If possible: Forced birth control for those on welfare to stop the next generation of poor

[SNC]

And you can predict that they would definitely get pregnant without the forced birth control? Get out of here with that bullshit answer.

So you missed the point of my question, got it.

 

[SNC]

WTF are you talking about? I blame the women AS MUCH AS I BLAME THE MEN. This thread is directed toward women, I opted to change the narrative to include men because they are EQUALLY responsible regardless of which gender actually carries the pregnancy. *SIGH* Yes, you are a purposefully obtuse idiot in this. For ALL women I say fu*k off you simple-minded prick.

Psst... That lovely available option I mentioned previously? I'mma 'bout to use it. ... prolly.

This thread is directed to ALL those on public assistance, it was not directed solely at women.
You changed the narrative to exclude women, as it already included men, you chose to ignore that.
I'd insert some shitty line about reading comprehension but you've never done that to any of my posts so I'll not... oh wait...

for women, there's a birth control shot that lasts at least a month.
let's say there's a birth control shot for men that make them sterile for a month at a time?

As for blaming the men I got:

If you didn't deposit your baby making juice, pregnancy wouldn't be a concern.

It's not just wanting to control a woman's body with birth control but then if she gets pregnant they want to prevent her from aborting the pregnancy.

Guess what, if ALL men took on the responsibility to prevent pregnancy then women wouldn't get pregnant.

I could wave a wand and make it so men had to carry the pregnancy, I would.

So could the men! What the fu*k is wrong with you?

If you don't want women on welfare to get pregnant DON'T GET THEM PREGNANT.

I'll start advising women to drop the babies off with their dads.

I couldn't find a single post where you had any advice for women except for the one about dropping the kid off with dad. Buy ya you totally blame women as much as men. Perhaps you're not aware of your bent, I'm glad I could help.

Edit: spelling

 

[interchange]

So you missed the point of my question, got it.

I don't think I missed the point but go ahead and explain it.

 

[SNC]

someone like SNC starting a thread on why he has to pay for women's birth control.

You do know I didn't start this thread right? You might be surprised I am happy to pay for any form of birth control one would need. I have always told my kids I would be happy to purchase\provide condoms when the time is right for them to start having sex. I also would tell them that if they were too embarrassed to purchase said condoms, perhaps they are not mature enough to have sex and deal with the consequences. What I also instilled in them is the knowledge that I will not provide funding for a child they are not ready either emotionally or financially to support. So I'm not sure where you came up with your thoughts on my take.

 

[SNC]

I don't think I missed the point but go ahead and explain it.

Try re-reading the post I responded to.

 

[interchange]

Try re-reading the post I responded to.

Are you trying to make an argument pertaining to abortion or the topic at hand?

 

[SNC]

Are you trying to make an argument pertaining to abortion or the topic at hand?

The question was asked by you so I'm not sure why you are having an issue following along.

If someone were to undergo forced sterilization and die from the procedure, I'm wondering how that might be seen ethically.

Since you were concerned about the possible death as a reason not to administer birth control, would not the humongously hugeer risk of death from carrying a child to term not be a factor in letting a cock wielding fuckwad inject his baby making juices in her? On top of just the possibility of pregnancy, AIDS, HIV, HPV, and the huge list of other acronyms you want no part of. The point is, is the risk any greater than having unprotected sex in the first place, completely ignoring the financial aspect.

From https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm

Sadly, about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.

I can't find any numbers on death per year from taking/using BC.

Now re-reading over your question, you are talking about sterilization which is NOT part of this thread except for those who want to derail the actual subject. I don't think you will find one person in here who is for forced sterilization. So in that context I have to retract my reply to your question, as it has zero bearing on the subject most are trying - in vain - to have.

 

[feralkid]

You may as well have just stayed out of this thread then with nothing to contribute but childishly attacking grammar. That is the oldest trick in the book to attempt to derail a topic over nothing. But you only see that tactic when someone realizes they are bested.

Someone is still smarting from that spelling bee humiliation they suffered in 3rd grade.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Someone is still smarting from that spelling bee humiliation they suffered in 3rd grade.

Ya think?

 

[soulcougher73]

Someone is still smarting from that spelling bee humiliation they suffered in 3rd grade.

We got Nazi Eugenics and Grammar Nazi's all in the same thread. I did Nazi that coming.

 

[Puffnstuff]

We got Nazi Eugenics and Grammar Nazi's all in the same thread. I did Nazi that coming.

You need a pair of these then.

 

[feralkid]

Totally DEVO!

 

[interchange]

The question was asked by you so I'm not sure why you are having an issue following along.



Since you were concerned about the possible death as a reason not to administer birth control, would not the humongously hugeer risk of death from carrying a child to term not be a factor in letting a cock wielding fuckwad inject his baby making juices in her? On top of just the possibility of pregnancy, AIDS, HIV, HPV, and the huge list of other acronyms you want no part of. The point is, is the risk any greater than having unprotected sex in the first place, completely ignoring the financial aspect.

From https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm

I can't find any numbers on death per year from taking/using BC.

Now re-reading over your question, you are talking about sterilization which is NOT part of this thread except for those who want to derail the actual subject. I don't think you will find one person in here who is for forced sterilization. So in that context I have to retract my reply to your question, as it has zero bearing on the subject most are trying - in vain - to have.

Quit being an ass and I'll be happy to have a rational discussion with you.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You do know I didn't start this thread right? You might be surprised I am happy to pay for any form of birth control one would need. I have always told my kids I would be happy to purchase\provide condoms when the time is right for them to start having sex. I also would tell them that if they were too embarrassed to purchase said condoms, perhaps they are not mature enough to have sex and deal with the consequences.

I know you didn't start this thread, but the person that started it asked a question, they did not overtly state an opinion. So, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You are the person I noticed that was making the strong 'I don't want to pay for your children' argument. That argument is just one small step away from 'I don't want to pay for your birth control'. Even if you specifically would not make that argument someone with your basic attitude definitely would.

What I also instilled in them is the knowledge that I will not provide funding for a child they are not ready either emotionally or financially to support. So I'm not sure where you came up with your thoughts on my take

So you would have us, and your children, believe that you would just allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity? Somehow I doubt you are being genuine with that.

 

[SNC]

I know you didn't start this thread, but the person that started it asked a question, they did not overtly state an opinion. So, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You are the person I noticed that was making the strong 'I don't want to pay for your children' argument. That argument is just one small step away from 'I don't want to pay for your birth control'. Even if you specifically would not make that argument someone with your basic attitude definitely would.



So you would have us, and your children, believe that you would just allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity? Somehow I doubt you are being genuine with that.

You sure do like to assume a fucking lot.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You sure do like to assume a fucking lot.

What do you think I am assuming here? I think my assumptions are minor and pretty safe.

 

[SNC]

Quit being an ass and I'll be happy to have a rational discussion with you.

Wait, I ask an honest question and I'm an ass? The fucking conversation is about BIRTH CONTROL, you change it to forced sterilization, and I'm the ass?
IF you are so fucking concerned about the health risks of BC why are you not concerned about the potential issues with unprotected sex, the issues with the potential pregnancy and subsequent birth of the baby from the same person? The act of carrying to term is FAR more likely to cause a dangerous situation with the mother then the fucking pill. But I'm being an ass, got it.

 

[SNC]

What do you think I am assuming here? I think my assumptions are minor and pretty safe.

So wait your asking me what I think your assuming are and then state that you think your assumptions are safe, and you want me to help you figure out where your wrong? Alrighty then.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So wait your asking me what I think your assuming are and then state that you think your assumptions are safe, and you want me to help you figure out where your wrong? Alrighty then.

You are the one that said I am making some large assumptions. I believe that my arguments follow directly from what you have written and that any assumptions I have made are small and not unreasonable based on your writing. So, yes. If you think I am making some large assumptions (which the statement implies are incorrect) then you need to state what they are.

 

[SNC]

You are the one that said I am making some large assumptions. I believe that my arguments follow directly from what you have written and that any assumptions I have made are small and not unreasonable based on your writing. So, yes. If you think I am making some large assumptions (which the statement implies are incorrect) then you need to state what they are.

I can't keep up with this. Now we are differentiating between large and small assumptions, even when it's pretty clear I was responding to a post in which you made some assumptions that I disagree with.
You made three assertions:

That argument is just one small step away from 'I don't want to pay for your birth control'. Even if you specifically would not make that argument someone with your basic attitude definitely would.

So you would have us, and your children, believe that you would just allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity? Somehow I doubt you are being genuine with that.

I said:

You sure do like to assume a fucking lot.

OK I color coded things I think you are assuming. Now I can't address anything other then what you posted, so I can't be sure of you were thinking so I wouldn't have been commenting on those assumptions. But seriously if you need this much help following along in a 3 post colloquy, I can't really help. If you really need me to expand on my comments that caused you to arrive at the assumption I would let me grandkids starve, ask yourself if there is anything other than starvation I might do in based on my previous posts here. Or have you not been following along and just picking posts you dont like and replying to them without any context. (that just my small to medium sized assumption)

 

[Younigue]

You are the one that said I am making some large assumptions. I believe that my arguments follow directly from what you have written and that any assumptions I have made are small and not unreasonable based on your writing. So, yes. If you think I am making some large assumptions (which the statement implies are incorrect) then you need to state what they are.

Thank you for clarifying that every time he says "your" that he really means "You are", when shortened is actually "you're". Ok, I have no clue if you did it intentionally but still if he paid any attention he could deduce that he is using "your" all wrong. If it was intentional it was very gentle and subtle. Bravo!

 

[Younigue]

You are the one that said I am making some large assumptions. I believe that my arguments follow directly from what you have written and that any assumptions I have made are small and not unreasonable based on your writing. So, yes. If you think I am making some large assumptions (which the statement implies are incorrect) then you need to state what they are.

LOL! SNC really has his underwear in a bunch over your "assumptions"! Make some big ones and show him the difference?

 

[interchange]

Wait, I ask an honest question and I'm an ass? The fucking conversation is about BIRTH CONTROL, you change it to forced sterilization, and I'm the ass?
IF you are so fucking concerned about the health risks of BC why are you not concerned about the potential issues with unprotected sex, the issues with the potential pregnancy and subsequent birth of the baby from the same person? The act of carrying to term is FAR more likely to cause a dangerous situation with the mother then the fucking pill. But I'm being an ass, got it.

I very quickly owned that mistake and reframed my question when another person pointed it out. I am also sorry for rudely replying to your first response to me. Perhaps we may start over:

Interchange: if someone were to receive forced birth control and die as a result, how might that be seen ethically?

SNC: Do you know how many people die from childbirth?

Interchange: why should that apply to this ethical consideration? Receiving forced birth control does not mean that, without it, a person would become pregnant and carry a child to term. Even if it did, how do you reconcile the ethics of removing the choice from a person who has capacity to make such a decision?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I can't keep up with this. Now we are differentiating between large and small assumptions, even when it's pretty clear I was responding to a post in which you made some assumptions that I disagree with.
You made three assertions:

Every argument or debate of any sort starts with some assumptions. Good arguments have reasonable assumptions that don't require large leaps of logic to come to. I feel mine are small and reasonable. I will explain them.

"Even if you specifically would not make that argument someone with your basic attitude definitely would."
This is not really an assumption, this is a argument. The assumption behind this argument is you attitude, which I feel you have well enough laid out for me to make a reasonable assumption about. My argument I feel is sound because the statement 'I don't want to pay for your children' and 'I don't want to pay for your X' is similar. I agree that my assumption behind this could be wrong, it might be, just as an example, 'children' you take offence to and not 'paying for other people's things'. If that assumption is wrong them my conclusions would be equally invalid.

"allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity?"
Also not much of a assumption. You stated, in the very post I quoted and was replying to, that you have instilled the knowledge in your children that you "will not provide funding for a child they are not ready either emotionally or financially to support." If they are not ready to financially support the child, and you are arguing that society should not do so, then starvation is the outcome. I am doing nothing here but pointing out the logical consequences of your own position.

"Somehow I doubt you are being genuine with that."
This is not really an assumption. This is more of an opinion.

So, I hope you can see why I was confused. You are using the term 'assumption' wrong.

But seriously if you need this much help following along in a 3 post colloquy, I can't really help. If you really need me to expand on my comments that caused you to arrive at the assumption I would let me grandkids starve, ask yourself if there is anything other than starvation I might do in based on my previous posts here. Or have you not been following along and just picking posts you dont like and replying to them without any context. (that just my small to medium sized assumption)

I'm not really sure anyone could follow this colloquy. You have not really engaged. You ask rhetorical questions, made smug remarks, and tossed around insults but have avoided answering questions or supporting your arguments in any way. The best anyone has received from you is that you know better than them because you have anecdotal evidence, which you didn't even present.

 

[SNC]

Thank you for clarifying that every time he says "your" that he really means "You are", when shortened is actually "you're". Ok, I have no clue if you did it intentionally but still if he paid any attention he could deduce that he is using "your" all wrong. If it was intentional it was very gentle and subtle. Bravo!

I have zero time to worry about you\your\you're I can go back through your posts and find similar issues, but I dont really give a fuck. Its telling though that you would rather nit pick a word then address your obvious hatred of men.