When you're willing to go to jail....

[Merrida]

Of course at the end of the day, my argument, my position, carries no weight. But it doesn't change my position, and that's the only point I brought up: Purely what I firmly believe should be, not what is.

We as a collective group of people are too screwed up to randomly allow people to breed non-challantly. If a couple can prove they can raise 7 children, then by all means, fine, have 7 children.

But I see way too many people who are irresponsible, neglectful, or abusive towards either their spouse, children, or pets. For these reasons I think all afore-mentioned behaviors should be licensed. If you can support and provide, mutually and responsibly, then what is there to fear or be concerned about?

Who should be qualified to "judge?" If my opinion were ever a real life scenario then it would be handled the same way everything else is handled,...with an elected group of people consisting of psychiatrists, medical professionals, if the couple is of faith, then obviously their faith would play a part, social services, animal protection (whatever collective group of people would have the qualifications pertaining to the given situation).

It is my opinion that just because someone is fertile and horny it doesn't give them the "right" to bring a child into this world. There is such a thing as birth control. There is such a thing as keeping it in your pants. There is such a thing as self control and intimacy without reproduction.

I specifically referred to cases involving welfare and how we are paying women to be baby factories, providing financial assistance so long as they have a child under two, giving them more incentive to continually procreate at our expense rather than get off their procreating, incubating behinds and get a job and contribute to society. THEN if they can prove they can support more than 2 children, fine, have more children.

However, (again, my opinion), having children is a blessing, an honor, a privilege, a responsibility,...it is not a right. No one has the right to bring an innocent child (or a pet, however you want to carry this conversation) into this world without the means to provide for it a safe and healthy environment, complete with attention, education, and absolutely no form of neglect or abuse. Period. End of story.

What should be done if a woman "accidentally" gets pregnant because she can't say "no" to the guy who "forgets" to bring a rubber or if she "forgets" to use contraception? If we're talking about the welfare cases I brought up in my position, I already answered: She is cut off from all financial aid (she MUST be made aware of this penalty with child number one so she knows the stakes in advance, this is not something suddenly sprung on her), she MUST get a job (yes, we help her), and assistance is titrated, and I frankly have NO problem putting her children in foster care UNTIL she can show she can care for her two-plus children in full capacity.

I mention women exclusively because I guess I don't see men on welfare raising baby after baby after baby often with multiple partners.

Let me clarify that I think both parents must take responsibility, even if this includes supervised visitation, wage garnishment, counseling, or other forms of support (for spouse and children).

My general belief system is MOSTLY comprised of the belief we let people live their own lives. However, in the case of marriages, children, pets -- I do think those sacred institutions and privileges are being abused at the expense of the innocents.

[getaway]

Try to do something before HE takes it too far, get any evidence you can to get this dog out of there and into a loving home.

[Khaine]

Originally Posted by MAURER

however, two consenting adults do have the right to have sex. therefore, they have the right to reproduce. who are you or anyone else to say that there is an exact standard that people need to adhere by in order to have children. someone from a rich family might say, "Hey, I am able to stay home and care for my children, pay for my kids' college, give them a good financial start, and support all their needs throughout life. If you can't do the same, you really don't deserve to have children." Where do you draw the line with your standards? There are plenty of poor parents who show nothing but love for their children and they turn out to be much better people than your "model" parents. Do you want everything in our society to be controlled? And who is the authority to control it?

The authorities are, rather obviously, the same that decided 'adult' is 18 instead of 30, or any other arbitraty number... Or that decided you can smoke your lungs out on tobacco and drown your liver in alcohol, but you can't touch weed... Of course, these are different legislative bodies, but the point I've been making all along is that restrictions are everywhere... You just seem to accept them because you're accustomed to them...

Making this a strict financial issue is of course a disgusting distortion of my intentions... A poor parent who shows love and makes sacrifice would be a great description of my mother... It is, however, not a representation of the parenting I see all around me...

Originally Posted by Merrida

However, (again, my opinion), having children is a blessing, an honor, a privilege, a responsibility,...it is not a right. No one has the right to bring an innocent child (or a pet, however you want to carry this conversation) into this world without the means to provide for it a safe and healthy environment, complete with attention, education, and absolutely no form of neglect or abuse. Period. End of story.

This really sums it up for me to be honest...

[Merrida]

Nowhere did I mention there should be financial minimums required for couples to have children. I also don't believe money is the deciding factor. There are rich people who raise stupid children who make irresponsible decisions that put their lives at risk (Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, oh gosh, a few others come to mind,....let their kids get away with DUI's and multiple MVA's and stay uninvolved in their kids' lives).

My ONLY financial issue is with regards to the women who are baby factories being paid to stay pregnant. That is downright wrong, and we as a society should have far stronger morals and we'd be in a much better position. Notice I also said 2 children. This gives a woman plenty of time to rear children without having a brood that we end up paying for.

Money is not a requirement for love. And in fact quite the opposite. While I've seen wealthy families provide for their children (roof, food, care, education, shelter, attention, respnsibility), I've also seen them procreate in and out of marriage and not give two hoots. Women need to step up to the plate and say no, and men need to keep it in their pants. Sex can be had without reproduction.

I have no problems with people who are not financial over-achievers having kids. Waltons anyone? Fake scenario but good point none the less. It can happen. There ARE people who do not have excess cash floating about who are wonderful parents.

I am talking about the psychology, the where-with-all, the means, the ability, the time, the history to care for beit it a spouse, a child, or a pet. My feeling is blanketed towards dependents.

But my issue is our paying for broods with our tax dollar, women having child after child feeding their kids ketchup soup, kids witnessing parents beating each other, people beating animals....

A license to drive doesn't mean you can't have more than one car, but you have to prove you can responsibly manage all that comes with owning more than one car. When we get a license to carry a firearm, it is not handed out for the asking, and in many states, mine included, we're required to take courses (yes even if we're military), and they expire. We must be kept on radar, and there are restrictions. We can run guns out of our trunks.

Nor should we cram 8 kids in a one bedroom apartment eating ramen noodles, give the mother cash (which would cease if she became married giving her further incentive to not provide a 2 parent home and further incentive for both progenetors to not seek employment).

Maybe it's because so few of you have been witness to battery cases, pet abuse cases, child abuse, rape,....living in a golden shell protects you from some of the harsh realities. And again, if you can care responsibly for another living being, then this concept should not even cause you to flinch.

We may need to enlist new rules to decide who determines, gets interviewed, or who at least can have a say (not that it ALL is written in blood, it's like an assay, cutting across many factors),...family members, friends, physicians, ER reports (these are pertinent),-- that isn't the inclusive end,....and again, note I did not say anything about a banker being involved to make sure you have the $1.2 million in the bank to raise your kids through college. It isn't about your income as a working couple, but your ability to have and raise kids and pets, and yes even get married. Lest we forget the religions where couples must indicate their intentions and abilities to provide for EACH OTHER (that's just one aspect, the faith).

I know of a few couples who have over 8 kids, 2 parent households, and they do fine. No problem (other than what comes with raising 8 kids or more)....but the welfare moms with 5 children under 7 years old? What's wrong with this picture people? You obviously enjoy paying for irresponsible people who won't work to procreate out of your own pocket and hard earned money. I feel my points are being misrepresented, misconstrued, misapplied.

Firmly I maintain: Bearing children isn't a right, but it's one of the biggest priviledges we has human beings have on this earth (that and taking care of this earth we live on)....another thing I see so little being done about.

[Dan C]

Good points Merrida. I appreciate your passion on the subject.

Like I said before, I agree with you about some people not being fit for parenthood, and I'm certainly on board with something needing to be done about how welfare gets passed out for "baby factory's".

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that having children is not a persons right (I think it is, as well as a privilidge, blessing, honor, etc.) , but I can tell you one thing: no one has the right to tell someone they can't have children. I think it would be a big mistake to give anyone that authority and I'd fight it all the way.

[MAURER]

khaine i take offense to the fact that you're telling me that "restrictions are everywhere.... i just seem to accept them because i'm accustomed to them." where did you get that from? i see restrictions all around me and i hate almost all of them... which is why i think its ridiculous to endorse the restrictions that you are suggesting. you're the one promoting further restrictions. its my view that restricting everyone's behavior is not the correct method of solving problems, especially societal problems. with that said, Merrida i think you have very good intentions and values i just think you are seeking change in the wrong manner.

[Merrida]

I can appreciate both your guys' position, and I can see I am not alone in at least recognizing the problem.

But tell me this: What is wrong with licensure? Think of all the things we license people to do that are legal, between driving and buying and shooting a gun, flying a plane....

I am not suggesting they're wrong, I'm suggesting these opportunities should be monitored. Not by ONE governing person but by a collective group. There are people out there that flat out shouldn't breed.

I see nothing wrong with paying people to be sterilized for one thing. It's a simple solution to over population, and they are making the choice.

My problem with the baby factory incubator welfare women is that first, there is no limit. I feel my idea of 2 children is plenty (I'm not saying no children), but that after that, just because they're horny and can't find a rubber or don't take advantage of free contraception, WE the tax paying society shouldn't be burdened by their lack of impulse control.

I also mentioned I have no problem with people having 7 kids if they can take care of them. My Mother is from a family of 14. They found a way.

What I am against, and why I feel so strong, (with animals and people) is due to the years and years of being called out to domestic violence disputes perpetrated by the husband on the wife, the mother on the child, the father on the kids,....picking up beaten and abused and neglected animals because they're no longer that cute little puppy they got their kid at Christmas so they stake them to a 3-foot chain to bake out in the hot sun. Yeah, that's all behavior we should support and not monitor right?

What on earth would be a better solution? If you can support several children or pets there should be nothing to fear from making sure that you have the psychological where-withall and the financial where-withall (which does NOT mean rich, to clarify!) to do so.

How many of you, honestly, have been witnessed that you can say to at least one dozen cases in one year of your life of those above situations? Now try that year after year and tell me you see a better solution.



.

[luke.w]

I have a 9month old puppy, this is my first dog, I really never had much intentions on ever getting a dog, I always told my fiance "yeah, well get one" but never had much drive to actually move on it.

we went to her sisters in W.V. and her dog had pups, they were all in a shack and were off to the shelter that weekend, now was the time, we went up to feed them and watched them go crazy over the food bucket, watched them pee and crap on the floor, I said "no way, I'm not ready".

we had a few drinks later on, and I was buzzed, we disscussed just getting the only "yellow" one (I had walked around the side of the fence and he was the first to follow me, as the others fought for food,he also looked to be the bigger dog), I said I'd support finace, but I don't want it to take over my life and free-time.

I grabbed him, and after he stayed with us that night, no way I was giveing him up.

I wonder if I would pass the test, as alcohol played a role in my final decsion? it only took that first week to draw all my attention and free-time to him, and hasn't changed in the 7months since I've had him.

[westside24]

I never understood what this thread had to do with "when you were willing to go to jail?" other than maybe you were suggesting that you would go to jail for stealing the dog. which is what I would or wouldve done, but then again dont do that, im more immature then you haha.

I gotta story if yall wants ta listen.
I was driving down laskey road (a 5 lane road I was in the left lane) and it was bumper to bumper traffic and we were steady doing 45-50 mph, when 3 cars swirved one after another in the right lane next to me, then finally the third car, a van actually right next to me smoked a big ass chow or chowish/mix dog he booted it at what was prolly 40 mph and it rolled across the top of the bumper and you could hear it yelp, and the dog rolled of the street onto the grass and onto the train tracks that run parallel with the road and you could hear it yelping, keep in mind this all happened in like 5-10 seconds time, and meanwhile the van doesnt stop he just keeps goin and he shrugs like, oh well type of gesture. so I followed him and called rescue 911 reported the dog getting hit, and where at and that I was following the van and gave complete description and liscense plate and what the guy looked like, not saying the cops will doing anything about it, but we went back by where the dog was about 20 minutes later and he wasnt there so maybe he got picked up?

If you booted a person with your vehicle at 40 mph, would you just keep driving like it wasnt a big deal?

[LiftGirl]

Originally Posted by westside24

If you booted a person with your vehicle at 40 mph, would you just keep driving like it wasnt a big deal?

I'd stop for a human or pet. Seems like just common sense to me. I didn't stop when I hit a possum, but I felt really guilty I love animals.

[westside24]

Originally Posted by LiftGirl

I'd stop for a human or pet. Seems like just common sense to me. I didn't stop when I hit a possum, but I felt really guilty I love animals.

Ditto... Actuall I did hit an opposum once and I turned around to go see it, and its face was all bloddy and it was walking like it was drunk. I felt miserable.

[Merrida]

I think I started this thing and mentioned being willing to go to jail because I, personally, just feel so incredibly strongly about animals,....their treatment, their lives. And when I see them abused it just doesn't occur to me to restrain myself when I see people doing hurtful things to these innocents, and have no problem stepping up,..I just do so in various ways. No I won't steal a dog,...and because I've worked for the SPCA I know what goes on there, and it isn't what the general public thinks, not even close. But I'll find ways to draw attention to this poor behavior and make changes as I can.

Whether I offer to train people's dogs, watch them, baby sit them, play with them, talk to the owners,...but if I did see some harsh abuse, (Michael Vick, you're three times my size but my foot can still reach your balls),....I would risk it all and go to jail to save them.

Just me.

Some people do it for children. I do it for animals (step up).

.

[westside24]

Originally Posted by Merrida

Some people do it for children. I do it for animals (step up).

I do it for the underdog!

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by westside24

I do it for the underdog!

Up and up and away!! It's,............Underdog!

-.-

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by westside24

Ditto... Actuall I did hit an opposum once and I turned around to go see it, and its face was all bloddy and it was walking like it was drunk. I felt miserable.

Well did you go back and kill it? Or let it suffer a miserable, excruciating, painful, long and agonizing death? Hmmmmmmm?

.-.-