Tail wags Dog.....point a finger
Last edited:
The madness is having six that you can't support or care for and expecting the government to do it for you. This is compounded when you have six absentee fathers who also don't support or care for the children. It is completely irresponsible and it is asinine that we reward these people for their behavior. If you are on government assistance, you should not be having children, especially additional children. Having children is a serious responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly. If you are accepting government assistance, you can't afford or support additional children. Therefore you shouldn't have them. End of story.
As I stated previously, my suggestions are hypothetical. However, I think if the option of free sterilization was available, some people who are too lazy or too irresponsible to buy a condom or birth control, may just be willing to accept the offer. For the record, I have no issue with large families. I think they are great when the parents are parenting and are capable of providing for their children. I have three children and would like three more. I just can't afford them.
the problem I have with your opposition, and your defense for it deals with the fact that if we don't regulate what people consume, such as drugs, and alcohol, ect, then the side effects of these products will also cause harm to others and not just the user. If people want to be stupid and ruin thier own lives that's one thing, but when that stupidity affects me or my loved ones, then I have a big problem with that.
so to put it simply, yes the goverment must regulate some things such as this.
I'm going to post what you just did except substitute guns for drugs and we'll see how that sounds.
Well said Sarah Brady
I would argue the criminalization of such substances creates a black market which adversely affects others more than if the substances were legal.
well the problem with your version is the choice and intent involved sir, because with drugs and alcohol after a certain point of usage you have very little to no control of what may soon occur from the usage. With guns I don't believe any amount of usage will cause a good, sane person to go on a binge and kill others, or to lose control of the weapon and hurt someone.
I guess that is the difference I am talking about between the two.
I may partially agree with this comment only because the goverment has proved that to be true back during prohibition, it soon became better for the goverment to just repeal it than to keep fighting it. One of the biggest differences with drugs would be that they have NEVER been legalized and therefore the tide would be much harder to turn than it is now, due to the fact that has always been illegal. It's kind of like giving a toy to a child, it can be nearly impossible to get it back afterwards, versus they wouldn't even know what they were missing if they never got it.
This is another major issue in my opinion. I know several single moms, none of which are on the dole, but have a father for these kids that do not pay for their child support.
They get a job, mom tracks them down, and they get their wages garnished. Next payday they quit.
My wife is a payroll accountant for an international company, and deals with this on a monthly basis.
So, part of the problem with this whole scenerio, is if the deadbeat dads paid their money, we would not have all of the moms on the public teat.
BTW, there are deadbeat moms as well.
My kids mom bailed when they were in their very early teens, and she did pay her support.
In Okla, we don't have a surefire method to make the deadbeat dads/moms pay other than garnish any wages, or the man/woman up and pay them like they should.
On occasion they spend some time in the county jail, for a weekend or two, but afterward, still don't pay.
How do we make them do this?
On another hand, I have a friends daughter that got pregnant so she could draw support. WTF!! Went to college on the support with tuition pretty much paid for and works at a burger joint now.
What a screwed up society we have now.
This isn't true at all. Pretty much all now-prohibited substances were one commonly available legally.
So, if I read this comment right, the legalization of all drugs, so that there is no black market would stop all of the crime associated with drugs that are addictive, and would stop all crime associated with said addiction to obtain more addictive drugs?
Has legalization of alcohol stopped all crimes associated with that?
Similar threads
