By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
scottie on 16 September 2011
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:
scottie said:


Eugenics is eugenics, if you support the elimination of unfavorables through it, you are evil. Simple as that. I didn't say you are crazy so don't put words in my mouth.


I am not supporting elimination of any race.  I am merely stating that tax payers shouldn't be counted on to support someone that keeps having babies that they can't afford.  I went a little too far when I talked about having their tubes tied.   However, I believe the best option would be to just limit the support to 2 children.  There are poor people of every race in USA.   A person of any race that is too poor to support their children shouldn't be rewarded with tax payer money to keep having even more kids.   This isn't a racial issue it is an economical issue.  Most families don't go on a 100k spending spree when their budget is stretched to the limit.  Should be the same ideology when thinking about a kid considering raising a child cost a lot more than 100k. 


Eugenics doesn't have to be a racial thing by the way, if one were to prevent short/tall, dumb/smart people from breeding, that would be eugenics.

 

Responding to the 'simply cut off benefits for more than 2 children, think about it in these terms.

 

If a person is poor, and uneducated, and for some reason does not want to use contraception/abortion. They currently have kids and get government support. Think what will happen if you stop that government support after they have 2 kids? Will they stop having sex? Obviously not. Will they miraculously overcome their aversion to contraception and abortion? Again, no. What they will do, is have just as many children, and then end up with a lot less money. This will make it impossible for these families to get their kids the education they need, and will thus worsen the poverty of the children in the future, meaning that they are a bigger drain on finances in the long run.

 

Disregarding practical arguments for a second, and focusing on a moral one. The benefits that a family gets for having a child, the money does (should) not get spent on the parents, it is spent on the child. Why does a child deserve to suffer simply because his parents made poor choices and he happens to have 2 older siblings?