[wagglebee]

Of course. You're the person who, instead of debating the merits of my points, decided to attack me personally.

I'm not attacking you at all, I'm attacking your agenda.

Meanwhile, someone proposes a means of dealing with the skyrocketing costs of social welfare programs and you call them names. That's really going to solve the problems caused by these programs.

Your "proposal" is to sterilize people. How is this any different from Obama's proposal to have death panels or NARAL's proposal to abort more children. Your "proposal" is categorically anti-life, it is IDENTICAL to what Margaret Sanger advocated for decades.

[pnh102]

Your "proposal" is to sterilize people.

No, as I said before, my proposal is to have people who voluntarily choose to accept social welfare benefits be spayed or neutered. If they choose not to accept such benefits then there would be sterilization. There's no "forced" sterilization at all.

How is this any different from Obama's proposal to have death panels or NARAL's proposal to abort more children. Your "proposal" is categorically anti-life, it is IDENTICAL to what Margaret Sanger advocated for decades.

It is fundamentally different because the beneficiaries of the programs are the ones making the choice, not the government or anyone else.

[dragonblustar]

Your "proposal" is to sterilize people. How is this any different from Obama's proposal to have death panels or NARAL's proposal to abort more children. Your "proposal" is categorically anti-life, it is IDENTICAL to what Margaret Sanger advocated for decades.

Right on!

What kind of person would ignore the torturous aspect of a forced sterilization on a child?