Reply With Quote
WC poster of 2012
If I'm ever in the area, I'll stop by Scott's place for some brew.
WC poster of 2012
Yes I know. A square is a rectangle. What you forget, it a rectangle is seldom a square.
Is that your excuse? Poor people are en led to lack responsibility?
Hence, this thread.
But I do advocate elimination long term. I'm OK with the safety net, just not the hammock. Problem is, not enough people agree with me, so I will compromise.
Of course not. My bad.
ok. providing an incentive to exchange one's fertility for a handout is completely and diabolically extreme.
You're advocating sterilizing both parents, right?
How do you suppose everybody should be should be sterilized?
Another reason I started this thread. Every one has an extreme view or two. Anyone who claims they are strictly moderate, I think, is too yellow to maintain a position.
I don't think of myself as extreme. Not in general.
Yes. Are you advocating unlimited unaccountability? Shouldn't we do what we can to prevent repeating such actions?
If they, as a team in conceiving a child, must rely on tax dollars to raise a child when they decide to have a child, or decide to take the risk of having a child, then shouldn't we, as looking out for the general welfare of our nation, do all we can to reduce the social burden on tax dollars?
Do you have a better solution?
A vasectomy is a simple procedure. A woman having her tubes tied is a little more complex, but still simple a surgeries go.
Vasectomies are reversible sometimes. I have not heard that about tubal ligations. Is there a doctor in the house?
Not undertaking yours is a gr8 one, imho.
and no. I'm not a policy wonk. I don't do white papers on big government solutions for social ills. that's more your style.
They are both reversible, but not a guarantee. Plus the longer they go tied, the less likelihood the reversal will work. Once a couple can afford to have these procedures done, they probably aren't relying on the social system.
I had a vasectomy more than a decade ago. By choice. Pretty simple .
I have no solution, and yours is terrible. If there were a scoreboard for this subforum, how would it reflect that?
Then let's just try to put a stop to the welfare system.
zero to -1?
So you're OK with spending countless billions for other people's irresponsibility?
They're reversible in about 98% of the cases. But like just any other kind of surgery in that area, there are always severe risks associated with it (including that not always both tubes can be reopened, and obviously permanent infertility being another possibility).
I wondered back when the thread was made, how much is going to cost the government when one of these mandated surgeries go wrong. I would think that since it's a mandate, they would be liable for the consequences of such mishaps.
I don't think I ever received a reasonable answer to this. (I don't think "tough luck" is a reasonable answer either).
How about we cut funding for some of these programs, and we avoid getting in the surgery business entirely? Too much common sense?
It's not a mandated procedure. It's a requirement to get government aide over ones irresponsibility. Such litigation options would be closed as part of the deal.
So you agree you're talking about poor people after denying you were talking about poor people?
This is why it's very difficult to have a serious conversation with you, and you can't say I didn't give you another shot here.
see, that's extreme too. can Medicare/Medcaid plus Social Security, plus AFDC and all that hazarai?
it can be done, but not without significant, probably extreme, social pain. are you sure you've thought this through?
I'll bet you are one who calls a cut what our representatives so. Not increasing the next annual budget by 10%.
Do you think we should pay money to people to have children?
I don't see that I've given you cause to believe that. Do you remember the little talk we had about the mindreading remark?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
