I believe that completely. Timothy Heald Information Systems Specialist Overseas Security Advisory Council U.S. Department of State 571.345.2235
-----Original Message----- From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:02 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... Kevin, Are you really that much of an ideologue? Do you really believe that? Really? Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/03 02:59PM >>> Tim, To the left, the constitution is a piece of paper that shant be trifled with. Kevin >Mike, > >I have to disagree. What one does with their body is still their own >business. This would simply be removing responsibility from the individual >once again. A mandatory military enlistment forces you to act on your >responsibilities as a citizen. This makes you not have to be responsible >for your personal actions. > >Not to mention how would you enforce something like this? How do you make >people not have babies? The ideas about birth control mentioned earlier not >only violate some people religious freedoms, as Dana mentioned, but they >force you to put something foreign into your body, something that has been >linked with cancer. > >Will it be forced abortion for those that get pregnant without a license? >Or will they just be forced to give up the kid? At what age do you begin to >implants in girls or vasectomies in boys? Kids are getting pregnant at ever >younger ages. > >How would you deal with all of that? See this is why I think we need to be >responsible to ourselves and those that we choose to bring into our circle >of responsibility (spouses, children). With the welfare state, and social >programs you make everyone responsible to everyone else. That's not right. >Where is individualism in that? > >Also, as with any federal program, I will always measure it against the >tenth amendment. Where in the constitution does it give the government the >right to interfere in someone's life and body like this? I mean I would >think that the 4th amendment would specifically not allow for this: > >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and >effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, >and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or >affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the >persons or things to be seized." > >Read the first part again: > >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" > >'nough said? > >Timothy Heald >Information Systems Specialist >Overseas Security Advisory Council >U.S. Department of State >571.345.2235 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:32 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > >Tim - > >Good reasoning, but I have to wonder if legalization would ever stand a >chance of passage in today's political climate. > >The point here is a little broader than simply trying to cut down on the >number of people going to jail, that's only one of the proposed >benefits. I think people having to get a license to be a parent is an >interesting approach to cutting the link between violent crime and child >abuse. Even if only a percent of a percent of children benefit from such >a program, it would be worthwhile. > >Also, think about the parents you know. How many of them started off >ready to be parents? In my case, I was a college student who had never >had to balance a budget, cook a meal more substantial than ramen >noodles, or keep house. Suddenly, I had to feed and clothe a child. >That's a big transition. Learning these things was a lot of trial and >error, and has led to some pretty tough situations. Sometimes the >experience was overwhelming, and I could see how some people could just >lose it and go overboard on their kids. A little more knowledge of how >to deal with the challenges beforehand might go a long way in the more >tragic cases. And let's face it - 30% of children in America are born >out of wedlock, it's not like they are necessarily getting these skills >at home. > >Other countries have mandantory military programs where you go on active >duty for 2 years when you turn 18. This idea, while it may seem like >something that only benefits a few people, actually serves the same end, >that the common good can be upheld through vigorous preparation of young >adults. > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:54 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > >That we put away a higher percentage than most nations is probably true, >but I would take exception to it mainly being violent crime. The last >time I was paying attention the major reasons for most incarcerations >were victimless crimes, usually related to drugs. > >If we legalized drugs and prostitution than we would no longer have to >spend all that money on enforcement and punishment, and we would be able >to tax it like we do cigarettes and alcohol. > >Timothy Heald >Information Systems Specialist >Overseas Security Advisory Council >U.S. Department of State >571.345.2235 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
