Ahh, the classic approach of someone who has lost an argument... you must agree with something terrible so you're an awful person!
No. If you read my posts, I simply stated that someone who expects the state to pay for the costs of his or her children by being on welfare should be spayed or neutered. As someone who pays over half of his income in federal, state and local taxes, I am sick of being expected to cover the costs of children that I did not have the fun of making myself, which requires me to put feeding my own family DEAD LAST in my list of priorities. Why is it humane to allow clearly irresponsible people to have litters and litters of children and not expect those people to pay some of the costs of raising them?
You do realize that Free Republic is a PRO-LIFE forum don't you?
Please explain to me where someone choosing to be sterilized as a condition of accepting help from the government is morally equivalent to murdering a person. If anything, having these people be spayed or neutered (and yes, I use these terms on purpose) will reduce the number of children being murdered prior to birth because there will be no children to murder.
And if you're going to accuse me of being some sort of left-wing baby murderer, then I am going to accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, because you believe that it is perfectly OK for the state to hold a gun to a worker's head and take all of his paycheck to cover the costs of someone else's lack of responsibility.
I'm not having an argument. YOU are advocating forced sterilization and, yes, that DOES make you an awful person.
Please explain to me where someone choosing to be sterilized as a condition of accepting help from the government is morally equivalent to murdering a person. If anything, having these people be spayed or neutered (and yes, I use these terms on purpose) will reduce the number of children being murdered prior to birth because there will be no children to murder.
NONE of the victims CHOSE this, it is amazing how pro-death leftists love to use variations of the word "choice" to mask their true agenda.
You sound exactly like Margaret Sanger saying that if certain people are just sterilized they won't need abortions. What you surely think is a "noble" desire is disgusting.
And if you're going to accuse me of being some sort of left-wing baby murderer, then I am going to accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, because you believe that it is perfectly OK for the state to hold a gun to a worker's head and take all of his paycheck to cover the costs of someone else's lack of responsibility.
Project much?
We are talking about FORCED STERILIZATION of children.
Does the government have the authority to tax? Yes, but that doesn't mean I like it, nor does it make me a socialist.
But the government DOES NOT have the authority to sterilize someone.
Excellent, excellent, post!!!!
dude, you are spot on. I agree 100% and when you break it down like this it is hard to form a valid opposing argument.
FR is a pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty site. We do not support government forcing anything on anyone, much less forced sterilization. You can either keep this NAZI-like crap to yourself or get the hell off of FR! Choice is yours.
You do realize that some military get paid so little that their families get public assistance, right? Or are you one of the stupid people that you're complaining about?