The people who would support this agenda would consider it acceptable losses. After all, they care about money not life.
I wonder how some of the religious factions out there would feel about forced birth control.
The people who would support this agenda would consider it acceptable losses. After all, they care about money not life.If someone were to undergo forced sterilization and die from the procedure, I'm wondering how that might be seen ethically.
The people who would support this agenda would consider it acceptable losses. After all, they care about money not life.
I wonder how some of the religious factions out there would feel about forced birth control.
Pretty rich for someone to decide who's worthy of reproducing when they don't know the difference between 'less' and 'fewer', that's fundamental grammar! I say we introduce a spelling and math test before you can have kids. I'd also support death penalty for anyone who says "more unique".
Edit: I couldn't subject myself to reading the dude's entire post. As soon as I got to "all sex is rape" I knew I wouldn't finish reading it. I stopped after "it only takes one to take precautions to LIMIT the possibility of becoming pregnant."
Those who believe in acceptable losses don't consider it pessimism. In fact, they add it to their overall optimism. I'm not offending their sensibilities. Neither am I being single mindedly pessimistic when I take in to consideration the depth of love for money too many lawmakers possess. I'm being a realist and they are being logical from their perspective.Don't be so pessimistic.
If someone were to undergo forced sterilization and die from the procedure, I'm wondering how that might be seen ethically.
OR you could improve and avoid such things all together?Ah, the old "i have nothing", so i'll attack your grammar mistakes. So childish and pathetic.
OR you could improve and avoid such things all together?
OR we could stick to the topic and not worry so much about spelling when it doesnt really matter to what is being said. Im not saying one shouldnt try to be grammatically correct, but attacking it pathetic. Its like peoples easy way out vs. talking about the topic.
Libs almost sounds like conservatards in this thread. STERILIZATION!!, EUGENICS!!, NAZIS!! vs. BENGHAZI!!, OBAMA!!, BUTTERY MALES!!
WTF are you talking about? I blame the women AS MUCH AS I BLAME THE MEN. This thread is directed toward women, I opted to change the narrative to include men because they are EQUALLY responsible regardless of which gender actually carries the pregnancy. *SIGH* Yes, you are a purposefully obtuse idiot in this. For ALL women I say fu*k off you simple-minded prick.Ahhh. Did reality and facts hit too close to home? Instead of blaming men for everything maybe women should take some responsibility for their actions.
Considering not a single person has talked about sterilization, your points is meaningless. Temporary BC is not even remotely the same as permenantly sterilizing a woman.
Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" sterilization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!OR we could stick to the topic and not worry so much about spelling when it doesnt really matter to what is being said. Im not saying one shouldnt try to be grammatically correct, but attacking it pathetic. Its like peoples easy way out vs. talking about the topic.
Libs almost sounds like conservatards in this thread. STERILIZATION!!, EUGENICS!!, NAZIS!! vs. BENGHAZI!!, OBAMA!!, BUTTERY MALES!!
Those who believe in acceptable losses don't consider it pessimism. In fact, they add it to their overall optimism. I'm not offending their sensibilities. Neither am I being single mindedly pessimistic when I take in to consideration the depth of love for money too many lawmakers possess. I'm being a realist and they are being logical from their perspective.
Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" serialization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!
This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward. Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work. Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual. There is no amount of potential saving that would justify forced sterilization, even temporarily.eugenics scare the stuff out of me. Reminds me of how easy we can all become like Nazis
Forced sterilization is insanely creepy
Actually they did earlier, but I erred nonetheless.
What if someone dies as a result of forced birth control?
Never.You want copies of him?
I was talking about the detached professionalism many lawmakers approach making decisions for the people. Acceptable losses is absolutely a part of their vocabulary.Perhaps pessimism was the wrong word due to a misguided idea of your feelings on the matter.
If someone concludes that financial interests are of more value here than humanistic ones, it does not mean that all they care about is financial interest. In fact, all that is needed for many people to change stances is for someone to alert them to the presence of an alternative consideration they had not previously given due attention.
Those who have decided more affirmatively are likely those who will be most vocal. That phenomenon leads to a lot of false dichotomies being drawn.
In any endeavor of society some level of risk must be assumed. People can, and do, die standing in line for food stamps.
The question is what level of risk is acceptable. Is death a foreseeable and reasonable risk of BC?
I think the answer to that is that there is some considerable risk of harm, and that risk reaches to unacceptable levels for some demographics. So, we could not apply this rule across the board, we would need some way to evacuate risk on an individual level, and from there the whole thing will start to spiral into the same sort of bureaucracy that people are complaining is wrong with the current system.
Thank you. I said much the same with an earlier post. My Words were harsher but the jist was the same.This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward. Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work. Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual. There is no amount of potential saving that would justify forced sterilization, even temporarily.
I agree.This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward.
Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work.
Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual.
Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" sterilization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!
I was talking about the detached professionalism many lawmakers approach making decisions for the people. Acceptable losses is absolutely a part of their vocabulary.
So yeah, I often refer to detachment as uncaring. I am well aware that isn't the rule but sadly, caring isn't the exception to the rule. It tends to get in the way.
Don't worry i took it upon myself to not breed. Not due to money. I have plenty of that.
In the end, you are asking for a standard in order to force medical treatment on a person. There is plenty of legal precedent for such a standard, and it varies depending on state laws. However, I'm aware of none that allows you to force care on a person who has decision-making capacity in regard to the treatment. The closest might be involuntary psychiatric commitment, which notably deals with only commitment and not forced treatment. Still, the decision for psychiatric commitment is one where evidence of mental illness exists driving a person's imminent risk to self or others, thus essentially asserting that a person's mental illness impairs their capacity to choose unsupervised treatment. It is vastly different than what is being proposed here.