Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women, Says HHS

[Oldtimer]

Here are some steps we could take to reduce the U.S. population:

1. Deport all of the illegals.

2. Limit the child tax credit to two children.

3. Include full contraception coverage in a national single-payer healthcare plan. Of course, I would exclude abortion because it's not contraception and I'm pro-life.

4. Encourage sluts to get IUDs. This will prevent them from passing on their genes and social pathologies to future generations.

5. Offer violent convicted felons time off their prison sentences if they get sterilized.

1. Agree

2. Revise the tax code. Individuals pay a low flat rate on gross income. Business pay same on net income. No credits, exemptions. loopholes for anyone. I doubt anyone is going to have another child just to get a tax credit. OTOH, they may, if it means an increase in their monthly support checks.

3, 4 & 5.
(A) I believe that life begins at conception. Many birth control measures, such as the IUD prevent the fertilized egg (life) from implanting in the womb. Thus, IMHO, Pro life starts 1 second after a new life comes into being. Thou shalt not murder.

(B) I don't have the words to fully describe how much opposition I have to the concept of a single payer, government controlled, health care system. The Constitution is being ripped apart as we move closer to this. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. LIFE: How many will die because the government deems xyz procedure isn't cost effective for someone who isn't a productive 25 years old?

(C) Free IUD's, sterilizations, condoms, pills, etc. are in effect condoning sin. Jesus said go forth and sin no more. He didn't tell her how she could continue to sin without earthly consequences.

As a Christian, how can I, in good faith, agree that the taxes that I pay go towards anything that promotes sin? Sin all you want, as long as you take "proper" precautions as mandated by Uncle Sam. If you forget to use a condom, I'll pick up the tab on resulting abortion. If I give you a free sterilization, sin all you want without any need for personal responsibility.

If we have a smaller population, there would be more resources and space for the people who do exist. That could result in less poverty. A smaller population could eliminate many of the famines we see around the world.

I've seen the same stats that the world's population could fit into the state of Texas. The scriptures state that the poor will always be with us. How far back into history did the scriptures first state mankind should help the needy? What was the world population then?

We have many resources that cannot be tapped for all the reasons those in control have mandated. Either by outright restriction, as in drilling for oil or subtle restriction as in paying farmers not to plant crops. A smaller population has nothing to do with drought that produces famine in an area of the world. Yes, there are fewer people to feed. However, the scriptures also tell us what we should do. Remember 7 years of feast and famine? God isn't going to destroy the world by starving mankind to death.

 

[carpro]

If we have a smaller population, there would be more resources and space for the people who do exist. That could result in less poverty. A smaller population could eliminate many of the famines we see around the world.

If anti life liberals would all just commit suicide, that should solve the problem. That would , at least, stop them from killing other people's children.:thumbs:

 

[Oldtimer]

If anti life liberals would all just commit suicide, that should solve the problem. That would , at least, stop them from killing other people's children.:thumbs:

Uhmmmmm, just thinking out loud at the keyboard about this topic and other related ones.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He, in His wisdom, also said go forth and multiply.

No where in the scriptures do I find where He stated that when the earth's population reaches x number, start thinning out the population to conserve resources He provided. The implication is that mankind should take over because God CAN NOT sustain His creation.

-- Kill unborn babies before they can become consumers of God's gifts.

-- Use any incentive necessary to entice people to permanently sever their ability to multiply.

-- Figure out more ways to prematurely "pull the plug" on lives that aren't productive according to societies yardstick.

-- Place a higher value on plants and animals survival even if it means making human survival more difficult. (Ex: California farmers couldn't water their crops because the water was needed for some endangered species. Don't remember which one right now.)

-- Forbid tapping into more of the resources that God provided because
we'll run out, or
it'll spoil the view (coastal oil rigs and mountain windmills), or
it'll endanger some species, or
fill in the blank ________. Instead, kill people, one way or another to make sure those remaining have enough of what they desire.

How quickly they forget what God did when the Hebrews rebelled at His gift of manna from heaven. How quickly they forget God's wrath when children were sacrificed to Baal. How quickly they forget the woes Egypt suffered by putting limitations on the Hebrews ability to go forth and multiply.

Do you believe that God can and will provide for mankind's survival until He decides it's time for a new heaven and a new earth?

 

[menageriekeeper]

No you aren't pro-life Paul! Where did you get that idea?? If you were pro-life you would value the life of all three of my children and that of my godson who was the 5th child in his family! You aren't pro-life or you would value the life of each and every child not just two YOU think I should have had!

This is why the number of children each family has should be up to them and God. Honestly, I'm thinking you better not have any. You seem to believe children are a financial burden and I'd hate for you not to be able to afford your cable bill. (btw if you wait to have children until you can afford them, you'll never have one. There is ALWAYS something else you can spend your money on. Something new to buy that'll last 5 minutes until the next version comes out. But the Bible warns us not to put our efforts into things that rust and moths can corrupt but to seek those things which last forever. The properly tended love between parents and children, comes under the heading of "lasts forever".

Don't claim to be pro-life until you really believe human life is precious.

 

[ChristianLady1978]

We, as Christians, get upset when other religious try to force their beliefs on us. We also should not force our beliefs on other people who don't want to share them. This is extremely true in government, and why there is a "supposed" separation of church and state in this nation.

If people (both men and women) do not want to have children, that is their choice. I believe if they are absolutely 100% certain that they do not wish to procreate, then sterilization should be an option for them. I don't necessarily agree with the government paying for the sterilization, but if a person doesn't want to have kids then they should be able to go to a doctor and have the vasectomy or hysterectomy procedure with no questions asked. It should be an option for them that is affordable and covered by their health insurance provider the same as any other surgery would be. (80/20 split or whatever that person's insurance asks you to pay for surgeries.)

On a religious front, we as Christians are taught in the Bible to go forth and multiply, as Oldtimer stated above. However, this country is not a Christian nation. The USA does not have a state religion. So not everyone believes in the Bible. It goes against the founding principles of this country to enact laws based solely on religious beliefs. As much as that may bother us, we have to respect that separation of church and state.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. We can't be responsible for the sins of others. Allowing people to get sterilized if they want will definitely cut down on the abortion rate. Yes, it may provide an avenue for people to be more promiscuous, but that's between that person and God. It's not for us to judge or hold them accountable. And wouldn't it be better for those poor unwanted children? I think so. God will give them to someone else who will want and love them, not the people who don't want to have kids.

 

[Oldtimer]

I have no problem with anyone choosing a surgeon's knife to end their child producing capability. That's between them and our Creator. Especially, when that procedure can lead to even more freedom to sin without earthly consequences.

That is as long as they pay for it, themselves, and not at the expense of others -- higher insurance premiums and/or taxes imposed on the public. Don't forget there's a way to avoid producing children that doesn't cost anyone a single penny.

That is as long as they don't force someone who opposes the procedure for religious reasons to do it or face consequences imposed by other humans.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

No you aren't pro-life Paul! Where did you get that idea?? If you were pro-life you would value the life of all three of my children and that of my godson who was the 5th child in his family! You aren't pro-life or you would value the life of each and every child not just two YOU think I should have had!

I'm very pro-life. I value the lives of all children. None of my ideas that I brainstormed up would limit the number of children people have.

This is why the number of children each family has should be up to them and God. Honestly, I'm thinking you better not have any.

Part of me would like to have children one day. However, I often tend to agree with you. I don't think I'd make a good father, particularly at this stage of my life. That may change, but I have a feeling that there's a real possibility that it won't.

The properly tended love between parents and children, comes under the heading of "lasts forever".

And improperly tended "love" from parents to children often causes them to grow up to be angry and resentful towards their parents and be neurotic and fearful adults who have a hard time letting people get close to them and can cause them to feel alienated and prone to occasional bouts of deep depression and fits of self-loathing. However, people in this situation do have a good example of how not to raise kids.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Hey, I had awful parents who I only speak to when I have too, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have been born. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger right. Even with the experiences I went through, my parents still had the right and should have had the right to decide for themselves how many kids to have. In the end God chose for them by not allowing my mother to carry to term more than my brother and I. (she had MANY miscarriages which of course didn't help her mental health)

The problem is, when we start mandating things like "affordability" and mental capability and the like, we put our opinions in the way of individual liberty. And that is a dangerous slope. There are times when individual liberty must be limited, but that comes when my liberty interferes with your liberty, not when my opinion differs from yours.