ThraxDude said:
Ooooooooooooooooooh.
Dang.
You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to teach. You need a license to build a house. You need a license to do anything...
But any psycho can raise a kid without any responsibility.
Why do kids bring guns to school? Irresponsible parenting.
Why are YOU paying to support someone else's family? Because some people have 6 or 7 kids and say, "The government can take care of us."
Here's another thing, and I'm not sure if it's the same in every state. But in Colorado, birth control isn't covered by insurance. Although you could have 10 kids and your insurance would help pay for your 10 trips to the hospital, and medicine for 10 kids.
That's fucked up.
Birth control should be FREE to everyone!
Tad, I really hope you're joking about this, but I am afraid you're not, so here is my response to everything you've said.
You said you are "pro-choice." If you took that to its logical conclussion, that would mean you support choice. Generally this means some sort of choice related to childbirth. However, you have already stated it should be the government's choice whether or not one may give birth. Hence, you are not "pro-choice." You are extremely "anti-choice." Perhaps you should consider moving to communist China, a nation full of forced abortions. Maybe they can put you in charge of deciding who must abort their children (usually female fetuses).
I never said I supported licenses to do those particular things. I believe people should be generally free to do whatever the fuck they want, provided they do not infringe on other people's equal rights to the same. Hence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This whole notion of needing a license to do something is absolutely absurd. The way I understand it, Alan Greenspan is legally forbidden from teaching economics because he does not have a license even though he has enormous control of the money supply of the largest economy in the world. And a poor Jamaican immigrant may not legally braid someone's hair without a license. Big Brother can kiss my ass. If I want MY hair cut by an unlicensed barber or if I want to add a room to MY house, it's none of YOUR business. And if my wife and I want to start a family and YOU are going to stand in MY way, I might exercise MY right to self defense. And when I am in jail and trying to defend myself, the government will probably tell me who I am allowed to hire as my legal counsel. (Note: regardless of whether or not I may pass your stupid tests, my rights are still infringed because it's none of your damn business to even harrass me like this.)
Just because the government doles out taxpayer's money does not mean the government should be in charge of who may have children. It's a simple rule of economics that when you subsidize something, you get more of it produced. If you pay farmers to grow corn, they will grow more corn. If you pay steel manufacturers to make steel, they will make more steal. And if you subsidize people having children, they will have more children. That is exactly what the government does when it gives out welfare, pays for school lunches, pays for children's health care, pays for public schools or even gives tax cuts for having more children. While I always support tax cuts, the money people earned should not have been subject to the taxing in the first place. Your better solution to the "problem" you claim to have is to oppose these subsidies.
Anyway, your scheme for socializing the nation will never pass constitutional scrutiny. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Many religious denominations strongly oppose the use of contraceptives of any kind. Mandating all girls and young women use birth control would clearly violate the free excercise of religion. In the US Supreme Court Case Yoder v. Winsconsin, the Supreme Court held that forching Amish people to send their children to public schools violated their first amendment rights. The ninth amendment says "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In the case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court held the ninth amendment protected women using birth control and that the state could not prohibit its use because it falls within privacy under "penumbras, formed by emanations." If you take this one step further, that means the state may not require its use.
Also, there is no such thing as "free birth control." It costs something to make. Why not make people who use it be responsible for paying for it? (Like what we do with gasoline and clothing. A crazy idea in America, I realize.) Of course you are free to set up a non-profit organization to dispense birth control to poor people or whomever you'd like. And would you mandate that every single woman in the world must have insurance for birth control? Part of the reason why health insurance costs so much is because people like you mandate everything from mental health care to toupees must be included in insurance. Would you require a nun's insurance to include birth control?
In conclusion, I think you're scary.
Although, saying you should need a liscence to procreate is fucking funny.
Unless it was serious.
