SoftBonds
Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012 Status: offline
|
OK, other than calling it totalitarian, what is the negative effect? If you knocked up three women, and they all went and got abortions because you refused to take care of them financially (and would probably be unable to given that there were three of them), can the state not impose some punishment if they are looking at significant expenses? Or do we not have a responsibility to the state that defends us? quote:
ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote:
ORIGINAL: SoftBonds It was originally intended to be, but... Think about it, there is plenty of outrage against women who have multiple kids and are on welfare, but what are we doing about the fathers? Why sterilize anyone? Well, to save money, to provide better outcomes for the children who are born, to drop the abortion rate significantly... It serves two purposes I have been advocating for some time. 1. It places an onus on fathers of children born out of wedlock who don't take care of the mother of their child. 2. It reduces the number of unwanted children and the number of men who have children by 3 or more women. Now, anyone want to tell me a negative affect? These are the exact same arguments that the progressives put forth in the early 1900's (but with women). See the SCOTUS case Buck vs. Bell. Been there, done that; nothing new to see here! The negative effect? Well it's perhaps the most totalitarian measure that could ever be put forth by a government. But...I'm sure a lot of progressive women would agree with you. They bitch about their reproductive rights (which admittedly are under attack), but at the same time many of them would love nothing more than to sterilize a bunch of men.
_____________________________
Elite Thread Hijacker! Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply) The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.
|