Yes Sunshine…where I live, to refer to someone in a derogatory manner because of their nationality or the colour of their skin is called ‘racial vilification’ and attracts penalties administered by the court system.
Illegal? Quite so.
Oh, and just by the by, where did Debaser call me an idiot of the highest order, or indeed refer to me or my posts in any way at all?
Bit confused are we Rhum Runner? 
Yeah, I think I owe you an apology, I was confusing you with the idiot, Evil Captor. Sorry 'bout that. Still, despite what Fush may say, in the United States I feel confident that no criminal penalty can attach to simply uttering the word nigger. Now, I suppose there might be a situation where such a word could be determined to be an invitation to violence, but the word itself is not illegal. Again, sorry for the idiot comment. It was uncalled for and I regret it.
warning LONG POST (sorry)
I had a child when I was married. Now, I am divorced and I don’t work. I get some assistance, I have sex, I raise my daughter.
Do I fit the OP?
BTW… my ex hasn’t sent me a court-ordered penny since last December, I have PROTECTED, MONOGAMOUS sex with a monogamous loving partner, and my daughter was diagnosed autistic at the age of two. She needs therapies (she has six different sessions during the week and goes to early preschool for special needs children), some of which are home-based and some of which are center-based.
My daughter qualified for SSI payments, we get food stamps (no cash assistance) and healthcare from DES, and all her therapies are covered through the Dept. of Developmental Disabilities.
The schedule I have for her needs does not allow much time for working, going back to college, or free time for friendships (except my pals with their own autistc kiddos – we do playgroups) or dealing with my own goals. I was going to ASU but decided to raise my child with a man I thought I’d be with “forever”. Life can change faster than a blink of an eye.
Who can say when they will fall onto hard times?
Some people on welfare abuse the system which makes it harder for those that really need it. I jump through all the DES and DDD agency hoops because my daughter WILL get the services she needs… she WILL, or I will call down the wrath of God. My need is an honest one.
Do any of you think I enjoy being on welfare?? I do not, it’s hard for me to swallow my pride and ask for help. I do not tell people I know or meet that I get assistance. I don’t want to see that fuckin’ look in their eyes when I do. I do not like feeling like I’ve failed somehow, that I mooch off the system, that tax-payers pay for my child.
It’s not my fault my life changed in ways I could never imagine. I’d sell my fuckin’ soul in a heartbeat to have my daughter without autism. What is really sad is that many special needs children don’t get the services they need due to budget cuts and a shortage of therapists. But that is another rant all its own…
I’ve fought hard for every service my child has because of those that abuse the system. My situation basically sucks right now but I swallow my pride and do what needs doing. I spent money on college and then on a Administrative Medical program that I completed only to find out I couldn’t use it. During my intership, I got the referal to a specialist for my daughter and then WHAM! Life changed.
Day care, you say? Not a one that will care for my daughter in the way she needs. Day care is risky anyway.
And for the record, I do not sit on my bum eating bon-bons all day and watching soaps. I’m working with my angel on her issues, of which she has many. Look up “autism” on the WWW and you’ll get a bare taste of what I have to deal with daily.
But really… file this under the “I-don’t-care” section. Not that any of you asked for my life story anyway.
SanguineSpider, thanks for the reminder that there are real people behind each story. I wish you well.
For the rest of you who are so down on welfare mothers, which is worse – the woman who can’t “keep her legs closed” but takes on the struggles of raising a child…or the man who can’t keep it in his pants and then takes no responsibility at all?
Further, the women can have a child only once every nine months except for multiple births. How many children can a man father during the same nine months?
These forces exist, I acknowledge that.
However, I guess I look at it much more from a ‘personal responsibility’ point of view. (again, not talking about people who have fallen on hard times, but people who decide to have children when they know they can’t provide for them)
If they can’t make an honest, mature, responsible decision about their reproductive rights/abilities, why are they legally being treated as adults ? If they’re that much at the mercy of others (whether they’re male or female) why aren’t they appointed guardians to look after they’re best interests.
They’re adults, and fully responsible, or they aren’t. I know many want to have their full suite of rights, but try and dodge they subsequent responsibilities, and that’s what has many people annoyed. The lack of responsibility, the entitlement attitude, the career welfare parent, etc. Not those who have gotten the shit end of the stick by chance or circumstance.
Debaser,
While I certainly don’t believe that all (or even most) Republicans are racist, are you seriously denying that the party caters to their racist members in many ways?
Do we need to start another thread about The Heritage Foundation and how much influence they have over the party? While I might enjoy bringing up Joseph Coors and company and their stance on various issues, along with which politicians seem to get direction from them, it seems to make a lot of Pubbies squirm and spin every time we do so.
No worries Rhum. I figured you might have confused me with someone else. 
But can you do me a favour and check the ‘legality’ of uttering racial slurs in the US? I know that here in Aus it is severely frowned upon, and I just assumed that it would be the same in the US. I would be really interested to know what the vilification laws are in your land.
Cheers.
I side with those here who think the issue is one of responsibility. I can’t speak to cultures outside the US, but here, where welfare programs do exist (whether or not some conservatives approve of them) there is a responsibility on the part of people “in the system” not to abuse it. Sadly, quite a few people of all ethnic backgrounds ignore that responsibility.
The race issue becomes a factor in possible solutions only because of the knee-jerk response of some of the more liberal among us that says anything government tries to do to limit it’s costs by limiting reproduction is ipso facto racist. An example of this is the reaction to, I think, the state of New York’s attempt to condition welfare payments to women on having a Norplant device inserted during the period of welfare. There was an immediate outcry, led by the ACLU that the very idea of “forcing” women to be sterilized, however temporarily, was an affront to women in general and women of color in particular.
Please forgive me for not having a cite. This debacle was a few years ago, and I’m afraid the larger portion of my grey cells are the dead ones that sit on top of my scalp and need shearing every so often (my memory is not as good as some other dopers’).
With respect, Zoe, women, even though they are only half of the equation, bear more of the responsibility because, unless they are raped, they can say no or take measures to prevent pregnancy. They are also the ones who receive welfare payments. It may not be so in every state (please, somebody enlighten me if it’s different elsewhere), but in California, welfare is for families with dependent children. If you are a single man, no matter what your employment/educational condition, you are not eligible to receive welfare. Some medical assistance is available, but no welfare checks.
Men should be responsible, too, but let’s face it, they are not the vessel, and in most states fathers have far less right to the children they produce than mothers when it comes to custody.
That works. I tried it and a vision of QEII came to me. That just shriveled the already pitiful little petzeleh right up! 
News Flash…
The COBE team reveals that on 09-23-2003 at 11:21 AM GMT the Cosmic Background Ignorance Level underwent an unexplained increase of unprecedented proportions. Cause is sought.
In related news it is now confirmed that Republican families that adopt minority or mixed race children simply don’t want to do the yard work when they get older.
So you propose that Creationists and other fanatics should be appointed guardians?
People are legally treated as adults if they are adults and have an IQ somewhere above 80 (IIRC). Whether or not they abdicate their responsibilities is impossible to police. And many religions urge or force adults to abdicate the responsibilities they have, whether it is the responsibility to have an informed opinion (as in Creationists), or the responsibility to use birth control (as in Catholics and Muslims).
Many otherwise high-functioning adults can’t make “honest, mature, responsible” decisions on what to have for breakfast, how much alcohol they can handle, or when to get a pet.
What I am saying is that your expectations are unrealistic. Ideally, everyone would have the means and inclination to be “personally responsible”, but when Islam takes your “responsibility” and cuts it in half (see above link), or when you’re born and bred a sheeple, the means and the inclination are sucked right out of you, and you deserve to get some understanding from others.
These religions are powerful institutions, and it’s irresponsible and unrealistic to underestimate how much they influence people’s lives.
It is to laugh. What a load, everything including the kitchen sink.
First, having premarital sex in direct contradiction to one’s religious strictures is, surprise, surprise, also a no-no. So, those randy little buggers (Muslim or Catholic, for purposes of this discussion) have to consider more than just the lack of contraceptive use. I seriously doubt, though have no hard and fast numbers to prove it, that devout followers of either religion are the majority of those having children outside of marriage and relying upon government largesse to support them.
Anyone remember Dan Quayle and his comments about the single parenthood of Murphy Brown (TV character portrayed by Candice Bergen in show title of the same name in the 80’s)? He was royally blasted for daring to criticize a single mother’s right to happiness and freedom of reproduction. (Boy, that phrase sounds silly, even to me.) That character was one of the first, as I recall, to glorify the nature of intentional single motherhood as a legitimate social choice. Unfortunately, it’s a trend that still abounds in our popular entertainment. Yet, it is a false picture; TV presents women financial secure choosing to raise a child independent of the daily presence of the father, and implicitly equate it to the traditional family.
While I strongly reject the notion of more governmental control of our daily lives by such methods as licensing parents, I do urge the return of one of society’s most useful and neglected assets: peer pressure. Let’s stop pretending teenagers having children (such as at my daughter’s high school, where a recent mother will receive state-funded daycare, and welfare has paid her pregnancy related expenses) are an okay thing, that unwed parents are to be applauded, and begin once again discouraging such behavior. There has to be a satisfactory medium between sending a pregnant teen away until after childbirth to avoid family shame, and including the child in the school’s class pictures. (No joke, the little boy will indeed be in his mother’s arms; happy day.)
But I’m not only talking about people who exploit welfare; I’m talking about families who tax society and the planet in other ways. Do you think it is only unmarried who have children they can’t provide for?
Do you think only illegitimate children tax the natural resources of an overpopultaed planet?
Think of all the proles, “ones with many children”, who are living in poverty because they have too many mouths to feed.
Let’s see what we have here:
Republicans are racist. FALSE
Evil Captor is an idiot. TRUE
BTW, the word you were looking for was cahoots, not cohorts, moron.
I’m sorry, kung fu lola but I’m completely confused at what you’re trying to say. I’ve acknowledged that forces of persuasion exist, I just don’t think they can be used as an excuse (in the modern western world) for adult beahviour and decision-making. “X made me do it” is pathetic coming from an adult.
What are you saying ? That an adult cannot be expected to make a considered decision ? Or that they can make the decision, but because they may have been influenced, they shouldn’t be held accountable for the consequences ?
I can only see two possible paths. First, treat every adult as an adult, fully responsible for any choices they make. Or treat every adult as a sub-par functioning child, making sure we shepherd them towards the ‘right’ choices. They are either responsible for their choices and actions, or they aren’t. There’s no, 'well they can make thier own decisions, but I’m sure they were influenced so we’d better shield them from the consequences.
I don’t think that expecting people to be responsible, accept the consequences of their actions, and be given the freedom to make decisions that may be made poorly, but nevertheless are their decisions is a bad thing.
I truly am confused as to what point you are trying to make, as it appears to me that you want people to have the freedom to make whatever choice they want, but then have someone else pick up the pieces, or fix the bad aspects of any decision they make. Consequences are good things, IMO.
As can the male.
Then that is a gross injustice against men and a sexist law. What if the man has the dependent children?
(I’m not one to think that the mother is necessarily the better parent.)
What you call “vilification laws” are called “hate speech laws” in the US, and the Courts tend to consider them unconstitutional.
Ah, now there’s a good throw-back idea to come 'round and rear it’s head. Instead of applauding a young girl for taking on a momentous task and staying in school to further her education and possible career, let’s hide her away, make her ashamed of not just doing what’s normal for our entire species (or more so for that age even), but really for getting caught and then doing what everyone screeches on about a NEED for… owning up to the “consequences”/her “responsibilities”. Like a child is some sort of deserved punishment. Poor kid.
But also, take away any and everything that might constitute a better life for her and her offspring. In the ways previously mentioned, but also through low self-esteem (wonder if that’ll be passed on to said child, hmm?), degradation for them both (of which, one would strenuously argue that no matter what, the baby would be totally innocent of) and more hardships and difficulties than one would normally find themselves in via that situation, just making it more of a positive experience (for society as a whole, perhaps?) to teach others a lesson with her as an example.
Out of curiosity NaSultainne, the sperm donor/biological father “responsible” for his part in this situation, does he get to go to the Prom? Still enjoy hanging out with his friends? Included in class photos? Or does he also get branded with the shame (oh how I love that word) of the scarlet letter P for Pregnancy? Is humiliation in it for this part of his life? Ah, but this is assuming he’d take on that same “responsibility” that she does, right? If not, as does seem to happen more than occasionally, I guess he goes scott-free and the only one left to deride is the female who sticks with her pro-life choice. Definitely an interesting concept to return to. Makes one consider why we’ve gotten away from it in the first place. :smack:
Duly noted.
**However, I have met a few of them and they weren’t actually all racists! gosh!
I also notice now you are only accusing all republicans of being in cohorts with racists. I thought all republicans were racists outright. Am I to take this to mean that you are retracting your original statement?**
I’m happy with sticking with the notion that Repubs are in cohorts with racists. Show me where I called all Repubs racist and I’ll retract. Don’t show me where I said the Repub party is racist, cause I won’t retract – it’s official policy is obviously and clearly racism. This doesn’t mean every Repub is a racist, but a lot of them are, and those that aren’t are advancing the cause of racism along with them, so long as the Repub Party’s strategy is what it is.
**Oh, and I would love to hear all about how the republican party makes a clear and obvious decision to appeal covertly to racists. It it’s so clear and obvious I am sure you will have no problem giving some examples of this. **
With pleasure. Choke on this, you stupid son of a bitch:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10614
http://www.progressive.org/Media%20Project%202/mprd1702.html
http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000171.html
**Fucking dumbass. It’s a waste of time even talking to you. Go back to the democratic underground. **
Look who’s talking – a peabrained punk who’s so stupid he challenges people on points that are easily refutable with a wealth of cites and is such a motherfucking idiot that he calls me names while he’s at it. What a scum-sucking moron!
Read my response to Debaser then bite me, you stupid fuck.
Evil Captor, YOU are the moron here. The phase is “in cahoots” with racists, NOT “in cahorts” with racists.
Dumbfuck.