I dont care for your facts I only care that I personally have to pay for that c*nts 17 kids. I cant sleep at night knowing I personally pay for those 17 kids. I didnt even have sex 17 times and I still have to pay. ITS NOT FAIR.
Something that may or may not matter to some here: the average size of families on assistance happens to be the same as families not on assistance, 3.7.
Lot's of interesting info in this report from 2013
Spending patterns of families receiving means-tested government assistance
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume...eiving-means-tested-government-assistance.htm
LOL! Are you my daddy?Wow. You've totally convinced me on the subject with all your well thought out counter rebuttals. Stay angry my friend. This will be my last response to you in this thread as your daddy issues are too powerful for you to handle.
I have a feeling you are not talking about the right topic. You might want to check the OP again. Not a single person has mentioned sterilization or targeting any specific races, etc. Your Nazi delusion is getting the better of you.
Wait, I thought the liberal talking point on welfare was more whites use it?
Meant to quote woolfe. Not sure how to quote you on Tapatalk mobile as an edit.
I have a feeling you are not talking about the right topic. You might want to check the OP again. Not a single person has mentioned sterilization or targeting any specific races, etc. Your Nazi delusion is getting the better of you.
Doubling down I see.If you say so champ. I would never question your impressive, and obviously prodigious intellect. If you want to introduce nazi eugenics into the US you go right ahead. The idea of compulsory sterilisation is right up there with tajbot advocating throwing hand grenades into tunnels filled with unarmed civilians. Actually tajbot isn't your brother is he?
Whichever extremist right wing web site fed you this idea didn't think it through but then again. Do they ever?
Doubling down I see.
So, what is it that you're doing? Right, right, it's not doubling down in your case it's the truest form of your devotion to being completely stupid on this subject. Nailing it!Doubling down I see.
I expect the GoP would be very conflicted about this solution. On the one hand, it's birth control. And free birth control for the poor no less, which they oppose. On the other hand, it's a way to treat the poor on welfare like animals which is an opportunity not to be missed.for women, there's a birth control shot that lasts at least a month.
let's say there's a birth control shot for men that make them sterile for a month at a time?
would making those on public assistance (welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc) receive these shots greatly reduce the next generation of poor?
less poor = better for society overall?
ie: less resources to prop them up and less crime
Maybe we should bring up the case of a woman going to a sperm-bank, getting pregnant, and then somehow, tracking down the sperm donor, suing for child-support, and winning? Yes, this was in one of those "backwards" conservative mid-western states, maybe AL or IL.Complete and utter dipshit! If you didn't deposit your baby making juice, pregnancy wouldn't be a concern. Catch the fu*k up! Yes, women carry the pregnancy but men are just as responsible. It's not just wanting to control a woman's body with birth control but then if she gets pregnant they want to prevent her from aborting the pregnancy. Think your shit through dumbass. Guess what, if ALL men took on the responsibility to prevent pregnancy then women wouldn't get pregnant. Does that concept make sense to you? Your thoughts are counterproductive and antiquated. Trust me, if I could wave a wand and make it so men had to carry the pregnancy, I would. I'm not sure how you manage to be a complete shithead about this but you ARE nailing it!
How important was it to you to post this? Oh, and I'm not going to bother to indulge you by answering your questions. Maybe you should be forced to be on birth control? *wink*Maybe we should bring up the case of a woman going to a sperm-bank, getting pregnant, and then somehow, tracking down the sperm donor, suing for child-support, and winning? Yes, this was in one of those "backwards" conservative mid-western states, maybe AL or IL.
Edit: Second half of my thought - if that same said woman was on or went on welfare to pay for the kid, would you force birth-control on the man? Even though he wasn't "directly involved" with the pregnancy?
You apparently have deep seeded issues that are preventing you from thinking rationally as seen in your posts.
Sure. Thanks."Deep seated" is the adjective you are looking for.
/Freudian?
I dont think any of that applies to what we are debating here.. At the core its about invasion of personal freedom and that guy in your text had his personal freedom invaded.. its not right.Maybe we should bring up the case of a woman going to a sperm-bank, getting pregnant, and then somehow, tracking down the sperm donor, suing for child-support, and winning? Yes, this was in one of those "backwards" conservative mid-western states, maybe AL or IL.
Edit: Second half of my thought - if that same said woman was on or went on welfare to pay for the kid, would you force birth-control on the man? Even though he wasn't "directly involved" with the pregnancy?
what if poverty wasnt a cycle?
It sounds like you are saying that women have no choice in the matter and that all sex is rape. The topic of discussion is should WOMEN be permitted to pop kids out while collecting the money to pay for them from the government. And while it absolutely takes 2 to tango, it only takes one to take precautions to LIMIT the possibility of becoming pregnant. Unless you are suggesting that women are not smart enough to or concerned enough to bother with the precautions. If a woman does not want to get pregnant she has a choice to make, don't let the cock weielding fuck wad entrance, if thats not an option, have him wrap it up double layer if your worried, the pill, cream, IUD, morning after pill, pressure wash it out afterwards ( that last one was a lame attempt at humor). At this point there are so fucking many way to not get pregnant that if you do, you just don't care to take the time. Ohh but thats right, its the guys fault. He forced himself in you, ohh you let him in... He forced you to stop taking the pill, remove your IUD, put pins through his condom, pull out the sponge and pressure washed it out so there was no spermicide foam anywhere near the path his little swimmers were planning to go, and then made you stand on your head for 3 hours after. Any of that sound plausible as a reason it's the guys fault? Yah, I would consider all of that rape/assault and would have zero issue with an abortion, yes even paid for by the state. And if the mother is against an abortion shouldn't she be just a little more careful about the single solitary thing that can cause a pregnancy? Perhaps anal or monic... I mean oral. For someone who is so adamant about women being equal to men in every way, you sure do like to blame men for a lot. Please keep in mind the OP NEVER mentions the sex of the person who should be on BC while receiving assistance. NO I am not saying guys are assholes, I'm one and I am an asshole. But I can't think of a means by which I can get a woman pregnant if she doesn't want to be that does not involve breaking a law or a very slim but possible accident. You are familiar with all the BC possibilities out there right? And if side effects are your concern you do understand the "side effects" of child birth right? No I have not had enough coffee, and yes I'm an asshole, and you're bitchie so...I am angry. It takes two people to get pregnant. How about forced castration for ALL men (because you know, some guys like to play on the wrong side of the tracks). The testicles could be kept on ice so the term temporary can be thrown in there. If a man is with a woman who has multiple children, raw-dogging it is a bad idea. Yeah, I'm mad. Do you think am ooopsy is all the woman's fault? Bullshit!
The topic of discussion is should WOMEN be permitted to pop kids out while collecting the money to pay for them from the government.
And while it absolutely takes 2 to tango, it only takes one to take precautions to LIMIT the possibility of becoming pregnant.
for women, there's a birth control shot that lasts at least a month.
let's say there's a birth control shot for men that make them sterile for a month at a time?
would making those on public assistance (welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc) receive these shots greatly reduce the next generation of poor?
less poor = better for society overall?
ie: less resources to prop them up and less crime
Thank you darling. Well said. I really had no desire to respond to the dude. I don't think I've been unclear at all but if someone aims to misunderstand there is a 100% chance they will succeed. Thanks again.I don't want to speak for her, but I think her point is that women wouldn't be popping out all these kids if men were not having sex with them. That it seems less than genuine to put so much of the blame on the women alone. At some point it begins to sound like you are really saying that you want all these poor women available for your sexual gratification but are tired of having to pay for the children that are a consequence of that sexual availability.
Our society still has quite a bit of male privilege baked into it's institutions, and so women, and particularly poor women, are at a disadvantage to begin with, and so your argument ends up putting way more blame on poor women, who because of their situation of disadvantage are easy to take advantage of even by poor men, than seems fair.
Yes, and honestly it is the men that have (several) of the easiest and least invasive forms of precaution. Perhaps we should be working harder to insure men use those precautions. Financial punishment for failing to do so would seem to be a more reasonable method than forced invasive BC for women. Maybe instead of forcing women to use invasive birth control we could just work harder as a society to get men to pay for the kids that they create?