On Jan 28, 5:10 pm, climber
gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 28, 9:36 am, Rita
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:34:30 -0500, "Evelyn"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:>
>>>"climber"
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>>>> I'll take it a notch up; welfare mothers should be neutered. (A
>>>> rational centerist position)
>>>> Just taking care of business in a rational manner.
>
>>>> climber
>
>>>They should make birth control available for free to anyone on public
>>>assistance. Self control and personal responsibility of some kind, ought
>>>to be part of receiving public money.
>
>>>That said, it is high time that people realized that our bodies are
>>>sophisticated biological machines, and getting pregnant is NOT the act of
>>>some magical being in the sky pointing a cosmic finger at ones womb, but due
>>>to actual actions of the person. You would think in these modern times
>>>someone somewhere would put that together.
>
>> Pregnancy occurs by the acts of two persons - and both share
>> responsibility. A fact "Climber" appears to have missed.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The problem is that the male can keep breeding while the pregant
> female is "out of
> action" for a considerable amount of time.
>
> I would support a measure that would give every female a $25K bonus if
> she does not give
> birth until say age 23.
>
> climber
If the objective is to save money on welfare payments, my guess is
that the idea of giving every female a $25K bonus if she does not give
birth until age 23, would cost a lot more money than it saves.
Relatively speaking, we don't spend a lot of money on welfare anymore
because of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Still, I like the idea just on
general principles, but maybe giving every female a $10K bonus if she
doesn't have any children until after she graduates from high school
might be a better idea.
