rather than the previous sentence would go a great deal to eliminating confusion.

Again, you may be stating "anybody" but once again, you are classifying people, calling for "breeding restrictions" for those who receive welfare and mandatory community service for those who have two plus kids. Do you fucking realize what a burden such service would be? Way to take parents away from kids who need them.

What is this, you don't like kids, don't like the lower class, what? You're all for imposing draconian restrictions on people, yet don't understand the consequences that you call for. First, America is already at ZPG, the only reason that our population is growing is via immigration. If we start shrinking our population, you will contract our economy, causing hell for most people in our country. In addition, if we went to one child per couple like you seem to favor, it is most likely that within a generation we'll wind up with the same problem that China has now, too many men per women.

Your little pogrom is cruel and assinine. Rather than imposing from without we need to continue and emphasize birth control education in this and other countries. Sorry, but eugenics is a horrible thing, no matter how you try to disguise it.

Go to "stormfront.org" and read up on what they say about it. There's always 5 or 6 threads going on about what you are exactly talking about. Both the A.N. and the KKK have had that at the top of their want list for over 20 years now.

basically quoting stormfront.

You lie.

...with substantial tax deductions.

Those who have fewer children eat up less government services. They deserve to pay less taxes.

Like this:

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” replied Scrooge.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas, and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. … It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
— Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.

Vote for the Rebellious Rebel, the MENACE.

Oh BTW, Merry Christmas.

:applause:

Hekate

Can you say somebody got owned?

Why should I have a "license" to conceive?

The idea of legally restricting a natural bodily function is ludicrous.

It's time to stop addressing the problem of overpopulation by treating the symptoms and instead address the cause.

EDUCATE & INFORM

If you had pro-life types in office, then any woman who became pregnant by mistake might be forced to give her child to a licensed, "more-deserving" couple. Or, the opposite could happen and we could have officials who believed the answer to this situation is forced abortion. Horrible either way, particularly for women and maybe worst for young women.

is procreative sex.

investing in education in southern hemisphere countries, but rather like high birth rates so they can keep salaries low.

Many might think you were an asshole. I might agree.

and making the poor not 'breed'.. why don't we end corporate welfare?While were at it why not end 'corporate person hood' ,tax the rich,put a limit how much the rich can take or acquire and own, and tax the shit out of inheritances for wealthy people's well pampered and privileged born with a silver spoon in their mouths kids.

I think the rich have had it too good and gotten away with taking too much at everyone else's expense.So it's time for them to curb their greed instead of telling the poor not to breed. Because the few over greedy will insure we will always have the many needy.So it's time to limit how much one person or family can take because obviously the rich can't control their own greed, sloth and narcissistic ambitions all by themselves.They'll kill the whole planet with their wealth hoarding and deceptive games that hurt others less greedy.

while the rich do. That's just your presumptiveness or inability to read at play.

What are you implying in this sentence taken from your OP?

"But I also believe that there are already too many people in this country and this world, and that **welfare programs are expensive.**"


What do you THINK it implies?

You are first saying there are too many people, than you are implying welfare is expensive..Put it together here..YOU are advocating eugenics and implying eugenics for poor people.
Who decides who breeds? You? Whites? Rich? Who?

Seems you can't think or remember what you wrote in your OP..Not my problem. I am a queer loon on disability with a 185 IQ. Stuck in a culture with too many ignorant small minded people who think they are elite or something , so stupid they believe limiting others lives will somehow preserve their own race or lifestyle. LOL. Narcissistic fools who would rather tell everyone else how they should live rather than change the way THEMSELVES think.. So,what's your excuse for not knowing what you wrote and implied in your OP?? People CHOOSE what they say for a REASON. What is your REASON? Do you got the guts to admit you are a bigot on DU and take the consequences for your words like an adult??


BTW,corporate welfare,CEO bail outs,pentagon excesses, golden parachutes the Iraq war,and letting companies like Enron get away with fleecing their employees and the public is A LOT more expensive than the paltry aid to the poor here..600 bucks a month. Could YOU make it on that? I doubt it. In my observation many "comfortable" people have a psychological meltdowns finding themselves on the dole. They'd flip if they had to get by on the income the poor get..Funny why is it the wealthy and greedy who have never suffered poverty are the ones who get to decide how much is enough for us to have as they rob this country and try to steal it blind?..So much for that "wise philosopher king" mythology some people that coincidentally advocate limiting who breeds believes in.

In fact, I said quite the possible. I explicitly stated ANYBODY. And I mentioned welfare programs in the context of government existing to promote the general welfare of the citizenry, not any particular program of handouts to poor people.

I know EXACTLY what I wrote in my OP, and I know EXACTLY what I meant. You have a reading problem.

I explicitly stated ANYBODY. And I mentioned welfare programs in the context of government existing to promote the general welfare of the citizenry.


Your thinking here is too simplistic and does not take reality into account.

You said this in the OP:

Look... I believe that our government exists to promote the general welfare, and that defense from disease-causing microorganisms is as basic an American right as is defense from a foreign military...

It CONTRADICTS with THIS idea.

But I also believe that there are already too many people in this country and this world, and that welfare programs are expensive.


And it REALLY CONTRADICTS with THIS idea:

How about licenses to be a parent?


You believe there are too many people in the world,your answer is to limit people or license them,control them for their own good /general welfare . In that idea there is a conflict,(note: no mention of ANYBODY in the OP just a generalized gesture at "citizenry",

Which leads me to ask,If I got sick would it be in defense of the general welfare I would be forced into quarantine? Would I become a non citizen until I got better? What if it was just a cold?
What about corporations dumping toxic shit into the groundwater? Would they be seen as threatening to the general welfare and citizenry as a foreign military?

With a simple tweak of laws maybe that notion of sick people being dangerous combined with the notion of those who over breed are dangerous, will lead to more hassle or intrusions so they may be declared unfit..very convienent if your aim was to fuck up a person's life..(by whom and by what criteria) ..So what would you do to enforce this for your own good limit on reproducing? Force abortions,sterilizations,or forbid cohabitation..What? And what would be the criteria??

This kind of intrusiveness is not done for the general welfare,because historically when a government or ;private' entity gets into the breeding and euthanasia business,The elitist ass hats quickly try to "help nature" with eugenics that ALWAYS favors the elitist ass hats.)


Now,About licenses to be a parent?

OK,who would issue these licenses? What criteria would they use and who would be picking the criteria? Did you think of that problem?

That kind of selectivity from some dominating agency is anti democratic,and it actually does interfere with the general welfare.

Funny how medical science has gotten pretty good at saving lives. If it was YOU I bet you wouldn't tell the doc to just let a treatable case of appendicitis kill you like it would have in the old days for the general welfare and dire need for a country with less people in it would you?
Kill yourself save the planet much? (sarcasm)

Consumerism and the demand for more productivity which in turn causes a demand for convenience causes alot of the ecological harm and waste. Public transport if it was promoted over individuals owning cars that would reduce carbon.Sad companies are tolerated to be ethically the equivalent of psychopaths and they have gotten quite proficient at addicting people from cradle to grave to buying shit they really could live without,making them so buy they can't stop filling themselves up with plastic wrapped everything,and happy meal toys,tinsel and plastic single use tampon applicators, disposable diapers the list of waste goes on....So corporations AGAIN make it all worse.

How about mandatory community service for anybody who brings more than two or three children into our world?

How about mandatory community service working a shelter,feeding the homeless,ect..for anyone that makes over $200,000 a year too? To curb the greed and ego?

I think that mandatory community service for rich people would harm the general welfare less than penalizing the over-breeders would do.

Rich people in this culture don't have to care about the quality of the lives of poor people, they don't give back considering how much they take and have,They ignore us as long as we are working every waking moment,impoverished ,powerless and kept out of sight out of mind and we never organize..

No, I'm not a kook.

Yeah you are.

to relatively population neutral. Population is going up because of excess immigration.

Having said that... idiots who bring too many children without the means to support them should be smacked hard and told to stand in a corner.

We're adding 3 million people per YEAR... That's equivalent to a large city. If we can't stop immigration then we should have even lower fertility rates.

are fueling the immigration issue. Limiting who has kids or how many kids others have will not solve this problem.Corporations need to be regulated and globalism ceased.

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) ring a bell?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-1.html
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8819
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/imm-response/view


Fuck Nafta ,Gatt and the "free market" bullshit.

A lot of rich people can PAY for kids,and some think of kids as pets and mini me's.Some rich people ship the kids away,ignoring the kid so it grows up emotionally messed up. Bush is an example,he goes to war over unresolved' daddy issues'.What if that lack of emotional nurturing caused by rich parental narcissism or the lack of character caused by lazy parents with money is what makes a kid become another paris hilton,or other decadent narcissistic emotionally stunted bully being hailed as something more than they really ARE.

There are more problems raising kids parents face than just financial hardship.

How exactly do you suggest we enforce the 'breeding controls'? A monetary fine that punishes the baby? Perhaps being put on the sex offenders list? It's beyond impractical, it's electoral dynamite: Democrats don't only want to take your guns away, they're coming for your kids!