Thread: The time has come for national voting standards By Bradley Blakeman, opinion contribu

Takes 2 to tango - pay up, ahem, men

Why should the man get off the hook? It is his sperm...his baby too and his night of "fun". Just because the man cannot carry the child does not mean it is not his and he is not financially responsible for it.

It has been socially acceptable for men to just walk away from their children and leave it up to the taxpayers to pay for the welfare, food stamps, housing and medical care. This has gone on for decades and needs to stop. I do not want to pay for their children, I have my own bills to pay. Why should I pay yours!

This is disgusting. End the breed and feed programs. Make it so you get help for 1 child, 3 years maximum lifetime benefit. Any more you have you are on your own. People are making a career off of living on the dole.

I am all for FREE vasectomies and tubal ligations, make them easily accessible like making a Dentist appointment. Send the message...you do not want kids? Go get fixed because WE are not paying for your generations of welfare and food stamps anymore. And what a disgusting, selfish thing to have a child in poverty.

People are going to have sex whether we like it or not...I would rather pay for the vasectomies and tubal ligations than the welfare, the crime, and the effects of poverty on these children.

Also, MEN can go get birth control, use condoms, or go get a vasectomy! Man up...you do not want them, do not want to pay for them...and neither do I.

SO IS IT A RIGHT? OR A PRIVILEGE? TO HAVE CHILDREN AND FORCE TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR YOUR POOR CHOICES IN LIFE?

STOP DUMPING THIS ALL ON THE WOMEN...RIDICULOUS!

Originally Posted by Beezer

Why should the man get off the hook? It is his sperm...his baby too and his night of "fun". Just because the man cannot carry the child does not mean it is not his and he is not financially responsible for it.

It has been socially acceptable for men to just walk away from their children and leave it up to the taxpayers to pay for the welfare, food stamps, housing and medical care. This has gone on for decades and needs to stop. I do not want to pay for their children, I have my own bills to pay. Why should I pay yours!

This is disgusting. End the breed and feed programs. Make it so you get help for 1 child, 3 years maximum lifetime benefit. Any more you have you are on your own. People are making a career off of living on the dole.

I am all for FREE vasectomies and tubal ligations, make them easily accessible like making a Dentist appointment. Send the message...you do not want kids? Go get fixed because WE are not paying for your generations of welfare and food stamps anymore. And what a disgusting, selfish thing to have a child in poverty.

People are going to have sex whether we like it or not...I would rather pay for the vasectomies and tubal ligations than the welfare, the crime, and the effects of poverty on these children.

Also, MEN can go get birth control, use condoms, or go get a vasectomy! Man up...you do not want them, do not want to pay for them...and neither do I.

SO IS IT A RIGHT? OR A PRIVILEGE? TO HAVE CHILDREN AND FORCE TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR YOUR POOR CHOICES IN LIFE?

STOP DUMPING THIS ALL ON THE WOMEN...RIDICULOUS!

This is a difficult issue. For free birth control, you neglected abortion. If you are concerned about men or women being irresponsible about bearing children, then the woman should also have the option of getting an abortion if she gets pregnant. That's the basic reason why women seek an abortion, because they got pregnant accidentally. That's really what the Pill does, it aborts a fertilized egg by a regular regime of hormones inducing menstruation. The Morning After Pill is a similar application.

Limiting public assistance on the basis of family size also has problems. Even if you do this, there are going to be people, out of spite -- if nothing else -- who will have children, even while homeless. And they have sympathizers who wave the problem under our noses, daring us to add children to the homeless population.

But at the very least as public matter, we should condemn those who risk pregnancy with the expectation that public assistance ought to be provide to them when they eventually get pregnant. Nobody should start or expand a family with the expectation of public assistance. It is morally wrong to expect to raise a family if you cannot support it yourself. It is a moral offense to children and a moral offense to the community expected to pay for them. It is also morally wrong to treat children like property to be traded off to somebody because you can't afford to, or are not interested in raising them yourself.

If we cannot or will not restrict assistance to those expanding or starting a family under public assistance, we should at least reward and favor those who depend on public assistance who do not bring children into the world under those circumstances.

... and so we drift utterly and completely off topic.

I did not neglect abortion, I chose not to bring it up. I believe in pro-choice with limits. Not as a method of birth control to get 5 of them. And I did not neglect it, or bring it up, because that is the hot potato right now...that it should not be paid for by taxpayers is the big outcry.

As far as "limiting public service"...this has become an acceptable way of life and needs to stop. They know how much they get in Section 8 housing, how much per kid, how much welfare, EBT, TANF, free school lunch, and all the free programs.

The FATHER is not supposed to live in Section 8 housing...but they got that licked too...THEY DO. Further fleecing the taxpayers out of money. They do NOT get married now because they lose benefits. IT IS A SCAM. They need wake up and realize they get NOTHING...this will drastically reduce the amount of UNWANTED children and being rewarded for it.

I support a "permanent" solution...vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Reward people for NOT being on public assistance? Reward no one...pay your own bills and for your own poor choices in life.

Originally Posted by Beezer

....

As far as "limiting public service"...this has become an acceptable way of life and needs to stop. They know how much they get in Section 8 housing, how much per kid, how much welfare, EBT, TANF, free school lunch, and all the free programs.

The FATHER is not supposed to live in Section 8 housing...but they got that licked too...THEY DO. Further fleecing the taxpayers out of money. They do NOT get married now because they lose benefits. IT IS A SCAM. They need wake up and realize they get NOTHING...this will drastically reduce the amount of UNWANTED children and being rewarded for it.

I support a "permanent" solution...vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Reward people for NOT being on public assistance? Reward no one...pay your own bills and for your own poor choices in life.

I would agree that the problem is that bearing children under public assistance is the problem. But you have to confront the inevitable problem that many people for no fault of their own may take their children and be forced to raise them with public assistance.

The best we can hope for is that we confront those who wish to start families under public assistance or have more children while under public assistance or expect to have more children under public assistance. This is a moral affront to those who support public assistance, either politically or with their tax dollars.

It is inevitable that we find a part of the population who cannot support itself and require public assistance to sustain themselves with food and housing. We should hope that people do not aspire to this kind of existence and once there, do not rest too comfortably in it.

We should also hope that there is no resistance to those who seek birth control for whatever reasons. Nobody should be raising families by accident, whether they can afford them or not. And there are poorer motivations for having children then some kind of performance art in living on the dole.

"But you have to confront the inevitable problem that many people for no fault of their own may take their children and be forced to raise them with public assistance."

-----------------------------

So..."by no fault of their own"...they CHOSE to have 4 or 5 kids with NO foresight, or planning, or financial savings, should something happen...i.e. divorce, death, or the parent leaves...on WHAT THEY WOULD DO...do support their own children???

Actually...it is 100% FAULT OF THEIR OWN...not mine, or the US taxpayers. If you can only support 1 or 2, then only have 1 or 2 and plan accordingly...or go get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. You have control over that and the point is...make responsible decisions for your choices in life...not make others pay for it.

You have a right to have 5 children...you do not have a right to make taxpayers pay for it.

Originally Posted by Beezer

So..."by no fault of their own"...they CHOSE to have 4 or 5 kids with NO foresight, or planning, or financial savings, should something happen...i.e. divorce, death, or the parent leaves...on WHAT THEY WOULD DO...do support their own children???

....

Yeah, that happens. Bad things happen to good families. They deserve public assistance. This is not the problem. The problem is people who plan on having families based on anticipating public support while they are having them. Nobody has any business going on public assistance and then having kids.

That's just contemptible and an affront to the generosity exhibit by public assistance. And many immigrate to this country for precisely that opportunity.

Yes, no one on public assistance should be having children expecting more public assistance in return.

It's been awhile since I posted this, but this seems like a good time, so here goes.

Judy's Five Republican Principles to Abide:

1. You don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
2. You don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry one.
3. You want it, you pay for it.
4. You breed 'em, you feed 'em.
5. You make it over there, you sell it over there.

Back during the campaign Hillary harped all the time about the "children", do this because of the children, do that because of the children, education for the children, opportunities for the children, college for the children, but she almost never once talked about the parents, what the parents needed, what the parents wanted, nothing about the lives of the parents or any adults for that matter.

And other candidates and politicians were doing the same thing, all except Trump. It struck me as strange so I mentioned it to my friend, and he agreed with me. Then one day he sent me this quote:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

And who said it? Can anyone guess? I'd never heard it before but it explains why politicians constantly rant about "the children".

The person who said it is Adolph Hitler.

Beware the politician or politico seemingly worried about "the children". Government needs to concern itself with its responsibilities to adults and parents, because when adults and parents are doing well, their kids do well automatically.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7839...to-be-the-most

Originally Posted by Judy

...

And other candidates and politicians were doing the same thing, all except Trump. It struck me as strange so I mentioned it to my friend, and he agreed with me. Then one day he sent me this quote:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

And who said it? Can anyone guess? I'd never heard it before but it explains why politicians constantly rant about "the children".

The person who said it is Adolph Hitler.

...

Great post, Judy.