Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Municipal contraception questions.

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    Municipal contraception is intended as a beginning, not an end, but a first step to set precedents which, once set, become easier and easier for more and more
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 11, 2009
      Municipal contraception is intended as a beginning, not an end, but a
      first step to set precedents which, once set, become easier and easier
      for more and more levels of government to follow, including the feds and
      UN eventually, as the local benefits become obvious to everyone. It is a
      way to get the ball rolling. The strategy revolves around the political
      problem of how do we get there from here. It is not intended to cover
      everyone, just to cover someone as preferable to covering no one. Just
      as one state broke the dam on gay marriage, for others to follow, one
      town can break the dam on serious contraception funding.
      As for eligibility, contraception is so cost-effective, that a town can
      afford to fund contraception considerably beyond it's residents, for
      anyone who might potentially move in and use local public school or
      childcare taxes. Normally I would expect the free or subsidized price
      contraception to be given out to anyone who is physically within the town
      at that moment. Though negatively priced contraception, where the town
      pays people to take it like Project Prevention:
      might have to be limited to town residents depending on the budget
      situation, or one level up, meaning town funding for county residents,
      county funding for state residents, state funding for national residents,
      and/or national funding for world residents (as in the current USAID
      funding), or perhaps continental residents, as in NAU or OAS, or EU.
      Basically, as the ability to pay for itself depends on public school
      eligibility and saving the money many times over in school and child
      services, eligibility for contraception would be tied to potential
      eligibility for the school or child services that it prevents.
      So what I am saying is that it is still cheaper for the taxpayers of a
      town to fund contraception for everyone in the county, one level up, than
      for town taxpayers to fund public school for just the town children
      produced by the absence of such funding. This being justified by the
      significant likelyhood that a county resident family with children might
      move into the town and use municipal child services and that chance times
      the cost of child services still exceeding the cost of contraception.
      This is intended as a response to the reality that serious global
      and national contraceptive funding is a political pipe dream because
      supporters are in the minority and are thus helpless. But supporters are
      not necessarily a minority in every town, city, county, and state,
      especially with current political migration and especially with political
      migration which could be purposefully accelerated.

      I don't see how municipal contraception can work. For one thing, everyone
      does not live in a municipality. A significant number of people do not
      live in any town. Another thing is that what sort of residency
      requirements will be in place to get contraceptives from that town/city?
      If someone has just moved there and does not yet qualify for free
      contraception, they end up with babies. Some people and classes of people
      are very mobile, so would frequently end up being "caught without". Or,
      various municipalities "buying from the lowest bidder" and getting things
      which outright do not work. Municipalities currently have an incentive to
      have as many people COUNTED as living in them as possible to get federal
      and state funds.

      I think the contraceptives should be provided by national or
      international groups - to ALL. It should be something which cannot be
      easily stopped, forgotten, or run out of - such as vasectomy, tubal
      ligation, or at least implants.

      Enforcement for irresponsible breeding should be enforced locally. Your
      neighbors are the best people to know if you've got an unregistered
      screeming baby, not someone thousands of miles away. Your neighbors and
      local police and courts are the ones who know if there is a giant family
      of unsupervised children drinking, vandalizing, robbing, assaulting while
      their egg and sperm doners fail to guide these children.

      Perhaps what should be required is to put up a significant bond to cover
      the damage these children will directly do, as well as having the
      would-be breeder pay for a license. The license would cover such things
      as parent training, evaluation as to WHY someone wants a child,
      background checks, inspection of the physical premises where the child
      will be. Perhaps to then pay a tax as well - similar to a "Nuisance tax".
      The collected taxes and fees could then fund or partially fund

      Plastic nappies should be outright banned worldwide for their
      environmental impact! If somebody doesn't want to wash poopy diapers,
      that person doesn't want to take care of a baby.


      --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
      > Breeders deserve every torture I can imagine including an overpopulated
      > future. There's no torture not deserved by those who scorn municipal
      > contraception and insist on breeding or who deny overpopulation. The
      > only innocent are the wildlife and the nonbreeder children of the
      > overpopulating scum.
      > Antiabortion breeder Moos are already dropping like flies in places
      > Darfur and Somalia, and I'm not sorry, and won't become sorry when
      > similar conditions come here.
      > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree?hl=en
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
      > -Al
      > -------------------------------------
      > I rethought all of it and put it out on my website:
      > http://cynics4bettertomorrow.org/worldfuture.html
      > Cynical Future
      > I am quite cynical of there even being any sort of tomorrow. The world
      > "we will leave our children" is such that I would not dream of putting
      > someone I loved - or even someone I disliked - into it.
      Free Sunroom Estimates
      From top-rated sunroom builders. Get up to 4 free bids today!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.