40% Of US Births Now Occur Outside Of Marriage

[clintonhater]

Okay, tell me how you would absolutely prevent breeding.

Remember, in the case Holmes wrote on, the solution WAS surgical sterilization.

Preventing such breeding "absolutely" would be very difficult, but steps could be taken to slow it down. What's wrong with surgical sterilization, esp. for men--a simple operation that many men undergo voluntarily. For women, there are long-acting birth-control injections that eliminate the need to take a pill every day.

And any woman, even one having a genius IQ, who accepts welfare payments for her first bastard should absolutely be required to undergo some form of chemical sterilization or report to a clinic at regular intervals for the administration of a birth-control drug. Why must society keep paying the price for their breeding irresponsibility?

[Vern Humphrey]

Preventing such breeding "absolutely" would be very difficult, but steps could be taken to slow it down. What's wrong with surgical sterilization, esp. for men--a simple operation that many men undergo voluntarily. For women, there are long-acting birth-control injections that eliminate the need to take a pill every day.

And how do you get women to submit to such injections against their will? And what do you do about the men who fall into your substandard category?

And any woman, even one having a genius IQ, who accepts welfare payments for her first bastard should absolutely be required to undergo some form of chemical sterilization or report to a clinic at regular intervals for the administration of a birth-control drug. Why must society keep paying the price for their breeding irresponsibility?

Why is it always the women's fault? I always thought men were involved in sex, too.

[clintonhater]

Why is it always the women's fault? I always thought men were involved in sex, too.

The fault is equal, but it's the woman who gets the welfare check, & withholding that check would cause even the stupidest among them to comply with mandatory use of birth control meds administered in a clinic; no different from mandatory drug testing.

If the father could be identified, & if he had a job, he should of course be compelled to support his bastard, but most of such low-lifes have no gainful employment, except in crime. They should be drafted into some low-skill socially-useful work force--picking up roadside trash, for ex., is something any moron could do, & in most parts of the country, the job is left to a few volunteers who don't make a dint in the problem.

[Vern Humphrey]

The fault is equal, but it's the woman who gets the welfare check, & withholding that check would cause even the stupidest among them to comply with mandatory use of birth control meds administered in a clinic; no different from mandatory drug testing.

It IS different from drug testing. However courts have generally overturned mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. You're proposing a solution that has already failed.

There's also the problem of how we select people who are to be prevented from breeding. Do they get their day in court? Are they allowed to have a lawyer? Can they appeal the decision? Can they assert their religious rights in objecting to artificial birth control?

If the father could be identified, & if he had a job, he should of course be compelled to support his bastard, but most of such low-lifes have no gainful employment, except in crime. They should be drafted into some low-skill socially-useful work force--picking up roadside trash, for ex., is something any moron could do, & in most parts of the country, the job is left to a few volunteers who don't make a dint in the problem.

That's basically what we do now -- fathers can be jailed for not paying child support. But it never happens.

[togor]

"Most men pay more attention to the breeding of their dogs and their horses than to their children." William Penn.
Forced sterilization was seen as a way to prevent hereditary diseases.
The Spanish Habsburgs killed themselves off through inbreeding.
The point is we are finding out what many other societies have found out over the centuries is that illegitimate children-and their mothers-are a burden on the community.

So is this yet another of those arguments where it's OK for the rich to do something but screw the poor? For example, Laura Ingrahm has 3 adopted kids including 2 boys, and no spouse, so the boys are growing up in a household with no father figure. But she's got cash so we figure it's OK because children of the rich and famous never get into trouble? Those kids are by your definition illegitimate.

[Vern Humphrey]

The pro-abortion side always (falsely) accuses pro-lifers of not adopting children. There is no over-supply of adoption-eligible children in this country!

Now, a person who DOES adopt is attacked and her children are labeled "illegitimate."

[togor]

One of the down sides to adopting US kids is that these days it's more like a temporary custody agreement. Birth records get opened and then the kids grow up and find their "real" (biological) family. Adopting mom and dad do all of this heavy lifting just to have judges and agencies pull the rug out from under them. This is why kids from foreign countries can be preferred by savvy adopters. Unless the domestic kid is dinged up in some way, say from substance-abuse during pregnancy. The supply of angelic folks to raise those kids is never enough.

[blackhawknj]

Conversely it's the pro-abortion crowd who are always screaming we're not spending enough on pre-natal care, nutrition programs, etc. And don't even think of suggesting to them that fatherless boys grow up to be troublemakers and fatherless girls become welfare mothers at 15.

[togor]

Conversely it's the pro-abortion crowd who are always screaming we're not spending enough on pre-natal care, nutrition programs, etc. And don't even think of suggesting to them that fatherless boys grow up to be troublemakers and fatherless girls become welfare mothers at 15.

Why not think it? Their reasoning seems sound and consistent....if we can't do a proper job of raising the kids that get born, why force women to carry to term pregnancies they don't want? American women don't have constitutional rights?

[blackhawknj]

Ah yes, the old "It takes a village.." line. So the village should pick up the tab for promiscuity and irresponsibility.
And where are the men's rights in this discussion?
Here's a radical suggestion, women can do what men have been repeatedly told to do-keep their pants on!

[togor]

When men start carrying the babies, right? This thread started with men bailing on their kids. Sorry, but a literalist reading of the Constitution does not confer rights on the unborn. In those days life began and ended with the drawing of breath.

[bruce]

Re: Breathing, etc. Could not care less what they thought when the Founding Fathers wrote what they wrote. Like it or not, the COTUS is not read or understood in a vacuum. It is read and understood with a clear understanding of the modern world. Fact is that understanding of when life actually begins and is viable is far beyond even the best understanding of that long gone 18th century world. Given that the COTUS has been concluded to confirm "rights" to inanimate artificial constructions such as corporations, there is absolutely no successful logic by which one may now asserts that a unborn baby is life unworthy of being called life. A unborn baby killed in a automobile accident will result in the guilty driver being charged with vehicular homicide. Cannot see that killing a baby merely b/c it is for someone inconvenient, etc. is any different at all. Sincerely. bruce.

[leftyo]

playing around with controlling others breeding, is like opening pandora's box. while some ideas are novel, and in a perfect world could solve some issues, all that would come of it in reality is disaster.

[togor]

The point being Bruce that lots talk about being Constitutional literalists and pat themselves on the back for it right up until that literalism smacks into a brick wall, some ruling they really don't like, and then suddenly it's all about what science has taught us about fetal viability and how things aren't done in a vacuum. Fair weather literalists or relativists alike get my scorn. A person picks their poison and drinks it. Myself I lean towards literalism and I'm not afraid to observe that neither the words "corporation" or "unborn" are found in the Bill of Rights.

[S.A. Boggs]

The point being Bruce that lots talk about being Constitutional literalists and pat themselves on the back for it right up until that literalism smacks into a brick wall, some ruling they really don't like, and then suddenly it's all about what science has taught us about fetal viability and how things aren't done in a vacuum. Fair weather literalists or relativists alike get my scorn. A person picks their poison and drinks it. Myself I lean towards literalism and I'm not afraid to observe that neither the words "corporation" or "unborn" are found in the Bill of Rights.

In reality life begins with a conception, such as a seed becoming active with the contact of moisture and then coming forth. I agree, a corporation is not a living creature and therefore has no rights. A business is an "it" in the truest sense as it has no soul, therefore no life. To a non-believer there is no God, therefore no soul, no existence upon this temporary garment that is called life. To destroy a business will harm many, to kill an unborn harms more. Looking at a little one, so small, so fragile how can anyone do harm in the most vile manner of destruction?
Sam