Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sterilization is NEGATIVE Eugenics.

Not necessarily. Eugenics is the science aimed to improve the genetic composition of a population. Sterilization can be practiced as a form of population control, without any genetic aims. Then it is not eugenics.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

The thing is it's normally rich folk forcing steralisation on poor folk making it a discriminatory practice. You dont hear the elites who advocate this type of population control advocating it for their own families

reply to post by woodwardjnr

The thing is it's normally rich folk forcing steralisation on poor folk making it a discriminatory practice. You dont hear the elites who advocate this type of population control advocating it for their own families

It is NOT discrimination if it is justified in reality. Do we discriminate against blind people because they cannot be airplane pilots or drive a car?

If someone is so poor that he cannot take care of himself, he should not have children. That is not discrimination at all, that is common sense.

reply to post by Maslo

If someone is so poor that he cannot take care of himself, he should not have children. That is not discrimination at all, that is common sense.

People who cant afford to look after children are still going to be having sex, it's generally what humans do and have been doing since well...a long time. It's more important that we educate our citizens and provide the relevant contraception rather than going to the lengths of sterilization.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


That is your opinion, and maybe you are right, there may be lots of practical reasons why forced sterilization may not be optimal, depends on the circumstances, ranging from from cost-efectivenes to slippery slope arguments.

But ideologically speaking, I have yet to hear any good reason why humans should have this inalienable right to procreate, and I have already brought this up on ATS many times.

It is because of people like you we are in the middle of an emerging police state. What about having mandatory drug testing for the legislature? How about the president? State and local officials? After all they are the ones who have enacted these ridiculous laws. Why mandatory testing for those who more than likely will not be making decisions that could impact thousands of people. Our elected officials however, do impact hundreds of thousands of people. They made the mandatory drug test laws and they are excluded from them. Now, what is wrong with that picture? After all, they hold PUBLIC office, are paid their salary through PUBLIC funds, use PUBLIC transportation, make decisions in the PUBLIC interests. One would think that it only right they made the laws and they too should follow them. I do not seem to see anyone addressing this subject. That is a rant that has merit. Posting a thread where you know little about the subject and your obvious prejudice is overwhelming, shows.

But ideologically speaking, I have yet to hear any good reason why humans should have this inalienable right to procreate, and I have already brought this up on ATS many times.

reply to post by Maslo


Well its the simple fact that is what you are here to do. Your genes want to continue living and surviving in this world, it's not an ideological thing, more a scientific thing. The ideology comes in when we start to talk about controlling human population.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


By the same logic, you should murder your opponents and rape their women, there are times when this would help you spread genes around, as evidenced by history.

You need reproduce in such a way to not infringe on other peoples rights. One of these rights is the basic inalienable right of a baby to grow up in good conditions, and also the right of a society as a whole to prevent you from doing something they will have to foot the bill for later. This right trumps the right to reproduce. Failure to realize and enforce this simple idea is the reason for lots of suffering and poverty on this planet.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Maslo

 

If someone is so poor that he cannot take care of himself, he should not have children. That is not discrimination at all, that is common sense.

People who cant afford to look after children are still going to be having sex, it's generally what humans do and have been doing since well...a long time. It's more important that we educate our citizens and provide the relevant contraception rather than going to the lengths of sterilization.

We could provide temporary birth control but....

The welfare recipients who continue to populate out of control already know about birth control, and have still chosen not to use it.

They see additional children as a way to sustain gov't benefits.

Now, not only have you added more strain to the economy, but you have placed an innocent child in this cycle of poverty, before they can say their first word.

If welfare went bankrupt overnight, what have you then done to this child?

Is that not abuse?

Sometimes, people who continue to make irresponsible decisions need others to think for them.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

That is your opinion, and maybe you are right, there may be lots of practical reasons why forced sterilization may not be optimal, depends on the circumstances, ranging from from cost-efectivenes to slippery slope arguments.

But ideologically speaking, I have yet to hear any good reason why humans should have this inalienable right to procreate, and I have already brought this up on ATS many times.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I agree!! Please create (another) thread.

I think that most are afraid to support it because it is too NOW' ish for them, and be that as it may, NWO isn't even all that bad of an idea...

I have a thread on that topic alone. And it is supported by others.

You are correct; people eventually need to see that just because they CAN physically have a child, they always shouldn't. Too many people bring children in to the world that they can't take care of and when benefits run out, the child now has to suffer.

People have this concept that everybody is equally special and have the 'right' to be here.

Harsh as I'm about to sound, I'm going to say this:

No, everyone is not equally special and do not have the 'right' to be here.

Yes, you are special to yourself, family and friends. But when viewed from eyes of society as a whole, you may not be; especially if you are a burden on the State.

Those who continue to deny education, commit to crimes, disturb the peace, are examples of people who are not 'special' to society. Actually, they worsen it, and should be erradicated in order for society to flourish.

Now people, don't ball your fist you too quick; isn't this the concept behind capitol punishment?

I think yes.

The problem is, we waste far too many tax dollars keeping them alive and comfortable for at least 30 years before we rid society of them.

Again, another strain on the system plus an ugly slap to the face of their victims and victims' families.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I dont agree with the capital punishment bit at all. It does not make economical sense unless you radically increase the amount of death penalties and shorten the time to execution. Also, criminal justice is not an area where a bit of money should be saved at all costs.

Government should not possess legal ability to kill its citizens, period.

It amazes me that in modern society people agree with killing other people by court, but much less cruel procedures like forced reversible sterilization is frowned upon. You have an inalienable right to reproduce, but not an inalienable right to live..

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Government should not possess legal ability to kill its citizens, period.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

we have the right to remove a dangerous person from society; the more dangerous the more permanent the removal

I think it would be a good idea to bring in forced sterilization for stupid, or ugly people, the world would be a prettier and cleverer place to live, perhaps also sterilization for people who are unhappy, the world would be a happier place. I would then consider bringing in the death penalty for anyone I didn't like, or who disagreed with me, there would be more food to go around as well, as I don't like most people, and most people disagree with me, so that would cut down the population considerably.

The main problem is that most people in this life, live day to day, trying to get another week over, they are too wrapped up with the drudgery of life to waste time formulating an original idea or thought, they need to be told what to think, and the tv and media cater for this need. That is why some people have such stupid opinions of people who are not THEM. The trick is to pick any minority group to throw an accusation of why most peoples lives are going nowhere, and they will pick up the idea and run with it, blaming the same group for it, spreading the governments propaganda and channeling their agression at the wrong people. The only people responsible for hardship in any country of the Earth is the government, banks, the elite, put all of the money they funnel into making weapons with our money, they sell loads of them and keep our profits, they give the contracts for the work and supplies to their own kind, so make more money, then they blame the poor and the homeless for bringing the country to the brink of failure. I only have one word to say on that matter, Bu****it !

NWO isn't even all that bad of an idea...

reply to post by ButterCookie


OK so you did read 1984, but unlike me, I saw it as a warning, you have obviously taken it as a guide to a future utopia. I guess there are 2 sides to every story.

OP
Better we check our elected representatives for their substance abuse and sexual proclivities
as they cost a lot more in the long run then welfare does...
TARP ring a bell..TRILLIONS ...my Canadian bank is in the top twenty recipients....wow eh?
90 percent voted against too....

And so if we catch a welfare mom with a joint
should we do like they did with Eliot Spritzer when he was busted getting his stipend blown
and give the girl her own PRIME TIME news show?

And what about that CIA rendition aircraft the went down in Mexico last year with several tons of COKE on board
What do we do about that?
Drug test the pilots cause they were so stoned running GOVERNMENT DOPE
that they forgot to GAS UP..?

And what about Wells Fargo and Wachovia both busted laundering drug money
and then fined 3 ( THREE! ) percent of their illegal gains

oh man you are making me laff

maybe we better start checking posters for drugs
haha

Originally posted by Qwenn
I think it would be a good idea to bring in forced sterilization for stupid, or ugly people, the world would be a prettier and cleverer place to live....

i agree with most of your post , but i have seen it time and time again, two ugly people will breed the cutest kids in the world. what if we keep the ugly people away from society and just hand out their kids to the worthy

reply to post by jed001

(first, humour appreciated)

we tried that in Canada
it was called residential schools...genocide

didn't work out well for the kids
even the ones that lived

and it was more expensive then welfare

OP is lacking common sense. If it is seriously an issue then the obvious solution is to setup a direct deposit system between the social services and the property management/rental owners for welfare recipients rent to be paid directly each month. Welfare is average 500-600 per month, surely a good chunk would be gone for rent or bills?

I'm not cool with idiotic members of society (op) giving away my rights. How about the lower class (majority) start grouping up on you? Surely we can find things you do that we are jealous of and want to stop.

Just goes to show money doesn't mean brains. They should be screening you for whatever it is you're smoking lady, you sound like you just want to invade and push your beliefs on strangers. Worry about yourself.

I'm on welfare and I'm a Dean's List college student and I would challenge you to see who's smarter or more hard working any day. Not to mention I have a clear care for my fellow human and their individual rights.

Originally posted by eleventhsun
you sound like you just want to invade and push your beliefs on strangers. Worry about yourself.

I'm on welfare and I'm a Dean's List college student and I would challenge you to see who's smarter or more hard working any day. Not to mention I have a clear care for my fellow human and their individual rights.

edit on 23-6-2011 by eleventhsun because: (no reason given)

How did the sterilisation go ?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

The thing is it's normally rich folk forcing steralisation on poor folk making it a discriminatory practice. You dont hear the elites who advocate this type of population control advocating it for their own families

It is NOT discrimination if it is justified in reality. Do we discriminate against blind people because they cannot be airplane pilots or drive a car?

If someone is so poor that he cannot take care of himself, he should not have children. That is not discrimination at all, that is common sense.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

It is discrimination when it is the failed policies of the government that made these people "blind" in the first place. Besides, we aren't talking about driving a car, we are talking about life. By your logic, blind people should not be allowed to eat since they can't go grocery shopping by themselves. And how about that anyway? Let's just euthanize all people who are blinds, handicapped, retarded. People who are a drain on society with their special needs, taking up prime parking spaces.

reply to post by CobraCommander

It is discrimination when it is the failed policies of the government that made these people "blind" in the first place.

No, I dont see how it would be discrimination even then. And I dont think that only the government is to blame.

Besides, we aren't talking about driving a car, we are talking about life.

We are not talking about life, we are talking about reproduction.

By your logic, blind people should not be allowed to eat since they can't go grocery shopping by themselves.

I dont understand your train of thought.

And how about that anyway? Let's just euthanize all people who are blinds, handicapped, retarded. People who are a drain on society with their special needs, taking up prime parking spaces.

I never mentioned killing anyone, stop with the strawmans. We indeed should ensure that only materially, medically and mentally ready people reproduce. There needs to be some minimal standard, IMHO, similar to what is established during adoption procedure, for example.