Not knowing the story of the woman with 9 kids I am not going to defend her. As for myself I am quite content to leave your income alone. I have my own. I am merely making the point, as someone who has been there, that not everyone wants "services" nor are the "services" very rational :)
Dana Kenneth Ketsdever writes: > Part of leaving people the hell alone would have to incorporate leaving my > income alone so it is not taken from me and disbursed to others. > > I won't tell you what to do with your body, what color to paint your house, > etc... But don't come around with your hand out. I earn my money and pay my > way in life. I don't have more children than I can afford (currently one > child, a 2 1/2 year old daughter) nor do I constitute a burden on our > courts, jails or prisons. > > I don't mind helping the disabled (otherly-abled, handicap or whatever the > PC word of the day is). But someone with 9 kids looking for a hand out > doesn't seem to fit the criteria. If she cannot be responsible for herself > and her actions and wants handouts from society, thus having society be > responsible for her. Then society should be able to tell her if she can > have more kids or not. Otherwise, pay your own way in life and reserve your > right to make your own choices in life. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:11 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > First Kevin and now TIm :) aaaaaaargh..... maybe its conservative mind > control implants :) Seriously... one of the things I really liked about > Texas was the very deep respect of local government there for people's > right to be left the hell alone. > > Dana > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > Mike, > > > > I have to disagree. What one does with their body is still their own > > business. This would simply be removing responsibility from the > individual > > once again. A mandatory military enlistment forces you to act on your > > responsibilities as a citizen. This makes you not have to be responsible > > for your personal actions. > > > > Not to mention how would you enforce something like this? How do you make > > people not have babies? The ideas about birth control mentioned earlier > not > > only violate some people religious freedoms, as Dana mentioned, but they > > force you to put something foreign into your body, something that has been > > linked with cancer. > > > > Will it be forced abortion for those that get pregnant without a license? > > Or will they just be forced to give up the kid? At what age do you begin > to > > implants in girls or vasectomies in boys? Kids are getting pregnant at > ever > > younger ages. > > > > How would you deal with all of that? See this is why I think we need to > be > > responsible to ourselves and those that we choose to bring into our circle > > of responsibility (spouses, children). With the welfare state, and social > > programs you make everyone responsible to everyone else. That's not > right. > > Where is individualism in that? > > > > Also, as with any federal program, I will always measure it against the > > tenth amendment. Where in the constitution does it give the government > the > > right to interfere in someone's life and body like this? I mean I would > > think that the 4th amendment would specifically not allow for this: > > > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and > > effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, > > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or > > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the > > persons or things to be seized." > > > > Read the first part again: > > > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" > > > > 'nough said? > > > > Timothy Heald > > Information Systems Specialist > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > U.S. Department of State > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:32 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > Tim - > > > > Good reasoning, but I have to wonder if legalization would ever stand a > > chance of passage in today's political climate. > > > > The point here is a little broader than simply trying to cut down on the > > number of people going to jail, that's only one of the proposed > > benefits. I think people having to get a license to be a parent is an > > interesting approach to cutting the link between violent crime and child > > abuse. Even if only a percent of a percent of children benefit from such > > a program, it would be worthwhile. > > > > Also, think about the parents you know. How many of them started off > > ready to be parents? In my case, I was a college student who had never > > had to balance a budget, cook a meal more substantial than ramen > > noodles, or keep house. Suddenly, I had to feed and clothe a child. > > That's a big transition. Learning these things was a lot of trial and > > error, and has led to some pretty tough situations. Sometimes the > > experience was overwhelming, and I could see how some people could just > > lose it and go overboard on their kids. A little more knowledge of how > > to deal with the challenges beforehand might go a long way in the more > > tragic cases. And let's face it - 30% of children in America are born > > out of wedlock, it's not like they are necessarily getting these skills > > at home. > > > > Other countries have mandantory military programs where you go on active > > duty for 2 years when you turn 18. This idea, while it may seem like > > something that only benefits a few people, actually serves the same end, > > that the common good can be upheld through vigorous preparation of young > > adults. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:54 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > That we put away a higher percentage than most nations is probably true, > > but I would take exception to it mainly being violent crime. The last > > time I was paying attention the major reasons for most incarcerations > > were victimless crimes, usually related to drugs. > > > > If we legalized drugs and prostitution than we would no longer have to > > spend all that money on enforcement and punishment, and we would be able > > to tax it like we do cigarettes and alcohol. > > > > Timothy Heald > > Information Systems Specialist > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > U.S. Department of State > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
