I have a question for the two of you. I am of the belief an individual should not be stripped or limited of individual rights due to their financial or welfare status.

I am, however, always open to debate and a different point of view. Would either JWalker or Rivrrat care to put up a logical and intelligent debate as to why those on government assistance should have less rights than everyone else?

__________________

Who is we? And again you cannot take someones rights away from them. Being in need is not a crime.

Me and anyone who agrees with me.

No one's rights are being taken away.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

No rights are taken away. There are just simply rules surrounding a VOLUNTARY choice to accept money from a certain source. If I give someone money, I have ever right to place conditions on them accepting that money. That's not removing their rights. That's them voluntarily agreeing to those conditions.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I guess you just don't understand your rights to privacy.

You made the following comment:

You feel people on welfare should be required to be on birth control, thus not allowing them to conceive and have children.

That is taking a right away. No one should be told when and how many children they can have.

By stating people on welfare should be required to be on some form of birth control you are taking away their right to have children.

__________________

The state should NEVER be able to put conditions of any sort on one's right to reproductive freedom.
The state should no more be able to force people on welfare to use contraception than it should be able to force them to abort, or force them to reproduce against their will.
The state has no business meddling with the reproductive organs or the reproductive choices of its citizenry.

The state should NEVER be able to put conditions of any sort on one's right to reproductive freedom.
The state should no more be able to force people on welfare to use contraception than it should be able to force them to abort, or force them to reproduce against their will. And yes, coercion IS force.
The state has no business meddling with the reproductive organs or the reproductive choices of its citizenry.
If the poor can be COERCED into using contraception against their will in exchange for food and shelter, then why not coerce them into breeding against their will and handing their offspring over to the state to be sold to the wealthy, or used for medical experimentation, or whatever? It's the same principle. They don't have to do it. They can always... not eat.

So when companies require I take a drug test as a condition of employment, my right to privacy is violated?

No, I'm not. They're voluntarily agreeing to it as a condition of the charity they receive. No rights are taken away in the slightest.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

Very well. Then if they have additional children, they don't get any additional money. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks