Guys, ever since feminism took over this country, women have been completely free to make bad decisions, and have alot of sex with alot of guys who are not ready to be fathers.

My question to you all is, do you think that mandatory abortions for all females who are unmarried and under the age of 21 would be a good idea?

Personally, I think it would be a GREAT idea to get rid of the teen-mom culture first of all, where babies pretty much end up being neglected and raised wrong. #2, this would help prevent kids being raised in an unstable environment without a father.

Honestly, I can't really see an argument against having mandatory abortions for unmarried women who are under 21.........girls that young don't deserve the right to make such decisions. The fact is that because they HAVE been making these kind of decisions, has helped to contribute to society in the western world to be as messed up as it has been in the past 30-40 years.

Freedom of decision for irresponsible selfish little bytches needs to be STOPPED.

Yea, I said it........sometimes, freedom needs to be controlled for the betterment of society.

Could someone of logic and reason disagree with this?

Could someone of logic and reason disagree with this?


The legal argument would be that the men who wrote the Constitution would have disagreed: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Opponents of abortion would say of course that any abortion violated this right, but in regard to elective abortion, the Supreme Court disagrees. Mandated abortion is an entirely different thing, because it takes a class of people and denies them of a Constitutional right to life. And yes, capital punishment does that to murderers, but they chose to be murderers.

excellent points from both you gentlemen. allow me to play devils advocate, if a group in power could decide to enforce an abortion on someone they deemed unfit/inable to make decisions then what would they enforce next?

Flip side is it still fair to require boys who are only eighteen to register to fight in wars?

Makes sense but it would never happen.

* You need a licence to drive a car.

* You need to register a dog you own.

* You need some sort of qualifications to practice law.


But for some reason, it is viewed as everyone's right to have children.

It could be argued that it simply comes down to natural selection and that the most successful will breed the most, but this obviously doesn't apply in today's welfare state society where personal responsibility is optional while rights are mandatory.

OP, sorry but I don't think that this will ever happen.

Bible_Belt said:

Could someone of logic and reason disagree with this?

Click to expand...

What about the right to bodily integrity? Someone is violating your body because they believe you're doing something you're incapable of. Imagine the state busting down your door and cutting something out of you because they're convinced it's bad for you.

Dear Sandhawk,
"Integrity"......Why must I support Girls,who see,as a point of your precious integrity,What in this Country is an obscene level of State Support,for single Mothers of illigitimate Children,as a viable alternative to decent work.Integrity my Arvse.....As an Aside in this Country a Single Mum with two Sprogs,receives about A$35.000 PA that's about the same NOW as your dollars....We (The Western World),are breeding from the bottom end of the Genetic Pile,and reaping the dubious benefits.....Read Bell Curve by Campbell....Or better still go to China and see how a one child policy helps a poor country lift itself out of the Gutter....Or even better go to Singapore.....Your annual per capita income,is circa $US37.000 PA theirs is circa $US51.000 PA...Surprised?....You shouldn't be they have Family benefits for High income families(Encourages the intelligent to breed) and give the poor benefits up to two children,then they take money OFF them for subsequent Kids....Isn't that smart?

I don't think mandatory abortions would ever fly in America, despite how much I agree with OP's sentiment.

They do it in China, but that's a dubious role model for us.

So how do we stop the wrong people from breeding? How do we stop the young, stupid poor who cannot even take care of themselves, from continually making more poor who cannot take care of themselves, and then grow up to be unproductive citizens who vote to raid the public treasury at every turn?

Stop incentivizing them. Stop giving them government paychecks for having kids they can't take care of. Sure, it seems cruel, but it is necessary; you can't have a "free society" where everybody is dependent on the government. We have got to remove the incentive for these people to have kids.

It boils down to cutting the welfare, and then destroying the feminist influence in our society. It's NOT ok to have kids without a nuclear family, it IS a dishonor. It's NOT ok for women to do whatever the hell they feel like doing, they must be held accountable.


And don't you dare say "it cannot be done", or you are lost. All it would take is one book, one catalyzing figure to start the anti-feminist movement. You are not alone. I think if just one guy was out there doing this, everyone else would come out of the woodwork. Give your fellow man more credit.

Julius_Seizeher said:

Stop incentivizing them. Stop giving them government paychecks for having kids they can't take care of. Sure, it seems cruel, but it is necessary; you can't have a "free society" where everybody is dependent on the government. We have got to remove the incentive for these people to have kids.

Click to expand...

Its not a matter of "it cannot be done" its just unrealistic. Cutting welfare is the worst mistake any country could make. Especially if the populace is poorly educated. The last thing you want is a bunch of broke, sick and destitute folks running the streets. If you feel unsafe now imagine your community where the poor have nothing and nothing to hope for. Welfare has its place and is needed.

If you wanna see feminism come to the forefront and put its boot on the neck of all mankind start a serious National debate on taking the right to procreate away from any woman. Ha!

I've always been a proponent of controlling who can breed. The problem is WHO determines who can breed and who can't. It'd be too easy for a committee or government body to prevent breeding for political reasons. That kind of power would be dangerous.

The problem isn't that these people are born. The problem is that they aren't allowed to die.

Women who have kids they can't support will always be around.

But don't you think the # of these baby launchers would be reduced significantly if the US were no longer a society which "enables" such behavior?

By that I mean welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Ironic thing is, we here in this country provide them with all this assistance, but we do not pay for abortions. hmmm

Note I am not trying to take a side on the abortion issue.

Don't forget about all the guys who are out there that will do any woman without using any form of birth control. They are responsible for this as well.

samspade said:

Your rights aren't granted to you - you're born with them. We mitigate our rights in the name of security and societal improvement via laws and restrictions.

I personally don't like restrictions on individual liberty unless it can be proven that there is no other solution. Heck, I think the Obamacare law was stupid because it mandates that people purchase something - a ridiculous precedent in this country.

Mandatory abortion sounds like a back-end solution. A lot of problems are attacked this way in the U.S., when it would make so much more sense simply to educate people. That would take at least a generation to see results, and Americans are impatient. In the long run, education is much cheaper than ignorance.

What if there were mandatory sterilization for men under 21? I'd no sooner support mandatory abortions than that.

Click to expand...

Well spoken.

grayclif said:

Its not a matter of "it cannot be done" its just unrealistic. Cutting welfare is the worst mistake any country could make. Especially if the populace is poorly educated. The last thing you want is a bunch of broke, sick and destitute folks running the streets. If you feel unsafe now imagine your community where the poor have nothing and nothing to hope for. Welfare has its place and is needed.

Click to expand...

Correct. There has never been a society who likes the poor. We want to look down on them as lazy, stupid, etc. And in a lot of cases that might be true. But history is littered with governments who have been turned upside down by leaving their poor in the streets to fend for themselves. Does "Let them eat cake." ring a bell?

There will never been any Utopian society of 100% employment with only "worthy" people having children. Asian countries. European countries. Spanish countries. Whatever. Assuming that a lack of support will inspire the poor to get jobs is a bit of a leap of faith. It assumes that there are good jobs, with respectable salaries for people with limited education.

We can look back on our grandparents times as "the good old days" but there were poor back then too. But at least in those times America was a manufacturing company. An uneducated man could get a solid job at a factory, support his lifestyle on that income, and raise his family. We don't make things here anymore. There are few respectable occupations for a man with no education who seeks to raise his family.

No one likes the idea of welfare. No one likes supporting people who don't work. But there is a logic behind it. It's not just a bunch of hippies in government throwing money around to poor folk because it's noble.

If you have an example of this working, then I'd be willing to listen. But I can't think of cutting aid for the poor resulting in a benefit for those of us who are richer. The end result is more poor people in the streets getting hungrier and more desperate.

The Assistant said:

Honestly, I can't really see an argument against having mandatory abortions for unmarried women who are under 21.........girls that young don't deserve the right to make such decisions. The fact is that because they HAVE been making these kind of decisions, has helped to contribute to society in the western world to be as messed up as it has been in the past 30-40 years.

Click to expand...

I hate the argument that the western world has been messed up JUST RECENTLY.

The world is a rough place. Has been since the beginning. Full of war, hate, and stupidity right since the start. The only reason we look at the "good old days" as the "good old days" is because we're not living in them. Go back to 1950 and you'd find a bunch of people our age complaining about how things aren't the way they were in 1900. And the 1900's people were complaining that things weren't as good as 1800.

Are mandatory abortions a bad idea? Yes. In about one million different ways. The most obvious is that being under 21, unmarried, and sexually active does not automatically mean you are unfit to reproduce. And being 30, married, and employed does not make you FIT to reproduce. Idiots come in all ages, education levels, and socio-economic levels.

Mantis Toboggan said:

Correct. There has never been a society who likes the poor. We want to look down on them as lazy, stupid, etc. And in a lot of cases that might be true. But history is littered with governments who have been turned upside down by leaving their poor in the streets to fend for themselves. Does "Let them eat cake." ring a bell?

There will never been any Utopian society of 100% employment with only "worthy" people having children. Asian countries. European countries. Spanish countries. Whatever. Assuming that a lack of support will inspire the poor to get jobs is a bit of a leap of faith. It assumes that there are good jobs, with respectable salaries for people with limited education.

We can look back on our grandparents times as "the good old days" but there were poor back then too. But at least in those times America was a manufacturing company. An uneducated man could get a solid job at a factory, support his lifestyle on that income, and raise his family. We don't make things here anymore. There are few respectable occupations for a man with no education who seeks to raise his family.

No one likes the idea of welfare. No one likes supporting people who don't work. But there is a logic behind it. It's not just a bunch of hippies in government throwing money around to poor folk because it's noble.

If you have an example of this working, then I'd be willing to listen. But I can't think of cutting aid for the poor resulting in a benefit for those of us who are richer. The end result is more poor people in the streets getting hungrier and more desperate.

Click to expand...

John 12:8 "For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."

Even the carpenter from Galilee knew that there will always be the poor. The church believes in charity, but when the government steps to far into peoples lives it destroys them. I say no to welfare and no to mandatory abortions (or mandatory insurance for that matter).

Mantis....good post but I disagree a bit. Mind you I don't have a problem helping out the less fortunate. We are on point there.

Here are a couple of thoughts/examples:

We give too much in the way of benefits to many, thereby eliminating any incentive to get out there and make it happen. What did folks do say back in the WW2 era where most of todays social programs did not exist? They had to step up on an individual basis, use their minds and bodies and become more entreprenurial in nature. They had to think, invent, search and otherwise really make an effort. It's not like that today.

Here is something I don't like. I pay TAXES. I also pay for my health insurance premium, have a deductible and co-pays. Folks on medicaid don't pay anything but yet my TAXES pay for their health care. That's socialism plain and simple.

Another one. The Feds have a program that bails out pension funds that go bad. TAXES pay for that. Let's see now, my company does not have a pension program. I participate in a 401K and co savings plan. It's my responsibility to save enough for retirement. Why should my tax dollars pay for the bad decision making of some other company that can't meet it's obligation? Fair? Not in my book. I have to be frugal, and always have been.

I won't qualify for SSI until I'm 66. I'm sure they'll raise the age limit before I hit 66, so I can't count on that. SSI was never meant to be relied on alone for one's retirement. Heck it may not even be there when I retire. I see it every day in my job. People get it that have contributed little, or hire some lawyer to pay his hired gun doctor to say that his client is disabled and then bam, here comes the checks. This nation is full of scammers. We also have what I call the Robin Hood Syndrome....take from the have's and give it to the have not's.

We have a 14 trillion dollar national debt. Illinois just raised their sales tax by 66 percent this week.

We as a country spend too much. That's the bottom line and we need to get it under control. People got by on much less 50-60 yrs ago. Why can't we do that now?

runner83 said:

* You need a licence to drive a car.

* You need to register a dog you own.

* You need some sort of qualifications to practice law.


But for some reason, it is viewed as everyone's right to have children.

Click to expand...

I remember that line: It's Keanu Reeves in Parenthood, 1989. Funny movie.

Well, there are idiots who shouldn't have children. But I wouldn't want to see today's governments have the right to ban people from having children.

To the OP: you are correct in that there is a problem, but you make a common mistake. These days, people automatically look to the government to fix problems. Either throw money at it, or ban it. In the past, we had cultural mores that kept things working. There were much fewer single teenage mothers then, because you simply didn't go that way. Girls were brought up by their mothers to prepare for a future where they too would be good mothers, raising children. Boys were brought up thinking of how they must prepare to support a family. Both boys and girls were taught discipline, hard work, restraint, good manners, and to listen to the wealth of advice available in classic literature, which was mandatory reading.

I have heard many comment that old literature has sentences that are too long and hard to read. That is because people in the past had practiced reading long, detailed sentences, instead of just bullet points. That little difference hints at the big, big difference in character between the past and today.

It is not new bans that are needed. It is old mores.

Although those mores would make it much harder for all of us to sleep with a lot of women. But we would have wives with feminine personalities and ladylike grace instead, women who were mentally twice as strong as most "men" today and who would inspire their husbands to be even stronger. I would take that deal.

SandHawk said:

What about the right to bodily integrity? Someone is violating your body because they believe you're doing something you're incapable of. Imagine the state busting down your door and cutting something out of you because they're convinced it's bad for you.

Click to expand...

I agree. That would be the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

5string said:

Illinois just raised their sales tax by 66 percent this week.

Click to expand...

According to FoxNews, that is the end of everything:
http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/finance-accounting/2011/01/13/small-business-luck-illinois/

But if you're one of the many businesses to whom the broke ass state of Illinois owes money, then the tax increase is a great idea. The state is 2-3 years behind on Medicaid payments to doctors and currently offering 5-10% to settle. Those doctors accepted the Medicaid card in good faith that the state would later pay them what was, by the way, an already massively discounted rate before they stopped paying altogether. Now most specialists have stopped taking the state medical card, because they have given up hope of Illinois ever paying them.

It was first surprising to hear of Illinois being in fiscal trouble.

I mean, New York and California, duh!

But Illinois is an interesting case. You have a state in the heart of the midwest, with some of the best farm ground (and biggest whitetail bucks) in the USA, where people still believe in hard work and fiscal conservatism. So why is Illinois in trouble?

Oh, and then there's Chicago, that cesspool of entitlement and hatred of the producer class. You see the disconnect; the people who grow the corn and pay the taxes don't vote for big spenders, but the city had so many unproductive people that the farm vote was drowned in the sea of vultures looking for a government free ride.

I'm so glad to see the Tea Party movement taking off in this country, things might get worse before they get better but you better believe that Atlas is going to shrug these parasites out of our government forever!

Or at least the next 20 years, until the economy faces another recession, Coach America puts the liberals in for a term, they make sh!t even worse, the conservative base is energized and sweeps the elections, America goes back to work. Rinse and repeat.

why not just make absent fathers pay for their children rather than let society foot the bill?? Im pretty sure condom use would shoot up, stds decrease

Julius_Seizeher said:

I'm so glad to see the Tea Party movement taking off in this country

Click to expand...

So are the billionaires who are funding it. Getting poor people to organize and demand that rich people pay lower taxes is one hell of a trick, I have to give that to them.

betheman said:

why not just make absent fathers pay for their children rather than let society foot the bill??

Click to expand...

They certainly try. It's not easy, though. A girl I dated did an internship with Chicago DCFS. A lot of the welfare moms had six or eight kids, all by different men whom they typically met at parties, and could only produce a nickname for the identity of the fathers, and certainly never an address for service of court papers. Some of the women were prostitutes who had over ten kids.