Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

[Nylah]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009


Britisha

This is the same illogical argument the founders of Planned Parenthood used to try and force sterilization on poor... ie blacks.... in the early part of the century.

Eugenics is back in fashion, no?

So it isnt okay for a woman to have an abortion because that is immoral but if *I* decide she is a menace to society because she reproduces too often for my taste and is sucking too much of my tax dollars, then let me reach inside her and <span style="font-weight: bold">force </span>sterilization......

[britisha]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Britisha

This is the same illogical argument the founders of Planned Parenthood used to try and force sterilization on poor... ie blacks.... in the early part of the century.

Eugenics is back in fashion, no?

So it isnt okay for a woman to have an abortion because that is immoral but if *I* decide she is a menace to society because she reproduces too often for my taste and is sucking too much of my tax dollars, then let me reach inside her and <span style="font-weight: bold">force </span>sterilization......

</div></div>

Zup Nylah?


'Zackly. Exxcellent point you make. How quickly we forget.
Has the topic starter ever stopped to consider the massive feat it would be to sterilize sooooo many people?...and if he/she thinks that blacks would be in the majority, let him/her wheel an cum again...[pardon the pun]

[julie*mango]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

a voice of reason + sanity

[Nylah]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let him/her wheel an cum again...[pardon the pun] </div></div>

that is not right at all

I wish I could recall the article I read but it was about who exactly populates the welfare rolls in the U.S.
the majority of peeps on it were of course, white, and not blacks like most would assume. The article broke down by state the racial makeup of their welfare rolls...but I digress.

Either way, forced sterilization is barbaric. And as usual people react to the outcome of symptoms instead of dealing with the reason for such problems existing in the first place.

Concentrate on eliminating the <span style="font-weight: bold">root causes of poverty and disenfranchisement </span>and then we stand a fighting chance with &quot;population control&quot;

small side point - so a poor woman cant afford birth control because either she cant afford health insurance coverage or it isnt covered thru medi-aid (my understanding is that birth control pills in the U.S. are not insurable under most plans but is readily covered here in Canada) but when she has one too many kids then forcing her to a hospital to sterilize her is less costly to society/tax rolls???????

[britisha]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seanee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a voice of reason + sanity </div></div>

Mi nose deyah a grow lang, mi waan here wha 'appin earlier...cazz mi nosie. :: respek

[britisha]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let him/her wheel an cum again...[pardon the pun] </div></div>

that is not right at all

I wish I could recall the article I read but it was about who exactly populates the welfare rolls in the U.S.
the majority of peeps on it were of course, white, and not blacks like most would assume. The article broke down by state the racial makeup of their welfare rolls...but I digress.

Either way, forced sterilization is barbaric. And as usual people react to the outcome of symptoms instead of dealing with the reason for such problems existing in the first place.

Concentrate on eliminating the <span style="font-weight: bold">root causes of poverty and disenfranchisement </span>and then we stand a fighting chance with &quot;population control&quot;

small side point - so a poor woman cant afford birth control because either she cant afford health insurance coverage or it isnt covered thru medi-aid (my understanding is that birth control pills in the U.S. are not insurable under most plans but is readily covered here in Canada) but when she has one too many kids then forcing her to a hospital to sterilize her is less costly to society/tax rolls???????


</div></div>


You make some real excelleent points.


The stats are there, that minority groups receive LESS welfare and government subsidies, based on their numbers alone...it is a known fact....so I am here wondering if our topic starter has al recipients in mind, or just a select few/group.


As for &quot;birth control&quot; in the form of pills, they have side effects as well, and while our advocate might NOT directly be referring to their use, rather than ABSTAIN FROM <span style="font-weight: bold">casual</span> SEX [did you get that also?} they can be detrimental to the health of some users.

As far as I am concerned, governments should provide subbsidies for children whose parents cannot afford it [although they are working], and MANDATORY jobs for those who are not working.

<span style="font-style: italic">small point: when yuh wuk and yuh tyad, yuh nah noh time fi sex, casual or otherwise LOL...yuh body too tyad....so there.

put mi han pan mi jaw an a wandah a which dacktah wuddah sterilize ppl juss soh widdout them consent...but si yah !!</span>

[julie*mango]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seanee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a voice of reason + sanity </div></div>

Mi nose deyah a grow lang, mi waan here wha 'appin earlier...cazz mi nosie. :: respek </div></div>

nutten at all..just a disconnect in di train of comprehension

[britisha]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seanee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seanee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a voice of reason + sanity </div></div>

Mi nose deyah a grow lang, mi waan here wha 'appin earlier...cazz mi nosie. :: respek </div></div>

nutten at all..just a disconnect in di train of comprehension </div></div>


tonks, mi did tink seh mi sumting in di sequence of events...respek.

[Nylah]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stats are there, that minority groups receive LESS welfare and government subsidies, based on their numbers alone...it is a known fact....so I am here wondering if our topic starter has al recipients in mind, or just a select few/group.</div></div>

yes, that is what I was wondering too from the above comments. The sense I get is that the so-called Act is meant to target a select few/group cause otherwise, you really think it would fly otherwise???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for &quot;birth control&quot; in the form of pills, they have side effects as well, and while our advocate might NOT directly be referring to their use, rather than ABSTAIN FROM casual SEX [did you get that also?} they can be detrimental to the health of some users.</div></div>

Very good point too. <span style="font-style: italic">You kinda sharp eh? </span>
So for those on the welfare roll but are married, they should be forced to abstain from &quot;casual sex&quot;??

For real? aye sah

I picked the pill cause it is the most commonly used for but you are very right, birth control in all its form can definitely be determental to the user's health. What the topic started doesnt factor in is that sterilization (it is a surgical procedure) is potentially life threatening as well. Forcing a woman to jeopardize her health in order to satisfy some social edict is again barbaric. So, if the woman dies or suffers complication, who is gonna look after those first 3 kids?......ah the state yet again

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">small point: when yuh wuk and yuh tyad, yuh nah noh time fi sex, casual or otherwise LOL...yuh body too tyad....so there.

put mi han pan mi jaw an a wandah a which dacktah wuddah sterilize ppl juss soh widdout them consent...but si yah !!</div></div>

looks like I need to slap the mad ooman label on your forehead

[britisha]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009


Nylah, your analysis is spot on.

diss is yy mu sig reads be careful wha wi wish for...all you need is one or two complications from those sterilization procedures, and den millions wudda haff to be paid out from lawsuits, unless it's being done in a fascist state.

What comes to mind also,is welfare fraud that was very common here...there was so much abuse to the extent that people would all BORROW other people's children and take them to the welfare office to get aid.

Then there were the men who would go around and impregnate the women for a monthly fee per child from the welfare dole. I don't think our advocate was referring to that though, although it was a cause for concern.


Fortunately, provisions are in place now to thwart those crooks and even capture and send them to the can for a long long time.

but I digress.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">fascism. state has no business in the reproductory organs of its individuals.

besides, where would states get their cheap labour from if not from unplanned children?
</div></div> Npot to mention ,fodder for their wars, people to pay the taxes that finance the country,raw matweial to trans form into productive citizens. Usually people who propmote such polices, are th eproduct of acci8dental conception, have a very troubled childhood, and still have a warped view of humanbeing in general.
Like selection of people to be born, has any relationdhip to the achievement of those that are born.

[Wahalla]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

Dis is why mi lub yu Britisha... Where that attitude got us was China where the 1 child policy is still in place only just.... and where so called unplanned seacond children are not afforded state protection of the already meagre health care and education...

Or who recalls the case of india where the Indira Ghandi policy of state supported sterilisation of poor people was justified with sentiment as stated above..

Any one who tries to control human sexuality is on a loser...I usually associate such sentiment with smug sentimentality....

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seanee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and how do you suggest that the state take action?
by sterilization?
that sounds like nazi germany to me.
and under what criteria do ou determine that the birth giver be sterilized?
what about those who have a mess of kids and still manage to take care of them without burdening the state?
and how do you know that ones financial situation today might not change tomorrow?
Couples who may be able to take care of their children today may lose their jobs and become unable to financially care for their offspring.
too many holes in this... </div></div> ther eare many whute American women that were sterilized as children during the 40's and 50's on the basis that they were supposed to be mentally difficient. this was an eroneous diagnosis in the majority of cases.
Many only found out after they hav ebeen tryiung to have children and got meducal intervention.
So it is not only Nazi germany.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sofisa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2009_Skelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">say what? </div></div> Anybody, man or woman, whe have 3 pickiney and goverment affi a help them, should be cut / tie-off. </div></div> such a <span style="text-decoration: line-through">dumb </span>, illthought out idea. How many future doctors,engineers,scientists, inventors, etc would such policy eliminate??

[Wahalla]

Re: Unplanned Children Reduction Act 2009

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sofisa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2009_Skelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">say what? </div></div> Anybody, man or woman, whe have 3 pickiney and goverment affi a help them, should be cut / tie-off. </div></div> such a <span style="text-decoration: line-through">dumb </span>, illthought out idea. How many future doctors,engineers,scientists, inventors, etc would such policy eliminate?? </div></div>

There goes all the children born in the UK /Europe to families with more than 3 pickni... All children there get children allowance, free heath, free schools and dental care... That would also apply to all chilren of families with more than 3 children in Cuba and even in the US as parents get tax releif...

At times in all our lives we all have depended on the support of the goverment..