pea we aren't even heated stop shitty shitposting; you're better than that

I don't see how any form of population control is going to be helpful for this kind of thing (but I'm against population control in general.)

The problem is the cycle of abusive parents and I don't know what to do to prevent shitty people from being shitty to their kids other than better education and/or ways to incentivize people to treat their children better.

And FTR, this isn't a problem with the poor; there are plenty of rich parents that are abusive to their children too.

the tax idea is meant more as prohibitive measure. it's by no means a good idea, but when people are against being put onto forced birth control, you lose effectiveness rapidly of suggested methods

Stir, I agree that people should put more thought into the consequences of reproduction and having kids that they are not capable of taking care of, but I will vehemently shoot down any idea which implies giving the government any control or say in the matter. They cannot be trusted with much simpler tasks, come on.

you brought it up puddin

i just said i think some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they ARE unfit, i just happen to be in support of population control as an idea as well

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:31 PM by T-man.

obviously sex education [and the elimination of religious-based teachings of abstinence] would help the situation better, but we need to be having less kids in general when so many are actively in the adoption system

I agree. Teaching kids not to fuck instead of how to fuck safely is a pretty big issue that leads to more children being born to ill-prepared parents. Adoption is such a sad situation and I feel really bad for the kids. To selfish people (i.e. most people) adoption negates one of the main compulsions of even having children, which is passing on your genes. Adoptive parents are admirable people.

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:30 PM by Pedigree.

"And FTR, this isn't a problem with the poor; there are plenty of rich parents that are abusive to their children too."

Poor people were brought up because they're the ones who would suffer the most from an excessive reproduction fine or tax. We're not trying to say only poor people are abusive here.

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:31 PM by Pedigree.

Yeah, Sex Ed >>>> abstinence. Teaching a proper Sex Ed course in schools would help tremendously.

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:33 PM by Stirling.

that's reductionist ped, and such a disagreement is a whole other topic in regards to government competence

Forcing birth control on poor people isn't going to prevent middle class and rich people from being abusive to their children so I don't see how birth control can be even thought of as a solution to bad parenting.

I do think sex education is helpful in helping people who can't afford children learn not to have too many of them but rich people can afford to be abusive to as many children as they want. It's terrible.

okay, see, you're ignoring a major part of the tax idea too. it's not a great idea, but to have it tax-based meant it is based on your tax information how much you pay. if you owe nothing, you probably don't pay any extra for more kids. it is when you owe money to the government that you would owe, and it should scale faster than your own taxes.

So, I guess you don't think Sex Ed will help?

Forcing birth control on poor people isn't going to prevent middle class and rich people from being abusive to their children so I don't see how birth control can be even thought of as a solution to bad parenting.

did you just make up an argument
where'd it come from
did a ghost say that
because no one else did

because it's birth control on everyone??????? people are projecting or misrepresenting what others are saying cause i've so far had either class-neutral statements or class-progressive statements that might've needed explanation.

you brought it up puddin

are you talking about solid puddin or liquid puddin

Because these things never work out that way; it's always the poor who are overtaxed. Rich people find ways of exploiting loopholes. Why would it be different for parents having children?

idk why you're defending the tax idea when even you claim that it is a bad idea lol

solidus @"Puddin"

idk why you're defending the tax idea when even you claim that it is a bad idea lol

I don't have to agree with the idea to point out why it wouldn't work if it got implemented. That's the opposite of defending it.

EDIT: Oops you were talking to Stir. My bad.

I'm talking to stir???