There are far too many children that are born into poverty. Single mothers are not getting enough help. Children born into poverty are likely to remain in poverty, be poorly educated and are more likely to get involved in crime.
So what would be so terrible with state supported birth control?
So what would be so bad with the state making it a requirement that both parents would agree to support and raise a child before it is born? Or what about passing a basic qualifying test before a person is allowed to have children? What would be the harm to society?
2007-04-28 07:27:24 · 8 answers · asked by Dr. D 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I AGREE WITH YOU.YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MANY KIDS AS YOU WANT BUT YOU MUST MAKE SURE THAT SOCIETY AT LARGE ISN'T AFFECTED BY IT.REGULATIONS ON BIRTHS WILL BE A GOOD THING.YOU CAN VOTE YOU MOFIDY THE LAW IF YOU WANT.WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST POVERTY AND WE'VE BEEN LOSING.IF WE CAN'T BREAK THE CYCLE OF POVERTY BY GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY THEN WE MUST DO SOMETHING ELSE.I SUPPORT YOU ON THIS ISSUE.SOME GOOD REGULATION NEVER HURT ANYBODY.AND IF YOU THINK ABORTION IS WRONG THEN JUST MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE THE NEED FOR ONE.WAIT UNTIL THE TIME IS GOOD FOR YOU,YOU PARTNER(IF ANY),AND MOST IMPORTANTLY SOCIETY AT LARGE.I AM JUST SO SICK AND TIRED OF SEEING THE STATE SPEND SO MUCH ON WELFARE GENERATION AFTER GENERATION..THEY'RE NOT HELPING THEMSELVES SO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THEM AND THEIR RUFUSAL OR INABILITY TO HELP THEMSELVES.
2007-04-28 07:47:29 · answer #1 · answered by HELLFIRE8282 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How would you suggest we set the basic qualifying test? Is it to be based on wealth or proverty. Or you cant be a parent if you dont get married? Or are advocating only people of a certain level of intelligence can have children. You can not control peoples personal life to that extent. The government has its nose in enough of our lives we dont need any more. Most people who receive welfare can get birth control now but they choose not to use it.
2007-04-28 07:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, it's a gross violation of civil rights. Second, the poor would be about the only group affected by this. Third, it doesn't solve the root problem, porverty. High numbers of children being born into poverty is caused primarily by high rates of poverty.
2007-04-28 07:32:01 · answer #3 · answered by The Ry-Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should we let any state take control of our lives? Next they would tell us when to eat, sleep play or where to work. Last I heard this was a free country with freedom of choice. If you want to live in a country that regulates you that much think about moving to China or a country like that.
2007-04-28 07:31:59 · answer #4 · answered by karen w 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am going to be really serious for a moment and pretend that this law was in effect when I had my sons......I would not have my sons right now. I would have failed the test because hubby and I were not making enough money.
It would be a violation of our basic rights.
People in China are killing their newborn baby girls because they can only have one child and they want a boy. That's sad.
2007-04-28 07:39:26 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ Mary ♥ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! NO! NO! regulation is present i CHina and its causing a huge problem....
no one has the right to regulate the rights of the citizens, accept for behavior that is criminal and detrimental to others, like murder, and taking away constitutional rights.
We need to attack poverty itself!
2007-04-28 07:39:31 · answer #6 · answered by teri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That hasn't worked in China, how would it work here?
2007-04-28 07:30:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!
2007-04-28 07:35:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋