DISCUSSION - sterilization?
I'm pulling a response to THIS POST and opening up another one of these discussions.
→ previous discussions;
homosexual derogatory terms, "gay", being politically correct in terms of race, female masturbation, abortion, lesbians, friends with benefits, porn, euthanasia, taxes, fangirling, egg donation, religious feuding, death penalty, virginity, etc.
question;
Should steralisation be, in some cases, a legal requirement? Take the example of a family I saw on a documentary. (Bad example, I know, but whatever.) The two parents already have 10 children, and they want more. Neither of them work, so they just live on the benefits given to them by the state. This clearly isn't enough money for everything that the kids need, like proper nourishment, diapers, clothes, shoes, toys etc., and yet the parents smoke and get through however many packets of cigarettes a week. At one point they were threatened with eviciton. And they want to bring more children into this home. Is that selfish? Should the government say "Enough is enough"? Is it fair for taxpayers to have to indirectly pay for this? My own parents have worked hard their whole lives, and struggle to put three kids through uni with no help from the government, while some parents just take, take, take. Should the benefits be stopped, or would that be too cruel to the children?
liss' thoughts;
I think if people genuinely want more kids, they can give up their bullshit cigarettes. They can get off their asses and get jobs and make sacrifices and prove that they want to be parents in every sense of the word and fight for that opportunity. It is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a GAME. It pisses me off that other taxpayers have to pay for it, yeah. I don't know if the government should cut them off, I just wish they themselves were intelligent enough to see that they're being ridiculous. But they obviously will not, so I could give a fuck less if the government steps in and cuts them off. OF COURSE it's easy to want more than the 10 kids you already have when you don't have to put in any of the sweat and blood it takes to keep those kids from starving or freezing to death, etc. You just get the fun part, you get to play with them and flail over how cute they are, while you sit and smoke and everyone else keeps them alive through those benefits. THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF, I'M SORRY. And I never really thought about it until this comment was left, but now I'm bothered and revved. I don't think the benefits should be stopped because it's seriously not the poor kids' fault, but I really don't know how to solve that because it's not like you can stop them from having sex and getting pregnant, you know?
DISCUSS.
→ Ask questions.
→ Have an open mind.
→ Be respectful.
→ IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SOMETHING, FIGHT FOR IT.
If there's ever an issue of controversial nature that you'd like to discuss,
→ COME OVER HERE and leave a comment. Nothing's off limits.
→ previous discussions;
homosexual derogatory terms, "gay", being politically correct in terms of race, female masturbation, abortion, lesbians, friends with benefits, porn, euthanasia, taxes, fangirling, egg donation, religious feuding, death penalty, virginity, etc.
question;
Should steralisation be, in some cases, a legal requirement? Take the example of a family I saw on a documentary. (Bad example, I know, but whatever.) The two parents already have 10 children, and they want more. Neither of them work, so they just live on the benefits given to them by the state. This clearly isn't enough money for everything that the kids need, like proper nourishment, diapers, clothes, shoes, toys etc., and yet the parents smoke and get through however many packets of cigarettes a week. At one point they were threatened with eviciton. And they want to bring more children into this home. Is that selfish? Should the government say "Enough is enough"? Is it fair for taxpayers to have to indirectly pay for this? My own parents have worked hard their whole lives, and struggle to put three kids through uni with no help from the government, while some parents just take, take, take. Should the benefits be stopped, or would that be too cruel to the children?
liss' thoughts;
I think if people genuinely want more kids, they can give up their bullshit cigarettes. They can get off their asses and get jobs and make sacrifices and prove that they want to be parents in every sense of the word and fight for that opportunity. It is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a GAME. It pisses me off that other taxpayers have to pay for it, yeah. I don't know if the government should cut them off, I just wish they themselves were intelligent enough to see that they're being ridiculous. But they obviously will not, so I could give a fuck less if the government steps in and cuts them off. OF COURSE it's easy to want more than the 10 kids you already have when you don't have to put in any of the sweat and blood it takes to keep those kids from starving or freezing to death, etc. You just get the fun part, you get to play with them and flail over how cute they are, while you sit and smoke and everyone else keeps them alive through those benefits. THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF, I'M SORRY. And I never really thought about it until this comment was left, but now I'm bothered and revved. I don't think the benefits should be stopped because it's seriously not the poor kids' fault, but I really don't know how to solve that because it's not like you can stop them from having sex and getting pregnant, you know?
DISCUSS.
→ Ask questions.
→ Have an open mind.
→ Be respectful.
→ IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SOMETHING, FIGHT FOR IT.
If there's ever an issue of controversial nature that you'd like to discuss,
→ COME OVER HERE and leave a comment. Nothing's off limits.