TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 So you are in the "money grows on trees" camp?? OK, got it. You're a really stupid sonofabitch aren't cha'? Your idea is awful because it: A) is rife with perverse incentive (You never stopped to consider the notion that young women often dream of the family unit, try to trap young men into staying with them with a pregnancy with reasonable frequency, and don't abhor the notion of being a stay at home mother; did you, you stupid !@#$?) B) Demonizes men by treating consentual sex as rape, and places the entire responsibility on the man, removing all accountability from the woman. Fantastic precedent you're establishing here, dipshit. C) Leans heavily on the idiot assumption that only one member of a cash strapped house hold should seek employment. D) Implies the creation of a national DNA database with forced inclusion. and lastly... D) Somehow manages to discriminate against both men and women simultaneously, Against men by creating a class of crime which women are exempt from despite engaging in the same "criminal" behavior. Against women by restricting their ability to join the work force. You really need to start thinking before you write, and if you did think befor posting your drivel, you should kill youself, because you're wasting perfectly good oxygen that the rest of us can put to much better use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) You're a really stupid sonofabitch aren't cha' I am not the smartest guy in the room. Your idea is awful because it: A) is rife with perverse incentive (You never stopped to consider the notion that young women often dream of the family unit, try to trap young men into staying with them with a pregnancy with reasonable frequency, and don't abhor the notion of being a stay at home mother; did you, you stupid !@#$ Yes, many women over age 18 want to stay home and care for their children. That is commendable and I fully support it; but this is not part of the proposal. This is aimed specifically at 15, 16 and 17 yr olds who are still in (or qualify for high school education). So, as you see, your comments are misguided. B) Demonizes men by treating consentual sex as rape, and places the entire responsibility on the man, removing all accountability from the woman. Fantastic precedent you're establishing here, dipshit Demonize men? Nope. The idea of creating a legal age of consent for sex at age 18 is akin to the legal age to consume alcohol. If you get caught, you have to pay the consequences. Most kids don't get caught drinking a few beers...but those that do, are fined or punished. As you see above, if a teen girl (under 18) is pregnant and applies for benefits, she is found guilty of violating the section. No penalty was built into the statute yet but she will have a violation nonetheless. The male will have to support the child or commit to some form of work to support the child or repay for the benefits paid on the child's behalf. C) Leans heavily on the idiot assumption that only one member of a cash strapped house hold should seek employment. Not sure how this blossoms from the language but the mother should care for her infant (I think everyone agrees with that) D) Implies the creation of a national DNA database with forced inclusion.In an effort to curtail repeat offenders who have multiple children with multiple young girls. and lastly... D) Somehow manages to discriminate against both men and women simultaneously, Against men by creating a class of crime which women are exempt from despite engaging in the same "criminal" behavior. Against women by restricting their ability to join the work force. Huh? You really need to start thinking before you write, and if you did think befor posting your drivel, you should kill youself, because you're wasting perfectly good oxygen that the rest of us can put to much better use.Thank you. I appreciate your counsel. Edited April 10, 2013 by BringBackFergy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I have a better idea. Take the kids born to teen moms and throw them in a hogger in front of their moms. That way the mom will be scared to have another kid. And this way we are not forcing them to get abortions. You know, that argument... my body, my choice. Damn women. And if that is too much for you then we can just make thekids do the hard time on road work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You managed to respond to every single point without actually speaking to them... !@#$ing incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 You managed to respond to every single point without actually speaking to them... !@#$ing incredible. I know...it's like trying to respond to a fart. It has no substance or form and smells like ****...so I tried my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I know...it's like trying to respond to a fart. It has no substance or form and smells like ****...so I tried my best. Your best was an epic failure. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 Your best was an epic failure. Try again. Your quote from other thread: "Welfare benefits should be tied to mandatory (temporary) sterilization, simultanious work training and public labor, random drug testing, and children's educational standards." I agree with the work training, public labor, drug testing and standards...but the sterilization would never fly. That's why you need to have a penalty component. It is the only way (short of the family lecturing young men and women) to make young boys think twice about going bare back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Your quote from other thread: "Welfare benefits should be tied to mandatory (temporary) sterilization, simultanious work training and public labor, random drug testing, and children's educational standards." I agree with the work training, public labor, drug testing and standards...but the sterilization would never fly. That's why you need to have a penalty component. It is the only way (short of the family lecturing young men and women) to make young boys think twice about going bare back. I think sterilization is easier and cleaner. However, I am open to alternatives, just not your alternative. Your particular idea isn't viable for all of the reasons I mentioned. You start with some very flawed assumptions (IE. an antiquated, 1950's approach to the rearing of children; and the absolution of reponsibility for women; and a blanket approach to who can best care for a child and who can best provide for one.) Edited April 10, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 And if ever there was an authority on stupid, you're our guy. Yes, I see it every day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 I think sterilization is easier and cleaner. However, I am open to alternatives, just not your alternative. Your particular idea isn't viable for all of the reasons I mentioned. You start with some very flawed assumptions (IE. an antiquated, 1950's approach to the rearing of children; and the absolution of reponsibility for women; and a blanket approach to who can best care for a child and who can best provide for one.) Interestingly enough, even though I'm 43, I always wished I grew up in the 50's. Seems to me things worked pretty well back then. With respect to the issue at hand, a penalty for impregnating a girl under 18 is a step in the right direction. It takes two to tango and if the boy knows he's going to be penalized, he'll start wrapping his stick instead of laughing at the system everytime his "girl of the week" gets pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Interestingly enough, even though I'm 43, I always wished I grew up in the 50's. Seems to me things worked pretty well back then. With respect to the issue at hand, a penalty for impregnating a girl under 18 is a step in the right direction. It takes two to tango and if the boy knows he's going to be penalized, he'll start wrapping his stick instead of laughing at the system everytime his "girl of the week" gets pregnant. You have to treat both new parents equally, and setting the expectation that a woman is entitled to sit on her ass at home for 18 years because she spread her legs is an awful idea. In a situation like this, both parents need to be working. Two working parents is the norm in most financially stable households, nevermind the fact that you are essential seeking to undo more than 50 years of women's rights. Edited April 10, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Prosecution of minors for procreating before some old a-holes think they're ready is rather Draconian. This is, after all, how homo sapiens have survived for thousands and thousands of years. It reeks of moral legislation and human rights violations, even if your motivation is strictly financial. Mandatory sterilization is just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 Prosecution of minors for procreating before some old a-holes think they're ready is rather Draconian. This is, after all, how homo sapiens have survived for thousands and thousands of years. It reeks of moral legislation and human rights violations, even if your motivation is strictly financial. Mandatory sterilization is just as bad. What's equally amazing is we do not let children under 18 vote, sign contracts or join the military, but if they choose to shoot their dick cream into a young girl, we gladly pay to support the child. Penalize the conduct and they will start using condoms. ...and by the way, just because there is no penalty outlined for the mother, does not mean she is not responsible or equally at fault. If the teenage mother seeks benefits, either the mother or father should work to assist in support of the child. Draconian??? ha ha ha ha...castration is draconian. This is pretty tame compared to China I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Prosecution of minors for procreating before some old a-holes think they're ready is rather Draconian. This is, after all, how homo sapiens have survived for thousands and thousands of years. It reeks of moral legislation and human rights violations, even if your motivation is strictly financial. Mandatory sterilization is just as bad. To clarify, no one has suggested that simply having a child that you cannot afford to care for, regardless of the age of the parent, is just cause for mandating sterilization. Seeking the aid of tax-payer dollars, and making the choice to accept them in exchange for sterilization is quite reasonable, however. Why should the government sieze my earnings to pay for the care of a child whose parents can't afford the care they should be providing to that child if those same parents won't physically commit to not having more children they can't afford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 To clarify, no one has suggested that simply having a child that you cannot afford to care for, regardless of the age of the parent, is just cause for mandating sterilization. Seeking the aid of tax-payer dollars, and making the choice to accept them in exchange for sterilization is quite reasonable, however. Why should the government sieze my earnings to pay for the care of a child whose parents can't afford the care they should be providing to that child if those same parents won't physically commit to not having more children they can't afford? I understand that and agree with the basic premise...constitutionally, though, this idea would fail under the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (i.e. ammo/swirly tailed swimmers) My legislation, on the other hand, advises would be daddies to put a sock on it until you are ready to pony up the dough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 What's equally amazing is we do not let children under 18 vote, sign contracts or join the military, but if they choose to shoot their dick cream into a young girl, we gladly pay to support the child. Penalize the conduct and they will start using condoms. ...and by the way, just because there is no penalty outlined for the mother, does not mean she is not responsible or equally at fault. If the teenage mother seeks benefits, either the mother or father should work to assist in support of the child. Draconian??? ha ha ha ha...castration is draconian. This is pretty tame compared to China I'd say. That's because they are CHILDREN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 That's because they are CHILDREN And they belong to all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 And they belong to all of us. lol Incidentally, do children really belong to anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 And they belong to all of us. Finally, the voice of reason.... ...now send your/my kids over here to thatch my lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Finally, the voice of reason.... ...now send your/my kids over here to thatch my lawn. You'll probably just tell them to get off your lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts