Replies

And I still do. Someone who is irresponsible enough to pop out or sire a child (or in many situations, children) that will have to be paid for by the state should be required to be spayed or neutered as a condition of taking welfare (I'd throw in exceptions if a girl or woman was raped). Our country is going broke paying for these kinds of programs and the population of people who spend their entire lives on some form of welfare is going higher and higher. These people continue to lavish themselves at the expense of those of us who actually contribute something to society.

So, I assume you think that "Three generations of imbeciles is enough," was one of the Supreme Court's greatest rulings?

Are you aware that very few of the victims of the eugenics programs ever had children? Or, do you think it was probably better that way?

Since you believed that it is okay for the government to forcibly sterilize people do you also believe that it would be okay for the government to force women to have abortions? What about death panels, I assume you are all in favor of them too?

You do realize that Free Republic is a PRO-LIFE forum don't you?

Since you believed that it is okay for the government to forcibly sterilize people do you also believe that it would be okay for the government to force women to have abortions?

Ahh, the classic approach of someone who has lost an argument... you must agree with something terrible so you're an awful person!

No. If you read my posts, I simply stated that someone who expects the state to pay for the costs of his or her children by being on welfare should be spayed or neutered. As someone who pays over half of his income in federal, state and local taxes, I am sick of being expected to cover the costs of children that I did not have the fun of making myself, which requires me to put feeding my own family DEAD LAST in my list of priorities. Why is it humane to allow clearly irresponsible people to have litters and litters of children and not expect those people to pay some of the costs of raising them?

You do realize that Free Republic is a PRO-LIFE forum don't you?

Please explain to me where someone choosing to be sterilized as a condition of accepting help from the government is morally equivalent to murdering a person. If anything, having these people be spayed or neutered (and yes, I use these terms on purpose) will reduce the number of children being murdered prior to birth because there will be no children to murder.

And if you're going to accuse me of being some sort of left-wing baby murderer, then I am going to accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, because you believe that it is perfectly OK for the state to hold a gun to a worker's head and take all of his paycheck to cover the costs of someone else's lack of responsibility.

"...Are you aware that very few of the victims of the eugenics programs ever had children? Or, do you think it was probably better that way? ..."

If the folks sterilized were found to be functionally retarded then I approve of their sterilization. 3 generations of retards is more than enough. Stupid people beget stupid children.

Few will argue that we do not have enough stupid people in America today. I say we have plenty, and it is an affront to me that they are considered my equal under the law and our moral code. They are not my or your equal if they cannot take care of themselves. Collecting welfare is de facto evidence that they are not capable of taking care of themselves. They are a drain on all of us "producers" and they are arrogant to boot in their entitlement mentality and handicapped placard fraud.

I also do not want their cretin children drooling on my kids at school; they should be sequestered away in separate classes. Putting them into regular classrooms only ruins it for the regular kids.