The liberals promised this but they wanted to start their project with a wrecking ball, ie take away harper's 100 per month long before there is any proof that a better system has been built.
How to encourage life?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
The liberals promised this but they wanted to start their project with a wrecking ball, ie take away harper's 100 per month long before there is any proof that a better system has been built.
Yes, well perhaps your situation isn't what Machjo's thread is really aimed at...try to think outside your box for a second, or realize the context of this thread at the least. There are benefits to having child care for those who want it, or need it. Society as a whole is more productive, for one.
The trouble with such a suggestion as once a mistake, twice irresponsible
and third tubal ligation at the expense of the patient is that education and
often lack of money is the problem with keeping the child in the first place.
Besides regulating social conditions has always had a mixed degree of
success.
Prohibition didn't work in fact the aftermath of that exercise cement the
concept of booze being acceptable in our society. Smoking is another one,
yes we have no smoking in so many places and the stats claim young people
smoking is down. Not necessarily true. We made smoking illegal for those
under 19 and when doing a survey they tell the company whatever they want
to hear. No we don't smoke, kids don't think like adults most will lie because
it is illegal. Besides once you make it illegal kids think its cool and often it has
the opposite effect.
Do you really think under age drinking is less today that it was in our day?
Think again, in fact binge drinking is worse today.
Drugs is another problem along with prostitution that can't be cured by enacting
another law.
If the Roman Emperor's could not control these problems how is it possible in an
open democratic society? Even in the Muslim countries these problems are part
of the society its just buried way under ground and the penalties of death don't
provide an measure of abstinence either.
Yes education is important but its only partially effective and we must also fill in the
gaps with assistance, as in many but not all cases some assistance, measured
with compassion and might prevent a second occurrence of the same problem.
We have to manage the problem knowing that there are some problems that will
never be solved. It is fine to enact a simple law on the books but if the problem goes
underground, it is very hard to enforce and it puts innocent lives like babies at risk.
If it were only that simple
and third tubal ligation at the expense of the patient is that education and
often lack of money is the problem with keeping the child in the first place.
Besides regulating social conditions has always had a mixed degree of
success.
Prohibition didn't work in fact the aftermath of that exercise cement the
concept of booze being acceptable in our society. Smoking is another one,
yes we have no smoking in so many places and the stats claim young people
smoking is down. Not necessarily true. We made smoking illegal for those
under 19 and when doing a survey they tell the company whatever they want
to hear. No we don't smoke, kids don't think like adults most will lie because
it is illegal. Besides once you make it illegal kids think its cool and often it has
the opposite effect.
Do you really think under age drinking is less today that it was in our day?
Think again, in fact binge drinking is worse today.
Drugs is another problem along with prostitution that can't be cured by enacting
another law.
If the Roman Emperor's could not control these problems how is it possible in an
open democratic society? Even in the Muslim countries these problems are part
of the society its just buried way under ground and the penalties of death don't
provide an measure of abstinence either.
Yes education is important but its only partially effective and we must also fill in the
gaps with assistance, as in many but not all cases some assistance, measured
with compassion and might prevent a second occurrence of the same problem.
We have to manage the problem knowing that there are some problems that will
never be solved. It is fine to enact a simple law on the books but if the problem goes
underground, it is very hard to enforce and it puts innocent lives like babies at risk.
If it were only that simple
And even if he wants to limit its scope, unless he's opposed to police and court services being paid for by taxpayers, then I'd assume he might agree to rape victims who choose to keep their children to have access to the kinds of services offered in the OP, though then that sould come under federal ratehr than provincial jurisdiction, whereby the Justice department could provide some kind of voucher which could be cashed in at participating voucher schools or colleges, and where we are dealing clearly with provincial jurisdiction, then the Justice department provides vouchers which can be cashed in at provincial public schools where the provincial government agrees to recognize such vouchers. Then it would be a compensation seen as a criminal justice issue.
I was thinking in a broader scope since after all not all rape victims will come forward and might therefore lose access to such services. But if we insist that this should apply exclusively to those rape victims who come forward, then that might might be a reasonable compromise.
I'm sure they are, and never pretended that's not the case. I'm arguing a number of points here. In the OP, I was focussed more on victims of rape, but also acknowledged that this could benefit all single parents, man and woman. Remember too that one can become a single parent through death of a spouce too, an event that happens after the baby is born. Many factors can play a role. Even if in most cases she asked for it, in many cases she didn't (either through rape, incest, or death of a spouce), and since some might not feel comfortable discussingthe reasons, it might be beneficial for the child and as a social investment so as to avoid delinquents later to provide such a support network. It will save money in the long run.
Then Taxslave stepped in saying it would be too expensive regardless of whatever benefit it might reap for society. So then I'd proposed a narrower approach of offering such services exclusively to victims of crime. Though now I could see also applying it to single parents owing to death. Though that would of course have to be dealt with through a department otehr than the ministry of justice. Perhaps a provincial responsibility for that one which would apply exclusively to parents who lose their spouce owing to a fatal accident. I'm sure there can be otehr exceptions too. In the end, it would probably be easier to just make it universally applicable to all.
damngrumpy opined,responding to my post:
"The trouble with such a suggestion as once a mistake, twice irresponsible
and third tubal ligation at the expense of the patient is that education and
often lack of money is the problem with keeping the child in the first place.
Besides regulating social conditions has always had a mixed degree of
success."
When a woman goes for a third abortion, she has given undeniable and positive proof that she is unfit to be a mother, now and EVER. Compulsory tubal ligation would allow her to indulge in the life style she obviously cherishes.
"The trouble with such a suggestion as once a mistake, twice irresponsible
and third tubal ligation at the expense of the patient is that education and
often lack of money is the problem with keeping the child in the first place.
Besides regulating social conditions has always had a mixed degree of
success."
When a woman goes for a third abortion, she has given undeniable and positive proof that she is unfit to be a mother, now and EVER. Compulsory tubal ligation would allow her to indulge in the life style she obviously cherishes.
I just don't see how a person can support the right for a woman to abort, yet force an unwilling father to pay child support. At least when it comes to consentual sex between a man and a woman.
-----------------------------------------
Sally " I am pregnant"
Bill " Cool, I want to be a dad. I am willing to fully support this child"
Sally " Too bad, I am having it aborted"
Judge " That is the woman's right"
-------------------------------------------
Sally " I am pregnant"
Bill " You said that you couldn't get pregnant. I don't want to be a father."
Sally "Too bad,I want to be a mom. yet I am not willing to fully support this child"
Judge "That is the woman's right."
-----------------------------------------
Sally " I am pregnant"
Bill " Cool, I want to be a dad. I am willing to fully support this child"
Sally " Too bad, I am having it aborted"
Judge " That is the woman's right"
-------------------------------------------
Sally " I am pregnant"
Bill " You said that you couldn't get pregnant. I don't want to be a father."
Sally "Too bad,I want to be a mom. yet I am not willing to fully support this child"
Judge "That is the woman's right."
Last edited:
