Posted on 06/23/2011 7:17:26 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
Do you have an argument besides this nonapplicable one? IOW, was it right or was it wrong to sterilize innocent children?
In post #1, surroundedbyblue wrote:
Sadly, I think there are people on FR who would advocate this kind of thing.
And your response in #11 was:
And I still do.
The subject is forced sterilization.
Clearly, you support slavery too, as you believe that people who work and pay taxes should be slaves to those who do not, and should work even harder to subsidize increasingly lavish social welfare programs to benefit people who are on the dole.
I've never said I supported these programs, I simply don't support sterilizing the people on them.
Sure it does, because you're extending that authority to tax into a government obligation to pay for social welfare programs with no expectation of responsible behavior on the part of the recipients. I simply believe that in our society, we have rights and responsibilities. Someone who goes and sires or births countless children has a responsibility to take care of those children. It is not morally right for that person to use the state as a thief-by-proxy to force someone else who is trying to behave responsibly to pay for something that he had nothing to do with.
Instead of addressing my objections to this infringement of personal freedom on the part of the taxpayer, you've gone and called me all sorts of nasty names. Meanwhile, you advocate for the continuation of a failed welfare state, slavery against people who pay the bills. Are you sure YOU are on the correct site?
So, because I acknowledge that the government has the authority to tax people you have decided that I am a socialist who supports the welfare state?
You are a typical leftist using projection to deflect attention from your agenda and your agenda is EXACTLY THE SAME as Margaret Sanger's.
People, if you like Medicare, you'll love Medicaid. You will be one of the unwashed untouchables.
OBAMACARE will create a new class - an underclass. (It's "in the bill".)
LOL
There are many in the Obama admin. that would line you up against a wall and pull the trigger to save food for the "real" people. This is a progressive thought that lives on today. People just can't accept that Hitler was a liberal. Nazi's are very close to Communists if you look closely. Nazi's are nationalists and communists are globalists. Other than that they have the same policies. Progressives were taking charge back in the '30's and took hold of the American psyche in the 40's. Conservatives have been fighting for the soul of America ever since.
If Obama has another term, you will see the the same old policies dusted off and put into play again. We may very well end up dead or in re education camps so we can move forward to "utopia". We must kill people in order to give health care to others. We must kill babies to cut the "carbon footprint". We must sterilize people so they won't breed inferior people. These are tried and true policies that have been around since people thought they needed government to take care of the population. Many low moral people feel this is perfectly fine and makes perfect sense if they are the "taxpayer". This is why they have to stop Christianity among the population. If not His morals,...who's? In the end, it's about our morals. If we have no morals, a policy of killing children and sterilizing mothers and fathers makes perfect sense. This is true in both parties. We can even find people in FR that will agree with this. If you ask them, they will feel they have equal morals with anyone else, maybe even superior. The human heart is dark and evil, who can know it?
This is why prayer in school and in public is important and separation of church and state should be impossible. It DOES matter what our leaders believe. Getting the next tax cut is much less important that what's in the spirit of the office holder. The tax cut is one item and the dark heart of the politician is in everything he/she thinks and does.
Of course. You're the person who, instead of debating the merits of my points, decided to attack me personally. You threw in the towel, not me. If you're going to attack me personally for believing what I do, I have no problems responding in kind, as I've already won the argument.
You are a typical leftist using projection to deflect attention from your agenda and your agenda is EXACTLY THE SAME as Margaret Sanger's.
Yawn. OK. Meanwhile, someone proposes a means of dealing with the skyrocketing costs of social welfare programs and you call them names. That's really going to solve the problems caused by these programs.
Do you also long to bring back eugenics or are you satisfied with the status quo?
What is so non-applicable about expecting people who make babies to raise and take care of them?
It's non-applicable because what THIS thread is about is whether or not there should be compensation for the forced sterilization of minors before they made any babies at all.
I'm not attacking you at all, I'm attacking your agenda.
Meanwhile, someone proposes a means of dealing with the skyrocketing costs of social welfare programs and you call them names. That's really going to solve the problems caused by these programs.
Your "proposal" is to sterilize people. How is this any different from Obama's proposal to have death panels or NARAL's proposal to abort more children. Your "proposal" is categorically anti-life, it is IDENTICAL to what Margaret Sanger advocated for decades.
No, as I said before, my proposal is to have people who voluntarily choose to accept social welfare benefits be spayed or neutered. If they choose not to accept such benefits then there would be sterilization. There's no "forced" sterilization at all.
How is this any different from Obama's proposal to have death panels or NARAL's proposal to abort more children. Your "proposal" is categorically anti-life, it is IDENTICAL to what Margaret Sanger advocated for decades.
It is fundamentally different because the beneficiaries of the programs are the ones making the choice, not the government or anyone else.
The topic of THIS THREAD is forced sterilization. You have yet to give any indication that you oppose it.
It is fundamentally different because the beneficiaries of the programs are the ones making the choice, not the government or anyone else.
There you go with "choice" again, the other Sangerites were also pleased when so many black women started "choosing" to kill their babies, the "choice" was made easier when Big Murder started building all of the death chambers in inner cities.
:-D
Amen.
I believe you may have meant to word your comment differently, r2nd. There is a parallel to be drawn; just not quite the way you expressed it.
You weren’t in on the origins of that graphic, and you wouldn’t be laughing if you had been.
"The state" does not act independently in and of itself. "The state," then as now, is staffed by people who make decisions.
Wouldn't it be instructive and helpful to go back and find out who the people were that made this possible in NC and elsewhere?
I know that I would like to know whether the ideology drove this then is still alive and well today.
There are many ways to stop people from breeding for welfare money. Permanent sterilization should never be one of them.
I have no problem with that 5 year birth control. If your getting welfare money for your kids, I think it is completely reasonable to limit you from having anymore. At least until you are able to support them.
However, the real problem is that the state does not force people off welfare. They need to make getting welfare more trouble than it's worth. It should always be a safety blanket, not a lifestyle choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.