Roe v. Wade is gone.

[requiredfield]

To an extent I agree, but I'm also of the notion that stupid people who cannot financially support a lifestyle of children should not receive government assistance.

That punishes the child for the mistake of the parents.

How would you disincentivize people from becoming stupid, irresponsible parents?

[ShinyCrystals]

Also, ever heard of overpopulation? We have that kind of thing nowadays, and abortion can be a way to avoid it. 

Perhaps you're right. Overpopulation is certainly an issue, there's no doubt about it. Cities are getting overcrowded faster than ever these days, services in some places are at stretching point, and crime levels have increased dramatically. It has all become very chaotic in recent years. It was never like that before. 

I guess abortion is one option to solve the problem. One could I suppose make the same argument for sterilization. I dunno, what do you think?

I am going to have to be honest: while I appreciate what you said, I did feel uneasy. I felt so because I am not one to like changing beliefs, at least that easily.

What I am saying I appreciate having my word taken, but I don’t want to be the only one, the ultimate source for it. That said, you can still try holding your opinion until you listen to others who said something like I said about overpopulation and abortion. I think that would be a good start.

I am not saying I am wrong, but I don’t want to be the only person to listen to in this regard. Iyt just made me feel uneasy.

[brewer]

The government has no business being anywhere near such a personal decision.

I'll agree for the most part but can think of two examples off the top of my head where the government (US) is involved, incest/marriage and forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o...ted_States

https://nwlc.org/resource/forced-sterili...ed-states/

I now return you to normal programming.

[The Grand Nudger]

The government has no business being anywhere near such a personal decision.

To an extent I agree, but I'm also of the notion that stupid people who cannot financially support a lifestyle of children should not receive government assistance.

Your wish is the magats command.  All libs are..by definition....stupid people who should not receive government assistance.  Only the very smart white wing will be eligible for such programs.  Coincidentally, their abortions are, also and ofc, the only moral or legal ones.

[ShinyCrystals]

Maybe, maybe not. Thing is, I did not really say it would be better.

BUT anyway...the only official method we practically have for something like deciding the right to have a child for people is through letting the individuals decide for themselves. However, while that can be not actually bad in itself, IN itself, many people aren't so bright nowadays, so that has made the thing flawed, if I have it down correctly.

But yeah, some people realize it they might not want or be able to take care of a child too late after...that process is done. That is one of the reasons why I think abortion can come in handy, AND like I said, the fetus is not an actual child.

I also forgot to say, giving a fetus rights over an adult mother is a bad idea, wouldn't you all say?

The government has no business being anywhere near such a personal decision.

Another thing I should probably say, is that while the government looking up others' background to determine the right to have a child thing, it is just a possibility.

But it is certainly not THE only possibility.

That said, I was just trying to, well, describe how complicated a government involved process would be. That is it.

We could also try to encourage those who cannot take care of a baby well to have one. Of course, that may be hard, and people can be stupid enough to not listen. If only there were a way to improve education in this country.

But if it means keeping freedom, I can see why encouraging others would be a better idea than involving the government altogether. (Also, no, the encouraging does not have to come from the government itself now, does it not?)

[Nay_Sayer]

Who suffers less, the rich from having slightly less or the children with stupid parents?

How are you defining suffering?

Having to read your tripe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That punishes the child for the mistake of the parents.

How would you disincentivize people from becoming stupid, irresponsible parents?

High-school classes explaining the costs and responsibilities? A semester of not just toting around a doll but being graded on things like budgeting, responsibilities, time gemands, emergency responses. It would perhaps help, though it's admittedly not a silver bullet.

[Silver]

But education is only important to the children of the rich. Why educate those beneath them?

/sarcasm

[Thumpalumpacus]

The government has no business being anywhere near such a personal decision.

I'll agree for the most part but can think of two examples off the top of my head where the government (US) is involved, incest/marriage and forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o...ted_States

https://nwlc.org/resource/forced-sterili...ed-states/

I now return you to normal programming.

Incest is a good caveat, good catch. Along those lines too is child-welfare removals. Forced sterilization for any reason makes me queasy, though. I see why it could be supported, and confess that my response is more emotional than rational.

[brewer]

But education is only important to the children of the rich. Why educate those beneath them?

/sarcasm