South Carolina: The state that keeps giving

[True_Avery]

(Request for Kavars move)

 

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better"

 

And who said that wonderful piece of work?

 

Andre Bauer, the Republican who wants to replace the South Carolina Gov who ran off to Argentina for an affair.

 

What context was it in?

 

Describing poorer children getting reduced priced lunches at schools. 58% of kids in South Carolina eat free or reduce priced lunches.

 

He later clarified that he meant that if parents were not more involved in school, they should have benefits like welfare, health care, etc taken from them because they are, quote, "lazy".

 

Guess who wont be voting for him come election season? Welcome to why the current Gov has not been kicked out of office: The lt. gov is a jack***. This isn't even taking in mind his state has the poorest quality of life of any state, the poorest health care system, and the highest infant mortality rate along with one of the highest unemployment rates.

 

Screw Illinois, this state's politicians are a cancer.

[Litofsky]

I rather liked Stewart's piece on it, too, Avery.

 

On a more serious note, I imagine there's a bit of misconception with what he said (which was hilarious if only a little disturbing [we should be immune to it by now, don't you think?]) and what the Lieutenant Governor intended to say. Or, or the other hand, he could just be a moron. Wouldn't be a big surprise.

 

I wonder if this is a result of voting with little to no information on the candidates (other than the big 'R' or 'D' behind their names), or just a general dearth of decent candidates?

[jrrtoken]

Ah, the joys of neo-Social Darwinism.

[Q]

Weren't some people here talking about requiring a license to reproduce about a year ago? I can think of no better criterion for such a license than the actual ability to support children instead of leeching off of the rest of the population like Octomom by depending on the state to do it.

 

Since the whole license thing won't happen in our lifetime, a fair way to handle this would be to allow each prospective Octomom one unsupportable child. Any more, and all government aid gets cut off, including what she was receiving before. If you can't support children, then you shouldn't be having them. It's called "responsible living".

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

^^^ I can only dream of this day!

 

As disgusting as his point-blank remarks appear, the underlying concept is correct.

 

Where is the line drawn between compassion and stupidity?

 

The scariest thing to me about children is WHO'S HAVING THEM. There are less and less educated people breeding today, yet nothing slows down morons. Idiocracy, the movie, is actually going to happen, if we get another century or so.

 

The remarks themselves were stated poorly and reflect an inadequate mind for the job, but I do agree with the premise.

 

I await the storm.......

[Ping]

South Carolina....Why is it always South Carolina?

[Darth Avlectus]

This has 2 issues about it: Children of poor families, and drawing a line somewhere for those being assisted by gov't.

 

I agree about people who can't support them shouldn't be having kids. I agree with the underlying concept of curtailing unreasonably stupid people from diluting the gene pool. Obviously if it's a gross state of what Evil Q said, something ought ot be done to discourage it. Something ought to be done to discourage future occurrences.

 

Having said that: before cutting funds, maybe a look into why a family is poor, first? Couldn't hurt. Begin the transition NOW. As to those already existing on gov't. aide, assist those for the time being at least.

[mur'phon]

If reducing the number of children born to poor families is the goal, then I'd argue supporting their education rather than hindering it would be the best way of doing it. Those with little education will tend to have more children than educated ones, and cutting of benefits is unlikely to reduce the birthrates by a lot, especially since benefits in the US are so tiny.

 

Idiocracy, the movie, is actually going to happen, if we get another century or so.

 

Hardly, I know an easy way to fix it, it's called imigration reform.

[Totenkopf]

Education is a lot like the horse to water analogy. You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything). The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around. Perhaps one solution is to take the people on the dole that can't afford to actually raise children and have them put on some kind of birth control that suppresses ovulation or sperm production as a precondition for welfare. Like anything else with the govt, you take any money, you have to agree to certain stipulations and interference or just forswear the assistance.

[Darth InSidious]

Wow. It's like your country is desperate to win the barbarism competition.

[mimartin]

Doesn’t birth control violate some people’s religious beliefs? So it is acceptable to you for the Government to violate the Constitution in order to suppress the birthrate of the poor?

 

Speaking from the child born into poverty, I will state that not all children born into poverty stay there, many contribute profoundly to society and the tax rolls later in life. Even people that are below the poverty line at one time in their lives have pulled themselves out of it and contributed to society.

 

I also find it extremely funny that when you place “stipulations and interferences” on industries requiring government assistances, you are called a socialist, but it perfectly alright to do it to the little man.

 

He later clarified that he meant that if parents were not more involved in school, they should have benefits like welfare, health care, etc taken from them because they are, quote, "lazy".

Couldn’t there also be another explanation for them not being involved in the child’s school? I don’t know something like they are working. My mother worked 2 jobs until I was 5th grade to support me and my grandmother. Yes, she missed many school functions, but she did this so that I did not have to miss a meal.

[mur'phon]

You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything).

 

Except you can when it commes to using education as birth controll. How much they learn is a diferent matter, but it would at least make them more employable as a side effect.

 

The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around.

 

Leaving aside the fact that I find it impossible to define a proportion of the population as terminally stupid. It depends on how you define poor, but using the common way in the western world (anything less than half of the median wage), it's theoretically possible to remove it completely, not that I see it as likely to happen. However, what certainly is possible is to lessen the fraction of the population being poor, or, probably more relevant to the question at hand (and easier), reduce the number girls with little education.

 

Oh, and like mim, I don't like the idea of the government making it impossible for a section of the population to have children without a very good reason. Provide incentives, sure, but not to the point where the alternative is basically "feed from the trash"

[Totenkopf]

Doesn’t birth control violate some people’s religious beliefs? So it is acceptable to you for the Government to violate the Constitution in order to suppress the birthrate of the poor?

Speaking from the child born into poverty, I will state that not all children born into poverty stay there, many contribute profoundly to society and the tax rolls later in life. Even people that are below the poverty line at one time in their lives have pulled themselves out of it and contributed to society.

I also find it extremely funny that when you place “stipulations and interferences” on industries requiring government assistances, you are called a socialist, but it perfectly alright to do it to the little man.

Quote:

You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything).

 

Except you can when it commes to using education as birth controll. How much they learn is a diferent matter, but it would at least make them more employable as a side effect.

 

 

Quote:

The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around.

 

Leaving aside the fact that I find it impossible to define a proportion of the population as terminally stupid. It depends on how you define poor, but using the common way in the western world (anything less than half of the median wage), it's theoretically possible to remove it completely, not that I see it as likely to happen. However, what certainly is possible is to lessen the fraction of the population being poor, or, probably more relevant to the question at hand (and easier), reduce the number girls with little education.

 

Oh, and like mim, I don't like the idea of the government making it impossible for a section of the population to have children without a very good reason. Provide incentives, sure, but not to the point where the alternative is basically "feed from the trash"

 

I agree that people born in poverty don't always stay in poverty. The problem, though, ultimately becomes one of the govt having to pick up the slack for people who can't or won't work and/or support their own children. Is the govt (really meaning the rest of us by extension) supposed to stand by with an open checkbook and no stipulations? I think there's been a move either at the fed or some lower level recently to curtail the money people get that have children they can't afford. As to the the question of religion, no one is forcing anyone to take state (ie fed) aid in the first place, thus no violation. Nothing in the Constitution requires the govt give aid of that nature in the first place.

 

As to the stipulations, the main difference is that unlike GM or the banks, the govt isn't coming into your home and running your business. They aren't stopping you from having sex or even telling you when and/or where. Had BO and company gone to GM and not tried to actually make the govt an active partner in ownership of the company, but had put some conditions on the money only, there wouldn't be the charges of socialism that you currently get. Most people seem to understand that govt aid should come with some stipulations short of the govt actually becoming your "business partner". Once the loans are paid off/people go off welfare, the govt conditions end. If the govt tries to insinuate itself into the boardroom.....socialism.

 

Other problem is, not everyone that is "poor" has six or seven kids that they can't afford. Those that behave like that are parasites that do it to get extra free $$ from the govt and often then spend it on themselves and leave the kids to fend for themselves or on family to pick up their slack. Will poor people with strong religious views often have a lot of kids and then turn to Uncle Sam to fund their family? Possibly, but I wonder how many of those types actually comprise the offending party, as many of them are just as likely to look to their churches and families for help rather than go to the govt.

 

As to education, better educated and more affluent people do tend to have fewer children (unless they have strong religious convictions about birth control, but these people can usually afford their children...at least financially). Also part of the reason that many of the "first world" countries also tend to have dismal (<2.0) population growth rates. Combined with high prices (as in Japan) and better birthrate viability, these factors tend to drive down the urge to procreate, but not necessarily to "merge". Hopefully, many of those that think that more kids=more free money can be reduced via education. Ain't holding my breath, though...education is meaningless if people don't actually take advantage of it.

 

I agree that the govt should not be forcing people to have no kids. However, I wasn't advocating that either. I did say (since many people don't like to take personal responsibility for managing their own sex lives) that they accept a certain degree of limitations while on the dole re their reproductive abilities.

[Jae Onasi]

Reproduction is a basic human right. Advocating mandatory birth control is draconian. There are a lot of strict Catholics in the town I live in, and this would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

 

Most people don't _want_ to be in poverty. The idea that poverty is caused by laziness is appalling. Sometimes people just have horrendously bad things happen to them that kills their ability to make a living for awhile or forever. We certainly didn't want to be on welfare and food stamps after my dad had a heart attack at age 38 and had to have open heart surgery. There were 3 of us kids in the family. Are you telling me that because there were more than 2 of us kids, one of us should have gone hungry while we were on welfare? However, it was the only way we could afford to eat. Most of the people I've met on disability would give their eyeteeth to have their health restored so they could work again. Many people in poverty would love to have jobs of any kind, or jobs that paid more than minimum wage so they could escape poverty. With the economy the way it is now and unemployment in the 10% range and underemployment even higher, how are people supposed to find jobs with decent wages so they can get out of the welfare hole? Politicians calling people lazy when the lawmakers are sitting on their butts doing nothing constructive to fix the economic problems that lead to this recession/depression are horrendously hypocritical.

 

Now, I'll have to double check, but WI has a "Workfare" program where if you get welfare, you're required to be out looking for a job, unless you're on disability. I believe there is also a reduction of benefits for each child past the 2nd or 3rd one if you're already on welfare and decide to have more kids, but I don't know if that's current policy.

[Tommycat]

Well it kinda makes sense. It's more like the old "Give a man a fish..." thing. I don't like just giving money to people. I think that in order to get cash, you should be required to do something. There are a number of services that could use some volunteers. If the person is unemployed they could help them out. Obviously some times people need assistance even when they are working, but if they are working they could be exempted from teh requirement of helping with the volunteer services.

[Q]

Reproduction is a basic human right.

As long as a couple or person is capable of supporting the children, I agree that they should be allowed to have as many as they want.

Advocating mandatory birth control is draconian.

I'm not advocating mandatory birth control. People would still have a choice: having more kids or continuing to receive their free lunch. This will prevent certain types (including illegal aliens) from popping out more kids just to receive more aid. This would also have the additional benefit of discouraging the proliferation of a demographic that makes its living by leeching off of society. People who already have more than one kid and happen to fall on hard times would be exempted, of course, but in the same way they would also be discouraged from having any more kids until they got back on their feet, lest they lose government support. The only thing that would be forced on people would be the choice between living responsibly and receiving benefits or living irresponsibly and receiving none. It sure beats Ginsburg's solution, mass abortion, and it would be far cheaper to boot.

There are a lot of strict Catholics in the town I live in, and this would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

Like I said: no it wouldn't, because there would be nothing mandatory about it.

[Web Rider]

Reproduction is a basic human right.

 

Arguing that something is a "basic human right" seems to be a common tactic to get people to stop questioning a certain position on it. Why is reproduction a human right? I'm not being facetious here when I'm asking because I really want to know. Reproduction is a basic human capability, it is no more special than cat reproduction, whale reproduction, or fish reproduction. Every living being, human or otherwise, is capable of reproduction. We deny this ability to many creatures, why is it a "human right"?

 

Men and women are capable of reproduction, but in vastly different ways. A woman can reproduce on her own(with modern technology), but a man cannot. Does this mean that women have a greater reproductive right than men? Men cannot reproduce without a woman(or artificial womb, which is yet to be developed), does this mean that men are denied a basic human right? If that's the case, half the population is being denied a basic human right! Should we institute laws that mandate that all men must be given a woman to reproduce with? Should we make laws that say all women should have access to artificial insemination to ensure they have the ability to use their right to reproduce?

 

That would just be silly. Reproduction is not a right, it's a capability, at best it's a privilege granted to those who have proven themselves capable of either earning a mate(in the case of men), or finding a way around mating(artificial insemination). And what of people who were born or made infertile(by birth, purpose, or accident), should we ensure that they too can reproduce? What of people with serious genetic conditions, I hate to get eugenic here, but is it healthy to say that people who we know will produce unhealthy children should be allowed to reproduce?

 

Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.

 

Reproduction should be considered a privilege at best and beyond that generally regarded as only a basic aspect of being an organic, dual-sexed species.

[Totenkopf]

Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.

 

Soooo....outside of breathing and feeding, people have no basic rights (or even rights in general)? Many things are not essential to basic survival. Perhaps you can start a thread and enumerate which rights people have and how expansive and limited those rights are.

[Jae Onasi]

Arguing that something is a "basic human right" seems to be a common tactic to get people to stop questioning a certain position on it.

So, are the other 29 articles in UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights all wrong, too? Is slavery then OK? Torture? Supression of freedom of religion? Supression of freedom of speech?

 

Why is reproduction a human right? I'm not being facetious here when I'm asking because I really want to know. Reproduction is a basic human capability, it is no more special than cat reproduction, whale reproduction, or fish reproduction. Every living being, human or otherwise, is capable of reproduction. We deny this ability to many creatures, why is it a "human right"?

They are not the same as humans, and you know that. Equating animal with human reproduction is not equivalent.

 

Some people think 'be fruitful and multiply' is a command, and for them it's a sin to use contraception. Some people think it's important simply to have a family, to have children to love, to have the close social interactions of the family bond, to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Men and women are capable of reproduction, but in vastly different ways. A woman can reproduce on her own(with modern technology), but a man cannot. Does this mean that women have a greater reproductive right than men? Men cannot reproduce without a woman(or artificial womb, which is yet to be developed), does this mean that men are denied a basic human right? If that's the case, half the population is being denied a basic human right! Should we institute laws that mandate that all men must be given a woman to reproduce with? Should we make laws that say all women should have access to artificial insemination to ensure they have the ability to use their right to reproduce?

This is taking the basic human right to reproduce into the absurd. It's a right, not a requirement. If it's not a human right, what's to prevent us from turning into China with the 1 child rule, or (re)starting eugenics programs? It's rife for abuse if it's anything less than a basic human right.

 

Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.

You can also live without freedom of speech and freedom of religion, too. Heck, you can even survive as a slave, you don't NEED to have freedom to live, so with your logic, even freedom is NOT a right.

 

Reproduction should be considered a privilege at best and beyond that generally regarded as only a basic aspect of being an organic, dual-sexed species.

I think the gene pool needs to be as big as possible to prevent increased genetic disease and loss of genetic advantages. What right do any of us have to say to one person "You can have 10 kids" and to someone else, "You can't have any"? Are you God, that you can make such decisions in a just, fair, manner that's not subject to misuse and abuse or even outright fraud?