Poverty in California...
chrise...@hotmail.com
spiritual in our community. We continue to see an increase in single
mothers with children in extreme poverty, often on the verge of
homelessness. At Redding Loaves and Fishes we believe the world is not
looking for a better sermon on Christian Love, but a better
demonstration of it.
We are against practices and laws that unfairly single out homeless
people and criminalize them for everyday living and life-sustaining
activites.
Sometime in 2007 in Redding and Shasta County, California ...
3,316 total individuals representing 1,986 households were homeless at
some point during the year and
2,332 total individuals representing 939 households were imminently at-
risk of becoming homeless.
1,092 children were homeless and 995 children were imminently at-risk
of becoming homeless.
*The total of homeless and at-risk children was 2,087.
Help Us Fight Hunger and Poverty, Please Visit and Join Our Brand NEW
Groups !
Al Bundy
> Food and gas prices have risen, and so has hunger, both physical and
> spiritual in our community. We continue to see an increase in single
> mothers with children in extreme poverty, often on the verge of
> homelessness. At Redding Loaves and Fishes we believe the world is not
> looking for a better sermon on Christian Love, but a better
> demonstration of it.
>
> We are against practices and laws that unfairly single out homeless
> people and criminalize them for everyday living and life-sustaining
> activites.
>
> Sometime in 2007 in Redding and Shasta County, California ...
>
> 3,316 total individuals representing 1,986 households were homeless at
> some point during the year and
> 2,332 total individuals representing 939 households were imminently at-
> risk of becoming homeless.
> 1,092 children were homeless and 995 children were imminently at-risk
> of becoming homeless.
>
> *The total of homeless and at-risk children was 2,087.
>
not be one of them."
Cindy Hamilton
> spiritual in our community. We continue to see an increase in single
> mothers with children in extreme poverty, often on the verge of
> homelessness.
Are you providing free contraception, then? A penny of prevention is
worth a dollar of cure.
h
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3c3aaee-7b16-4af1...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Agreed. I refuse to donate to food banks but I give generously to
organizations which provide free or low cost sterilizations. If you can't
feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And with the current population of the world
approaching 7 billion, no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should have
more than one child. When we get back to a sustainable population of about 3
billion then we'll talk, but until then, every woman should be sterilized
after the birth of a child.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
> billion then we'll talk, but until then, every woman should be sterilized
> after the birth of a child.
So much for reproductive freedom.
Ken Lay
> If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
Who are you talking to? Is the OP the mother of all those impoverished
people?
> And with the current population of the world approaching 7 billion,
> no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should have more than one
> child.
Nobody should speed, either, or eat too much, or have sex too much or
experiment with drugs. Of course, we *could* kill the second child of
any fertile myrtles. Then we would have *negative* population growth!
Get it? Get it? NEGATIVE population growth.
Fuck, I slay me.
> When we get back to a sustainable population of about 3 billion then
> we'll talk, but until then, every woman should be sterilized after
> the birth of a child.
Why wait?
Truly Stunned
<69e2d025-f497-4602...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Al Bundy <MSfo...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> The Rev. Ike used to say, "The best thing I can do for the poor is
> not be one of them."
As Dick Cheney liked to say before he started to decay, "Inflame, don't
inform!"
h
"Ken Lay" <livin_la_...@skilling.the.whipping.boy> wrote in message
news:livin_la_vida_morte-...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <48442f78$0$31722$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, <h> wrote:
>
>> If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
>
> Who are you talking to? Is the OP the mother of all those impoverished
> people?
>
>> And with the current population of the world approaching 7 billion,
>> no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should have more than one
>> child.
>
> Nobody should speed, either, or eat too much, or have sex too much or
> experiment with drugs. Of course, we *could* kill the second child of
> any fertile myrtles. Then we would have *negative* population growth!
> Get it? Get it? NEGATIVE population growth.
>
Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many
people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population or the
planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of
the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty solved.
Rod Speed
> Ken Lay <livin_la_...@skilling.the.whipping.boy> wrote
>> h wrote
>>> If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
>> Who are you talking to? Is the OP the mother of all those impoverished people?
>>> And with the current population of the world approaching 7 billion, no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should
>>> have more than one child.
>> Nobody should speed, either, or eat too much, or have sex too much or
>> experiment with drugs. Of course, we *could* kill the second child of
>> any fertile myrtles. Then we would have *negative* population growth!
>> Get it? Get it? NEGATIVE population growth.
> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many people on this planet. We can either
> choose to reduce the population or the planet will do it for us.
That last is just plain wrong with modern first world countrys.
NONE of those are self replacing on population if you take out the immigration.
> I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of the population would do the same.
Taint gunna happen.
> In one generation, poverty solved.
Wrong again.
Anthony Matonak
...
> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many
> people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population or the
> planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of
> the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty solved.
Why stop at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not 100%? If everyone in the world
stopped having children then we would solve all of humanities problems
in one single generation.
I'm reminded of all those religions throughout history that believed
very strongly in zero reproduction. They all died out, of course.
Anthony
h
"Anthony Matonak" <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4844d211$0$30171$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>h wrote:
> ...
>> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too
>> many people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population
>> or the planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least
>> 50% of the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty
>> solved.
>
> Why stop at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not 100%? If everyone in the world
> stopped having children then we would solve all of humanities problems
> in one single generation.
>
cutting the population in half. Since breeders will always fail to rein in
reproduction on their own, I'm just glad I'll be dead in 50 years. By then
this planet will have nearly 15 billion people and be uninhabitable, at
least for any civilized people.
Fred
That same mindless claim has been made ever since Malthus started doing it.
Didnt happen then, and it aint gunna happen now either.
Ken Lay
> Actually, I think human extinction is an excellent idea
Well, you definitely have the suicidal demographics' vote, but the
murderous segment is split on your candidacy.
h
"Fred" <fr...@fred.com> wrote in message
news:4845001d$0$30357$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Umm, it happened then and it's happening now. Look at how fast the
population doubles:
1750...790 million
1800...980 million
1850...1.2 billion
1900...1.6 billion
1950...2.5 billion
2000...6.0 billion
If you can't wrap your mind around it you're dumber than you sound. You
probably have kids, too, so you're part of the problem.
Cindy Hamilton
Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege of those with
the resources to reproduce successfully.
Cindy Hamilton
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege of those with
> the resources to reproduce successfully.
Well, my experience has been that those people who championed abortion
in the name of reproductive freedom sure seem to have backpedalled when
it comes to making the door go both ways. Maybe they should have called
it nonreproductive freedom instead.
And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I don't
believe the government has any right to make illegal. Discourage it by
removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
JonL
Imo, this might be newsworthy if these numbers are up dramatically from
previous years. It hardly looks like a crisis situation, with 1% Shasta
county population being homeless or at risk. (tip: instead of feeding
loaves to the loafers, why not intervene and help those on the verge of
homelessness)
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> h wrote
>>> billion then we'll talk, but until then, every woman
>>> should be sterilized after the birth of a child.
>> So much for reproductive freedom.
> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege
> of those with the resources to reproduce successfully.
Nope, abstinence has always been available to everyone.
And its always been practiced by some too, most obviously
with some of the sillier religious cults like the shakers etc.
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> h wrote
>>> billion then we'll talk, but until then, every woman
>>> should be sterilized after the birth of a child.
>> So much for reproductive freedom.
> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege
> of those with the resources to reproduce successfully.
Nope, abstinence has always been available to everyone.
And its always been practiced by some too, most obviously
with some of the sillier religious cults like the shakers etc.
And then there's the more gung ho forms of it like the infanticide of surplus
female brats practiced by the Hindus and most recently the chinese.
The Real Bev
How about fertility treatments for welfare wannabe-moms? I think that's
a civil right now...
--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it weren't for pain, we wouldn't have any fun at all.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> How about fertility treatments for welfare wannabe-moms? I think that's
> a civil right now...
I have some really, REALLY off-the-wall ideas on medical care due to 15
years spent doing medical transcription for public health hospitals,
teaching hospitals, and private hospitals. Trust me, you don't want to
know what I think.
Although I will say that a local state representative of some sort here
in California tried a few years back to ban increasing the amount of
welfare for those already on welfare who had more children, stating that
between Section VIII housing, food stamps, WIC, and the like, they would
have ample funds to raise additional children. I am ashamed to say that
he was soundly trounced.
Then again, part of the problem is that this is California. Whoever
comes up with the idea of refinancing the state debt at a lower interest
rate to fix the budget crisis while keeping every last social program
intact is now having to eat their words, and deservedly so.
Cindy Hamilton
Childbearing is not the same as reproduction. Squeezing out babies
only to have them die within months is not reproduction.
Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a
privilege.
Cindy Hamilton
h
"Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply" <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
message news:48463de0$0$17205$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> How about fertility treatments for welfare wannabe-moms? I think that's
>> a civil right now...
>
> I have some really, REALLY off-the-wall ideas on medical care due to 15
> years spent doing medical transcription for public health hospitals,
> teaching hospitals, and private hospitals. Trust me, you don't want to
> know what I think.
>
> Although I will say that a local state representative of some sort here in
> California tried a few years back to ban increasing the amount of welfare
> for those already on welfare who had more children, stating that between
> Section VIII housing, food stamps, WIC, and the like, they would have
> ample funds to raise additional children. I am ashamed to say that he was
> soundly trounced.
I've been advocating that for years. I'm old enough to remember when welfare
was called "relief", implying that it was to be a temporary respite from a
sudden, unexpected event. The working poor who suffered a job loss or a
medical problem, etc. were able to get some short-term help to keep them on
their feet and then they went back to supporting themselves after a few
months. The dole was never intended to be a career choice. As long as women
are able to squirt out multiple brats and get more money with each addition,
a certain percentage of them will never want to do anything else. Welfare
should not be the "family business".
And don't get me started on fertility treatments. They should be banned. The
last thing we need is more people, and if you can't reproduce on your own
then maybe your genes aren't as special as you think they are.
The Real Bev
> And don't get me started on fertility treatments. They should be banned. The
> last thing we need is more people, and if you can't reproduce on your own
> then maybe your genes aren't as special as you think they are.
Yours may not be, but my husband's and mine certainly are. Fortunately
we required no assistance, but I think if you can afford the treatments
(as the kid of a friend and his wife had to do) you can certainly afford
to raise the kids.
A serious problem seems to be the proliferation of spawn by the
unqualified and the limitation of spawn by the qualified.
There's probably no solution to that problem.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
> been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
> starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
> easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a
> privilege.
Uh, technically speaking, it can only be deemed a privilege if it is
impossible for unprivileged people to accomplish it. Childbearing is
possible to practically all females, and I don't understand how you are
calling it a privilege as though all females were automatically sterile
unless allowed permission to be fertile or something -- that may not be
the most accurate description, but you get the idea of what I am talking
about.
Cindy Hamilton
You are confusing natural law with human law.
It is the case for every animal that they will fail to reproduce if
they
cannot protect and provide for their young until they are grown.
Humans are no different.
Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success, as
many
Third World mothers discover.
Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and
the
intelligent. And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
Cindy Hamilton
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege
>>> of those with the resources to reproduce successfully.
>> Well, my experience has been that those people who championed
>> abortion in the name of reproductive freedom sure seem to have
>> backpedalled when it comes to making the door go both ways.
>> Maybe they should have called it nonreproductive freedom instead.
>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
Its the only approach that worked in china.
> Childbearing is not the same as reproduction. Squeezing out
> babies only to have them die within months is not reproduction.
Yes, but that hasnt been reality in the first world for a hell of a long time now.
> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has
> always been the privilege of those with the resources to keep
> them from starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely.
Nope, there's always been plenty of societys that werent that marginal.
> That privilege is easier to come by nowadays in the First World,
In fact its automatic and you have to be hopeless to not be able to manage that now.
> but it is still a privilege.
Nope, its what everyone can expect now, essentially
because modern society has come a hell of a long way
since it was a priviledge now. Mostly due to the invention
of vaccination and very basic stuff like clean drinking water etc.
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
>>> been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
>>> starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
>>> easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a privilege.
>> Uh, technically speaking, it can only be deemed a privilege if it is
>> impossible for unprivileged people to accomplish it. Childbearing is
>> possible to practically all females, and I don't understand how you
>> are calling it a privilege as though all females were automatically
>> sterile unless allowed permission to be fertile or something -- that
>> may not be the most accurate description, but you get the idea of
>> what I am talking about.
> You are confusing natural law with human law.
Nope, it doesnt have a damned thing to do with either.
> It is the case for every animal that they will fail to reproduce if they
> cannot protect and provide for their young until they are grown.
Thats just plain wrong. There are plenty of species that do absolutely
nothing for their young at all, they get to take their chances survival wise.
> Humans are no different.
Humans are very different in the sense that no very young
humans can survive on their own, and modern human society
has developed WAY past the situation where the survival of
the young is at the whim of drought and infectious disease etc,
particularly in societys that arent stupid enough to keep
pumping out far more brats than their situation can support.
Humans are also very different in the sense that we now have
very effective birth control so that fucking can be completely
separated from procreation by those who want to do that.
> Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success,
Its very close to that now in the modern first world.
> as many Third World mothers discover.
Sure, but thats not the modern first world thats moved on way past that.
> Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and the intelligent.
Nope, not even in the third world.
> And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
Nope, its actually the dregs of the modern first world that are subsidised
to reproduce at a higher rate than the strong, swift and intelligent.
Cindy Hamilton
> Nope, its what everyone can expect now, essentially
> because modern society has come a hell of a long way
> since it was a priviledge now. Mostly due to the invention
> of vaccination and very basic stuff like clean drinking water etc.
I invite you to contemplate the infant mortality rates in First World
cities like Detroit.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
>
> Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>
>>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
>
> Its the only approach that worked in china.
I don't believe that childbearing is something that the government
should have the power to prevent. Discourage, perhaps. But not
prevent. That is a horrendous violation of personal liberty. And if
women want to be free to terminate pregnancies, they should also be free
to choose to become pregnant and to carry them to term. Doesn't mean
the government should subsidize them, just that the government should
not make it illegal.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
> Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success, as
> many
> Third World mothers discover.
>
> Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and
> the
> intelligent. And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
Okay, we are talking about different things. I am talking about whether
it is a reasonable thing for the government to dictate to people how
many children they can have. I do not feel it is reasonable, because it
is a gross violation of personal civil liberties and a two-faced comment
on reproductive freedom -- a totally consistent approach on reproductive
freedom being that that you might not ever want to have an abortion or
have more than two children -- the two sides of the reproductive freedom
coin -- but you should respect the choice of someone else who chooses to
either have an abortion or have more than two children. As far as some
people here, what's good for the goose (abortion proponents) is not
what's good for the gander (those who wish to have more than two
children).
It's a more libertarian stance, I suppose, but of course, I suppose
there are libertarians (of which I am not one, I don't think) who are
hypocritical when it comes to this issue.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>>>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
>> Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>>>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
>> Its the only approach that worked in china.
> I don't believe that childbearing is something that the government
> should have the power to prevent. Discourage, perhaps. But not
> prevent. That is a horrendous violation of personal liberty.
On the other hand, complete personal liberty on procreation
is what completely destroys so many third world economys.
Particularly when arseholes like the roman catholic church and the moslems go out
of their way to enourage the stupid to have as many brats as is physically possible.
> And if women want to be free to terminate pregnancies, they should also be free to choose to become pregnant and to
> carry them to term.
Then there's the real world where that personal freedom
ensures that the country cant hope to progress economically.
> Doesn't mean the government should subsidize them, just that the government should not make it illegal.
Thats all very well in the modern first world where every single country
isnt even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration,
but its academic cloud cuckooland with the third world.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>>>> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege
>>>>> of those with the resources to reproduce successfully.
>>>> Well, my experience has been that those people who championed
>>>> abortion in the name of reproductive freedom sure seem to have
>>>> backpedalled when it comes to making the door go both ways.
>>>> Maybe they should have called it nonreproductive freedom instead.
>>>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>>>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
>> Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>>>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
>> Its the only approach that worked in china.
>>> Childbearing is not the same as reproduction. Squeezing out
>>> babies only to have them die within months is not reproduction.
>> Yes, but that hasnt been reality in the first world for a hell of a long time now.
>>> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has
>>> always been the privilege of those with the resources to keep
>>> them from starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely.
>> Nope, there's always been plenty of societys that werent that marginal.
>>> That privilege is easier to come by nowadays in the First World,
>> In fact its automatic and you have to be hopeless to not be able to manage that now.
>>> but it is still a privilege.
>> Nope, its what everyone can expect now, essentially
>> because modern society has come a hell of a long way
>> since it was a priviledge now. Mostly due to the invention
>> of vaccination and very basic stuff like clean drinking water etc.
> I invite you to contemplate the infant mortality rates in First World cities like Detroit.
Thats precisely what I said, you have to be hopeless to not be able to manage it now.
Nothing whatever to do with privilege at all.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> A serious problem seems to be the proliferation of spawn by the
> unqualified and the limitation of spawn by the qualified.
>
> There's probably no solution to that problem.
>
No, there isn't, since the more intelligent and well-educated a woman
is the less likely she is to have children. That's certainly true in
my circle of friends. The only one of us to breed is the only one with
just an undergraduate degree, but even she stopped at one.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> Then there's the real world where that personal freedom
> ensures that the country cant hope to progress economically.
Well, if you want to live in a country where the government micromanages
things, there's always Singapore.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
Where they dont actually discourage people having more kids.
In fact they attempt to encourage them to have more, without any success.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
> Samantha Hill <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>
>> Well, if you want to live in a country where the government
>> micromanages things, there's always Singapore.
>
> Where they dont actually discourage people having more kids.
>
> In fact they attempt to encourage them to have more, without any success.
Hmm -- maybe that's the solution. *snicker* Encourage people to have
more children, and then they won't have any. Of course, it doesn't hurt
that children start mandatory school at age 3, parents have a lot fewer
rights over their children compared to here, and two-working-parent
families are the expected norm.
Of course, you better not chew gum there or you are in trouble, and if
you go over the speed limit, your car emits a siren.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Samantha Hill <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> Well, if you want to live in a country where the government
>>> micromanages things, there's always Singapore.
>> Where they dont actually discourage people having more kids.
>> In fact they attempt to encourage them to have more, without any success.
> Hmm -- maybe that's the solution. *snicker* Encourage people to have more children, and then they won't have any.
They just got the same result every modern first world country
got, once the economy got going properly, they arent even
self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
Australia also encouraged people to have more kids, and got
a very significant increase in the number of kids produced.
Thats mostly the dregs of society doing it tho.
> Of course, it doesn't hurt that children start mandatory school at age 3, parents have a lot fewer rights over their
> children compared to here,
No they dont.
> and two-working-parent families are the expected norm.
Yep, just like right thruout most of the modern first world now.
> Of course, you better not chew gum there or you are in trouble, and if you go over the speed limit, your car emits a
> siren.
No it doesnt.
Coffee's For Closers
sam...@TRASHsonic.net says...
My view might be called, "libertarian" (with a small "l.")
In a chaotic, cave-people type world, just go all-out, and try as
hard as possible to reproduce as much as possible. Although, of
course, Daddy might get squished by a wooly mammoth, and mommy
might die in childbirth (the first or fifth time.) And, of
course, Baby often dies with nobody giving a damn.
There is a recent theory of an ancient mass-die-off, leaving as
few as 2K humans. And they had to get busy, just to preserve the
species, so that we could be here today.
But, in a modern, civilised/governed/economic word, I say, "Pay
To Play."
Rights over one's own body mean that, for example, I have a right
to plastic surgery. Whether it be socially-cool breast implants,
or if it be horns protruding from my head. As long as I
personally pay for it, in an agreed contract with the provider.
My body, my money, my rights. Absolute control, without any need
for some random arrogant person's permission.
But I feel that there is a lower level of rights when it comes to
imposing upon other human beings. Such as creating another human
being. Because that child creates an obligation for the parent
to provide physical and economic support.
I actually feel that parental emotional support is good, but
optional (I do NOT feel that my rights were violated by the
lack of that, although certain other obligations were failed.)
My own body-property rights would NOT extend to forcing another
person to get, or forego, a nose job. Or forcing them to have,
or forego, an abortion. Regardless of how I might feel
emotionally about either subject. Abortion is on the border with
two humans, but laws must fall on one side or the other, so I say
responsibility is on the mother.
But, my body-property rights would also NOT extend to creating a
child who would suffer for my lack of responsibility and
resources.
And, my body-property rights do NOT extend to creating a burden
on other people to support a child that I created without any
prospect of responsibility or resources.
I am rather ambivalent about socialist medical systems, like the
one where I live. I pay plenty of taxes into it, and have used
it for small dollar amounts, to help problems that I didn't
cause. While other people might not pay any taxes (welfare
recipients, housewives, etc), and then bleed that resource with
their smoking, over-eating, sloth, drug-use, etc, etc.
I cannot control their body-use, but sure do NOT feel that they
have a "right" to my tax money to deal with the consequences.
And I do NOT see any interpersonal "right" for anyone to enlist
me as a slave to support a child that they feel an individual
right to create.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
h
"Coffee's For Closers" <Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.22b13173e...@news.motzarella.org...
> And I do NOT see any interpersonal "right" for anyone to enlist
> me as a slave to support a child that they feel an individual
> right to create.
>
Bing bing bing, we have a winner. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. If
you show no ability to ever be able to care for your DNA replicant then you
should lose custody permanently. Throwing money at the new "family" is
certainly not the answer.
Cindy Hamilton
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success, as
> > many
> > Third World mothers discover.
>
> > Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and
> > the
> > intelligent. And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
>
> Okay, we are talking about different things. I am talking about whether
> it is a reasonable thing for the government to dictate to people how
> many children they can have. I do not feel it is reasonable, because it
> is a gross violation of personal civil liberties and a two-faced comment
> on reproductive freedom -- a totally consistent approach on reproductive
> freedom being that that you might not ever want to have an abortion or
> have more than two children -- the two sides of the reproductive freedom
> coin -- but you should respect the choice of someone else who chooses to
> either have an abortion or have more than two children.
Not if I'm paying for them. As a Libertarian, you're really... Well,
the nicest
thing I can think to say is that you've got tunnel vision where cute,
cuddly
little babies are concerned.
Believe me, if I were the Dictator of the United States, I'd say "You
can either
get a job and support yourself and your children or accept Welfare and
be
sterilized."
Cindy Hamilton
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> My own body-property rights would NOT extend to forcing another
> person to get, or forego, a nose job. Or forcing them to have,
> or forego, an abortion. Regardless of how I might feel
> emotionally about either subject. Abortion is on the border with
> two humans, but laws must fall on one side or the other, so I say
> responsibility is on the mother.
>
> But, my body-property rights would also NOT extend to creating a
> child who would suffer for my lack of responsibility and
> resources.
How do you reconcile believing that nobody has an absolute right to
conceive a child with believing that you should not force another person
to have an abortion? And some forms of birth control are repugnant to
some people's consciences -- would you force them to violate their
conscience?
I think that if you took away tax deductions, child care credit, etc.,
additional welfare credits for more than one or two children, etc., that
would discourage people enough from having more children that you
wouldn't need to turn people into involuntary slaves of the state when
it came to reproductive freedoms.
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> Not if I'm paying for them. As a Libertarian, you're really... Well,
> the nicest
> thing I can think to say is that you've got tunnel vision where cute,
> cuddly
> little babies are concerned.
I never said I was a Libertarian, just that maybe some of my beliefs
tend to go in that direction.
> Believe me, if I were the Dictator of the United States, I'd say "You
> can either
> get a job and support yourself and your children or accept Welfare and
> be
> sterilized."
It is presently illegal -- well, in California, at least -- to forcibly
sterilize a person who cannot personally give informed consent (source:
An acquaintance has an adult child with Down Syndrome and went through
investigating this), but you can procure them an abortion without their
informed consent. I am not sure if you can give them contraceptives if
they cannot personally give a full informed consent. This came about
because people felt it was unfair to sterilize "undesirables" because it
violated their civil rights or something like that.
Cindy Hamilton
I'm not sure you're reading my posts very carefully. I don't actually
expect
to become Dictator of the United States.
Cindy Hamilton
Rod Speed
> Coffee's For Closers wrote
>> My own body-property rights would NOT extend to forcing another person to get, or forego, a nose job. Or forcing
>> them to have, or forego, an abortion. Regardless of how I might feel emotionally about either subject. Abortion is
>> on the border with two humans, but laws must fall on one side or the other, so I say responsibility is on the mother.
>> But, my body-property rights would also NOT extend to creating a
>> child who would suffer for my lack of responsibility and resources.
> How do you reconcile believing that nobody has an absolute right to conceive a child with believing that you should
> not force another person to have an abortion? And some forms of birth control are repugnant to some people's
> consciences -- would you force them to violate their conscience?
> I think that if you took away tax deductions, child care credit, etc.,
> additional welfare credits for more than one or two children, etc.,
> that would discourage people enough from having more children
The dregs of society dont calculate like that. They were pumping
out FAR more kids than their economic circumstances could
possibly support in the days before there was any welfare
at all, and thats still the situation in the third world right now.
> that you wouldn't need to turn people into involuntary slaves of the state when it came to reproductive freedoms.
Whatever that means.
h
"Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply" <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in >
> additional welfare credits for more than one or two children, etc., that
> would discourage people enough from having more children that you wouldn't
> need to turn people into involuntary slaves of the state when it came to
> reproductive freedoms.
You should be able to have one child for free (no deductions, no extra
taxes). After one child you should have to pay extra taxes equal to the
amount of the current per child deduction for each surplus child you
produce. The idea that people are rewarded (with deductions) for every new
resource sucker they pump out is insane. Where are we going to put all these
extra people? What are we going to feed them? Either we go back to a life
span of less than 60 years or we start having fewer children.
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> I think that if you took away tax deductions, child care credit, etc., additional welfare credits for more than one
>> or two children, etc.,
>> that would discourage people enough from having more children that you wouldn't need to turn people into involuntary
>> slaves of the state when it came to reproductive freedoms.
> You should be able to have one child for free (no deductions, no extra
> taxes). After one child you should have to pay extra taxes equal to
> the amount of the current per child deduction for each surplus child
> you produce. The idea that people are rewarded (with deductions) for
> every new resource sucker they pump out is insane.
Not neccessarily. Any modern first world economy depends on new
individuals that can pay more taxes than those who have retired etc,
and thats one obvious way to get more of those, and has significant
advantages over using immigrants for that instead. Particularly when
every single modern first world country isnt even self replacing on
population now if you take out immigration.
> Where are we going to put all these extra people?
Same place we put those we had before the population shrank.
> What are we going to feed them?
Same thing we fed those we had before the population shrank.
> Either we go back to a life span of less than 60 years or we start having fewer children.
It aint that binary. The modern reality is that every single modern
first world country, and most of the second world too, isnt even
self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.