PDA

View Full Version : Pay poor $1000 to have vasectomy or tubes tied?



NHL Fever
Sep 26th 2008, 02:38 AM
This was one of the ideas proposed by republican louisiana state representative John LaBruzzo.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

These types of proposals bring out the hard-right side in me, and I have to say I think its a good idea. Mostly this comes from experience of dealing with the various socio-economic spectrum of people in the hospital.

Some will cringe at the thought, but I think its reasonable because:
1) Its a choice
2) Generational welfare is a reality which few programs can address well
3) It sorts out those who are poor because of selfish decisions from those who have bad luck/no opportunity. If you're willing to sacrifice your ability to have kids for a quick grand, you're probably not the best person for the job of parenting in the first place. But if you're somebody who's poor but still resists $1000 because of your values for marriage and children, then all blessings to you.
4) Most of the poor class who get pregnant did not want to be pregnant
5) It seems cost-effective
6) Would lower abortions

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 03:02 AM
I didn't read it, but if it suggests giving a lump sum to people who are living off of government largesse in order to shut down their reproductive capability, then I'm all for it.

Laish
Sep 26th 2008, 03:24 AM
I think the whole idea is beyond evil . Giving people money to mutilate their bodies so we as a people ( the government) can save money an pay out less in welfare benefits is just beyond me . If we as a county would do this then count me out I will pack my bags an not look back. You know this sounds like something that Margaret Sanger would be for not a Christian :cry:
Your brother in Christ
Bill

diffangle
Sep 26th 2008, 03:41 AM
I think the whole idea is beyond evil . Giving people money to mutilate their bodies so we as a people ( the government) can save money an pay out less in welfare benefits is just beyond me . If we as a county would do this then count me out I will pack my bags an not look back. You know this sounds like something that Margaret Sanger would be for not a Christian :cry:
Your brother in Christ
Bill
Are you against birth control and voluntary vasectomies/tube tying?

IMINXTC
Sep 26th 2008, 03:42 AM
Despite the harsh realities that make such a thing seem so plausible these days, it sounds to me like trading one's dignity and potential heritage for a bowl of soup. I find the whole thing utterly repugnant. Has self respect become a passing fancy?

Outside of Christ, I suppose it is anyway.:(

Rebelnote
Sep 26th 2008, 04:27 AM
Despite the harsh realities that make such a thing seem so plausible these days, it sounds to me like trading one's dignity and potential heritage for a bowl of soup. I find the whole thing utterly repugnant. Has self respect become a passing fancy?

Outside of Christ, I suppose it is anyway.:(
I'm not sure what's more repugnant, this, or irresponsible parents who's children are all in foster care because they can't or won't take care of them.
I've been involved with the foster system most of my life through friends and family members. I know a 4-year-old boy who's mother never aborted him because she was too doped up to even know she was pregnant. Another little girl at age 2 has genital herpes, and vaginal mutilation from her meth-dealing mother's abusive boyfriend, and I could go on, and on, and on.
I know God can change hearts, but from the here and now perspective, there are just some people who should NOT be reproducing, or even within the vicinity of any children.

I think this legislation is a wonderful idea.

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 05:33 AM
I'm not sure what's more repugnant, this, or irresponsible parents who's children are all in foster care because they can't or won't take care of them.
Too right. There are hundreds...thousands of men and women out there who are straight-up shiftless and indigent. No desire or intention to work or improve their lives...and they keep producing, bringing children into deplorable conditions of near (or total) starvation and sub-standard sanitation.

There is no reason for them to not WILLINGLY stop reproducing in this method that isn't necessarily permanent. It isn't abortion, no one is being killed, and the benefits to society go way beyond money.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 26th 2008, 05:37 AM
Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?

Rebelnote
Sep 26th 2008, 05:42 AM
Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?
This makes no sense. Even if all the money used to pay people to get the snip snip, it wouldn't even come close the amount of money it would cost to put those children in foster homes, and higher education. The average cost now to raise a child is over a million dollars.

And why is it unethical to stop irresponsible people from having children?

Diggindeeper
Sep 26th 2008, 05:43 AM
Aw, come on, now.

Who would ever find all those who need the $1,000 to keep them from making babies?

Will we have Federal, State and County Purity Violator Officers?

Or just whisk them out of the delivery room to the Vasectomies/Tube Tying Surgery Room? (You do know the women would mostly pay that price, since so many men have nothing better to do than make babies all over the place and then disappear.)

Do we turn in the violators, or what?

Do we start this in High School or Middle School?

And, if one state makes that a law, can an offender visiting from another state be arrested and taken to surgery?

At what number of children would they be violating the Purity Law? I had 4 children myself. That would not be allowed in China, you know!

Listen, I pay enough for my Medical Insurance. I don't want my taxes raised to cover other people's non-essential surgeries. Is that all state representative John LaBruzzo has to do...sit around and dream up more noneffectual ways to get more tax money?

It would do just as much good to buy an island somewhere and ship all the offenders to the island, to fend for themselves, without my tax money. No government wefare for them. No more food stamps. No more government freebies of any kind. To me, that makes about as much sense.

Rebelnote
Sep 26th 2008, 06:06 AM
It would do just as much good to buy an island somewhere and ship all the offenders to the island, to fend for themselves, without my tax money. No government wefare for them. No more food stamps. No more government freebies of any kind. To me, that makes about as much sense.
All ready did that. It's call Australia and to some extent, America...

Bethany67
Sep 26th 2008, 06:27 AM
They certainly didn't have to pay us - we jumped at the opportunity to have it done for free on the NHS because we didn't want children.

diffangle
Sep 26th 2008, 02:12 PM
Too right. There are hundreds...thousands of men and women out there who are straight-up shiftless and indigent. No desire or intention to work or improve their lives...and they keep producing, bringing children into deplorable conditions of near (or total) starvation and sub-standard sanitation(and create the next generation of those who have no desire or intention to work or improve their lives). This would help to diminish the numbers of future welfare users.

There is no reason for them to not WILLINGLY stop reproducing in this method that isn't necessarily permanent. It isn't abortion, no one is being killed, and the benefits to society go way beyond money.
Completely agree!


Who would ever find all those who need the $1,000 to keep them from making babies?

You do know the women would mostly pay that price, since so many men have nothing better to do than make babies all over the place and then disappear
Crack heads(men included) know how to get money from the system in order to support their habits... they would find this program.

EarlyCall
Sep 26th 2008, 04:38 PM
This was one of the ideas proposed by republican louisiana state representative John LaBruzzo.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

These types of proposals bring out the hard-right side in me, and I have to say I think its a good idea. Mostly this comes from experience of dealing with the various socio-economic spectrum of people in the hospital.

Some will cringe at the thought, but I think its reasonable because:
1) Its a choice
2) Generational welfare is a reality which few programs can address well
3) It sorts out those who are poor because of selfish decisions from those who have bad luck/no opportunity. If you're willing to sacrifice your ability to have kids for a quick grand, you're probably not the best person for the job of parenting in the first place. But if you're somebody who's poor but still resists $1000 because of your values for marriage and children, then all blessings to you.
4) Most of the poor class who get pregnant did not want to be pregnant
5) It seems cost-effective
6) Would lower abortions

I didn't read the article, but going on what you've related here, I'd agree with it.

Expect the liberals to fight this tooth and nail. You're right about the generational welfeare and that is one reason the liberals will be against it; they rely on the generational welfare and the accompanying votes that go with that dependency.

markedward
Sep 26th 2008, 05:01 PM
My views on birth contraceptives:

If you're trying to stop a natural process of the act of sex... you're doing it wrong.

ServantofTruth
Sep 26th 2008, 05:10 PM
I don't understand how this is either going to bring people to our Lord Jesus Christ or help them mature in the Christian faith. So the subject bores me.

However from the replies, it is obvious how it will divide Christians, bring hurt and pain - physical, mental and Spiritual. Be a stumbling block to genuine seekers.




Big SofTy Look to the kingdom my brothers/ sisters. :pray:

EarlyCall
Sep 26th 2008, 05:17 PM
I don't understand how this is either going to bring people to our Lord Jesus Christ or help them mature in the Christian faith. So the subject bores me.

However from the replies, it is obvious how it will divide Christians, bring hurt and pain - physical, mental and Spiritual. Be a stumbling block to genuine seekers.




Big SofTy Look to the kingdom my brothers/ sisters. :pray:

Are you in favor of welfare? Social security?? Medicare? Medicaid? Aid to dependent children? Other social programs? Can you describe for me how the ones you are in favor of would bring anyone to Christ or help those in Christ to mature in Christ?

Are you in favor of driving your car to and from work, the store and so on? Can you explain how that brings anyone to Christ?

Watch TV at all? Read any good novels lately? How did that bring anyone to Christ?

All of life is not about winning the lost. You do not go to work to win the lost. No, you do not. That you may win someone to Christ at work is not why you go to work.

The whole point I am driving at is that you couch this retort in a false premise.

flybaby
Sep 26th 2008, 05:42 PM
Okay, so I read the article along with some of the comments at the bottom.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea. But digging deeper into it, we realize that this is just a bandaid on what is the true problem - welfare out of control. Welfare was never meant to be a permanent way of life. Welfare was meant as a help to get people to the place where they could work.

So, instead of offering people more free money, we need to figure out a way to help these people become productive members of society that don't need a handout. However, I don't see this ever happening as our government gives handouts not only to the poor, but also a $700 billion dollar handout on Wall-Street.

What's the solution? I don't know, but not this. As one person mentioned in the comments, you are just causing there to be a generation of people who have no family support once they are old. Then what will the government do with these "people"? Pay them to die?

always
Sep 26th 2008, 05:59 PM
I didn't read it, but if it suggests giving a lump sum to people who are living off of government largesse in order to shut down their reproductive capability, then I'm all for it.


OH, NO YOU NOT! isn't this a form of abortion?:hmm: the liberal has arrived

always
Sep 26th 2008, 06:06 PM
How soon we forget, This one is deem a choice, but give em inch they will take a yard.


The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.

The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems.

The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation) and the mentally ill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness), but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy), and the physically deformed.

Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people_of_the_United_States), as well as Afro-American women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Feminism), were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth).

Some sterilizations also took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminality), but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.

The first state to introduce compulsory sterilization legislation was Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan), in 1897 but the law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted.

Eight years later Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)'s state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington) and California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) in 1909.

Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case Buck v. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell) which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia) home for the mentally retarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation).

The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942), complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime)

thestarofthesea
Sep 26th 2008, 06:33 PM
Well, this was presented by a Republican and I'm a flaming liberal, but I actually see this as a potentially positive idea. The main component that I agree with is making it voluntary. I would not support anything mandatory requiring people of a certain socio-economic status to be sterile, but if somebody knows they cannot support potential children, and are married or for whatever reason engaging in sexual relationships, and they agree to the surgury, I'm all for it. It seems like a good way to encourage social responsibility while also limiting the burden put on taxpayers.

I do support welfare programs, because I know for a fact many capable, intelligent people can benefit from short-term support, but I've also known people who take advantage of these systems in order to fund their own laziness, which I disagree with very strongly. The mother of a friend of mine has been on SSI for decades. She is healthy, she has no mobility issues, she has a high school education and could easily work a typical entry-level or customer service job, but instead she filed papers saying she suffered debilitating stress and isn't intelligent enough to work, makes money working as a prostitute, claims her SSI and spends it on cigarettes and alcohol. This really disgusts me. I would love to see the welfare system updated and improved so that regular assessments of needs and abilities are being made, and also programs like this one proposed, which could cut down on people having children they can't afford. This woman has two children. Her daughter, age 18, has three children. They are all on welfare. I'd much rather the daughter had been given $1,000, which she could squander or, if she was smart, use for education or something, than to see her in her current situation, which is raising three children in an abusive home and spending the money she gets for their support mainly on cocaine. She shoudn't be a mother in the first place, but now she's added three more who will be on welfare until age 18 at least, and likely their lives.



There is no reason for them to not WILLINGLY stop reproducing in this method that isn't necessarily permanent. It isn't abortion, no one is being killed, and the benefits to society go way beyond money.

So true.


I'm not sure what's more repugnant, this, or irresponsible parents who's children are all in foster care because they can't or won't take care of them.

I totally agree with this. As far as I'm concerned, the people who put themselves in this situation have already gladly sacrificed any dignity and self-respect for nothing, and they aren't likely to get it back by continuing to be dependent upon the government while they keep on having kids they are not able to care for. If a person is genuinely hard on their luck and facing a short-term crisis, then I see no problem with them asking for help and doing as they see fit to get them back on track. This bill seems more geared towards the chronic abuser of the system, and those who were born into the system who consider it normal. It's a way for them to regain their dignity, through reducing their need to rely on the government.


Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?

I am absolutely in favour of increasing educational opportunities for the genuinely disadvantaged, but I think it has to be recognised that there is a segment of the population that isn't going to respond to those sort of benefits. I gave an example above of a woman, ages 57, who has been on welfare in some form (food stamps, SSI, section 8) since she was 18 years old. Her son has begged and pleaded with her throughout his life for her to support genuine effort on his part to become educated, to get himself out of poverty, and her reaction is that it's stupid of him to work a paid job when he could be collecting benefits and spending them on getting high. This sort of person doesn't respond to education. You could hold all seminars in the world for her, but she wouldn't bother to attend, and if made so to do, would see what she could steal from the school. She was educated at a good public school in a decent part of western Michigan; she wasn't somebody who fell through the cracks and never had an opportunity. Some people don't want to be helped. They want to be babied. In this case, I'd rather hand over some money to guarentee that, at least, they cannot inflict society with another generation of individuals raised with that mentality.


Expect the liberals to fight this tooth and nail. You're right about the generational welfeare and that is one reason the liberals will be against it; they rely on the generational welfare and the accompanying votes that go with that dependency.

That's funny, because I'm a sworn liberal and I really think this is a good plan. I'm not sure you understand liberals very well. We don't want useless dependents clamouring like babies for endless resources when they aren't willing to make any effort on their own part to improve their lot in life. The pro-welfare stance generally refers to the deserving. Maybe someone who was injured, had no insurance and hence was overwhelmed with bills, lost the job because of the injury and now needs a few months or a year's worth of support in order to get back on track. It doesn't refer to those who are solely drains on the system who refuse to give back or to support themselves despite being able. No liberal is excited about the prospect of social vampirism.


On the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea. But digging deeper into it, we realize that this is just a bandaid on what is the true problem - welfare out of control. Welfare was never meant to be a permanent way of life. Welfare was meant as a help to get people to the place where they could work.

So, instead of offering people more free money, we need to figure out a way to help these people become productive members of society that don't need a handout. However, I don't see this ever happening as our government gives handouts not only to the poor, but also a $700 billion dollar handout on Wall-Street.


I'm re-posting this because I think it's such a valid point! The whole welfare system does need revamping.

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 08:04 PM
Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?
It would be unethical to FORCE the issue. There are already plenty of programs in place to get people an education for free or very nearly so. These people aren't biting.

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 08:05 PM
This makes no sense. Even if all the money used to pay people to get the snip snip, it wouldn't even come close the amount of money it would cost to put those children in foster homes, and higher education. The average cost now to raise a child is over a million dollars.

And why is it unethical to stop irresponsible people from having children?
:hmm:

?? I think we're on the same side here, and you may have misunderstood my post. You're totally right, btw. :D

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 08:08 PM
Expect the liberals to fight this tooth and nail. You're right about the generational welfeare and that is one reason the liberals will be against it; they rely on the generational welfare and the accompanying votes that go with that dependency.

Preach it, brotha... Truer words were never spoken.

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 08:11 PM
OH, NO YOU NOT! isn't this a form of abortion?:hmm: the liberal has arrived
1. It's not MURDERING anyone as abortion does.
and
2. It's completely voluntary.

There is no connection whatsoever with liberal principles in my stance. No liberal in their right min...

No liberal would agree with me. :D

AngelAuthor
Sep 26th 2008, 08:13 PM
Well, this was presented by a Republican and I'm a flaming liberal, but I actually see this as a potentially positive idea.
I stand corrected, sister. :lol:

Rebelnote
Sep 26th 2008, 08:19 PM
:hmm:

?? I think we're on the same side here, and you may have misunderstood my post. You're totally right, btw. :D
oops, I quoted the wrong poster... soorry :lol:
I fixed the original post, if you read it, it'll make more sense.

NHL Fever
Sep 26th 2008, 11:09 PM
There's plenty of evidence for the benefit of social programs on society. In Canada we have lots more social programs, and lots less crime and health problems. However there's no reason this contraceptive could not be added to the mix. Its truly a free choice, nothing is being forced on anyone. But it does make a real-world connection between priorities and logical consequences. If you're needing to fund a drug habit it serves to purposes:
1) Decrease likelihood of crime (although perhaps only temporary)
2) Decrease likelihood of drug addict having kids

Overall though, it still stand that if you want $1000 more than you want kids, than its a case of you get what you deserve.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 26th 2008, 11:40 PM
How soon we forget, This one is deem a choice, but give em inch they will take a yard.


The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.

The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems.

The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation) and the mentally ill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness), but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy), and the physically deformed.

Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people_of_the_United_States), as well as Afro-American women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Feminism), were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth).

Some sterilizations also took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminality), but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.

The first state to introduce compulsory sterilization legislation was Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan), in 1897 but the law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted.

Eight years later Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)'s state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington) and California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) in 1909.

Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case Buck v. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell) which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia) home for the mentally retarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation).

The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942), complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime)


Ready for this Always?

I agree 100% with you.

What most people are ignoring here is there are racist implications in the program. This isn't to say that racism drove the program or even has anything to do with the intention of the program, but the consequences are racist.

What demographic, statistically speaking, finds itself in rampant poverty? Minorities, specifically Latinos and Blacks. Thus, we would watch as such populations dwindled - rather than work hard to fix the problem (how come no Christians have come forward and chastised ourselves for not helping these people more?) we'd rather ERADICATE the problem.

Always is right, what is to stop us from making this compulsory in some instances? More importantly, who's to say it won't be compulsory now? If mom and dad are't liking the money their 18 year old daughter bring is, she could "willfully" go get her tubes tied, with mom and dad saying she's kicked out if she doesn't.

This bill stinks enough as it is. It's worse that Christians are supporting a bill that is antithetical to a Christian worldview.

*Hope*
Sep 26th 2008, 11:52 PM
Hitler would've loved this.

Lyndie
Sep 27th 2008, 12:13 AM
I can tell you I live in one the biggest welfare states in the country. People have numerous children so they can get more money from welfare. My state instituted a program where you need to work 20 hrs a week to continue benefits, unless you have a disabled child or care for someone in your family who is handicapped. Guess what? A high percentage now take thier kids to the drs', get thier kids diagnosed with add or something and continue on welfare. If they want to find a way to beat the system they will. Also many of the children placed in foster care come from low income families here. The mindset among teen is 'oh well, if I get pregnant, I'll just go on welfare.'

Plain and simple, those parents want the welfare money more than they want their kids.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 12:17 AM
What most people are ignoring here is there are racist implications in the program. This isn't to say that racism drove the program or even has anything to do with the intention of the program, but the consequences are racist.
This program would not discriminate. Consequences cannot be racist, since racism implies some willful intention. There's nothing racially about this program, especially when the action is 100% optional.


What demographic, statistically speaking, finds itself in rampant poverty? Minorities, specifically Latinos and Blacks. Thus, we would watch as such populations dwindled - rather than work hard to fix the problem (how come no Christians have come forward and chastised ourselves for not helping these people more?) we'd rather ERADICATE the problem.
Social programs also aim to ERADICATE the problem. Are lifeskill-training programs racist because they tend to be more useful for black people? No they are not, unless they exclude non-black people. If I high-five eveybody I see on the street, I'm not racist just because 80% of them will be white people, that's just who happens to be on the street around here.

The only discrimination that can legitimately be claimed here is class, if its offered only to poor people. In that case its discriminating against non-poor people, because its allowing poor people an additional choice not offered to non-poor people.


Always is right, what is to stop us from making this compulsory in some instances?
The law. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are legal, this is not a change. If somebody else pays for it, its not less legal, nor any less optional.


More importantly, who's to say it won't be compulsory now? If mom and dad are't liking the money their 18 year old daughter bring is, she could "willfully" go get her tubes tied, with mom and dad saying she's kicked out if she doesn't. Mon and dad can already do that.


This bill stinks enough as it is. It's worse that Christians are supporting a bill that is antithetical to a Christian worldview.The Christian worldview is to lead people to find and follow Jesus. Paying somebody $1000 to not have kids does not really have anything to do with that, since its not a moral decision, and there's no implicit connection to any person's witness for Christ.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 27th 2008, 12:35 AM
This program would not discriminate. Consequences cannot be racist, since racism implies some willful intention. There's nothing racially about this program, especially when the action is 100% optional.

Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.


Social programs also aim to ERADICATE the problem. Are lifeskill-training programs racist because they tend to be more useful for black people?

I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.

No, those aren't racist at all because it's beneficial. It's not aimed at hampering anything. It's also not "reverse racism" because it doesn't hamper White people. Eradicating a demographic is racist.


The law. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are legal, this is not a change. If somebody else pays for it, its not less legal, nor any less optional.

It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?

Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character?

Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?


Mon and dad can already do that.

...but there's no $1,000 incentive, which would drastically cause an increase.


The Christian worldview is to lead people to find and follow Jesus. Paying somebody $1000 to not have kids does not really have anything to do with that, since its not a moral decision, and there's no implicit connection to any person's witness for Christ.

That's not the Christian worldview. It's a small portion (a very small portion), but a far cry from a Christian worldview. You're basically taking 6 verses total and saying "This encompasses our entire view."

The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

*Hope*
Sep 27th 2008, 12:37 AM
The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

I think this sums it up nicely.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 01:09 AM
Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.
You talk like a liberal...a socialist. I'm stunned.

By your reasoning welfare itself is a racist program since most of the people on it will be minorities. And no it is NOT beneficial. The program has a far greater success rate of creating dependent SLAVES who, rather than try to stand on their own two feet, simply lean on the government from cradle to grave.


I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.
And here you abandon reason which also surprises me about you. Tell me, A.K., how do you "eradicate" something that never existed?


It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?
Are you kidding me? Have you taken leave of your senses? Paying people to HAVE children they're not going to have to put up with or raise? Heck...sign me up and line up the harem...I'M THERE!! :rolleyes:


Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character? yes...absolutely, America's ghettos are chock-full of character.


Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?
Scary that I'm using the same argument against you that I use on Always. Who says that Christian churches aren't doing this? Some are, in fact. And it's not your place to judge when a church is or isn't doing enough.


The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.
It's not about believing the quality of the potential child is up to our standards. You talk about raising these people up. I guarantee you it is far easier to raise a single woman up out of the ghetto than it is a mother with 5 kids swinging off her hips. The responsible ones who don't have children have a greater chance of improving their lives...that's a FACT you need to consider here.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 01:35 AM
Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.
1) No it can't, it has to have intention. Find me a definition that does not include attitude or intention. If I high-five everybody on the street, its not racist just because I happen to high-five 80% white people in a neighborhood where 80% white people live.
2) If a consequence can be racist, then all programs are racist, because they inevitably do not affect all races perfectly evenly. It therefore renders the term racism meaningless.


I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.
By this logic all programs promoting safe sex are eradicating people.


No, those aren't racist at all because it's beneficial. It's not aimed at hampering anything. It's also not "reverse racism" because it doesn't hamper White people. Eradicating a demographic is racist.
Hampering somebody is not what makes something racist. Racism means you believe race is the primary determinant of a person's value or actions. This can result in treating people based on race, either preferentially or detrimentally. This program is available to white people and everyone else, it does indeed 'hamper' as you put it, poor white people as much as anybody else. If it was available only to black people, or only to white people, then it would be racist.

Even assuming your line of reasoning, it is a form of reverse racism if there's a wealthy (by your assumption, white) person who wants to take this deal, but cannot because its only available to poor people. When one person has a legal right to a choice than another of equal age and humanity does not have, that is institutional discrimination.


It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?
If you give poor people birth control to counteract teenage pregnancy are you saying they're hopeless? No, you're applying harm reduction. Why is this any different?


Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character?
Are you arguing for programs that create hardship?


Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?
Offering somebody birth control does not exclude anybody from helping raise anybody else's children.


...but there's no $1,000 incentive, which would drastically cause an increase.
No parent who is wicked enough to pimp out their kid in this way, will be stopped by the lack of this program. For any program one can imagine a 1 in a million scenario with a bad outcome. Policy cannot be based on the exceedingly rare chance of something.


That's not the Christian worldview. It's a small portion (a very small portion), but a far cry from a Christian worldview. You're basically taking 6 verses total and saying "This encompasses our entire view."
If you can find a more concise description of what Christians purpose is, I'd like to hear it.


The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. Using birth control does not take any lives, it prevents pregnancy. If you believe that preventing conception is violating the sanctity of life, then so are married couples who use birth control during sex.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 27th 2008, 01:46 AM
You talk like a liberal...a socialist. I'm stunned.

By your reasoning welfare itself is a racist program since most of the people on it will be minorities. And no it is NOT beneficial. The program has a far greater success rate of creating dependent SLAVES who, rather than try to stand on their own two feet, simply lean on the government from cradle to grave.

...so even though you're arguing for a greater social impact at the cost of tax-payer money, I'm somehow the socialist? :rolleyes:

By the way - Welfare is racist, has racist consequences, perpetuates racism, and creates a social slavery. I've argued this for a while. It would be better to force people on welfare to get jobs that pay more than a welfare check and eventually wean them off of it.


And here you abandon reason which also surprises me about you. Tell me, A.K., how do you "eradicate" something that never existed?

By eradicating the possibility of perpetuating the people. That's another form of genocide. When you make it to where certain demographics can't birth children, that is slow eradication.

Remember the line from Braveheart - "If we can't kick them out, we'll breed them out."

By the way, do you know how to argue without insulting? If you do, it would be very nice if you'd employ it in this topic. If not...well then...


Are you kidding me? Have you taken leave of your senses? Paying people to HAVE children they're not going to have to put up with or raise? Heck...sign me up and line up the harem...I'M THERE!! :rolleyes:

...and putting those children in homes where they have a future. That is vastly more ethical and logical than what is being proposed by paying people to eradicate their future.


yes...absolutely, America's ghettos are chock-full of character.

You've obviously never dealt with kids who are growing up in the ghetto. They are vastly more mature and hold more common sense than any Suburban kid. Granted, this is anecdotal, but I'd still say that I appreciate the "ghetto-culture" in terms of maturity more than I do the Suburban culture.

Let's face it, some of the most morally bankrupt kids around today come from families where the parents bring in six-figures. Should we pay them for tying up their tubes as well?


Scary that I'm using the same argument against you that I use on Always. Who says that Christian churches aren't doing this? Some are, in fact. And it's not your place to judge when a church is or isn't doing enough.

The way America functions says a lot. The way people in this thread are responding to it says a lot. Fact is, that so much poverty exists while our churches get bigger and richer says a lot.


It's not about believing the quality of the potential child is up to our standards. You talk about raising these people up. I guarantee you it is far easier to raise a single woman up out of the ghetto than it is a mother with 5 kids swinging off her hips. The responsible ones who don't have children have a greater chance of improving their lives...that's a FACT you need to consider here.

I didn't know we evaluated human life and dignity by "chance." :rolleyes:

Look, here's what I'm going to ask everyone to do - leave the pragmatism at the door and let's look at this purely through a Judeo-Christian outlook. This means you can't say, "Yeah, but it'll save x amount of dollars" or "But they only have a y% chance of doing s." Let's look at it purely from a human point of view - does paying people to not have children because of the person's social status negatively impact human dignity?

flybaby
Sep 27th 2008, 01:49 AM
The other side to this, however, is that the government will be handing out these surgeries which will in turn lead to a higher rate of people having unprotected sx. This in turn, will lead to a higher incident of std's, aids, etc. And then who is going to be paying those bills????

Anyway you look at it, this is not a good solution to the problem of generational welfare. No, I don't know what the solution is, but it can't be this.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 27th 2008, 02:09 AM
1) No it can't, it has to have intention. Find me a definition that does not include attitude or intention. If I high-five everybody on the street, its not racist just because I happen to high-five 80% white people in a neighborhood where 80% white people live.
2) If a consequence can be racist, then all programs are racist, because they inevitably do not affect all races perfectly evenly. It therefore renders the term racism meaningless.

You can try to Supreme Court to begin with. They argued that "reading tests" as a requirement for voting were 'racist' and created an unequal opportunity. The reason is the reading tests were put in place in the first place is it was well known that, at the time, the majority of black people weren't literate (not their fault since they were denied education to begin with). Though this law prevented some white people, the consequences harmed black people (at least the majority).

If you'd prefer, we can drop the racist charge, but the problem is two-fold:

1) It ignores how it makes minority populations feel. As Christians, this is something we have to take into consideration.

2) It's still classist - this would actually be a bigger problem than the racism charge. So I'm willing to concede the racism point if you're willing to accept the law would be classist.


By this logic all programs promoting safe sex are eradicating people.

It's not targeting a specific group. We're saying to a specific group of people that we don't want them to propagate.


If you give poor people birth control to counteract teenage pregnancy are you saying they're hopeless? No, you're applying harm reduction. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. I'm saying we shouldn't give contraceptives to anyone who is unmarried - my tax money shouldn't be used to compensate for someone's lack of self-control.

Married couples should be able to receive contraceptives from private institutions, but even then, why should my tax money pay for their contraceptives?


Are you arguing for programs that create hardship?

Is that what I said? I said that economic hardships can often create great character. Thus, I don't necessarily see the disadvantage to being born into poverty. There's a reason I have a hard work ethic and it's not because I was born into a wealthy family.


If you can find a more concise description of what Christians purpose is, I'd like to hear it.

Heaven is a Place on Earth by Michael Wittmer.

That's a good book on explaining a Christian worldview. If you're not willing to read it, I'm not willing to discuss it [the issue on what a Christian worldview is]. ;)


This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. Using birth control does not take any lives, it prevents pregnancy. If you believe that preventing conception is violating the sanctity of life, then so are married couples who use birth control during sex.

You're arguing that poor people don't deserve to have babies and it would be better to pay thousands of dollars to prevent their ability to procreate than to let them enjoy having children.

By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 02:18 AM
By eradicating the possibility of perpetuating the people. That's another form of genocide. When you make it to where certain demographics can't birth children, that is slow eradication.
Firstly, we aren't FORCING this on anyone. The liberal tactic here is to use big, painful words like "eradicating people" and "genocide" when nothing of the kind is being proposed unless you suggest that ALL black people are going to sign up for this and therefore ALL black people will disappear over time. :rolleyes:
The relative MINORITY of people who would up for this do not the bulk of a society or culture or race make, much as it cripples your argument to realize that fact. You could sterilize every single black woman in this country who is living in low-income housing and...

...trust me...

There are enough of us out of that demographic to perpetuate the species.


...and putting those children in homes where they have a future. That is vastly more ethical and logical than what is being proposed by paying people to eradicate their future.So let me get this straight: You believe it is ethical to pay Joe Smith 1,000 to go knock some woman up and drop that kid off at the nearest orphanage, as if he's done society a favor?


You've obviously never dealt with kids who are growing up in the ghetto. Try telling that to my mother who raised my brother and I in Compton, California in the 70's.

If you aren't familiar with the name, it's featured in quite a few movies like Boys in da Hood, and I assure you it is quite ghetto enough for me to have experience in the matter. I'll name you 15 children right now that I was neighbor to who have spent time in prison or are currently there...

and some of them are white! :D


Let's face it, some of the most morally bankrupt kids around today come from families where the parents bring in six-figures. Should we pay them for tying up their tubes as well? If their parents are up for it, sure. I'm not discriminatory.


The way America functions says a lot. The way people in this thread are responding to it says a lot. Fact is, that so much poverty exists while our churches get bigger and richer says a lot.That's the beauty of the church that Christ set up and Paul later established on his trips...we're all independent. That means I have no power over these mega churches you're talking about that seem to exist for no other reason to enrich the pastor and his staff. Forgive me if I resent generalizations that Churches aren't doing enough when my own little church(s) are doing plenty, like working to establish a Chrsitian orphanage in Sonora, Mexico.


I didn't know we evaluated human life and dignity by "chance."First of all, not all human life is valuable to a society. Some of it is downright detrimental. But this isn't about the value of human life, it's about the option...the opportunity to improve EXISTING lives by reducing the possibility of POTENTIAL lives that can not be properly cared for. Again, facts are facts: the single woman raised to 18 years old is going to have a whole lot better chance of getting off welfare, going to school and getting out of the system, than the mother who is dropping a new child every 1 1/2 years.

You're talking about the value of life, but it's just talk, because you don't seem to want to make the hard choices required to improve the lives already out there on the street. Part of that improvement undoubtedly includes birth control. Let them have children when they have become self sufficient in life and can properly care for a child on their own.


Look, here's what I'm going to ask everyone to do - leave the pragmatism at the door and let's look at this purely through a Judeo-Christian outlook.Unless you're going to tell me you're against birth control o any kind for any reason, I don't see what this has to do with the Judeo Christian outlook. We're offering permanent "condoms" to woman and paying them to take it. How is that any different than having a box of rubbers at the Social Services office that say "TAKE ONE"?

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 02:22 AM
By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.
Low blow, and inaccurate.

Jesus wasn't born into a system that was going to provide welfare for Him and His family for one.

Jesus wasn't born to selfish parents who had their own interests (perhaps drugs and alcohol) preventing them from being able to care for Him.

Jesus wasn't born to parents who, by His birth, were going to be infinitely strapped with hardship and unable to improve their lives, status or situation.

Not that it matters. Jesus wasn't conceived in a way that could be stopped by a tubal...voluntary or otherwise.

*Hope*
Sep 27th 2008, 02:52 AM
Sterilization of the poor takes an already desperate situation and makes it even more hopeless. Even if you convince yourselves that it is "voluntary", you're sugar-coating it to make it easier to swallow. The fact of the matter is offering money (essentially a bribe) to someone who has little-to-no other resources is coercion. "Population control" is a poor answer because it does not address the root of the issue: the poor need assistance. They don't need alms. They don't need apathy. They don't need sympathy. They need people, specifically BELIEVERS to intervene on their behalf. The Bible has over 2,000 verses which address our call to aid the poor. Not one EVER suggests that we should encourage them not to have children. We should be spending money to support programs that educate the poor on health issues, childcare, and entrepreneurship. Not bribing them to stop procreating. Poor people deserve to experience the joy of bearing children just as much as the wealthy.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 03:06 AM
You can try to Supreme Court to begin with. They argued that "reading tests" as a requirement for voting were 'racist' and created an unequal opportunity. The reason is the reading tests were put in place in the first place is it was well known that, at the time, the majority of black people weren't literate (not their fault since they were denied education to begin with). Though this law prevented some white people, the consequences harmed black people (at least the majority).
It was racist because as you imply, it was specifically intentioned to discriminate against blacks.


1) It ignores how it makes minority populations feel. As Christians, this is something we have to take into consideration.

2) It's still classist - this would actually be a bigger problem than the racism charge. So I'm willing to concede the racism point if you're willing to accept the law would be classist.
Christianity has nothing to do with how minorities feel. Its about bringing people to Jesus.

It may be classist in its current form. The solution would simply be to open up that option to people of all incomes.


It's not targeting a specific group. We're saying to a specific group of people that we don't want them to propagate.
But that specific group is not poor people, in fact its hard to tell who exactly this targets in intention. In fact it could be argued that its providing a benefit to those people who you believe it 'targets'.


Yeah, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. I'm saying we shouldn't give contraceptives to anyone who is unmarried - my tax money shouldn't be used to compensate for someone's lack of self-control.

Married couples should be able to receive contraceptives from private institutions, but even then, why should my tax money pay for their contraceptives?
I guess I didn't understand your position on this. So you're not for promoting condom use for example?

BTW, your tax dollars are specifically being used for someone's lack of control when they support welfare children, and to a much more expensive extent to you, than to pay for contraception.


Is that what I said? I said that economic hardships can often create great character. Thus, I don't necessarily see the disadvantage to being born into poverty. There's a reason I have a hard work ethic and it's not because I was born into a wealthy family.
You did not say that, you asked it. Hardship is not what this program is trying to prevent, generational welfare is. That's the beauty of it, there are those who will be built up by hardship, and those who will be defeated by it. The character-driven poor will not make the choice to give up the values of children for $1000, and will confer that drive and character to their children. Those who would take the $1000 are precisely the ones who will take the immediate, easy path anyway, and likely confer that model onto their children.


Heaven is a Place on Earth by Michael Wittmer.

That's a good book on explaining a Christian worldview. If you're not willing to read it, I'm not willing to discuss it [the issue on what a Christian worldview is]. ;)What an odd comment - you are the one who brought this up, I'm not sure why you expect me to debate you on it.

I really don't care what a specific author that you have in mind thinks about it, I care about what Christ thinks about it. This is reflected in the bible, and therefore that's what I can discuss with you. I don't see anything implicitly un-Christian about it, as I don't really see a moral dimension whatsoever to it.


You're arguing that poor people don't deserve to have babies and it would be better to pay thousands of dollars to prevent their ability to procreate than to let them enjoy having children. No I'm not. I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over children don't deserve to have children. The elegance is that its not paternalistic at all, nor does it single anybody out. It allows those people to openly make the choice to self-identify as those kinds of people. No accusations, no judgments, just choice.


By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.This comment is just offensive and has no tie-in with the discussion.

*Hope*
Sep 27th 2008, 03:15 AM
I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over childrendon't deserve to have children.

And you deny that this is an elitist/classist position? Because they are so desperate that a significant amount of money would convince them to be sterilized, this makes them undeserving of children? Desperate people will do desperate things. A person's financial situation has no bearing on whether or not they "deserve" to bear children. It may be unwise for them to bear children during their financial crisis, but that doesn't give anyone (especially the government) the right to take advantage of their situation in order to further their own agenda.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 03:29 AM
I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over children don't deserve to have children. The elegance is that its not paternalistic at all, nor does it single anybody out. It allows those people to openly make the choice to self-identify as those kinds of people. No accusations, no judgments, just choice.


Bingo!

15 characters

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 03:32 AM
Because they are so desperate that a significant amount of money would convince them to be sterilized, this makes them undeserving of children?

Food, clothing, and shelter are available for people so what do they need so desperately that $1,000 takes precedence over a child?

CoffeeCat
Sep 27th 2008, 03:36 AM
Quick question to those who think this notion of 'paying people to stop the possibility that they'll ever be able to procreate' is a good thing (and I'm not one of those who'd agree with it):

What happens when you pay them off, they get the vasectomy or get their tubes tied, manage to work or pull their way out of poverty, 5 years later they get married, desperately want children but can't have them anymore even though they're okay financially now? Do you say "oh, it sucks that you were poor and had to make that decision back then, but those are the breaks"? Do you tell them to go out and adopt? Do you say "not my fault you accepted the money we offered you.... we never figured you'd STOP being poor"?

We need to address those questions before we consider getting behind a program that PERMANENTLY takes away someone's ability to have children.

We also need to consider that while such a program could be an OPTION now, later there'd technically be very little able to stop the powers that be if they decided to change the current laws and start enforcing it.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 03:40 AM
And you deny that this is an elitist/classist position? Because they are so desperate that a significant amount of money would convince them to be sterilized, this makes them undeserving of children?

What I should have said is that anyone who would trade fertility for $1000 does not deserve fertility.


Desperate people will do desperate things. A person's financial situation has no bearing on whether or not they "deserve" to bear children. It may be unwise for them to bear children during their financial crisis, but that doesn't give anyone (especially the government) the right to take advantage of their situation in order to further their own agenda.Nobody is taking advantage of their situation, its allowing them to take advantage of their situation.


Food, clothing, and shelter are available for people so what do they need so desperately that $1,000 takes precedence over a child?
Exactly my point.



What happens when you pay them off, they get the vasectomy or get their tubes tied, manage to work or pull their way out of poverty, 5 years later they get married, desperately want children but can't have them anymore even though they're okay financially now? Do you say "oh, it sucks that you were poor and had to make that decision back then, but those are the breaks"? Do you tell them to go out and adopt? Do you say "not my fault you accepted the money we offered you.... we never figured you'd STOP being poor"?

We need to address those questions before we consider getting behind a program that PERMANENTLY takes away someone's ability to have children.


That just shows even more the beauty of it. It is not permanent, but it is permanent for those for whom it is not a priority to work and make it not permanent. Not only can both be reversed, but there are other ways to have kids. But if you're priority is $1000 rather than seeing the future, you're not going to get to that point and that's the choice you've made.



We also need to consider that while such a program could be an OPTION now, later there'd technically be very little able to stop the powers that be if they decided to change the current laws and start enforcing it.
Outside speculation, there's no reason to assume one would lead to the other. In any case, you can make legislation based on small possibilities of what might happen, you have to deal with is happening.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 03:42 AM
Quick question to those who think this notion of 'paying people to stop the possibility that they'll ever be able to procreate' is a good thing (and I'm not one of those who'd agree with it):

What happens when you pay them off, they get the vasectomy or get their tubes tied, manage to work or pull their way out of poverty, 5 years later they get married, desperately want children but can't have them anymore even though they're okay financially now? Do you say "oh, it sucks that you were poor and had to make that decision back then, but those are the breaks"? Do you tell them to go out and adopt? Do you say "not my fault you accepted the money we offered you.... we never figured you'd STOP being poor"?

We need to address those questions before we consider getting behind a program that PERMANENTLY takes away someone's ability to have children.

We also need to consider that while such a program could be an OPTION now, later there'd technically be very little able to stop the powers that be if they decided to change the current laws and start enforcing it.
These surgeries are reversable. I have a question... how often do you think people who are milking the system have the scenerio you painted happen?

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 03:44 AM
What I should have said is that anyone who would trade fertility for $1000 does not deserve fertility.


Yep... kind of like how Esau didn't deserve his birthright b/c he was sooo willing to give it away for some stew.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 03:48 AM
Yep... kind of like how Esau didn't deserve his birthright b/c he was sooo willing to give it away for some stew.

God blessed Jacob, so I don't see where you're going with that.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 03:51 AM
God blessed Jacob, so I don't see where you're going with that.
I was agreeing with your statement that those who would give up their fertility for a grand don't deserve it... Esau didn't deserve the birthright b/c he was willing to give it up for a bowl of stew, hence Jacob deserving it instead.

CoffeeCat
Sep 27th 2008, 03:53 AM
Diffangle, I respectfully disagree on this particular issue. There's NO guarantee those surgeries are reversable. They are some of the time; the rest of the time, they stay permanent, and that's that.

As for your second point: some people might indeed "milk the system". Lots do. Not ALL do. I'm concerned with those who don't milk it, and even more concerned with those in low income-to-poverty situations who might be young, who might be naive, who might be influenced by others, who might at the TIME believe they'll never escape poverty, who are slowly slipping through society's cracks even though they don't want to. For that matter, I'm concerned with young kids who learn to milk the system, but learn better as they hit their 20s and try to improve their lives. I'm concerned with kids who might have made mistakes and struggled with problems.

These kids are the ones people so often call "write offs" -- just because they're messing up now, people say, they'll probably mess up forever. Just because they're in a bad situation now, people say, these kids will probably stay in a bad situation always and never want to change their ways or learn from it.

Sorry, but I'm unapologetically not that pessimistic. I want ANYONE to have a fighting chance to MAKE IT in this world, to thrive, to maybe one day have their own family if they want to or if they can. I want to leave them that option, and suggesting to an 18 year old that maybe she should get her tubes tied because she's poor NOW does not leave her that option at all. It writes her off before her 19th birthday, is all it does.

And it doesn't matter to me how many or how few there are in this context. Numbers shouldn't matter here.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 03:55 AM
I was agreeing with your statement that those who would give up their fertility for a grand don't deserve it... Esau didn't deserve the birthright b/c he was willing to give it up for a bowl of stew, hence Jacob deserving it instead.

Oh oops thought you were disagreeing.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 03:59 AM
We need to address those questions before we consider getting behind a program that PERMANENTLY takes away someone's ability to have children.

Tubals CAN be reversed, though. Not always, admittedly, but it has been done enough times. Also, for the couple who wants to have children after pulling themselves up by their bootstraps there are other options like IVF available to them.

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 04:00 AM
As for your second point: some people might indeed "milk the system". Lots do. Not ALL do. I'm concerned with those who don't milk it, and even more concerned with those in low income-to-poverty situations who might be young, who might be naive, who might be influenced by others, who might at the TIME believe they'll never escape poverty, who are slowly slipping through society's cracks even though they don't want to. For that matter, I'm concerned with young kids who learn to milk the system, but learn better as they hit their 20s and try to improve their lives. I'm concerned with kids who might have made mistakes and struggled with problems.

These kids are the ones people so often call "write offs" -- just because they're messing up now, people say, they'll probably mess up forever. Just because they're in a bad situation now, people say, these kids will probably stay in a bad situation always and never want to change their ways or learn from it.

Sorry, but I'm unapologetically not that pessimistic. I want ANYONE to have a fighting chance to MAKE IT in this world, to thrive, to maybe one day have their own family if they want to or if they can. I want to leave them that option, and suggesting to an 18 year old that maybe she should get her tubes tied because she's poor NOW does not leave her that option at all. It writes her off before her 19th birthday, is all it does.

And it doesn't matter to me how many or how few there are in this context. Numbers shouldn't matter here.

I see what you mean, but I believe this proposal will be very accurate in getting the 'milkers' to self-select for the procedure vs those that are making themselves better.

There is no suggestion that an 18 yr old get her tubes tied, there is simply the availability of it if she chooses.

You could always modify this by requiring a certain age minimum.

SethElijah
Sep 27th 2008, 04:09 AM
I feel as if those who are truly trying to pull themselves out of their situation would turn away from this offer. They are able to see light in the future.

I have worked with people in poverty. I was a manager of a restaraunt down the street from the projects here. If they wanted to work, nto just have a job but work, I would give them a chance. Inevitably many of the women would quit because they were going to lose there welfare benefits if they continued to work. They would then have more children. Many were addicted to drugs, and many of them men were in gangs. Most of those on welfare had parents who had been on welfare, and their children who had children were also on welfare. The main goal of many of the kids in high school was to get pregnant and start the cycle again.

I am not saying that we write off an entire socio-economic class of people, but we do have to face the fact that some people just do not and never will want the help. They have been shown that they can live their lived and drink or do drugs and taxpayers will foot the bill and they are fine with that. I don't know if this is the answer, but it seems a step in the right direction if it is indeed voluntary. I know that after trying and trying to help, trying to tutor the kids after work with there schoolwork, trying to form the adults into someone who could themselves be a manager and financially support their family only to have them quit to keep welfare I got burned out.

CoffeeCat
Sep 27th 2008, 04:14 AM
I see what you mean, but I believe this proposal will be very accurate in getting the 'milkers' to self-select for the procedure vs those that are making themselves better.

There is no suggestion that an 18 yr old get her tubes tied, there is simply the availability of it if she chooses.

You could always modify this by requiring a certain age minimum.

And that MIGHT be an option, but I can see an age requirement defeating the purposes of the program. If I were to suggest an age at which I'd even CONSIDER mentioning this as an option, it would be 21. That's fair enough. In the USA, that's the legal age of adulthood. Nobody who is NOT an adult should be offered a decision that would affect the rest of their lives.

.....and yet, which demographic is MOST likely to be affected by pregnancy? Low-income/poverty line teenagers.

And that's my problem with it. I'd never ask a child to make a permanent, adult decision they'd likely regret later (this sterilization process) and yet many are making their OWN adult decisions to have sex early. In contexts like this, I don't mind saying I'm all for insisting that people having sex should be required to use contraception of the TEMPORARY kind (shots, pills, condoms, combinations of the above and more). That helps in terms of birth control AND STD protection. At this age, my biggest concern is the "lasting" effect of a "vasectomy/tubes tied" idea, combined with a teenager's notorious inability to make life decisions that'll be good for them even years down the road.

Come to think of it, I doubt I'd personally ever find it acceptable to offer it to someone just because they were 21. But if someone DOES argue for this program, I hope they'd consider legal adulthood the only place to consider addressing it.

thestarofthesea
Sep 27th 2008, 06:30 AM
One of the reasons I'm in favor of this bill is because I don't see a lot of alternatives. Someone on the thread pointed out the need for education. Well, education is great, but the more I've thought about the issue tonight, the more I've come to think education alone simply won't work. We live in a raunch culture where casual sex is the norm and putting out is practically a virtue. Virgins are the stuff of jokes; there are movies about the 'weirdos' who haven't slept with multiple partners yet; people who aren't having sex by 15-16 are considered to be abnormal and to have some kind of developmental or social problem, and are unsuited for relationships. A nice class about remaining abstinent and being responsible with one's reproductive decisions really doesn't seem like any sort of solution because it's a drop in a bucket.

The whole culture is very smut oriented at the moment (I'd suggest to anyone to read Ariel Levy's awesome book "Female Chauvinist Pigs" about that, actually) and many people, especially those who are in poverty, are responding to media messages about these kinds of lifestyles and in many cases are choosing to adopt them. Everyone I've ever met who abuses long-term welfare owns a television, and it's usually set to Jerry Springer or Sex in the City, where they are fed messages that rampant promiscuity is normal and good. I think we need to come up with strong short-term solutions to get the problem under control, and then longer term, less reactionary methods to keep the problem from getting out of hand again. I honestly believe we're going to need to change the culture if we want to stop this problem, and hopefully everybody is all for that because we don't live in a very pro-Christian culture right now, but we also have to do something in the meantime. This bill proposes one way of meeting the problem head-on until the root causes of the issue of unwanted children and irresponsible sex can be dealt addressed and resolved.

I don't understand any of the arguments that this is racist. Of course, if a specific race is being targeted, then it's a problem, but I don't see that in this proposal. The fact that it is optional makes all the difference here. I do also feel we need to make opportunities available for the poor and to find productive ways for them to become self-reliant and not have to live a debilitating life of dependence. I do support many social programs designed to help those who are genuinely looking for help, not coddling, but we need to recognise the difference. Those who want help with stop-gap measures, who need a leg up or a boost or whatever are very different from those who are not interested in doing for themselves -- and as far as I'm concerned, those who are not interested in doing anything for their own benefit do not deserve the privilege of raising the next generation. I do say privilege, because although I believe children are a blessing, we're also talking about someone else's life. If a person doesn't have the initiative to try and improve their lot in life, what benefit can they possibly be to a child?

For me it's not even so much about the money, though of course that matters. It's the abuse factor that angers me. If someone is unwilling to work, unwilling to train, won't go to school when education is offered and generally doesn't care about themselves, how are they ever going to be good parents? I've seen it with so many people: they have kids, the kids have kids, nobody cares, everybody is lazy and everybody sponges off the government. Whole families live this way in areas of Detroit where I used to live, and nobody cares about making it better. I've seen these people during my internships as well, working in social work and social services offices. They want money but when asked how many job applications they've filled out, whether they are interested in training opportunities to learn computer and resume skills through Michigan Works, etc, they can't be bothered. They are interested in money to buy drugs or alcohol, and often the latest cd talking about how hard it is to be a pimp and such, but they don't care about ever moving up to a state of independence and self-sufficiency. As far as I'm concerned, these people shouldn't be encouraged or supported as they continued to make babies they can't care for are express little interest in. Maybe I'm elitist, but I think Keanu Reeves' character in Parenthood had a good point.


"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - h[eck], you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any -------------- be a father."



Nobody who is NOT an adult should be offered a decision that would affect the rest of their lives.

It would be wonderful if the world operated in this way, but unfortunately, as you clearly recognise, reality doesn't work like this. As you say:


.....and yet, which demographic is MOST likely to be affected by pregnancy? Low-income/poverty line teenagers.


And that's my problem with it. I'd never ask a child to make a permanent, adult decision they'd likely regret later (this sterilization process) and yet many are making their OWN adult decisions to have sex early.

As you point out, the problem is that teens are having sex and teens are getting pregnant. So, they are already dealing with adult decisions and many are facing the consequences, whether they be a baby, an STD, regret/guilt following an abortion etc. Since the problem is so huge and so prevalent, I think we do need to take the step of doing something about it, even if we'd prefer not to have to make big decisions. Children who commit murder are often tried as adults despite not having the capacity for reflection that adults have (the brain isn't fully formed until 25, according to some studies) because the gravity of their crimes. I guess children who choose to have sex also need to be dealt with as adults because of the gravity of the situation.

thestarofthesea
Sep 27th 2008, 06:31 AM
One of the reasons I'm in favor of this bill is because I don't see a lot of alternatives. Someone on the thread pointed out the need for education. Well, education is great, but the more I've thought about the issue tonight, the more I've come to think education alone simply won't work. We live in a raunch culture where casual sex is the norm and putting out is practically a virtue. Virgins are the stuff of jokes; there are movies about the 'weirdos' who haven't slept with multiple partners yet; people who aren't having sex by 15-16 are considered to be abnormal and to have some kind of developmental or social problem, and are unsuited for relationships. A nice class about remaining abstinent and being responsible with one's reproductive decisions really doesn't seem like any sort of solution because it's a drop in a bucket.

The whole culture is very smut oriented at the moment (I'd suggest to anyone to read Ariel Levy's awesome book "Female Chauvinist Pigs" about that, actually) and many people, especially those who are in poverty, are responding to media messages about these kinds of lifestyles and in many cases are choosing to adopt them. Everyone I've ever met who abuses long-term welfare owns a television, and it's usually set to Jerry Springer or Sex in the City, where they are fed messages that rampant promiscuity is normal and good. I think we need to come up with strong short-term solutions to get the problem under control, and then longer term, less reactionary methods to keep the problem from getting out of hand again. I honestly believe we're going to need to change the culture if we want to stop this problem, and hopefully everybody is all for that because we don't live in a very pro-Christian culture right now, but we also have to do something in the meantime. This bill proposes one way of meeting the problem head-on until the root causes of the issue of unwanted children and irresponsible sex can be dealt addressed and resolved.

I don't understand any of the arguments that this is racist. Of course, if a specific race is being targeted, then it's a problem, but I don't see that in this proposal. The fact that it is optional makes all the difference here. I do also feel we need to make opportunities available for the poor and to find productive ways for them to become self-reliant and not have to live a debilitating life of dependence. I do support many social programs designed to help those who are genuinely looking for help, not coddling, but we need to recognise the difference. Those who want help with stop-gap measures, who need a leg up or a boost or whatever are very different from those who are not interested in doing for themselves -- and as far as I'm concerned, those who are not interested in doing anything for their own benefit do not deserve the privilege of raising the next generation. I do say privilege, because although I believe children are a blessing, we're also talking about someone else's life. If a person doesn't have the initiative to try and improve their lot in life, what benefit can they possibly be to a child?

For me it's not even so much about the money, though of course that matters. It's the abuse factor that angers me. If someone is unwilling to work, unwilling to train, won't go to school when education is offered and generally doesn't care about themselves, how are they ever going to be good parents? I've seen it with so many people: they have kids, the kids have kids, nobody cares, everybody is lazy and everybody sponges off the government. Whole families live this way in areas of Detroit where I used to live, and nobody cares about making it better. I've seen these people during my internships as well, working in social work and social services offices. They want money but when asked how many job applications they've filled out, whether they are interested in training opportunities to learn computer and resume skills through Michigan Works, etc, they can't be bothered. They are interested in money to buy drugs or alcohol, and often the latest cd talking about how hard it is to be a pimp and such, but they don't care about ever moving up to a state of independence and self-sufficiency. As far as I'm concerned, these people shouldn't be encouraged or supported as they continued to make babies they can't care for are express little interest in.

Maybe I'm elitist, but I think Keanu Reeves' character in Parenthood had a good point.


"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - h[eck], you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any -------------- be a father."

ServantofTruth
Sep 27th 2008, 08:16 AM
Are you in favor of welfare? Social security?? Medicare? Medicaid? Aid to dependent children? Other social programs? Can you describe for me how the ones you are in favor of would bring anyone to Christ or help those in Christ to mature in Christ?

Are you in favor of driving your car to and from work, the store and so on? Can you explain how that brings anyone to Christ?

Watch TV at all? Read any good novels lately? How did that bring anyone to Christ?

All of life is not about winning the lost. You do not go to work to win the lost. No, you do not. That you may win someone to Christ at work is not why you go to work.

I think answering your questions may help you.

Let me begin with driving my car to work, or anywhere. I don't wish to claim it brings anyone to Christ - but it is an extension of my witness. It has a Christian fish with Jesus writen in it. A car sticker saying a bible in the hand is worth 2 on the shelf. Both these were bought, not by me, but my non believing wife.

Watching tv. Actually i watch very little. My son is watching at present, he's 6 years old, and i'm on the lap top. I feel my time is wasted watching tv. I admit sometimes i set a bad example to my wife and children by watching a film or program that i shouldn't - however other Christians would say they watch these things and there is nothing wrong with them.

Read any good novels lately, you say. Actually NO! I dislike fiction totally, when there are so many good True stories. All i have read for months is the Bible and books about the bible. I am not critising those who have time also for fiction, but it just isn't me.

I spend a lot of time each day discussing what i read with my wife and children, and although this in itself won't bring them to Christ, i believe them listening to the gospel/ bible message is much better than talking of other things. I do bible reading 365 each evening with my eldest 3 sons.

So probably the most important question of yours? Am i in favour of welfare benefits. Yes, i live on them with 5 sons. My eldest 2 sons are autistic - regular members may have read this before. I do a very little part time job.

I know people with autistic children who work full time. It costs the state more to support them/ care for their children so they can work. It looks good on the outside but doesn't add up financially. Also they are my children and need my love and care, not changing people who do it only for money.

Well i have answered your questions and you can either use it as ammunition to attack me or accept my answers and see that anything we do can be a witness - even driving our car - to non believers and to strengthen New Christians.

Back to the original topic - my government in the UK spends money on many things i disapprove of. So does my wife! Money is only important to me for the basics of somewhere to live, food & clothes, a car and outreach. I've just bought 10,000 tracts/ leaflets for mission. I was worried that when my present ones ran out, that would be the end. But our Lord has provided just enough money for another year.

To me this topic has nothing to help my faith or my basic daily needs. If someone whats to offer money for someone else to do something, whether an individual or a government, all that matters to me is What does our Lord think/ the bible say.

So i shall read the topic and see if this is what people are discussing - or their own opinions/ prejudices. It is much harder for 2 believers who read the Word of God daily to disagree or not show respect and love.




BIG SofTy Servant of 'biblical' Truth. :pp

The whole point I am driving at is that you couch this retort in a false premise.

Written in Christian Love. SofTy.

Vhayes
Sep 27th 2008, 03:22 PM
Nobody is taking advantage of their situation, its allowing them to take advantage of their situation.

I'd like to comment on this statement in particular.

I've been married to the same man for 36 years next month. Our first child, a daughter, died in childbirth. Our second child, Sarah, is an immense joy to us. Our third child, Matthew, was completely unplanned. Both Matthew and I almost died during his birth; as a matter of fact, our doctor asked my husband the dramatic question, "If we are forced to save one or the other, what do I do?" and later told my husband it was a miracle that we had both survived. Matthew is also a joy.

Our little family struggled financially for years. Because of family medical history, money being tight, no insurance and (at that time) limited birth control methods, if someone would have offered me money to assure I would have no more children, I would have jumped at the chance. As a amtter of fact, had we had the means necessary to pay for that ourselves, we would have glady paid. As it was, my husband and I had some very, very serious issues in our sexual lives because we were terrified I would get pregnant again.

My husband came from a very poor family with six children. There was never "enough" of anything - from clothes to food to eye glasses. His one brother actually wore an older siblings used eye glasses because there wasn't enough money to buy him his own. My husbad didn't want our children to grow up that way. I was afraid I would die and leave my husband with two small children to care for on his own.

I have seen first hand the effects of large, poor families. For the most part being poor to the point of not having proper clothing, proper nutrition or adequate housing doesn't create character, it breeds anger, resentment and ulimately, hopelessness.

I'm not sure if this will help or hinder the discussion but I thought a personal experience might add a bit of reality to an otherwise theoretical discussion.

V

always
Sep 27th 2008, 04:39 PM
These surgeries are reversable. I have a question... how often do you think people who are milking the system have the scenerio you painted happen?

They are reversible for the men, tubal ligation for WOMEN is not.

This is nothing new, and this mentality, that there are people in the world so sinful, that they need not procreate is not of God, when you look at them you must keep in mind that Jesus died for them, just as he did for you.

The body of Christ is fashioned as a woman and waiting on our bridegroom, we are the life giving one, birthing new lives from sin into Christ.

Bethany67
Sep 27th 2008, 04:44 PM
They are reversible for the men, tubal ligation for WOMEN is not

On the contrary - it can be reversed for women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal_reversal

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 04:45 PM
They are reversible for the men, tubal ligation for WOMEN is not
Wrong.
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/surgery/a/tubligreversalp.htm
http://www.tubal-reversal.net/
http://www.estronaut.com/a/tubal_ligation_facts.htm
etc...etc...

always
Sep 27th 2008, 04:50 PM
it can but I don't trust you, "I'm better than them folks":mad: who is going to pay to get it reversed? we know yall not

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 05:01 PM
Who said anything about us being BETTER? We're talking about a CHOICE that can help them improve their lives should they so choose.

I note that no one in this discussion has bothered to answer my question: Is it easier for a single girl with NO kids to be encouraged by social programs to go to school, get a job and improve her life, or is it easier for the mother with 3-5 kids to do that?

If there is sincere concern about improving the lives of these people, the fact is the FEWER (or none) children they have, the better off they will be when it comes to pulling themselves up. And if they DO improve their lives and become stable and self-sufficient, the procedure can possibly be reversed, if not, there's always IVF or other methods to help them have children.

flybaby
Sep 27th 2008, 05:26 PM
Then again this bill would also seriously reduce the number of abortions - those that are used for birth control, that is.

Not saying I'm for it, just putting that out there.

always
Sep 27th 2008, 05:33 PM
Who said anything about us being BETTER? We're talking about a CHOICE that can help them improve their lives should they so choose.

who is talking about CHOICE to help improve yours? don't think that someone is not out there looking at you, the same condescending way you are looking at them:o


I note that no one in this discussion has bothered to answer my question: Is it easier for a single girl with NO kids to be encouraged by social programs to go to school, get a job and improve her life, or is it easier for the mother with 3-5 kids to do that?

If there is sincere concern about improving the lives of these people, the fact is the FEWER (or none) children they have, the better off they will be when it comes to pulling themselves up. And if they DO improve their lives and become stable and self-sufficient, the procedure can possibly be reversed, if not, there's always IVF or other methods to help them have children.

There are already scholarship programs and the whole gambit for the young men and women to get a good start on their lives.

and being a woman, and speaking for them Angyl, how dare you and the other men and as the bible calls them silly women! tell young women what things to impose on their bodies supposely by your money driven values are in her best interest.

The AUDACITY.

always
Sep 27th 2008, 05:34 PM
Then again this bill would also seriously reduce the number of abortions - those that are used for birth control, that is.

Not saying I'm for it, just putting that out there.

UNLESS you believe birth control is a form of abortion.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 05:40 PM
I note that no one in this discussion has bothered to answer my question: Is it easier for a single girl with NO kids to be encouraged by social programs to go to school, get a job and improve her life, or is it easier for the mother with 3-5 kids to do that?

If there is sincere concern about improving the lives of these people, the fact is the FEWER (or none) children they have, the better off they will be when it comes to pulling themselves up. And if they DO improve their lives and become stable and self-sufficient, the procedure can possibly be reversed, if not, there's always IVF or other methods to help them have children.
Very true.


Then again this bill would also seriously reduce the number of abortions - those that are used for birth control, that is.

Yes it would... HalelluYah!

flybaby
Sep 27th 2008, 05:41 PM
I only believe chemical birth control is a form of abortion. And personally, I don't use any form of birth control, but I am also married.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 05:42 PM
Then again this bill would also seriously reduce the number of abortions - those that are used for birth control, that is.

touchè!

And here are 15 characters

always
Sep 27th 2008, 05:44 PM
I only believe chemical birth control is a form of abortion. And personally, I don't use any form of birth control, but I am also married.


keywords "I believe" some may believe otherwise

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 05:46 PM
who is talking about CHOICE to help improve yours? don't think that someone is not out there looking at you, the same condescending way you are looking at them:o
No one is condescending at all. I don't need government help to improve my life, thank you.


There are already scholarship programs and the whole gambit for the young men and women to get a good start on their lives.
Now answer the question...easier for a single man or a single DAD to take advantage of those?


and being a woman, and speaking for them Angyl, how dare you and the other men and as the bible calls them silly women! tell young women what things to impose on their bodies supposely by your money driven values are in her best interest.

The AUDACITY.
Now you're just making emotional, irrational statements and drawing assumptions. I assume you've not read all of the posts here because your response completely ignores the many things that were pointed out here that have nothing to do with money. This is about benefiting society and benefiting those who want to improve their lives.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 05:46 PM
and being a woman, and speaking for them Angyl, how dare you and the other men and as the bible calls them silly women! tell young women what things to impose on their bodies supposely by your money driven values are in her best interest.


Not sure if you're calling me(and the other women here who have a different view than yours) silly women or not, if so, name calling really isn't necessary in this discussion. ;) The thing you have wrong in the above statement is that no one is "IMPOSING" anything on anyone... for the umpteenth time... it is a CHOICE of the individual. And the procedure isn't for women only... it's for men also.

flybaby
Sep 27th 2008, 05:50 PM
The thing you have wrong in the above statement is that no one is "IMPOSING" anything on anyone... for the umpteenth time... it is a CHOICE of the individual. And the procedure isn't for women only... it's for men also.


And isn't everyone all about choice these days?

always
Sep 27th 2008, 05:52 PM
Now answer the question...easier for a single man or a single DAD to take advantage of those?

single women have the same problems getting help that single men have, and now it is just as easy for single DADS that have custody of their children to get help as single moms



Now you're just making emotional, irrational statements and drawing assumptions. I assume you've not read all of the posts here because your response completely ignores the many things that were pointed out here that have nothing to do with money. This is about benefiting society and benefiting those who want to improve their lives.

Oh, excuse me, I guess I made the wrong assumption about this remark of YOURS



I didn't read it, but if it suggests giving a lump sum to people who are living off of government largesse in order to shut down their reproductive capability, then I'm all for it.


care to enlighten me:rolleyes:

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 06:02 PM
Sure I'll enlighten you...gladly. LARGESSE is "generosity". Usually of money, but not always. It could be sprawling slums across America, the time and effort of an army of social workers, or even the free educational programs themselves that are offered by the THOUSANDS of hours per year and hardly ever taken up on.

If people don't want to take advantage of the government's LARGESSE and have a true desire to improve their lives so they don't have to sit on those ugly, blue plastic chairs every month waiting for their number to be called...

If they want to learn a sense of INDEPENDENCE and receive a check that was earned with their own sweat rather than off the sweat of others...

IF they want to OWN their own home and have the sense of accomplishment that comes with caring for a slice of the country that is their very own...

IF they want to be able to look their children and family in the eye with PRIDE that all they have they have earned by their sweat and tears rather than having it given to them...

IF they want to be able to go to the voting booth and make an INFORMED decision regarding social programs that isn't just a matter of "gimmie gimmie gimmie"

IF they want to stop the cycle of generational welfare that they themelves may be a product of and truly change their family tree for the better...

THE FIRST STEP for many, will be to stop producing babies, and if their own self-restraint is not sufficient for the job, than this OPTION is there for them.

Beyond that, even if they never pull themselves, up, at least the cycle of generational welfare will be broken...without resorting to MURDER. And that, my dear leftist, no matter how you spin it, is a good thing. :D

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 07:52 PM
Who said anything about us being BETTER? We're talking about a CHOICE that can help them improve their lives should they so choose.

I note that no one in this discussion has bothered to answer my question: Is it easier for a single girl with NO kids to be encouraged by social programs to go to school, get a job and improve her life, or is it easier for the mother with 3-5 kids to do that?

If there is sincere concern about improving the lives of these people, the fact is the FEWER (or none) children they have, the better off they will be when it comes to pulling themselves up. And if they DO improve their lives and become stable and self-sufficient, the procedure can possibly be reversed, if not, there's always IVF or other methods to help them have children.

Bingo. Its not only a choice, but in the best interest of those who would choose it, and in the best interest of society.

always
Sep 27th 2008, 07:54 PM
THE FIRST STEP for many, will be to stop producing babies

Angyl, I don't like that talk,we weren't productions of our parents, and we don't produce any life outside of the will of God, babies are a gift from God, and there is not ONE child born on this earth that God did not intend for them to be.

This bill is evil

always
Sep 27th 2008, 07:55 PM
Bingo. Its not only a choice, but in the best interest of those who would choose it, and in the best interest of society.

those concerned about their tax dollar:rolleyes: life is not a BINGO game

NHL Fever
Sep 27th 2008, 07:59 PM
who is talking about CHOICE to help improve yours? don't think that someone is not out there looking at you, the same condescending way you are looking at them:o

If I have the choice to improve my life, then I can take that choice or not. Same is being offered in this case. There is nothing condescending unless its telling people they should get a procedure.


There are already scholarship programs and the whole gambit for the young men and women to get a good start on their lives.

Which are much easier to take advantage of when you don't have kids. This program does nothing to limit anybody's participation in those programs.


and being a woman, and speaking for them Angyl, how dare you and the other men and as the bible calls them silly women! tell young women what things to impose on their bodies supposely by your money driven values are in her best interest.

The AUDACITY.
Nobody has called you silly, unless you're giving yourself that label. This does not impose anything, nor tell any young women to do anything, it offers an additional choice to those who want to accept it.


those concerned about their tax dollar:rolleyes: life is not a BINGO game

Anyone who pays taxes should be concerned with how that money is being spent.

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 08:16 PM
....we don't produce any life outside of the will of God, babies are a gift from God, and there is not ONE child born on this earth that God did not intend for them to be.


Excellent point.

Who are we to decide who 'deserves' to procreate?

Such a decision belongs only to the soveriegn Lord and Creator Himself.

cnw
Sep 27th 2008, 08:48 PM
I have no idea what other people have said and I don't want to get mad and throw my computer at the irrationality and ungodliness of the idea of paying people to be sterilized.
You say it is only volentary. So it would seem right now, but once you have this in effect it is only a short matter of time before the medical society inforces their agenda. 4 years ago the American society of Health care put out a statement that they wanted to see sterilization inforced.
The United States goes into other countries and does it so why not do it here and this....this "idea" they have is such a big step.

NO NO NO!!! it is not a good idea and your first statement is very biggoted that you would hope that certain races and groups would see it as good.
So did Hitler...it was just a bit more radical.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 08:50 PM
Angyl, I don't like that talk,we weren't productions of our parents, and we don't produce any life outside of the will of God, babies are a gift from God, and there is not ONE child born on this earth that God did not intend for them to be.

This bill is evil
You're skirting the issue and arguing semantics rather than the meat of what we're discussing. Whether you are a production of your parents or not, you are, in fact a result of their conjugation. The specific word used is not the argument here.

Nor is birth control and whether or not God approves of it. God ALLOWS many things, from the birth of a child on welfare to the RAPE of an infant by a grown man, to the cooking of a baby in a microwave. That doesn't mean all things are in His perfect will, so your argument there is completely moot.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 08:51 PM
Who are we to decide who 'deserves' to procreate?

Talking right over your heads aren't we? For the hundredth time in this thread; we aren't deciding anything. We're offering a choice for OTHERS to decide for their own lives.

cnw
Sep 27th 2008, 08:52 PM
By the way even Jacob told Rachael that he wouldn't play God to obstain in giving her a child...that is what we do in our society-play God instead of letting God be God.
I know we are such a sexualized nation that we don't teach Godliness in waiting till marriage but that doesn't constitute the unrighteousness of permanently cutting off certain groups of people.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 08:53 PM
You say it is only volentary. So it would seem right now, but once you have this in effect it is only a short matter of time before the medical society inforces their agenda.
People had the same persumptive argument about abortion years ago and guess what, they were wrong, then and you are very likely wrong now.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 08:54 PM
I know we are such a sexualized nation that we don't teach Godliness in waiting till marriage but that doesn't constitute the unrighteousness of permanently cutting off certain groups of people.
No one is permanently CUTTING OFF groups of anything.

A choice is being given that not all will take. Even with a program in place not ALL will take it, the poor we will still have. SLUMS will still exist. So what groups, exactly are you talking about being "cut off?"

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 09:00 PM
Angyl, I don't like that talk,we weren't productions of our parents, and we don't produce any life outside of the will of God, babies are a gift from God, and there is not ONE child born on this earth that God did not intend for them to be.

So if a married couple decides after having their fourth child that one of them will have a vasectomy/tubes tied they are A)preventing God's will from happening or B)part of God's will happening?



This bill is evil

More evil than a bill that allows for a botched aborted living baby to be denied care so that it can live?



Excellent point.

Who are we to decide who 'deserves' to procreate?

Such a decision belongs only to the soveriegn Lord and Creator Himself.
Does each one of us decide with who and when we're going to have sex? Is it His will that unmarried crack addicts have babies? What does His Word say about fornication?

Vhayes
Sep 27th 2008, 09:03 PM
And isn't everyone all about choice these days?
Well - that's what I think; especially for unbelievers. But if you say the word "choice" in much of anything, you are told you cannot be a "Christian".

Been there - done that - have several tee-shirts that are worn clear out.:D

cnw
Sep 27th 2008, 09:04 PM
welcome to the world of eugenics
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

The head of planned parenthood is a eugenitist

always
Sep 27th 2008, 09:07 PM
No one is permanently CUTTING OFF groups of anything.

A choice is being given that not all will take. Even with a program in place not ALL will take it, the poor we will still have. SLUMS will still exist. So what groups, exactly are you talking about being "cut off?"

you and I as Christians should rebuke any thought in our minds that would verbalize into "I would like to present you with the CHOICE of being sterilize for society's sake and for yours too hahaha"


It's unGodly

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 09:08 PM
This isn't eugenics, and frankly it is racist to presume that it is. No one is forcing a wipe-out of a specific race or class of people.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 09:09 PM
you and I as Christians should rebuke any thought in our minds that would verbalize into "I would like to present you with the CHOICE of being sterilize for society's sake and for yours too hahaha

Yes or no: It is easier to go to college as a single adult without children.

Yes or no?

Vhayes
Sep 27th 2008, 09:09 PM
you and I as Christians should rebuke any thought in our minds that would verbalize into "I would like to present you with the CHOICE of being sterilize for society's sake and for yours too hahaha"


It's unGodly
Why? Seriously. I'm not trying to obtuse but if a person determines that two or three children are enough for them, why is it unGodly to not procreate?

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 09:15 PM
If a married couple decides after having their fourth child that one of them will have a vasectomy/tubes tied they are A)preventing God's will from happening or B)part of God's will happening?

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 09:23 PM
if a person determines that two or three children are enough for them, why is it unGodly to not procreate?
It's only unGodly if someone else DARE suggest it for your benefit. :rolleyes:

always
Sep 27th 2008, 09:25 PM
Yes or no: It is easier to go to college as a single adult without children.

Yes or no?

Yes, it's easier, and irrelevent to what we are talking about.



If a married couple decides after having their fourth child that one of them will have a vasectomy/tubes tied they are A)preventing God's will from happening or B)part of God's will happening?

I personally Diffangle feel like it's A, but I am a fundalmentalist,and I don't judge those who use birth control.

and there are some dangerous side effects that can happen to a country with this mentality.

Read about China and the effects that their one child policy is having on their country



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37128

always
Sep 27th 2008, 09:27 PM
It's only unGodly if someone else DARE suggest it for your benefit. :rolleyes:


exactly, you are catching on, that is not your place to suggest such a thing

always
Sep 27th 2008, 09:31 PM
His Word say about fornication?


It says that the fornicating is the sin, NOT having the child

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 09:39 PM
Yes, it's easier, and irrelevent to what we are talking about.
It's completely relevant to what we're talking about. If your concern i for these people and improving their lives, the FACT is, that getting up from where they are is easier the fewer (or none) children that they have.


Read about China and the effects that their one child policy is having on their country
Talk about irrelevant to the discussion. We aren't talking about limiting people to how many children they have...not as a country, nor as any particular socio economic class. We're talking about OFFERING IT as a CHOICE to help improve the situation. This isn't going to lead us to China's position in any way, shape or form.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 09:40 PM
It says that the fornicating is the sin, NOT having the child
It also says that a man (or woman) who doesn't provide for their own family is worse than an infidel, but you're all for continuing that sin.

always
Sep 27th 2008, 09:47 PM
It also says that a man (or woman) who doesn't provide for their own family is worse than an infidel, but you're all for continuing that sin.

No I'm not, but I'm not for not extending a hand to them, for we don't know why they are in the positions they are in


Talk about irrelevant to the discussion. We aren't talking about limiting people to how many children they have...not as a country, nor as any particular socio economic class. We're talking about OFFERING IT as a CHOICE to help improve the situation. This isn't going to lead us to China's position in any way, shape or form.

A choice todaaaaaaaaay, mandatory tomorrow

don't give em the inch

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 09:50 PM
Talking right over your heads aren't we?

Umm....... because someone doesn't agree with you or fails to see a Biblical basis for your argument does not mean they cannot comprehend your 'superior' human logic and reasoning.



For the hundredth time in this thread; we aren't deciding anything. We're offering a choice for OTHERS to decide for their own lives.

It has been said, in this thread, that poor people who accept $1000 to prevent them from having children somehow don't 'deserve' to have children.

If making bad and/or desperate decisions makes one 'unqualified' to procreate.........then none of us 'deserve' to have children.


Offering poor people a meager financial incentive to be sterilized, IS coercion that preys on the vulnerability and desperation of the poor. It also suggests that the value of human life is measured by mammon.

It suggests that poor people who procreate are a problem. This is an elitist concept.

I see no such reasoning in my Bible.


It is GOD who creates human life.

I feel more than secure in trusting HIM to decide who deserves to be born, whether rich or poor.

In our fallible human wisdom, we seek to wrest this authority from Him.


1Sa 2:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa002.html#8) He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 09:54 PM
I personally Diffangle feel like it's A, but I am a fundalmentalist,and I don't judge those who use birth control.

Thankyou for answering, I wanted to know if you and cnw were against all birth control or not. Do you believe that society would be better off if everyone that had sex did absolutely nothing to prevent any pregnancies whatsoever? Would China be a better place with a few more billion people squeezed in there?



and there are some dangerous side effects that can happen to a country with this mentality.

Read about China and the effects that their one child policy is having on their country



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37128

You're talking extremes here always, this bill/program is not forcing anyone to do this. As angyl pointed out, everyone thought that abortion would be forced on people and it hasn't been so those who take this sort of thing to the extreme were obviously wrong.


exactly, you are catching on, that is not your place to suggest such a thing
He's not suggesting it, a Loisianna politician is. Is it or isn't it our governments job to propose bills/programs/laws?


It says that the fornicating is the sin, NOT having the child
So according to His will, a fornicator should not be having sex in the first place which in turn would prevent a pregnancy? So He is for birth control.:hmm:

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 10:03 PM
I feel more than secure in trusting HIM to decide who deserves to be born, whether rich or poor.


So you are against all forms of birth control(pills, condoms, pull out method, vasectomy, tube-tying, abstinance)?

EarlyCall
Sep 27th 2008, 10:06 PM
babies are a gift from God, and there is not ONE child born on this earth that God did not intend for them to be.



That is not true. It is simply a lie. It is false. It is dishonest and it is just not true.

According to obama.

EarlyCall
Sep 27th 2008, 10:12 PM
Written in Christian Love. SofTy.

You completely missed the point. Without going back, let me see if I can recall your point, which was I beleive, that this bill does nothing to further God and His kingdom. My point is this: neither does many of the things you involve yourself in and do care about. Thus, your point is moot. That you don't like it is fine, but don't try and relate it to God and His kingdom somehow and say it doesn't meet that criteria and therefore.... therefore anything really. Again, much in your life fails to meet that criteria and yet it seems not to bother you. That is my point. So simply say you don't like it. That would be fine. See what I am getting at?

I should have been more straight-foward in my first post.

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 10:26 PM
So you are against all forms of birth control(pills, condoms, pull out method, vasectomy, tube-tying, abstinance)?

Can you give any scripture in support of these things?


I think this is the underlying problem in this whole debate, is that we think the authority is somehow ours and we want to disregard God's authority on the issue.

Whether one offers poor people the 'choice' by dangling a $1000 carrot in front of them or whether one forces them......the message is clear............'it is undesirable for poor people to procreate'.


This is elitist and unbiblical.

EarlyCall
Sep 27th 2008, 10:31 PM
Can you give any scripture in support of these things?


I think this is the underlying problem in this whole debate, is that we think the authority is somehow ours and we want to disregard God's authority on the issue.

Whether one offers poor people the 'choice' by dangling a $1000 carrot in front of them or whether one forces them......the message is clear............'it is undesirable for poor people to procreate'.


This is elitist and unbiblical.

It would be elitist if it wasn't for the fact that the government is taking our money and giving it to people that cannot afford to have more children.

Actually, the solution is quite simple: have all the children you want but you don't get any of our money. Somehow I think most would have less children.

I earned the money, I ought to have some say in the matter. Don't you think?

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 10:33 PM
If making bad and/or desperate decisions makes one 'unqualified' to procreate.........then none of us 'deserve' to have children.

We're not talking about every bad decision, we're talking about decisions that have to do with sex and fertilty. If you knew someone who was addicted to crack or heroin and also had AIDS and they asked you if you think it would be a good thing if they went ahead and tried to have a baby... what would you think?


Offering poor people a meager financial incentive to be sterilized, IS coercion that preys on the vulnerability and desperation of the poor.
As said before, poor people in this country have access to food, clothing, and shelter... what exactly could they be "desperate" for? Drugs and alcohol? Some new Nike shoes? A new t.v.? Yeah, those who would choose a grand for those things over keeping their fertility are so coerced. :rolleyes:


It also suggests that the value of human life is measured by mammon.

Well now that would be the decision of the person CHOOSING to have a vasectomy/tube tie. Do you want someone who would care more about getting their next high or a new tv over having a child becoming a parent?


It suggests that poor people who procreate are a problem. This is an elitist concept.

I see no such reasoning in my Bible.

Poor people who procreate are not the problem, people who milk the system/society are the issue here. Here's what the Bible says about that sort of thing...

2 Thess. 3
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 10:35 PM
It would be elitist if it wasn't for the fact that the government is taking our money and giving it to people that cannot afford to have more children.

Actually, the solution is quite simple: have all the children you want but you don't get any of our money. Somehow I think most would have less children.


I earned the money, I ought to have some say in the matter. Don't you think?
What? Some say in the matter of the money you earned? How elitist of you. :P

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 10:46 PM
[quote=pinky;1803708]Can you give any scripture in support of these things?

Sure, I'll post some Scriptures for you in another post that speaks against fornication/adultery if you really don't know of any. Do you need me to look those up? Or the Scriptures angyl spoke of that talks about one who doesn't provide for his own is worse than an infidel? Can you answer my question... are you against all those forms of birth control that I mentioned?



I think this is the underlying problem in this whole debate, is that we think the authority is somehow ours and we want to disregard God's authority on the issue.

I'm trying to understand your thinking here but you've been ignoring my questions to you. Do we make any decisions(good or bad) of our own... do we have free will or not? Do you wait to have sex with your spouse until God speaks to you in an audible voice and tells you to do so?



Whether one offers poor people the 'choice' by dangling a $1000 carrot in front of them or whether one forces them......the message is clear............'it is undesirable for poor people to procreate'.
I addressed this in my prior post.


This is elitist and unbiblical.
No it's not elitist and unBiblical. What do you make of the 2 Thess 3 verse I posted?

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 10:48 PM
A choice todaaaaaaaaay, mandatory tomorrow

don't give em the inch
Yeah, that so happened with Abortion to... I remember it being made a CHOICE back in 1973 and look where we are today...forced abortions for EVERYONE the govt. doesn't like... :rolleyes:

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 10:55 PM
Umm....... because someone doesn't agree with you or fails to see a Biblical basis for your argument does not mean they cannot comprehend your 'superior' human logic and reasoning.
This has nothing to do with "superior human logic and reasoning" rather than your just posting things completely contrary to what has already been said. Either you're ignoring the posts or you're not getting them. Which is it?


Offering poor people a meager financial incentive to be sterilized, IS coercion that preys on the vulnerability and desperation of the poor. It also suggests that the value of human life is measured by mammon. rather it suggests that the best help for the poor is for them to stop producing children THEY CAN NOT SUPPORT before they can get up on their own two feet.


It suggests that poor people who procreate are a problem. This is an elitist concept.
There's nothing elitist about it. It's a fact that the person on welfare who has a child is creating an additional drain on society and making it more difficult for themselves to recover and become independent.


I see no such reasoning in my Bible. I see where you're apparently fine with allowing infidels - no, wait, sorry - worse than infidels - to continue to propagate the problem rather than looking for a reasonable possible solution of CHOICE.


It is GOD who creates human life.
AAAAAAND???


I feel more than secure in trusting HIM to decide who deserves to be born, whether rich or poor. By your reasoning, I presume then, that you are 100% against birth control by anyone for any reason? Or are you just passing your own judgment here off as God's?

always
Sep 27th 2008, 11:10 PM
[quote]

What do you make of the 2 Thess 3 verse I posted?

Diffangle, where are you getting from this verse, that man would have the authority to suggest stopping someone from procreating?

This to the church of Thessalonica, and the apostle was admonishing them to not be idle.
But in no way was he talking or insinuating that those that were not being about their business, should mutilate themselves to keep from procreating. In fact he was telling these CHURCH FOLKS, (ministers) to be an example to their flocks. Thats all

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 11:14 PM
We're not talking about every bad decision, we're talking about decisions that have to do with sex and fertilty. If you knew someone who was addicted to crack or heroin and also had AIDS and they asked you if you think it would be a good thing if they went ahead and tried to have a baby... what would you think?


As said before, poor people in this country have access to food, clothing, and shelter... what exactly could they be "desperate" for? Drugs and alcohol? Some new Nike shoes? A new t.v.? Yeah, those who would choose a grand for those things over keeping their fertility are so coerced. :rolleyes:


Well now that would be the decision of the person CHOOSING to have a vasectomy/tube tie. Do you want someone who would care more about getting their next high or a new tv over having a child becoming a parent?


Poor people who procreate are not the problem, people who milk the system/society are the issue here. Here's what the Bible says about that sort of thing...

2 Thess. 3
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

To suggest that poor people in your nation have no reason to be concerned for food and shelter is disingenous.

The article in the OP is speaking of 'poor people' and makes no mention of substance abusers.

"LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government."

The problem is not poor people, but a system that creates poor people.

A system that is creating poor people at a 'faster rate' than creating 'affluent, better educated people' who are able to support themselves financially.


The message of the article is clear............it is undesirable for poor people to procreate.

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 11:19 PM
Can you give any scripture in support of these things?
There isn't Scripture to support driving an automobile either, your position is untenable. If you're going to try to use the Bible to knock something it behooves you to find Scripture that OPPOSES it, not ask whether or not God specifically approved videotaping sermons.


I think this is the underlying problem in this whole debate, is that we think the authority is somehow ours and we want to disregard God's authority on the issue.
No, the problem is that you're trying to pass of your judgment as God's. Show me the Scriptures that support YOUR opposition to this, until then, where do you get off insinuating that anyone is disregarding God's authority?


Whether one offers poor people the 'choice' by dangling a $1000 carrot in front of them or whether one forces them......the message is clear............'it is undesirable for poor people to procreate'.

YES. If they can not support themselves, the Bible supports the idea that it is undesirable for poor people to procreate. They become worse than the unsaved in God's eyes if they do. We've already posted you the verse(s) showing this and you've responded with nothing but your opinion passed off as "thus saieth the Lord."

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 11:20 PM
This has nothing to do with "superior human logic and reasoning" rather than your just posting things completely contrary to what has already been said. Either you're ignoring the posts or you're not getting them. Which is it?

rather it suggests that the best help for the poor is for them to stop producing children THEY CAN NOT SUPPORT before they can get up on their own two feet.


There's nothing elitist about it. It's a fact that the person on welfare who has a child is creating an additional drain on society and making it more difficult for themselves to recover and become independent.

I see where you're apparently fine with allowing infidels - no, wait, sorry - worse than infidels - to continue to propagate the problem rather than looking for a reasonable possible solution of CHOICE.


AAAAAAND???

By your reasoning, I presume then, that you are 100% against birth control by anyone for any reason? Or are you just passing your own judgment here off as God's?

Can you provide any scriptural argument for sterilizing poor people?

always
Sep 27th 2008, 11:21 PM
This is a spiritual matter and Diffangle you brought it up, I do not believe that man has any authority or should make any suggestions in reference to another beings life.

I think I have held strong even through the political debates we have been in, NO to abortion, NO to birth control, NO to assisted suicide, NO to the death penalty, and NO to this as well!

see, this is why I feel very non intimidated about my political choice. IN MY OPINION

no Obama is not where he needs to be on abortion spiritually, but some are not spiritually where they need to be on other issues of life.

Life is Life, and our tongues, suggestions, and ideas of how to deal with our problems by eradicating people are not of God

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 11:21 PM
The problem is not poor people, but a system that creates poor people.

Every single system in the history of mankind has created poor people.

That is fact.

Every single system that mankind will ever devise will create poor people.

That is Biblical truth.

So rather than complaining about that which you can not change or devise a solution for, how about a little proactive approach to mitigate the problem?

pinky
Sep 27th 2008, 11:27 PM
Every single system in the history of mankind has created poor people.

That is fact.

Every single system that mankind will ever devise will create poor people.


Yes, on this we agree.


So, what is the Biblical solution?

Sterilization?

AngelAuthor
Sep 27th 2008, 11:27 PM
Can you provide any scriptural argument for sterilizing poor people?
Already have. And it's not about poor people. Poor people are fine. It's people who CAN NOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES who should not be having children.

Yes...the Bible supports that idea. For the third time, do you have any Scripture to back up your point of view?

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 11:31 PM
[quote=pinky;1803749]To suggest that poor people in your nation have no reason to be concerned for food and shelter is disingenous.

Not really, there are all kinds of things available to people if they are hungry or need shelter. There's free education/public schools, scholarships, government handouts/welfare, church handouts, etc.


The article in the OP is speaking of 'poor people' and makes no mention of substance abusers.
The article you quoted below shows that it is addressing those that milk the system. My substance abuser question to you was to find out if you think it's God's will when they have babies? I'm trying to find out if you're against all birth control but you managed to avoid answering me for some reason.


"LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government."
Be honest here, can you not see a problem with the fact that people on welfare are having more babies than those of us who pay taxes. What do you think is gonna happen if things keep going at that rate?




The problem is not poor people, but a system that creates poor people.

A system that is creating poor people at a 'faster rate' than creating 'affluent, better educated people' who are able to support themselves financially.

Correct, we should get rid of welfare.




The message of the article is clear............it is undesirable for poor people to procreate.

The message of the article is clear that it's undesirable on a society for milkers(not poor people) to procreate.

diffangle
Sep 27th 2008, 11:41 PM
This is a spiritual matter and Diffangle you brought it up, I do not believe that man has any authority or should make any suggestions in reference to another beings life.

I think I have held strong even through the political debates we have been in, NO to abortion, NO to birth control, NO to assisted suicide, NO to the death penalty, and NO to this as well!

see, this is why I feel very non intimidated about my political choice. IN MY OPINION

no Obama is not where he needs to be on abortion spiritually, but some are not spiritually where they need to be on other issues of life.

Life is Life, and our tongues, suggestions, and ideas of how to deal with our problems by eradicating people are not of God
Always, do you view abstaining from sex or using the pull-out method a form of birth control?

Also, what do you think of the idea of doing away with welfare?

moonglow
Sep 27th 2008, 11:52 PM
Not having sex is a form of birth control...one of the best ones out there actually. If God meant for us to exercise NO form of birth control at all and everyone followed that I am afraid we would literally run out of room on this planet then watch our children starve to death from lack of room to even grown crops or raise life stock...how horrible would that be? It really wasn't that long ago that any form of birth control was invented and now there are many, outside of abstaining that is.

It seems like to me that the man who came up with this idea is saying we are running out of working people that pay taxes to the state that gives money and other aide to those that aren't working...the strain is literally becoming too much. Its not that the babies of the poor aren't wanted or undesirable its getting to the point that state doesn't have the money to pay to the parents to raise these babies...

The sad fact is many of these babies are born addicted to drugs, brain damaged, mentally retarded, have major health problems and the cost for them is much higher then a baby not born with these problems. I saw one news story about a judge a year or so ago that sentence a mother to prison for child abuse because she stayed on drugs while pregnant and now her baby will pay for that for the rest of his life...being disabled because of her drug use.

I worked with a little boy years ago who's mother used crack while carrying him and his twin. The twin didn't make it...is this considered murder? man slaughter? The boy had a scar running down his chest from the open heart surgery he had to have after he was born. He was a high needs child ...all sorts of problems physically and mentally due to his mother's drug use. These mothers use no form of birth control at all.

I don't think its that no one cares about these babies...sure we do...but to be born just to suffer...that is ok? Be born to be raised in a home possibly filled with voilence, abuse, drugs...that's ok? What is the state suppose to do...anyone that get state aide is checked all the time for how they are going about raising their kids? I have been to the SRS and they offer tons of classes...parenting classes, work programs, programs to quit drinking, drug, etc...they cannot force these parents to do this though. Everything they need is there to do better...they won't. Often its the mentality issue going on here...its not just growing up on welfare...this all started long before there were state aid programs or their wouldn't be bible verses about those who are lazy and refuse to work...it was going on back in the Old Testament. Its the mentality. They refuse to change...they don't care about themselves or their children...beating is an acceptable way to disciple your children (to them) even though they are told time and time again its not acceptable.

Proverbs 13:4
Lazy people want much but get little,but those who work hard will prosper.

Proverbs 18:9
A lazy person is as bad as someone who destroys things.

Proverbs 20:4
Those too lazy to plow in the right season will have no food at the harvest.

Proverbs 21:25
Despite their desires, the lazy will come to ruin,for their hands refuse to work.

It goes on and on and on too.

So what do we do...take the new born babies of those too lazy to work (and who decides who is just having a hard time and who is truly lazy) and have them adopted in homes with good morals and good work ethics...I am sure they would grow up to be productive people for sure...who can work and pay taxes for those who are too lazy, or too messed up for other reasons, to work. What is the answer?

Alot of times these people do attend church too by the way. They go to church because the church helps them out...gives them some cash, food, clothing...might help with medication. Alot of times those that aren't working are truly so messed up mentally, they can't. And the churches do try to help them...they get them in to the mental health center, get them on medication which the state again pays for...gets them into therapy but they are stuck...its a horrible thing to see too, them rarely really making any progress. They are so helpless. Every situation is different. Many are so scarred by abuse they suffered as children being raised in poverty, they never recover...though they desire so much to be productive members and be happy and healthy and have a nice place to live. And if they could afford it they would have their tubes tied because they really don't want and can't handle more children.

And yes some have baby after baby after baby because the state is basically paying them for it by increasing their food stamps and other things they get. They don't want the babies...they do it for the state benefits...so these babies are not loved nor cared for like they should be.

I am poor by government and state standards but I am far from stupid or lacking in education or someone I think would be considered undesirable. I am also disabled. And I got my tubes tied many years ago...one child was enough for me. Though no one offered me money to do it..in fact I had to paid for it myself which took forever..:rolleyes: I did this while I was still married too for a number of reasons. I have never felt God convict me that what I did was wrong either. If He truly wanted me to have more children I am sure He could have untied my tubes...

One was all I could truly handle and I knew that...and I didn't want to have to rely on the state to help me raise my children. Its hard enough meeting my son's needs as it is.

I don't know what the answer is to this...but if nothing is done eventually those working will be poor too in paying taxes to support those who aren't working...that is what its coming down too. Not enough people working to support those who aren't...those working have less children...that means less in the work force...those not working are having more children and outnumbering those working. How are we to keep supporting them? It can't just keep going on like this. Even if all the state programs were stopped many of these people would go live by the rivers.. and still not work..its the mentality and its taught to their children, and their children's children and apparently even the churches aren't able to break though this way of thinking...:(

God bless

always
Sep 27th 2008, 11:52 PM
Always, do you view abstaining from sex or using the pull-out method a form of birth control?

abstaining? No, for some will be eunuchs, and I'm old enough to know that the pull out method doesn't work;) so it's not an issue.


Also, what do you think of the idea of doing away with welfare?

I don't like the welfare system as it is, I think it needs reforming, doing away with it ? maybe gradually,

Diffangle, I've worked with too many clients that I know need it and need it to the point that I'm simply not concerned about the abusers.

God sees them

always
Sep 27th 2008, 11:58 PM
There is a program called Amachi, the Swahili word means "who knows what God has given us in this child"

Oral Roberts was the born via rape,

I'm 50 years old and I met my biological father THIS year, God knows what he is doing.

Crack babies can be healed by the grace of God, why do we focus on the negative of everything

the bible tells us that the harvest is plenty but the laborers are few,

we don't want to be about our callings, we would rather see them eradicated

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 12:03 AM
YES. If they can not support themselves, the Bible supports the idea that it is undesirable for poor people to procreate. They become worse than the unsaved in God's eyes if they do. We've already posted you the verse(s) showing this and you've responded with nothing but your opinion passed off as "thus saieth the Lord."


The verses quoted do not suggest that poor people should not procreate, nor do they even hint at sterilizing poor people.

They admonish those in the body of Christ to not become idle and to take care of their own.

Not all people who are poor find themselves in this situation because they are lazy or drug addicts as seems to be the generalization here.

There are many contributing factors that lead to poverty.

The Lord has much to say about the poor throughout His Word. He also has much to say about how His servants are to treat the poor.

Your callousness and anger toward them is contrary to His teachings on the subject.



Psa 14:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa014.html#6) Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.




Psa 41:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa041.html#1) [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.




Psa 68:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa068.html#10) Thy congregation hath dwelt therein: thou, O God, hast prepared of thy goodness for the poor.





Psa 107:41 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa107.html#41) Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock.




Psa 109:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa109.html#16) Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.




Psa 113:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa113.html#7) He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;




Pro 14:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro014.html#20) The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends.




Pro 14:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro014.html#31) He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.




Pro 17:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro017.html#5) Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.




Pro 19:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro019.html#17) He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.




Pro 21:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro021.html#13) Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.




Pro 28:27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro028.html#27) He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.




Pro 29:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro029.html#7) The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.




Pro 30:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro030.html#14) There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.










Jam 2:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jam/Jam002.html#6) But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

moonglow
Sep 28th 2008, 12:07 AM
There is a program called Amachi, the Swahili word means "who knows what God has given us in this child"

Oral Roberts was the born via rape,

I'm 50 years old and I met my biological father THIS year, God knows what he is doing.

Crack babies can be healed by the grace of God, why do we focus on the negative of everything

the bible tells us that the harvest is plenty but the laborers are few,

we don't want to be about our callings, we would rather see them eradicated

Sure God could heal the crack babies..He could stop all the Consequences of our sin nature but then what would we learn from that? These babies have to go through painful withdrawals..http://books.elsevier.com/companions/0240804155/crack/crack1.htm

If you were one of these children would you choose to be born like this or chose to not be born at all? I think I probably would choose not to be born...

While studies show they can be helped with early intervention..its hard, its painful..and it cost alot of money:

The Lowell Weicker Federal Bill PL 99-457 was designed to provide early intervention for children from birth to five years old with special needs. That law was passed and funded by Congress seven years ago. But no one at that time foresaw the onset of the crack epidemic, says former commissioner of Special Education for California Antony Lepire. "The crack epidemic has reached such proportions that it has used up all that money immediately. As a result of the epidemic there is no other source of funds and no coordinated intervention for children under five. Since the disaster started, the number of children needing services has doubled, and the money has run out." He points out that both Federal and State Health and Human Services department budgets have been dramatically cut at precisely the time the crack crisis has hit the nation's classrooms.

And no we don't want to put a price tag on helping any child...the fact is how long before we simply truly just don't have the money anymore..simply because there are fewer productive workers able to provide for them all? What happens to those children then when we just don't have the money anymore?

And their numbers keep growing.

God bless

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 12:12 AM
but if nothing is done eventually those working will be poor too in paying taxes to support those who aren't working...that is what its coming down too. Not enough people working to support those who aren't...those working have less children...that means less in the work force...those not working are having more children and outnumbering those working. How are we to keep supporting them? It can't just keep going on like this

Yes, the very crux of the matter! Your whole post is excellent moonglow... you've said what many of us have been trying to say but in a more sensitive way. :hug:

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 12:18 AM
Crack babies can be healed by the grace of God, why do we focus on the negative of everything

I agree with you always on this but you're being disingenious by thinking that He is against birth control. You're ignoring His command to abstain from fornication and adultery. Think of how many less people there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His command on fornication. :hmm:

moonglow
Sep 28th 2008, 12:29 AM
diffangle

moonglow:but if nothing is done eventually those working will be poor too in paying taxes to support those who aren't working...that is what its coming down too. Not enough people working to support those who aren't...those working have less children...that means less in the work force...those not working are having more children and outnumbering those working. How are we to keep supporting them? It can't just keep going on like this

Yes, the very crux of the matter! Your whole post is excellent moonglow... you've said what many of us have been trying to say but in a more sensitive way.


Thanks...I don't think people realize how serious of a situation this is getting to be...its going to come down to truly not enough working vs those not working for whatever reason...some by choice, some for other reason, some due to true disabilities...whatever...then what happens when those few working truly cannot support those not working anymore? Then do the poor simply starve and end up with all of them begging on the streets? No one wants to see that happen...but something has to change. Already they have programs for children to have food sent home for them on weekends so they don't go hungry when school is out....food stamps are never enough...so they go hungry. :(

I saw a show where everyone ran to the store at midnight when their food stamp card kicked in because they were that hungry...many of those getting food stamps did work too. One couple they both worked full time but it wasn't enough. They start running out of food two weeks before their card has more money in it to spend on food. Part of the problem with the working poor is their wages aren't keeping up with inflation. They are the poor the churches really need to reach out too and help and I think many churches do because these people really are doing the best they can.


I agree with you always on this but you're being disingenious by thinking that He is against birth control. You're ignoring His command to abstain from fornication and adultery. Think of how many less people there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His command on fornication. :hmm:

Yep! Very true. As I said before the best form of birth control is not having sex at all...

Sadly many don't follow God's command on waiting until marriage...so what do we do impose our morals on them? As I said before many do go to church to get freebies handed out while saying amen to the sermons they don't follow. I have seen that more then once first hand myself...:(

God bless

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 12:41 AM
but if nothing is done eventually those working will be poor too in paying taxes to support those who aren't working...

The overwhelming majority of our tax dollars do not go to supporting the poor. Most of our tax dollars go to those who are already extremely wealthy.




that is what its coming down too. Not enough people working to support those who aren't

And there are going to be more and more unemployed Americans as jobs continue to get outsourced to cheap labour in third world countries.

The rate of unemployment and homelessness is rising and it is not because people are too lazy to work.

It's because the economy is collapsing.



...those working have less children...that means less in the work force...

Fewer job oportunities also mean less in the work force.




....those not working are having more children and outnumbering those working.

This is a symptom of a bigger problem and is not the cause of the problem.




How are we to keep supporting them? It can't just keep going on like this


Not to worry because the way the economy is going we will all soon be on the same poverty level.

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 12:50 AM
I agree with you always on this but you're being disingenious by thinking that He is against birth control. You're ignoring His command to abstain from fornication and adultery. Think of how many less people there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His command on fornication. :hmm:


Where is it written that His call to abstain from fornication and adultery has anything to do with 'birth control'?

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 12:58 AM
Fewer job oportunities also mean less in the work force.

Is that why the woman/mother who lives off of us/government I gave a ride to the other day can't work? Hmmm, and she told me it was b/c she has high blood pressure. :rolleyes:


Where is it written that His call to abstain from fornication and adultery has anything to do with 'birth control'?
If you can't figure this one out pinky... I'm not sure I can help you. ;) Not that you'll answer, but how many less people do you think there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His commandment of abstaining from fornication and adultery?

moonglow
Sep 28th 2008, 12:58 AM
The overwhelming majority of our tax dollars do not go to supporting the poor. Most of our tax dollars go to those who are already extremely wealthy.





And there are going to be more and more unemployed Americans as jobs continue to get outsourced to cheap labour in third world countries.

The rate of unemployment and homelessness is rising and it is not because people are too lazy to work.

It's because the economy is collapsing.




Fewer job oportunities also mean less in the work force.





This is a symptom of a bigger problem and is not the cause of the problem.




Not to worry because the way the economy is going we will all soon be on the same poverty level.

True on everything you said...but this was an issue long before we had these big problems with the stock markets and yes...our priorities are messed up for sure! Its like we pay higher wages for foot ball players then we do our teachers or fire men and police... never made any sense to me on that either...

But its still true though more are not working because they really don't want too all the time...that is on the rise. We have alot more that are truly lazy and choose not to work then ever before. Also on the rise are the mentally ill...they make up alot of the homeless too. No one can force them to take the medication they need to lead a better life as they think they are doing just fine...even while living on the streets they think they are just fine...:( We also have homeless vets which I think it s total disgrace that they aren't being helped!

Basically it all comes down to one thing...sin. There is no one answer to fit all these major compicated problems expect when Christ returns. Then everything will be fixed....;)

God bless

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 01:18 AM
Basically it all comes down to one thing...sin. There is no one answer to fit all these major compicated problems expect when Christ returns. Then everything will be fixed....;)

God bless


I agree that it all comes down to sin. This is the bigger problem for which these things are merely symptoms.

I also agree that when Christ returns all these things will be corrected.....however, I also think that until such time it is upon us as His servants to help the poor and needy and to strengthen them in the mercy of Christ.

Is sterilizing people the answer?

Or, is reaching them through Christ the better solution?

God bless to you too. :)

pinky

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 01:24 AM
Is sterilizing people the answer?
Pinky are you against all forms of birth control?

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 01:32 AM
Is that why the woman/mother who lives off of us/government I gave a ride to the other day can't work? Hmmm, and she told me it was b/c she has high blood pressure. :rolleyes:

I hope you don't expect me to draw conclusions based on your view of a welfare recipient you met.

Do you know the sorid details of her life? Have you walked a mile in her shoes?



If you can't figure this one out pinky... I'm not sure I can help you.

No, I don't think you can help me because you cannot provide a Biblical basis for your birth control argument.




Not that you'll answer, but how many less people do you think there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His commandment of abstaining from fornication and adultery?

I don't have a problem with the number of people on this planet, as we are all here by God's will.

The patriarchs produced more children than any welfare mother that I have ever heard of, so this point is moot.


Peace in Christ,
pinky

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 01:34 AM
Pinky are you against all forms of birth control?

I am against sterilizing people, especially based on their economic standing.

This is elitist.

always
Sep 28th 2008, 01:38 AM
the scriptures relating to fornication and adultery are about fornication and adultery, and the spirit of confusion that they cause in marriages. They relate in no way to birth control. The only scriptures in the bible do inadvertenly are

Gen 38:9

... And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10
And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God does allow many trials to come in individuals lives, but there is no temptation that is uncommon to man.

There are crack babies, yes that have gone through the painful process, to come out victoriously with a testimony for God.

There are women who have had their six babies on welfare and that one overcomes the generational curse

those who spoke "can anything good come out of Nazareth? " probably would have seen nothing wrong with this bill either. :rolleyes:

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 01:48 AM
I am against sterilizing people, especially based on their economic standing.

This is elitist.
Are you against all forms of birth control?

diffangle
Sep 28th 2008, 01:54 AM
I don't have a problem with the number of people on this planet, as we are all here by God's will.

How many less people do you think there would be on this planet if we all obeyed His commandment? So you think it's God's will that a bunch of people produce offspring by fornication and adultery?

pinky
Sep 28th 2008, 02:05 AM
the scriptures relating to fornication and adultery are about fornication and adultery, and the spirit of confusion that they cause in marriages. They relate in no way to birth control.

:agree:


The only scriptures in the bible do inadvertenly are

Gen 38:9

... And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10
And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

I thought of mentioning Onan too. :hmm:




those who spoke "can anything good come out of Nazareth? " probably would have seen nothing wrong with this bill either. :rolleyes:

Yes. Good point.

Who are we to rate the value of human life? Who are we to decide who is worthy to procreate and who isn't?

I could not ever imagine telling someone who was born to a 'crack addicted, un-wed welfare mother' that it would have been better for their mother to have been sterilized.

Indeed the love of many is waxing cold.

:(

moonglow
Sep 28th 2008, 02:50 AM
Genesis 38 is always taken out of content it seems...first he was to do this for a certain reason...to take this and apply it to everyone else is just plain wrong.

Look:

8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.

The Adam Clarke Commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=038)
The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother, and rather than do it, by the act mentioned above, he rendered himself incapable of it. We find from this history that long be fore the Mosaic law it was an established custom, probably founded on a Divine precept, that if a man died childless his brother was to take his wife, and the children produced by this second marriage were considered as the children of the first husband, and in consequence inherited his possessions.

This was there custom at that time. Do we do this now? If a husband dies now does the brother go and get his wife pregnant if they have had no children? No..because this isn't our custom now. People totally over look what was going on and assume this means a mans sperm should never be wasted when that isn't what the point of the story was about at all!

Not committing fornication and adultery IS a form of birth control...you cannot make a baby if you aren't doing this two things.


pink:
I could not ever imagine telling someone who was born to a 'crack addicted, un-wed welfare mother' that it would have been better for their mother to have been sterilized.

Indeed the love of many is waxing cold.

Would you rather see them suffer then? Yet that is considered loving? Please don't start with the love waxing cold...this is very judgmental and not what this is about. I for one hate to see anyone suffering. I really do! Yet some seem to think any life...no matter how painful and horrible it is, it better then no life at all and I truly do not understand that.

Over in Africa children are starving to death...dying horribly because there simply isn't enough food...droughts, disease all sorts of things yet you feel its better they are born to die six months later? I don't understand that...I truly don't. These woman practice no birth control at all...no money to do so. Some get pregnant due to rape...it doesn't change the fact they watch baby after baby die slowly and horribly due to starvation. I just don't see how that is loving in any sense of the word.

AngelAuthor
Sep 28th 2008, 05:44 AM
those who spoke "can anything good come out of Nazareth? " probably would have seen nothing wrong with this bill either. :rolleyes:
You mean the one whose heart was prepared to a few minutes later become a walking/talking disciple of Christ?

Yeah...sign me up!

AngelAuthor
Sep 28th 2008, 05:46 AM
Who are we to rate the value of human life? Who are we to decide who is worthy to procreate and who isn't?

*SIGH*

for the HUNDREDTH Time, we aren't deciding ANYTHING. We're offering a choice. You may as well say that I DECIDED what my daughter was going to wear today because I dared fill her closet with clothes, giving her the option. I wish you could see the logic and common sense in the fact that OFFERING A CHOICE does not a DECISION FOR SOMEONE ELSE MAKE.

NHL Fever
Sep 28th 2008, 08:04 PM
I could not ever imagine telling someone who was born to a 'crack addicted, un-wed welfare mother' that it would have been better for their mother to have been sterilized.
:(

Then you should never tell that to anyone, just like this bill is not telling that to anyone. But it makes no sense to consider that kind of possibility, because if somebody does not exist, you cannot tell them something.

Any kind of interruption of the sexual process can be considered by somebody as violating God's will, even not initiating the sexual act could be considered that way if we take your logic to its conclusion. For example if I come home from work and did not bring flowers and chocolates for my wife and did not offer a foot massage, it could be said I'm telling some non-existent child that they do not deserve to be born because I have obstructed the natural reproductive process by my inaction. ;)


I am against sterilizing people, especially based on their economic standing.
This is elitist.

This bill does not propose sterilizing people based on their economic standing, it proposes 'sterilizing' people based on their choice to sterilize themselves.

I put 'sterilize' in brackets, because in 2008 its not definitively sterilizing to get a vasectomy or bilateral tubal ligation. Even if the reversal procedure fails, there are still other ways to have children.

flybaby
Sep 28th 2008, 11:27 PM
Not committing fornication and adultery IS a form of birth control...you cannot make a baby if you aren't doing this two things.

I definitely agree with you here. Many of those on "generation welfare" are not there through being brought into the world with a married mommy and daddy, however, they are now here and have eternal souls.



Would you rather see them suffer then? Yet that is considered loving? Please don't start with the love waxing cold...this is very judgmental and not what this is about. I for one hate to see anyone suffering. I really do! Yet some seem to think any life...no matter how painful and horrible it is, it better then no life at all and I truly do not understand that.

Over in Africa children are starving to death...dying horribly because there simply isn't enough food...droughts, disease all sorts of things yet you feel its better they are born to die six months later? I don't understand that...I truly don't. These woman practice no birth control at all...no money to do so. Some get pregnant due to rape...it doesn't change the fact they watch baby after baby die slowly and horribly due to starvation. I just don't see how that is loving in any sense of the word.

But what we don't see is that these are souls eternal that God has created for His kingdom. We look at their short lives as full of suffering, but God sees their eternal lives and what it will mean for the kingdom of God.


And if you look back, you'll see I'm arguing both sides here because it is such a complex matter.

cnw
Sep 29th 2008, 12:48 AM
there is truth to the "power of suggestion" and we all know who the govt is suggesting getting sterilized too. It wont be the rich, or prosperous...but then again they don't usually have more than 1 or 2 kids now do they?
The suggestions are going to be to people like average joe and lower. So what if all these kids start having tubals etc and then graduate from college (not likely they will even go to college) and then want a family (hindsight is 20/20), what then? Are we going to deny them children? Who is going to pay for reversals?

I say all this because dh was V'd after 3 and we knew it was wrong and after a reversal we had 5 more kids. It is a big thing. I can't tell you how many couples we know that are getting reversals.

NHL Fever
Sep 29th 2008, 01:51 AM
there is truth to the "power of suggestion" and we all know who the govt is suggesting getting sterilized too. It wont be the rich, or prosperous...but then again they don't usually have more than 1 or 2 kids now do they?
The suggestions are going to be to people like average joe and lower. So what if all these kids start having tubals etc and then graduate from college (not likely they will even go to college) and then want a family (hindsight is 20/20), what then? Are we going to deny them children? Who is going to pay for reversals?


Are we going to deny them children? No, but they might. Who will pay for a reversal? - they will pay for it. Because if somebody is the kind to decide after such a decision to pull themselves up, work hard and spend their hard-earned money (it ain't cheap) on restoring their reproductive capabilities rather than the big screen TV, those are exactly the types that are the ones destined to be good, responsible parents. If however they continue to spend whatever they have on making sure they're got the latest petty trend or distraction for themselves, then their priorities define them as the group not equipped for child-rearing.

Its elegant because:
1) It does not prevent those who really value children from having them
2) It does make it less likely that those who value having spending money over children will have any

moonglow
Sep 29th 2008, 02:42 AM
flybaby;


Originally Posted by moonglow
Not committing fornication and adultery IS a form of birth control...you cannot make a baby if you aren't doing this two things.
I definitely agree with you here. Many of those on "generation welfare" are not there through being brought into the world with a married mommy and daddy, however, they are now here and have eternal souls.

True but the subject isn't about the ones already here...its about the ones not here yet...everyday people make choices and many times that involves not making a baby...or simply its the wrong time of the month or something is medical wrong with the father or the mother...but it comes down to the same thing, no new life was created.



Originally Posted by moonglow
Would you rather see them suffer then? Yet that is considered loving? Please don't start with the love waxing cold...this is very judgmental and not what this is about. I for one hate to see anyone suffering. I really do! Yet some seem to think any life...no matter how painful and horrible it is, it better then no life at all and I truly do not understand that.

Over in Africa children are starving to death...dying horribly because there simply isn't enough food...droughts, disease all sorts of things yet you feel its better they are born to die six months later? I don't understand that...I truly don't. These woman practice no birth control at all...no money to do so. Some get pregnant due to rape...it doesn't change the fact they watch baby after baby die slowly and horribly due to starvation. I just don't see how that is loving in any sense of the word.


But what we don't see is that these are souls eternal that God has created for His kingdom. We look at their short lives as full of suffering, but God sees their eternal lives and what it will mean for the kingdom of God.


And if you look back, you'll see I'm arguing both sides here because it is such a complex matter.
__________________

Again true for those already here. I would never say those already here, shouldn't be...of course not...but that isn't the topic of this. Its about those not here...they don't exist. Its about giving people a choice as to whether to have children or not. Many of the working poor don't get medical insurance...they aren't low income enough. Any form of birth control other then condoms is expensive (though I haven't checked the price on condoms lately..:cool:). And those can break or have other problems. These working parents may have all the children they can handle and would like to do this but don't have the money for it. They may see it as a very good thing! Especially when they are struggling to cloth and feed the children they already have. That is one issue out of many that can be brought to the table here.

Not too mention there are so many, many children out there already needing homes. Since each situation is different we can't group them all together and as has been said that is why it would be an individual situation. Also I know of plenty of well off families with many children. Its certainly not just the poor that have alot of children by any means at all.

God bless

diffangle
Sep 29th 2008, 03:24 AM
Not too mention there are so many, many children out there already needing homes.

Yep and I would like to know how many children those soooo opposed to this/birth control have adopted?

always
Sep 29th 2008, 05:34 PM
Yep and I would like to know how many children those soooo opposed to this/birth control have adopted?


I have not legally adopted, but my door has been and still is open to any child in need, I have my one daughter, so my house and my heart is open, she has sisters and brothers not of my flesh, but of my heart.

I minister to these children, in bootcamps, the ones you guys feel like have no right to be here because of the actions of their parents.

I remember having to tell a young man, that said he preferred the bootcamp to being home, to always remember that his mother loved him as much as she could, in the state that she was in, that young man, who stole a deputies car, :rolleyes:and was in a chase, today as a MAN is a man of God. Living for HIM

DON'T TELL ME GOD IS NOT REAL!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU SO CALL CHRISTIANS???????????????????

FAITH IS THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!

this is unGodly, I'm through for the day, gotta calm down, pray for me

flybaby
Sep 29th 2008, 06:07 PM
My husband and I have considered adoption, but the cost is so unbelievable. (This is another area of government that needs complete overhauling.) We are in the process of praying over foster care.

And like Always, our door and hearts are also open to those in need. I have several teens that come to hang out at my house as a way to experience a loving family. And they are always welcome to stay as long as they want. I have a young girl coming over this afternoon who has lives with her grandma, her grandma's husband and four of her siblings. We just found out that 5 more of this girl's siblings are on their way to moving in with Grandma. This situation is sad and of course, I couldn't possibly begin to go into all the details. But the point is, this is a girl who needs love, needs care and needs someone to just reach out and say "I'm here for you." My family and I are doing what we can for her. In this case, she's going to start coming to my house daily to get help with homeschool because her grandma can't do it.

I guess I said all that to say this: adoption isn't the only way to make a difference in the life of a child.

AngelAuthor
Sep 29th 2008, 07:07 PM
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU SO CALL CHRISTIANS???????????????????

Check the mirror, sister. :rolleyes: We're not the ones who are planning on giving our approval to a baby-murdering tyrant to be President of the United States in exchange for a bag of free goodies.

And no matter how much you want to try to keep spinning this, that we are "choosing who gets to be born", which is totally inaccurate, all we're doing is offering a condom to those who want to take it.


pray for meWill do.

always
Sep 29th 2008, 09:31 PM
And no matter how much you want to try to keep spinning this, that we are "choosing who gets to be born", which is totally inaccurate, all we're doing is offering a condom to those who want to take it.

You don't need a bill passed to do that


Will do.

Thank you, you will always be my lil son in Christ

AngelAuthor
Sep 29th 2008, 10:23 PM
You don't need a bill passed to do that
You do if you want to pay citizens tax dollars to take them.




Thank you, you will always be my lil son in ChristI could only be your son if you had me when you were 12-13 years old, sister... :lol:

moonglow
Sep 29th 2008, 10:49 PM
I have not legally adopted, but my door has been and still is open to any child in need, I have my one daughter, so my house and my heart is open, she has sisters and brothers not of my flesh, but of my heart.

I minister to these children, in bootcamps, the ones you guys feel like have no right to be here because of the actions of their parents.

I remember having to tell a young man, that said he preferred the bootcamp to being home, to always remember that his mother loved him as much as she could, in the state that she was in, that young man, who stole a deputies car, :rolleyes:and was in a chase, today as a MAN is a man of God. Living for HIM

DON'T TELL ME GOD IS NOT REAL!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU SO CALL CHRISTIANS???????????????????

FAITH IS THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!

this is unGodly, I'm through for the day, gotta calm down, pray for me

I am sorry this thread has upset you so much...

No one said this young man or the others you have mentioned shouldn't be here. Every child that is actually born...has a purpose here. I don't believe anyone can stop God from making sure the ones that He wants here, will be here...regardless of any choices we make. After all, Mary was a virgin! If He wants someone here, they will be born regardless of what we do.

I feel like alot of this has been one big misunderstanding from the get go...and for that I am truly sorry. I don't think people would have gotten so upset if that hadn't happened. People seeing this idea in completely different ways. Reminds me of the story of the two blind men trying to figure out what the elephant in the room was. One felt only the front end of the elephant, the long thick trunk, the tuts, the strong legs....the other one was at the other end of the elephant and both were arguing over the size of its trunk! :lol: Its the same thing but we are seeing it from completely different view points is all...but in the end God is in control not us anyway...so NO MATTER what we do, or say, or think or feel...its up to Him...not us. period. He can see the whole elephant when we can't...

I won't speak for others, but MY concern is for those not yet born...always has been my concern above all else. No one said they weren't wanted...I wasn't wanted before I was born...yet I am here...most of the time I wish I hadn't ever been born though...I wish I had a choice...but I didn't and I am here and only hoping for the day I can go home. That is about the only thing I have to live for..

God bless

diffangle
Sep 29th 2008, 11:05 PM
I have not legally adopted, but my door has been and still is open to any child in need, I have my one daughter, so my house and my heart is open, she has sisters and brothers not of my flesh, but of my heart.

That's great but since you haven't adopted you haven't done anything to remove one/some of the many children from the orphanages. There are already so many parentless children sitting in orphanages.


I minister to these children, in bootcamps, the ones you guys feel like have no right to be here because of the actions of their parents.
Who said they have no right to be here? Talking about something that exists and something that doesn't exist are two different things. Fyi, before you accuse me of not caring for these children you should know that I teach art classes and raise money for supplies for the low income children in my area... I love them and pray for them all the time.


I remember having to tell a young man, that said he preferred the bootcamp to being home, to always remember that his mother loved him as much as she could, in the state that she was in, that young man, who stole a deputies car, :rolleyes:and was in a chase, today as a MAN is a man of God. Living for HIM
That's awesome, but again you're talking about someone who exists, not someone who never existed, two different things.



DON'T TELL ME GOD IS NOT REAL!!!!

Errr, who told you that? :confused


WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU SO CALL CHRISTIANS???????????????????
Yet you support and excuse away Obama's evilness to something that exists(abortions and living aborted babies left to suffer and die on a stainless steel tray).


FAITH IS THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!
Okay.



this is unGodly, I'm through for the day, gotta calm down, pray for me

Abortion is unGodly, birth control isn't. ;)

always
Sep 30th 2008, 01:36 AM
Every child that is actually born...has a purpose here. I don't believe anyone can stop God from making sure the ones that He wants here, will be here...

I agree MG, and you said volumes with this statement



I wasn't wanted before I was born...yet I am here...most of the time I wish I hadn't ever been born though...I wish I had a choice...but I didn't and I am here and only hoping for the day I can go home. That is about the only thing I have to live for..

God bless

On this we don't agree, MG, everyday that the Lord gives you is a day that you should rejoice in. When you start thinking like this, say "I help Always" because thats true:kiss:

always
Sep 30th 2008, 01:38 AM
I could only be your son if you had me when you were 12-13 years old, sister... :lol:

Ooooooooh? well I was being nice thinking you were youngster, I gonna have to take it to higher level with you:rofl:

Be Blessed

EarlyCall
Sep 30th 2008, 01:49 AM
Every child that is actually born...has a purpose here. I don't believe anyone can stop God from making sure the ones that He wants here, will be here...regardless of any choices we make. After all, Mary was a virgin! If He wants someone here, they will be born regardless of what we do.



While what you have said above may be true in some cases, it is not true in all cases.

God has given responsibility to man. Unless one is willing to claim that every baby aborted was God's will and God didn't want them here...

But then that would be silly at best.

Man was given the responsibility to do right before God. Thus you have consequences that follow doing wrong.

pinky
Sep 30th 2008, 10:12 PM
This bill does not propose sterilizing people based on their economic standing, it proposes 'sterilizing' people based on their choice to sterilize themselves.



"Pay poor $1000 to have vasectomy or tubes tied."

lendtay
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:12 AM
Many people don't realize that its a myth that welfare recipients have lots and lots of kids. I think the average number of kids a welfare person is supporting is 1.2. That's it.

lendtay
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:20 AM
The rate of unemployment and homelessness is rising and it is not because people are too lazy to work.

It's because the economy is collapsing.



I agree. Many people don't realize that a lot of homeless people DO work and have jobs....they just don't make enough money to put a roof over their head.

So, its just a stereotype that homeless people "don't work".

I read an article in People Magazine about a woman who has a full-time job making $8 an hour, and she is having to live out of her car right now. She is homeless. $8 an hour won't buy a place to live in California.

I used to volunteer at a Food Bank run by our church. The people who worked at the Food Bank would always assume that those coming in for free food did not have jobs. They were always shocked to find out that these people DID have jobs, they just didn't make enough money to get by. They were often earning minimum wage, or were only able to get part time work. I did not like the assumptions that the Food Bank people made about these people being "lazy" - almost all of them worked!

diffangle
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:28 PM
I did not like the assumptions that the Food Bank people made about these people being "lazy" - almost all of them worked!

According to this USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-08-11-homeless_x.htm), 20% of the homeless have jobs.



I think the average number of kids a welfare person is supporting is 1.2. That's it.

According to this article (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/spsba01_W98_1/denver2.htm), it's more like 2.2 children.


In fact, Berrick notes that only one child is found in the families of forty-two percent of recipients. Thirty percent of AFDC recipients have two children; sixteen percent have three children while four or more children are found in the remaining ten percent (Berrick, Pg.15) The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census documents that in 1993 mothers who receive WIC had an average of 2.2 children

always
Oct 3rd 2008, 05:27 PM
According to this USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-08-11-homeless_x.htm), 20% of the homeless have jobs.


According to this article (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/spsba01_W98_1/denver2.htm), it's more like 2.2 children.


no where near the 6 or more, great!

lendtay
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:50 PM
2.2 is still not a lot of kids. If that's the average, it means many welfare recipients have just one, two or three kids. That's a pretty reasonable-sized family.

livingwaters
Oct 4th 2008, 12:25 AM
I think we should :pray:pray for the welfare (health, education, living conditions, opressed hand of their governments, etc). Our God is the only one who should control life and death...Just because others do it, doesn't make it right. :pray:Prayer can change these things, if it be God's will. HE already wrote and warned us about the catastrophes that will go on before the last days.

So, as me, I'll pray, :pray:and pray,:pray: and pray that God's will be done in these circumstances. And anytime I can help, with whatever(food, money, time, a ride to the store, clothes) means I have.

Thank you Lord for your love, mercy and grace...I know that all of these people are your children, just as we are!!!!! YOUR Word says that you are no respecter of persons. All the glory to you, Father!!!!!:hug::)

flybaby
Oct 4th 2008, 09:01 PM
I'm glad I don't have .2 of a child....so thankful for my whole 3 children. :)

And also, those on wic are not necessarily on "welfare". I receive wic and it is a great help, but it is not something we are dependent on. My children are just able to eat a little better due to this program.