Hooligans Plays Baccarat

Not an easy question.

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    110 Replies •
  • Views 5,963 Views
Follow
I think the best bet is to allow the mother to continue to use drugs or perhaps put her on a replacement therapy such as suboxone while pregnant coupled with strict medication monitoring....crack and meth are a different story. I read your post but I am not reading the rest because it is 3:40am and I thought the thread was about drugs. Simply put, a fetus is a life when the mother says it is a life. If a shoot a woman and kill her and her "fetus" I'll be charged with double murder, doesn't matter if she is 12 weeks pregnant. You would have to be a fuckin' idiot to not think it is a human being.


I just stay out of the debate. I am against abortion but at no time would that have discouraged me from encouraging any of my girlfriends (especially the psychopaths which would be 98% of them) from getting one (though that has never happened). Yes, hypocritical but I am comfortable with that because I am not stupid enough to think that somehow @ 24 weeks something that isn't human becomes human when in fact the the most definitive moment can be seen at conception. So I am comfortable with killing human beings up to 12 weeks. I classify myself as pro death when it comes to the debate.

I find it fascinating how the debate is coined. If you restrict a woman from selling one of her kidneys does that make you anti-choice. Enough of this nonsense, legalize all drugs and televise abortions, especially late term ones.
 
You are right. There are no easy answers to these questions.

I have no problem with abortions. I would have a child now if it weren't for that and I'm glad I don't. My GF is fine too; no PTSD or depression. All she has to do is think of what her (our) life would be like with a kid now and she knows she did the right thing.

I think if you can prove that the child was born damaged as a result of drug use over the course of the pregnancy, there should be criminal ramifications.

The problem is that this would promote abortions, which is not good policy. Or is it? Particularly for those that know they are going to keep using and may face a serious criminal prosecution one day. I'd rather an aborted fetus than a damaged child for life that will probably end up living in misery and being paid for by my taxes.

I don't think anyone should force the mother into treatment or to have an abortion though. Its her choice.
 
First off QC, not saying your wrong at all, but you look around and are glad you don't have a kid, well, think about this,
you can't miss what you never had.


http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Bill-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients-passes-committee-150628005.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...fare-food-stamps-drug-testing-laws/53306804/1

So more and more starts are considering passing a bill that would require all recipients of welfare to drug test and pass in order
to receive benefits.

What do you think? Is that fair? Should all states be doing this?
 
If you test positive for drugs you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage. If you are productive and can afford to use then so be it but why should any of us pay for someones addiction/habbits?

There are real issues where welfare is needed. Assistance to those who CHOOSE to get addicted or are simply too lazy to work aren't among them.

It is a choice. Maybe it becomes an addiction but it began as a choice.
 
The problem with taking welfare away from users are the kids though. The kids aren't responsible for the actions of the parents. Not sure how to ensure the kids are taken care of while guaranteeing the parents receive no benefits though. Well without extensive and costly overseers that is.
 
wal66
If you test positive for drugs you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage. If you are productive and can afford to use then so be it but why should any of us pay for someones addiction/habbits?

There are real issues where welfare is needed. Assistance to those who CHOOSE to get addicted or are simply too lazy to work aren't among them.

It is a choice. Maybe it becomes an addiction but it began as a choice.
Click to expand...

Interesting way you coined addition, I actually agree with you. I'd argue entitlements such as welfare and food stamps are in place an an incentive for poor people (especially Blacks and Hispanics) to do nothing.

I agree with your statement however I would say it would cost about 250k initially and then 50k thereafter to house these people in correctional facilities. Undoubtedly, there are a myriad of consequences for ill thought through policies.
 
So then you think they should test, but there needs to be a way to provide for the kids....
but if these parents are on drugs or to pazy to the point where their kids can't survive,
should they even have their kids then, or should they be placed in a better home?
 
Certainly the children of these addicts shouldnt be penalized. Short of a trustee to oversee the welfare monies being used strictly for the kids Im not sure how else it could be done. You couldnt appoint a relative as trustee because there would be no guarantee that that relative wouldnt just relinquish the money to the addict you were trying to keep from getting it.

Its not just addicts that dont deserve welfare though. There are plenty of non-addicts who simply elect to allow the state to take care of them instead of earning their keep. Those people should be dropped from the program as well. Just like unemployment you should have to show and continue to show that you have made an honest effort to find work. Should they find work but at a level of income that would result in less than what they would make from the welfare program then an amended welfare supplement could be offered. That would lessen the burden on the state and not depreciate the standard of living for the recipient.

Oh and yes they absolutely should be subject to drug test to even qualify for assistance.
 
when you say welfare do you mean food stamps?
or cash being given to them?
there are no more food stamps, now they have EBT cards ( at least in GA)
EBT food, and EBT debit
food can only be used for food...
debit, well is like a debit card I guess and can spend on anything except tobacco and alcohol

depending on how many kids you have determines what the monthly income cutoff rate is
ie: 2 kids if you make under around $2300 a month then you are eligible for EBT food and medicare
 
I just question what to do about the kids, or if in some cases the kids should be put in a better home.
And yes Senco that is what I was referring too. Only with the cash you can pull it off the EBT card just like a debit card.
I know a certain woman who doesn't work, does drugs, gets all the assistance in the world, and then uses what she gets to buy more drugs
I cannot tell you how many times I have had to provide food for those kids because she did this. I love those kids, but tbh it did get to a point where enough was enough was enough and I couldn't keep taking of hers and mine. I felt bad.
At any rate, I called her out on it, and maybe it is wrong of me, but I have turned people like this in.
It sickens me, plus there are other mothers/fathers out that really are trying to get back on their feet and only need a little help for a little whille, but because so many people abuse the system it automatically gives any one and everyone who uses it a bad rep
 
Well what disgusts me even more Plamayyyy
is that this "friend" let her, she enabled the behavior, she could have said no,
could have kicked her out of her home, could have called the husband, or anything really.
But no, instead she let her, and she would sit there and drink with her, and then sober up and call me about it
the next day.

yeaok

Makes her just as bad and just as guilty as the dumb cunt chugin the vodka while prego.
 
Come to think of it, there where one too many people in my life I considered a "friend" or acquainted that now, looking back,
where nothing less then low life scum and I am so glad they are no longer a part of my life, I was never really like that,
so why should I have people even near my life that are.
 
camilion15728
First off QC, not saying your wrong at all, but you look around and are glad you don't have a kid, well, think about this,
you can't miss what you never had.


http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Bill-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients-passes-committee-150628005.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...fare-food-stamps-drug-testing-laws/53306804/1

So more and more starts are considering passing a bill that would require all recipients of welfare to drug test and pass in order
to receive benefits.

What do you think? Is that fair? Should all states be doing this?
Click to expand...

And for being unable to miss what I never had, I am eternally grateful. It was definitely the right decision. It would not have been right.

I have no issues with those bills in theory, but they will ultimately cause more problems. The reality is you'd just be driving up the poverty line and creating a further sub-class within the community. These addicts ultimately need help, not further marginalization. You take welfare away, you also take away the means and a possibility of getting a better life. And if you take that possibility away, then what is society left with? An addict, scum of society, who will then turn to any means to get his or her fix. Crime will rise. As unpalatable as welfare money being spent on drugs is, I don't think there is much we can do about it.
 
camilion15728
Come to think of it, there where one too many people in my life I considered a "friend" or acquainted that now, looking back,
where nothing less then low life scum and I am so glad they are no longer a part of my life, I was never really like that,
so why should I have people even near my life that are.
Click to expand...

Did you recognize them as being scum at the time you considered them a friend or have you only now identified them as such? Can you really be sure you can differentiate between now and then?

Steve/'s get an answer to this before you walk that isle. Steve/'s you might be scum and not even know it.
 
QC.
And for being unable to miss what I never had, I am eternally grateful. It was definitely the right decision. It would not have been right.

I have no issues with those bills in theory, but they will ultimately cause more problems. The reality is you'd just be driving up the poverty line and creating a further sub-class within the community. These addicts ultimately need help, not further marginalization. You take welfare away, you also take away the means and a possibility of getting a better life. And if you take that possibility away, then what is society left with? An addict, scum of society, who will then turn to any means to get his or her fix. Crime will rise. As unpalatable as welfare money being spent on drugs is, I don't think there is much we can do about it.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^
this.


There is no "solution" to drug addiction. There will always be addicts and a market for drugs.

Why does America always immediately seek to "punish"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.