Empathetic Civilization

Does that mean that if the NON-welfare middle-class breeders keep popping out kids for us to support (with school taxes and such), that your plan is that *I* shouldn't have to support them? I'm just trying to get a sense of how far this hatred of breeders goes... ?

[crickets chirping]

OK, then I'll do what Viking does: "So, you're all saying that you're against' middle-class breeders." Good... That should mean that my taxes next year should be cut by the amount that goes to educating all those "popped-out" kids of the middle-class breeders. I'm good with that.

Got it.

Regarding the number of children that people have that can afford them, the only possible negative is to the world population as it is no burden to the rest of us.

How about the negative of breeding children that you THINK you can afford, but then you find you just got laid-off and you cannot find a job? I guess if they couldn't see ahead and predict that possibility then they shouldn't have popped them out, huh?

Easy solution, sterilization of people on welfare. Problem solved, without abortion for unwanted pregnancies.

No, I think we need to sterilize all of those middle-class people who had jobs, and homes and a stable existence, (like folks who live in Evergreen, Lakewood, Conifer, Littleton, etc.) who thought they would have a job and could raise those kids, but suddenly--through no fault of their own--found they had no job and no way to pay for them. By God, they shouldn't have popped them out if they didn't know in advance that if they lost their jobs they couldn't pay for them.

Quit changing the subject to "people on welfare." That's not who I'm talking about...

Or... Are you dumb enough to think that if you "sterilize people on welfare" it will somehow take care of those middle-class people who have children who lose their jobs? Is that your point?

HEARTLESS wrote: Easy solution, sterilization of people on welfare. Problem solved, without abortion for unwanted pregnancies.

I thought those on the right were against the gov't meddling in peoples private lives, the nanny state and all that. I guess those sentiments only apply when it is YOUR life they are meddling in, not someone elses.

When my money goes to support the welfare breeders of the welfare state, I am stating an obvious solution. You can empathize and feel their pain.

HEARTLESS wrote: When my money goes to support the welfare breeders of the welfare state, I am stating an obvious solution. You can empathize and feel their pain.

Doesn't really answer the question.....do you think the federal government has the right to determine who gets to have children and who doesn't?

Who is the burden on the people of the US and who is self supporting? Those that require the welfare, for say more than 9 months, should pay a price for that benefit.
Some of you keep throwing out the betterment of all mentality, there is no such thing. We live on a planet with limited resources and the productive members should reap the benefit. Or we can help the terrorists, illegals, criminals, enemies of this nation until there is no more mankind at all.

HEARTLESS wrote: Who is the burden on the people of the US and who is self supporting? Those that require the welfare, for say more than 9 months, should pay a price for that benefit.
Some of you keep throwing out the betterment of all mentality, there is no such thing. We live on a planet with limited resources and the productive members should reap the benefit. Or we can help the terrorists, illegals, criminals, enemies of this nation until there is no more mankind at all.

I'm not throwing anything out there...just asking a simple question based upon your posts.....do you think the federal government should have the right to determine who can have children and who cannot? Can you just answer yes or no?