Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by mandym, Mar 19, 2012.
CAn we say "population control"?
Its odd though since most ethical docs won't perform a permanent sterilization on a young woman with no children, because she might later change her mind.
Better yet can we call the "hidden from public view" Health Bill the The Sheeple's Eugenics and Euthanasia Bill?
It's just another front in the "Democrats War on Life".
I guess that Demoncrats won't be happy until there is not a single person ever born again.
1. When did they stop needing the permission of a husband to have this done? Not that I agreed with an outsider getting involved and saying "you have to have permission from your man," especially since men never needed permission from their wives, but isn't that still in place in a number of areas in our country?
2. Why isn't it being offered to males? It's much less invasive and the recovery is faster. Isn't that discrimination?
3. Why does it focus on college women and then go on to say it will cover all women in the age group anyhow? It makes it sound like they're promoting sterilization for potential college graduates, which seems backwards to human nature, but when you read further, you find out it's for everyone. Weird. Maybe they worded it that way as a scare tactic. What kind of site is that?
Step by step. Drip by drip. Piece by piece.
How far are we away from a select few having complete control over everything in our lives -- from the moment of conception to the decision to pull the plug to keep us from being a burden on society?
Ever see the roots from a large tree destroy the concrete foundation of a house? At first, so slowly there's nothing to notice. As the roots gradually grow larger faint cracks may appear. We call it settling and patch with a little caulk. Then, later, fill in with a little more, as those roots grow larger.
WHAT WAS THAT NOISE? WHAT HAPPENED?????
Blocks crumbled, as the foundation failed everywhere those, once tiny, roots cracked it from top to bottom.
The anti-life party is still amazing me every day. The evil humans must be eliminated!raying:
If we have a smaller population, there would be more resources and space for the people who do exist. That could result in less poverty. A smaller population could eliminate many of the famines we see around the world.
Oh my word!
Did you know that you could put the worlds entire population inside the State (or is it Republic) of Texas!
If you know simple math - its easy to figure out - If you cant, I might do it later:smilewinkgrin:
Why wait - check this link
There is no food shortage in the world currently.
A smaller world population would do nothing to emlinate famines.
Famines are not due to a shortage of total food supply.
It is a problem of distribution.
Here are some steps we could take to reduce the U.S. population:
1. Deport all of the illegals.
2. Limit the child tax credit to two children.
3. Include full contraception coverage in a national single-payer healthcare plan. Of course, I would exclude abortion because it's not contraception and I'm pro-life.
4. Encourage sluts to get IUDs. This will prevent them from passing on their genes and social pathologies to future generations.
5. Offer violent convicted felons time off their prison sentences if they get sterilized.
I've also heard you can fit the population of the world into Duval County, Florida, where I live. That doesn't solve the problem of the fact that more people mean less resources and space per person. As an example, you Yankees from up North keep moving into Florida and driving up the property prices.
How about that I didn't know that Rush Limbaugh posted on this board!
# 2 - Limiting children - that would be against some religions!
#3 Some believe that contraception is the same as abortion. Though I do not agree with them - I do respect their belief (as opposed to: I do not respect a person who believes in abortion)
and of course - I am opposed to a mandatory national health care program
I wouldn't limit children. I would limit the tax credits the parents get. If Bob and Mary Papist want to breed like rabbits, they can pay for it themselves. My main focus of that idea, which is just an idea, not a set in stone policy position, is welfare mamas who have multiple crack daddies.
In that case, just eliminate ALL TAX CREDITS for children.
You see, if Bob and Mary get a tax credit (ie less tax) than John and Sue - who have no kids have to pay more in taxes.
Any reason you did not address the "religious" issues?
PS - I just edited a link in my post # 10
Eliminating all child tax credits is one idea, but I still want to help American families. I didn't address any religious issues because none of my ideas affect people's religious freedom.
How are you helping Americian families by denying them a tax credit for All their children
You said that "Include full contraception coverage in a national single-payer health care plan."
Roman Catholics put contraception in the same boat as abortion.
Therefore you did address an issue that affect peoples religious freedom.
Under your plan would mothers that have more than two children have maternity benefits under your universal health care plan?
Would unwed mothers be provided maternity benefits?
Perhaps you should better inform yourself if you want to make public policy.
IUDs are abortive as are many other contraception methods.