Bush pushing for couples to get married??

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:
Better yet, force them to have abortions and it won't cost us much at all TS
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Red, you have abortion on the mind today.

How about something else?

I believe they have birth control shots now that are effective for four months. Would you agree to a rule that if a person is on public assistence that they be forced to take those shots? They can't support the child that they have, should the people be forced to pay for more?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: etech
Red, you have abortion on the mind today.

How about something else?

I believe they have birth control shots now that are effective for four months. Would you agree to a rule that if a person is on public assistence that they be forced to take those shots? They can't support the child that they have, should the people be forced to pay for more?
I think that is reasonable policy.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:
Better yet, force them to have abortions and it won't cost us much at all TS
In the same context as birth control pills, I am for the RU486 pill that Bush and right wing wackos claim is an abortion pill. It is no more an abortion pill than a birth control pill is. I am not for abortion, but I do not subscribe either to the sanctity of life at conception as these doctor killers do. I believe , as many do throughout the world, that life begins when the soul enters the body, and that comes when the baby breathes its first breath---The breath of life.

I do support a womens right to choose, but that is another thread. I hope this thread does not digress into that argument.
The points raised here since this thread started have been very good and its been civil. Let's keep it that way.
;)

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Depo-Provera is good for only 3 months. It is one of the best choices for sexually active (and generally unresponsible) young women. I would go a step further than requiring Depo-Provera for welfare moms. I would require the names and addresses of their sexual relations. DP has a 4/1000 failure rate per annum. I wouldn't want some man to get off the hook for beating the odds.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:
Better yet, force them to have abortions and it won't cost us much at all TS
In the same context as birth control pills, I am for the RU486 pill that Bush and right wing wackos claim is an abortion pill. It is no more an abortion pill than a birth control pill is. I am not for abortion, but I do not subscribe either to the sanctity of life at conception as these doctor killers do. I believe , as many do throughout the world, that life begins when the soul enters the body, and that comes when the baby breathes its first breath---The breath of life.

I do support a womens right to choose, but that is another thread. I hope this thread does not digress into that argument.
The points raised here since this thread started have been very good and its been civil. Let's keep it that way.
;)
Damn.. wel I guess I should leave then:)
 

Peetoeng

Golden Member
Dec 21, 2000
1,866
0
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot


Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.

Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:

When they live on the street, they are still not off of subsidy. Local government (city, county) will get strained to care for more security (more police hours), health concerns, business concerns (if panhandlers would scare customers away from downtown shops for example).

War on drugs doesn't go anywhere either. Even some conservatives--who are typically one-sided on enforcement--started to see drug treatment in a more favorable light.

If enforcement fails in war on drug, how do you think it would succeed on war on extra-marital sex/pregnancy? It only takes two to tango!

The article mentions $2.2M fund. That's puny! $20B (yes billion) a year for farm subsidy, $2B for foreign aid to Israel. Even Egypt gets $1B in foreign aid. I am not arguing the benefits of these subsidies--they do serve US national interest.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,059
2,094
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:


Yeah,let's focus on punishing those filthy women for being sexual


Some mothers are better than others but I haven't met a one yet that hasn't "bared responsibility" in ways most of you couldn't even begin to imagine!
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Red, you have abortion on the mind today.

How about something else?

I believe they have birth control shots now that are effective for four months. Would you agree to a rule that if a person is on public assistence that they be forced to take those shots? They can't support the child that they have, should the people be forced to pay for more?

Now we are going to encourage MORE sex? This would only lead to MORE AIDS and STDS and there is NO CURE! And probably never will be. After those 4 months go by we would be treated to a rash of new pregancies with more abortions than ever.
:|
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: etech
Red, you have abortion on the mind today.

How about something else?

I believe they have birth control shots now that are effective for four months. Would you agree to a rule that if a person is on public assistence that they be forced to take those shots? They can't support the child that they have, should the people be forced to pay for more?

Now we are going to encourage MORE sex? This would only lead to MORE AIDS and STDS and there is NO CURE! And probably never will be. After those 4 months go by we would be treated to a rash of new pregancies with more abortions than ever.
:|
Tom, that was an alternative for the people that can't control themselves. The shots would be repeated every three months. Yes, it would increase the likelihood of some having sex.

Aids does give new meaning to the term consequences of your actions doesn't it.

 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
0
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.

BUll CRAP! If the girl spreads her legs and gives it up, SHE should bare the responsibilities of her actions. It is not always the guy. Many impoversished young ladies use babies as a way to get out of poverty and get "respect" that is supposed to go with "motherhood". It is a sham. The women is just as guilty (if not more so) than the dude who can't keep his pecker in his pants!

Just take these women off of welfare, or remove their children to foster homes or adoption, and let them figure out how to live by supporting themselves,instead of me and you supporting them.


Now who wants to call me a liberal today? Freaking wankers.! :disgust:
Better yet, force them to have abortions and it won't cost us much at all TS
In the same context as birth control pills, I am for the RU486 pill that Bush and right wing wackos claim is an abortion pill. It is no more an abortion pill than a birth control pill is. I am not for abortion, but I do not subscribe either to the sanctity of life at conception as these doctor killers do. I believe , as many do throughout the world, that life begins when the soul enters the body, and that comes when the baby breathes its first breath---The breath of life.

I do support a womens right to choose, but that is another thread. I hope this thread does not digress into that argument.
The points raised here since this thread started have been very good and its been civil. Let's keep it that way.
;)
:confused::confused:
The baby's soul comes from air?!
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: etech
Red, you have abortion on the mind today.

How about something else?

I believe they have birth control shots now that are effective for four months. Would you agree to a rule that if a person is on public assistence that they be forced to take those shots? They can't support the child that they have, should the people be forced to pay for more?

Now we are going to encourage MORE sex? This would only lead to MORE AIDS and STDS and there is NO CURE! And probably never will be. After those 4 months go by we would be treated to a rash of new pregancies with more abortions than ever.
:|
Tom, that was an alternative for the people that can't control themselves. The shots would be repeated every three months. Yes, it would increase the likelihood of some having sex.

Aids does give new meaning to the term consequences of your actions doesn't it.
Any time we make something easier, it removes more inhibition. Birth Control in various forms is available NOW for single mothers and schools give out birth control without parental consent. All it does is exaspirate an already unfortunate situation.

There is NO realistic alternative other than abstinance, but that takes reasoning and self reliance. Qualities sorely missing in today's society.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY