Plea for help

crabcake

crabcake

But wait, there's more...
Nicole_in_somd said:
There you go. That is workable. That is handling it at the level it needs to be handled. Even though some will still argue it is against their religion to use birth control, if they don't comply then benefits go bye bye
Click to expand...

But wait ...

Nicole_in_somd said:
The church will protest it because it is in the bible to go forth and multiply. Some are even against birth control and they do have power to control certain things. Even you can see that.

You need to research and see how government and the church work together look at your money. Does it not say in God we trust?
Click to expand...

What about all that church money and the government! :jameo: And who's going to pay for it, administer it, who's going to do the "inspections" to make sure the IUD is still in place? :jameo: Do you realize what a hypocrite you sound like? While I'm in agreement for sterilizing the entire population at the onset of puberty until they can demonstrate the maturity to procreate, mandatory birth control is FAR more personal and "invasive" to one's reproductive capability and imposing of their personal/religious beliefs than my original proposal to simply deny benefits to those who don't get a "parenting license", and it would initiate a much larger public outcry -- especially from churches/churchgoers! But what's funny is the outcome even as you typed it above is the same. So I fail to see your problem with my suggestion. The end result is "those who don't comply (regardless of the method) are denied benefits." My proposal doesn't tell folks that they CAN'T have kids; it only says they can't get public assistance if they don't obtain the necessary "gov't" approval first. Your way is forcing people to NOT have kids at all. At least I'm leaving the door open for those who still don't want to play by the rules but want to have kids anyway. :shrug:

Since the benefits in question are government-provided via taxpayers, I believe the government has a right to impose a set of criteria for people wanting to use that money. The church isn't the one regulating/overseeing welfare. You apply for college assistance, and to be approved, you must meet certain criteria. To apply for a loan from the bank, you must meet certain criteria, or you don't get the money. Hell, you have to meet certain criteria to move into some neighborhoods ... I'm talking about probably the most important "investment" into our future, and there is NO criteria established ... just go out, screw, make babies, and if you wake up one day and decide this parenting gig is too much for you, or you have a stronger urge to become a crack whore, no sweat! Just toss the kid off at your sister's place and she'll play on her community's sympathies to solicit donations to take care of your problem.

Yes, my money says "In God We Trust" and I have no problem with those words appearing on my money, in my courts, in my government buildings, or in my daughter's classroom. But "God" (Church) isn't the one regulating public assistance. The government is, and so long as they do and we're paying for it, I believe they (we) have the right to establish a set of criteria to deter system abuse and help ensure every penny of our money is spent on helping legitimate families in need. Just like banks establish their criteria for loaning money; colleges determine their criteria for who gets assistance and admitted; and neighborhoods have criteria for who can live in those areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top