Posted on 03/10/2003 7:52:57 PM PST by Utah Girl
In this case it's like this - you and I are bank robbers. We run into the bank masked, blow away a few bystanders and bank folks, and run out the door. I get away, you get captured.
Who gets villified in the press?
You do. You're visible, and you're caught. The fact that I'm equally guilty means nothing.
Similarly, this woman is visible. So is her filthy, neglected child with an IQ of 25.
Regardless of the obvious fact that there's a male involved in this travesty, this woman is caught and visible. And she does it over and over and over and over...
There has to be a penalty. I'm all for busting her male accomplices as well. But the fact that they "got away" doesn't escuse her. She's still guilty of aggression against society by having her bastards. Strip them from her and put her in jail where she can't reproduce any more, I say. If we don't, she'll do it again as sure as God made males who act irresponsibly.
Put her male accomplices in jail too, you say? Heck yes, I'm all for it.
.
.
If you said yes, you just prevented the birth of Ludwig van Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before making judgments based just on the face of things.
I know that in the post I'm replying to you have personal 1st, or 2nd, hand experience.
This is just something to remind us all that the way the mothers are is not always going to be the way the child turns out.
OK, so we do without Ludwig.
My point being that, for every Ludwig that comes out of such an environment, we get huge numbers of people who never accomplish anything except give the world another generation of economic parasites. Your example would only sway me if great people came ONLY from the underclass.
The middle-class is not having as many kids because it is too economicly draining. If they weren't being drained by the underclass, maybe the middle-class would have more kids WHO WOULD GROW UP AS PRODUCTIVE CONTRIBUTORS to society
My point wasn't that great people come from ONLY the underclass. (bad choice of words, IMO)
What if the one person that comes up with a commercially viable spaceship is not born because we tell a woman, "You cannot have any more children."?
Who will play G*D and decide that?
What if the next Pol Pot is not born because we tell a woman, "You cannot have any more children."? One is as likely as the other.
Joe, this story has been going around the web (and elsewhere) for ages. Some add that the mother was an unemployed servant girl, some that the father was syphilitic as well. Problem is, if you look at any standard biography of Beethoven, you can see that it is a pack of lies, to give you the word with the bark on it. Almost nothing in it is true. Beethoven was his father's second child; his mother had had one child by a previous marriage, who died in infancy. Beethoven's elder brother died at only six days of age. So there were NO previous children with any diseases (death of infants within the first few days was so common at that time that no cause was ascribed). His mother never had syphilis; she died of tuberculosis. His father didn't have syphilis (he was however a serious alcoholic & that eventually destroyed his career as a court musician.) The rumors of syphilis arose from the fact that Beethoven began going deaf about the age of 30, and syphilis was a common cause of deafness at that time. But of course that has nothing to do with his mother's situation.
A lie will get round the world before the truth has its boots on, but there are plenty of good arguments against abortion without using this false one.
Thanks
But to drag us back on topic, I think the best way to avoid the freedom issues inherent in forced sterilization is to PAY these folks to be sterilized. There's got to be a "price point" at which people will choose a one time lump sum payment over AFDC, SSSI, etc. and the "bother" of looking after the cash cow.. . er, child. And the savings to society would be immense, so I think it would be worth it in the long run even if the price point is fairly high.
Alternatively, perhaps the various government benefits could be cut off past a certain number of children (that number perhaps being lower the more unidentified daddies are involved), or maybe current benefits could be made contingent upon sterilization . . .
The current system already plays God. Some say that telling a welfare mother "we refuse to fund your making any more babies" is bad.
I say that it is worse for middle-class couples to have to tell themselves they cannot afford to have more kids, because the money is needed to pay taxes to support welfare moms
I don't get the reference to the current system playing god.
I am not, however, one of the people that say funding the making of more babies by a welfare mom is a good thing.
Let 'em have all the babies they want, as long as they can pay for the upkeep.
I say that it is worse for middle-class couples to have to tell themselves they cannot afford to have more kids, because the money is needed to pay taxes to support welfare moms.
I agree with this statement completely.
We do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.