Irresponsible Breeding SPONSERED and PAID by our OUR Government with our hard earned money !!!
Posted by poulianna on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 1:28pm in WHEN ARE WE GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS???
Today, we, (Certified Midwife and myself Doula) assisted a 22 yr old to her third baby, Medicaid will pick up the tab. Third baby may sound harmless to you, HOWEVER between her last child who is four she has had 6 abortions; the last two in January of 2008. Yes do the math. She got pregnant two more times before the one she had today. Yes YOU might say she has the individual right to those abortions but what does that say about the moral fiber of this person and thousands more that do and the ultimate effect it has upon society as a whole?
Talk, Talk, and more Talk but where are the people demanding that our wages stop being part of the problem. Medicaid continues to dip into our hard earned dollars to continue the perpetration of socialism. Obama is going to redistribute the wealth??? To who??? The wealth is redistribute amongst the peasants (the so called middle class -HA!) Does Obama mean that the real wealthy is going to pick up the Medicaid tab??? The real wealthy are going to pay a larger proportion based on their income for Medicaid???
The real wealthy, do they really have a social conscience about all these babies being born to people who can't really afford them. HELL no!!! They have no need to develop a conscience about "irresponsible breeding" because it doesn't affect them!!! They could care less.
Once again I assisted in the Natural birth of yet another baby born on Medicaid's tab sponsored by our Socialistic Government. At the same time, I am thrilled that this baby WAS NOT born in the "knock 'em out" "drag 'em out" method of our wonderfully technologically advance Obstetrics of modern medicine as practiced in the hospital setting. Where one size application of birthing is applied to all women regardless of the individual situation.
At least with Natural Child Birth the baby has a significant chance from"Unnecessary medical interventions" which studies have shown to decrease the opportunity for neurological and physical impairments to occur.
Studies have demonstrated that Certified Midwives DO NOT Practice applying "unnecessary medical interventions" before, during and after birth. SO in ESSENCE in good conscience I can say, I did not contribute to the enormous number of children requiring "Special Education" classes, facilities, and teachers. All of which YOU and I also support with our HARD EARNED Money as the peasants we are through taxes.
Unlike many who just TALK, TALK and TALK but don't do the WALK, WALK, Walk - I actually do something helpful for this society. ONE BABY AT A TIME I Absolutely decrease the number of neurologically defective humans at the time of birth entering our wonderfully sponsored one Size fit all Public educational system.
What these uneducated PARENTS and mandated vaccinations and psycho-mind altering drugs do to harm their children afterward - Well that's another story. AND, PLEASE, I am not seeking any RECOGNITION for what I do and please don't bother. I feel very rewarded by the fact that I am able to do something.
Or perhaps you just have not realized the ever increasing need for Special Education classes; facilities and teachers??? Or maybe you just thought that there really are that many mentally and physically challenged children being developed in Uterus?? right out of the Mother's womb??? WELL unless we have become a society of brothers and sisters marrying one another and/or first cousins than I guess it might be true.
IN the recent past, Medicaid would not allow Certified Midwives to be in their payment system, but now that Medicaid is basically financially broke they encourage as many "healthy" first time mothers and multi-para mothers (who were lucky enough to not become a C-section statistic) to seek births with Midwives because WE CHARGE LESS for our services.
I hope people get into these issues THESE are some of the Major issues we need to address and quit wasting time on Minor Issues such Creationism vs. Evolution. unless these Major issues do not get addressed THERE will be no need to debate Creationism vs. Evolution because the NEW WORLD ORDER will decide that for us.
poulianna
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 392 reads
****
I understand your frustration, Poulianna, and the answer is there is no answer. Once government makes the immoral decision to defeat its own purpose and use its coercive power to take property instead of protect it, all kinds of moral dilemmas occur. Many people oppose gay marriage, not because they object to people of the same sex marrying each other, but because recognition of the marriage by the state will eventually produce an additional Medicare and Social Security recipient. This is a recurrent theme - once government says that it can use your money to support someone else, you feel like you should be able to make conditions regarding how that money is spent. It makes perfect sense - it's your money. Then the government finds itself trying to protect the rights of the recipient while not ignoring the demands of the unwilling contributor. Thus, when the government provides healthcare, suddenly it claims the right to tell people what they should eat, how much exercise to get, whether or not they can smoke, etc. In Japan, the government actually puts people on forced diets. It is horrifying. We are heading for MORE of this under the incoming regime than under the outgoing one - and that one was terrible enough. Buckle up, it's going to get VERY bumpy around here!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
I think while how ever well intentioned those supporting eugenics may have been in the beginning,
it leaves the possibility open for corruption. Our health care system is already overtaxed just by the illegal alien population , who most don't belive in contraception , let alone those "Americans" who pay taxes here and through hard times might need a little help. Hitler belived in selective breeding also lets not forget. While I understand exactly where your going with this Poulianna , and agree might I add, I think the bigger question as far as financial is .... Putting a LOCK on our Southern Border !!!
Until we do that we are fighting a useless battle of financial drain....Or maybe I sould say financial sewer ! And Until our Government stops catering to Corporate Interests they will continue to leave the Southern Gate open for the "Cheap Labor". And may I add that if Americans don't fight with everything they have against the plans of "The North American Union" we are sunk for sure !
Actually it is those at the top of Government both Ours and the World that have orchestrated this financial crisis in order to drive us into this "Union" between Canada, Mexico & the US. Taking on Mexico is like an extremelly bad investment to say the least. According to my sources the Canadians don't want this either ....at least not the adverage Canadian that is.
WE need to stop INTERVENING. Ron Paul has stated this many times We need to stop policing human activities.
WE need to pull out of THINKING WE need to save the world and people from the choices they make...AND as part of the deal WE allow a handful of "Experts" to decide what is best for you for us.
Is its best for me to have bailed out Fanny Mae? is it best for you to pay into medicaid to support irresponsible breeding to continue? is it best for us to have decisions that victimize the working middle class.
STOP BAILING PEOPLE OUT STOP BAILING OUT BAD DECISIONS AND make the innocent from becoming victimized into having to pay it out of their pockets for a decision they did not participate in.
IF you smoke and develop cancer its not like you have not ever been warned against it BUT you smoked anyways WHY do I or any one else who is not directly responsible for your choice have to pay for your consequences??
SAME as irresponsible breeding SAME as attacking other countries SAME as paying property taxes for a defunk Public Education System SAME as accepting mandated vaccinations SAME as allowing medical "experts" to get you into drugs that benefit a corporation and not the individual.
It will not be easy to keep the missionary, socialistic type of person FROM THINKING HE OR SHE NEEDS TO INTERVENE its been happening for so long...
THis country needs to decide "Do we continue the path of socialism where the wealth of all is redistributed or "Do we return to every one on their own the policy of Individualism "Free Market concept".
WHICH WAY DO WE WANT IT. WE need to make a decision or continue to allow others to decide for us. How does the New World Order want it. Do we want it that way??
I want to be able to retire without having to continually support the bad decisions of others. I need my money to grow old and die with. If you take from people who have worked hard all their lives and at the point, due to age, can no longer be as productive as when they were young ... we are perpetrating another class of needy people. Who will then need to be rescued. Is that what Social Security was suppose to do??? How well is it working NOW.??? AND yet we keep allowing "them" to take it out of our Pay checks.
STOP INTERVENING
poulianna
The Eye of G_d is watching us
Is that the kind of society you want to live in? No need to wait, there is already a place for you, It's called India. Go try it out and come back and tell us what you think. Tom
Then you pay for all of their expenses out your pay check.
In fact why don't you bring them to your home and feed them. Turn over your whole pay check to welfare, food stamps and medicaid and contribute to the cause of people who refuse to be responsible for themselves.
Good luck!!!
The Eye of G_d is watching us
what is your problem? what is "irresponsible breeding"? do you even know what you're so bitter at?
Can't you understand anything on your own without it having it explained to you over and over....YOU "Awesomo" obviously just like to continually bash those that either havn't agreed with you in the past or have agreed with someone you dislike.
She explained her position very well and if you can't understand what she's saying and then attack her position your a moron !
It means when people reproduce when they do not have the means to provide. If they need medicaid to have a baby Then D--- A-- Maybe they shouldn't be getting pregnant. Have you heard of birth control? Maybe your smart enough to know and maybe you even know how to properly use it.
However, there seems to be a lot more who have heard the words birth control even the words "family Planning" which means responsible breeding.
irresponsible breeding means getting pregnant and depending on the rest of the population to pay for their medical bills and welfare and the food stamps.
May be you don't care about giving up a portion of your hard earn money to support those who don't take responsibility for the choices or decisions they make.
You want to continue supporting socialism Hope you know what that word means; you go right ahead because that's the kind of government we have now.
Be sure to vote in Obama You are his kind of supporter
The Eye of G_d is watching us
to such a multi-faceted problem. As NWO tries to "fix it," their fixings will inevitably backfire in some as yet unexpected blowback. Using legislative work to get tax-payers money that can be thrown at the problem is just another govt debacle.
I suppose the most sensible answer is to focus on increased education and awareness whenever and wherever possible. But.. the sad truth is that there are some things that won't be adequately addressed.
More and more with this and so many other problems, I lose hope for the masses, and try to remain focused on a "pockets of sanity" concept.
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
exactly what do you see as the problem?
Let people do whatever they want, and don't force others to pay for it.......
this is why we need eugenics
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Cynical,
Are you able to elaborate your position? What are you advocating? Lets assume you desire to "improve" the species as a whole through some form of eugenics. Are you advocating an overt, coercive program? Is it voluntary; incentivized by the state? Just what are you proposing?
I don't see an overt, modern day program of eugenics gaining anymore ground than it has since the heydays of the first three or four decades of the 20th century. So what are you suggesting, Cynical?
I propose responsibility.
That means leaving alone people with responsibility, and punishing people who do not take responsibility (usually leaving them alone is bad enough).
I'm definitely not for any force of coersion, but people need to be aware that speaking out against breeding is NOT racist or bigoted, it's responsible. Only prolife evangelicals and liberals who think all lives are equal would be against taking responsibility for breeds.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
In a truly free society, all lives are considered equal. You do what you want and I do what I want. You pay for and face the consequences of your actions and I pay for and face the consequence of mine. I don't think that concept is way out in left field.
Forced charity is not charity, it is stealing. The government has no right stealing from one tax payer and giving to another. Charity should be left to churches and other private groups. Our servant government also has no right to dictate to or punish the people for "breeding". What do you think the government should do start up the Federal Department of Responsible Breeding?
If that's your definition of a "truly free" society, I am proud to say I am not for a truly free society.
Marx and Obama would happily agree with you.
Equality of life is a stupid idea propagated by two groups of idiots.
Religious people who don't think and believe all lives are from God, therefore unjudgeable by humans.
Liberals who think all humans are equal, despite what history has taught us.
The inability for people to judge another based on characteristics, behavior and other things is FATAL to mankind.
I agree that responsibility is paramount, and that's exactly why we shouldn't consider all lives equal, we should treat and judge people by their behavior and responsibility (and yes I am saying people who don't have responsibility don't get to live).
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
>>"The inability for people to judge another based on characteristics, behavior and other things is FATAL to mankind."
It is appropriate to judge thieves and murderers for their crimes, and it is also appropriate for the state to punish them. That is because these crimes threaten the liberty and property of others. On the other hand, as long as an action doesn't threaten someone else's liberty or property, the state has no business punishing it. As an individual, you are welcome to judge liars and cheaters, and people who are just not nice, but don't expect the state to punish them for annoying you. That would be giving way too much power to the state. Same goes for single moms. Go ahead and give these gals a piece of your mind if you like, don't employ them in your business if their behavior bothers you, offer them money to get sterilized if you like. Here's what you can't do: you can't have the state punish them for making babies and you can't use my tax money to pay for your eugenics.
Social stigma can be a very effective way of motivating people to behave responsibly, so go ahead and give people you think are behaving irresponsibly a hard time; just don't expect the government to do what it is not meant to do.
Bottom line: all people should be equal before the law, and the state has no business legislating private morality, but all people are not all equally worthy of respect or affection, and you are entirely justified in preferring one person over another based on their behavior.
So, I suppose you are Hitler fan?
Soooo...a non-coercive, non-governmental, meritocratic approach that favors "...punishing people who do not take responsibility..." for the outcomes in their own lives. Don't get me wrong, Cynical; I'm a fairly staunch libertarian and I too believe in leaving people to their own devices. Just trying to gain an understanding of your ideas.
Lets say, just as a thought experiment, that you are the newly appointed Secretary of Personal Responsibility (a new Cabinet position), charged with overseeing the punishment and more importantly, the leaving alone of our citizenry. As a practical matter, where does one start with such a policy?
I think we can conclude from the lead post on this thread, the current situation is certainly untenable and needs attention. What will you recommend, in terms of real action, to change not only people's irresponsible behaviors, but their current mindset that the state will take care of them -- irrespective of past behavior?
I like the idea of leaving them alone as sufficient punishment, since they will either staighten up and fly right or they will slip into abject poverty and expire quickly. Now we both know that no die hard lefty state s gonna let this happen. So how does one go about removing the support of the state in an era of egalatarian socialism? Big challenge for any society, particularly one as far gone as ours.
What say you?
How about (just out of my head, not all libertarian and some with force)
1. Make each and every pregnant woman sign a contract (like a mortgage) that they will take care of their child, or else they are up for adaption or we will pay to abort the baby.
2. End any handouts for anybody with more than one child, sending the message that children are OK, but there's a difference between one and two and three (this is a gradual step towards ANY handouts for ANYBODY)
3. Get rid of tax incentives for child dependent expenses (which means you don't save anything by having children, you only pay more, PERIOD)
4. Not very libertarian, but somehow punish pregnant women for having children since they selfish have children while many starving children need parents, incentivize adoption.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Cynical,
You said in an earlier post that you didn't particularly care for coercion. It appears you may be a little inconsistent in your thinking, if you truly suggest these actions are not coercive.
>> 1. Make each and every pregnant woman sign a contract (like a mortgage) that they will take care of their child, or else they are up for adaption or we will pay to abort the baby.
Are you for real? A contract between the woman and the state I presume. This certainly sounds like state managed coercion. Who are "we" in "we will pay to abort the baby."?
>> 2. End any handouts for anybody with more than one child, sending the message that children are OK, but there's a difference between one and two and three (this is a gradual step towards ANY handouts for ANYBODY)
May I suggest a little math here. I assume you'd like to see a revitalized America, a nation-state of free people living peacefully among other nation-states. A birth rate of one child per couple is not sufficient to replenish the population (2.1 births per female will replenish a society at no growth). Your suggestion has a long term consequence of ensuring teh demise of our nation! Think about it Mr. Cynical!!
>> 3. Get rid of tax incentives for child dependent expenses (which means you don't save anything by having children, you only pay more, PERIOD)
I'm OK with pay as you go. No argument that couples, or for that matter single mothers, pay to raise their offspring. I'm not OK with "baby makers" getting my cash for the act of procreation and abandonment to the state.
>> 4. Not very libertarian, but somehow punish pregnant women for having children since they selfish have children while many starving children need parents, incentivize adoption.
I sense a disturbing undercurrent in your post Cynical. You seem to have a well developed disdain for women, tied somehow to their biological ability to incubate and birth new human beings. As a father of two fine young men, brought forward in life through a shared commitment with a loving woman, I feel only sadness for your malady. I believe you to be a fairly young individual and I can only offer a suggestion - find a way to shed your bias toward women before you become, increasingly, an isolated and bitter man.
>>"1. Make each and every pregnant woman sign a contract (like a mortgage) that they will take care of their child, or else they are up for adaption or we will pay to abort the baby."
Wow. Talk about giving over control of our lives to the state. You are way more totalitarian than the most statist of our current crop of politicians.
>>"2. End any handouts for anybody with more than one child, sending the message that children are OK, but there's a difference between one and two and three (this is a gradual step towards ANY handouts for ANYBODY)"
Handouts should be phased out equally for everyone. The kind of social engineering you are advocating often leads to unintended side effects.
>>"3. Get rid of tax incentives for child dependent expenses (which means you don't save anything by having children, you only pay more, PERIOD)"
Why do you have a problem with taxpayers having children? Why? Aren't these the responsible people who don't rely on the state for money, but actually contribute more than they consume? Why would you want to discourage these people from having children?
>>"4. Not very libertarian, but somehow punish pregnant women for having children since they selfish have children while many starving children need parents, incentivize adoption."
Indeed. You are definitely not a libertarian if you advocate this. What is wrong with just leaving people alone? Without help from the state, people who can afford to raise children will have them (and the more the merrier, as far as I am concerned), and those who can't will learn to be much more careful.
it baffles me how people don't understand the simplest concepts. claim to be all for freedom except of course on these few issues here and there. the simplest things are hardest to grasp for some reason. and where does this "punish people for having kids" trend come from? who thought this up? it's sick.
no wonder the population is so easily controlled and duped, most can't grasp the concept of "leave me alone". i'm starting to think that the "sheep" mentality is the normal state of the human race. seriously i'm quickly losing faith in people. maybe people should be controlled and used, it looks to me like they want it.