Originally Posted by mimartin
Doesn’t birth control violate some people’s religious beliefs? So it is acceptable to you for the Government to violate the Constitution in order to suppress the birthrate of the poor?
Speaking from the child born into poverty, I will state that not all children born into poverty stay there, many contribute profoundly to society and the tax rolls later in life. Even people that are below the poverty line at one time in their lives have pulled themselves out of it and contributed to society.
I also find it extremely funny that when you place “stipulations and interferences” on industries requiring government assistances, you are called a socialist, but it perfectly alright to do it to the little man.
Originally Posted by murph
You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything).
Except you can when it commes to using education as birth controll. How much they learn is a diferent matter, but it would at least make them more employable as a side effect.
The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around.
Leaving aside the fact that I find it impossible to define a proportion of the population as terminally stupid. It depends on how you define poor, but using the common way in the western world (anything less than half of the median wage), it's theoretically possible to remove it completely, not that I see it as likely to happen. However, what certainly is possible is to lessen the fraction of the population being poor, or, probably more relevant to the question at hand (and easier), reduce the number girls with little education.
Oh, and like mim, I don't like the idea of the government making it impossible for a section of the population to have children without a very good reason. Provide incentives, sure, but not to the point where the alternative is basically "feed from the trash"
I agree that people born in poverty don't always stay in poverty. The problem, though, ultimately becomes one of the govt having to pick up the slack for people who can't or won't work and/or support their own children. Is the govt (really meaning the rest of us by extension) supposed to stand by with an open checkbook and no stipulations? I think there's been a move either at the fed or some lower level recently to curtail the money people get that have children they can't afford. As to the the question of religion, no one is forcing anyone to take
state (ie fed) aid in the first place, thus no violation. Nothing in the Constitution requires the govt give aid of that nature in the first place.
As to the stipulations, the main difference is that unlike GM or the banks, the govt isn't coming into your home and running your business. They aren't stopping you from having sex or even telling you when and/or where. Had BO and company gone to GM and not tried to actually make the govt an active partner in ownership of the company, but had put some conditions on the money only, there wouldn't be the charges of socialism that you currently get. Most people seem to understand that govt aid should come with some stipulations short of the govt actually becoming your "business partner". Once the loans are paid off/people go off welfare, the govt conditions end. If the govt tries to insinuate itself into the boardroom.....socialism.
Other problem is, not everyone that is "poor" has six or seven kids that they can't afford. Those that behave like that are parasites that do it to get extra free $$ from the govt and often then spend it on themselves and leave the kids to fend for themselves or on family to pick up their slack. Will poor people with strong religious views often have a lot of kids and then turn to Uncle Sam to fund their family? Possibly, but I wonder how many of those types actually comprise the offending party, as many of them are just as likely to look to their churches and families for help rather than go to the govt.
As to education, better educated and more affluent people do tend to have fewer children (unless they have strong religious convictions about birth control, but these people can usually afford their children...at least financially). Also part of the reason that many of the "first world" countries also tend to have dismal (<2.0) population growth rates. Combined with high prices (as in Japan) and better birthrate viability, these factors tend to drive down the urge to procreate, but not necessarily to "merge". Hopefully, many of those that think that more kids=more free money can be reduced via education. Ain't holding my breath, though...education is meaningless if people don't actually take advantage of it.
I agree that the govt should not be forcing
people to have no
kids. However, I wasn't advocating that either. I did say (since many people don't like to take personal responsibility for managing their own sex lives) that they accept a certain degree of limitations while on
the dole re their reproductive abilities.