I hate that I listen to Tom Leykis. But he had a good point recently.
In light of idiot mothers like Britney Spears, should the government control who is allowed to breed? Ok, just hear me out because I know we are all the types who scream bloody murder when our rights seem to be threatened. Also realize we play “God” in many other circumstances like the death penalty, castrating sex offenders and deciding who can marry.
Forget Spears. Think about that prostitute who only JUST lost her kids. She snorted coke off one of her children’s stomach while breastfeeding. Had her kids in the backseat AWAKE while she blew her johns. Smoked crack in their presence. Yet, before that police officer finally busted her and her tiny tots were taken away, she was allowed to have two kids.
Leykis mentioned administering the IUD. I’m not sure about taking it that far because personally, I’d rather take the pill. But why do we allow these vermin to procreate? The only advantage to the practice of irresponsible fools birthin’ babies is, as was mentioned on the show, we still need to make sure we get our pizza delivered, our groceries sacked and our car oil changed. Kind of cruel, right?
I of course like having the right to choose. And most of my life, including presently, I’ve never wanted children. But that’s my choice to make. But I have to admit, if we all know that someone is truly a horrible mother — and I don’t mean the normal raising of voice or reasonable mistakes made — why do we allow them to have more and more? Why? So we can just end up taking them away, have them become wards of the state and then keep throwing our tax dollars at the result of someone careless enough to bring children into the world just to corrupt them? Sure, adoption is beautiful. But not all of these children find homes before they are 18.
Also I am aware that just because these kids are from such horrific conditions, they don’t always have to succumb to the same fate. Many go to college and do something better with their lives. And we may be better off with them in the world than without. However, certain folks just shouldn’t breed. What do we do to prevent the problem of pathetic parenting from escalating to such an alarming rate without some kind of sanctions — outrageous as it may be?
a writer dodging bullets. 
Posted by jonolan on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I think it is a necessary step to salvage this nation, but not one that the public will accept.
Posted by Arm Jerker J. on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jo. You are so right! And why not? Having children is a privilege I guess but why do we have to have every privilege–even when it means the detriment of a young, impressionable mind?
Posted by antisocialist on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Absolutely not!
It’s as wild an infringement of the inalienable right to life as anyone could conceive, and you must never, under any circumstances, concede that principle.
If you do — if, in other words, you grant that government bureaucrats have proper authority to determine how an individual may or may not live her life — then you set a precedent from which there is no regresssing.
The absolute right to life, liberty, and property are called “absolute” for a very good reason: because they are absolute. It therefore doesn’t matter how much anyone hates to see bad parenting; it doesn’t matter how many people think there’s a population problem (there’s not, incidentally: every man, woman, and child on the planet could fit shoulder-to-shoulder in a space as small as Jacksonville, Florida); nor does it matter how many breeding mothers out there are genuinely unequipt to be mothers. The right to your own life — and only your own life — is Constitutionally guaranteed, as well it should be. To say that we must make concessions to this absolute right to life because look at all these bastards having bastard children, is to deny that your and my right to life is absolute after all. But it is absolute, regardless of whether or not Mr. Lykis recognizes the fact. And if you deny this premise, for any reason imaginable, you are saying that some (i.e. government bureaucrats and politicians) have legal and moral authority over the lives of others. That is precisely what the Constitution is meant to protect, and that kind of thinking is what creates opression, arbitrary imprisonment, slavery.
It is no mere coincidence that you heard this on Tom Leykis. Please don’t be persuaded by his specious reasoning. If on any specific political issues you’re ever in doubt, as who among us is not, there is one principle that is a foolproof determiner of right or wrong in all political-economic contexts: the right to life and property is inalienable and absolute, and thus it is the only proper standard of justice: your rights, my rights, everyone’s rights stop where another’s begin. If you follow that principle, you’ll never go wrong. Anything else leads to coercive rule.
But speaking of IUD’s, did you hear about the dyslexic police officer who pulled the woman over and gave her an IUD?
Posted by Arm Jerker J. on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Anti so happy you came. I knew you were going to attack this one. I was getting all heated and fired up for my response and then when I got to the end of your comment, I laughed my ass off. Now I can’t be as heated and fired up…
But I will say I don’t support anything Tom says. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not led astray like some kind of sheeple! I listen because he amuses and I have to hear what crap he’s spewing to young men so I’ll know what fools to avoid!
In regards to this, I know it’s ludicrous. Believe me I’m not fond of the government sanctioning my life. But Anti, can’t you admit that the government, to a point, already does its share of controlling? I mean the death penalty still exists while so many scream that how can mere mortals determine who lives and dies?
It breaks my heart when I hear stories like the one about the hooker and her kids. And those kinds of situations happen far too often. I grew up knowing kids who had lives and saw things a dead dog wouldn’t envy. I offer this question to you, Anti. What DO we do then?
Posted by antisocialist on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > Anti so happy you came.
You have no idea. I only hope it was as good for you as it was for me.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > I was getting all heated
I was hoping you’d say that.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > Now I can’t be as heated and fired up…
What a tease.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > But I will say I don’t support anything Tom says.
And yet you’re on a first name basis. We can only be so convinced.
Arm Jerker J wrote: > he’s spewing
Please, Arm Jerker J! Your words like arrows pierce mine ears.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > But Anti, can’t you admit that the government, to a point, already does its share of controlling?
Indeed I can and indeed I do. In a nutshell, that is everything I’m fighting against (if you can call my chickenshit articles “fighting”). But this doesn’t then mean let us now call for more government infringements, simply because they’ve already infringed upon us in other ways. That’s kind of like saying that, after all, two wrongs do in fact make a right.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > It breaks my heart when I hear stories like the one about the hooker and her kids.
I hear you. But, you know, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Arm Jerker J. wrote: > What DO we do then?
We grant each individual the absolute right to life and property, and we return to the teaching of reason and logic and rationality. It is true, you will never completely eradicate crime, just as you will never eradicate vice, and ultimately for the same reasons, because humans possess the faculty of volition, but when societies are free, as opposed to opressed, and when education is rational, you will minimize both vice and crime.
Posted by Stiletto on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Once I get past the shock of “Prostitute Snorting Coke Off Baby’s Stomach While Breastfeeding…”
I’ve sometimes felt we should control the idiocy by banning certain types of people from breeding. But establishing the right criteria will never be agreed upon. Anyway, aren’t these people supposed to make us feel better about ourselves? Perhaps their only purpose in life but it’s still a purpose.
Posted by loudmouthprotestant on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 9:56 am
What I think is missing from this conversation is the fact that the prostitutes, drug addicts, strippers and other denizens of the world do not always have their children voluntarily. If they didn’t make good life choices in the first place what makes one think they would voluntarily say they want to have a child. Many of these women have children by complete accident (really, everyone can’t afford birth control or the health insurance that makes it affordable and Planned Parenthood for an already irresponsible person is a long shot) but because of their unfortunate position in life–and maybe some compassion for humanity, oddly enough–they can’t afford nor do they want to have an abortion. Deeper than trying to regulate who can have children, we really ought to explore why women fall into such precarious lifestyles. If a hooker and a hoe can’t have a child because the government says so, shouldn’t we also ban celebrities that don’t have time to take care of their children on their own terms–nannies shouldn’t count as child care. I pray to God that the Supreme Court will not be able to put a ban on who can and can’t have children and pray more that our women will get a better grip on themselves and practice better discernment.
Posted by Stiletto on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 10:40 am
I find it hard to believe that a hooker or stripper cannot afford birth control.
Posted by Loudmouth Protestant on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Stiletto…I don’t think it’s that they can’t afford birth control–maybe some can’t. I think buying birth control requires foresight, something I don’t believe hookers and strippers have. Come on, they didn’t even plan to go into the profession would they plan to not get pregnant??? I’m thinking “no.”
Posted by Arm Jerker J. on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Anti: I can’t top that fantastic comment. You are too good. And you have good points. But it just isn’t that easy.
Stiletto and LMP: What if we just MADE these type of women go to clinics and inserted the damn IUD in the first place? Like for example if they get locked up. Once in the clink, why not put one up there while they are getting finger-printed?! Sounds harsh, but this is just getting too crazy. And as for celebrities, more than likely their children don’t end up in foster care.
Posted by antisocialist on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 4:18 pm
But it is that easy, Arm Jerker J., it really is, though, candidly, I wish you’d quit jerking me around with that cognomen of yours. Tell us: do you always take the long way around to get what you want? And you have the nerve to ask “what’s up with all this spam??” Come, now.
Well, at the very least, I do thank you for complimenting my “points”; however, if you think my points are “good,” you should see my obliques.
Stiletto, we’ve not been introduced, properly or otherwise, but that hasn’t stopped you from giving me permission to eat your fucking stilettos, and I do so appreciate that. If, then, you’ll permit me a reciprocal familiarity: anyone who can spell “hemorrhoid” right on the first try, and have the perceptiveness to point it out, is good people in my book.
Once again, Arm Jerker J., your hospitality is exceeded only by my foolishness — and that’s saying a hell of a lot, as you more than anyone knows.
Best of all possible regards.
Posted by Stiletto on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Loudmouth, I take a bit of offense to that remark. Well, not really, but I do know a few “ladies of ill repute” and they all are college educated, business savvy, and pretty nice to look at. Not to mention grounded and stable and more interesting than the average person you’d meet on any given day.
But I’ll assume we’re talking not about high end call girls but those who reside on the lower echelon of the seamier side. More likely than not, drugs are involved, and pimps, and the whole nine yards of stereotype, and I suppose their support system is virtually nonexistent…so I’ll just have to agree with you on that one. Planning in general requires foresight to varying degrees, and I suppose if you’re fucked up, living in the moment, high all the time…yeah. Ok. You’re right.
Posted by Stiletto on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Hey, thanks anti-socialist, but out of fairness to those who can’t spell, I’m always dealing with hemorrhoids and I’m not talking about mine, I’m talking dumb asses in general. So it’s not a surprise that I’m familiar with that word in every way, shape, and form.
[Also, I was Spelling Bee champ in elementary school so what can I say? Unfortunately, I lost the Big Round by misspelling philosophy].
“Stiletto and LMP: What if we just MADE these type of women go to clinics and inserted the damn IUD in the first place? Like for example if they get locked up. Once in the clink, why not put one up there while they are getting finger-printed?!”
Arm Jerker, I seriously doubt that once in the “clink” they’ll be getting any action that even remotely smacks of testosterone. Although, technically, does clink only refer to a holding cell and not straight out prison? Or would that be the pen? Please familiarize me with some of the street lingo!
But I do see what you are saying. Oh what the hell, why not? Sort of a “three strikes” are out law?
Posted by Stiletto on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm
And one last thing – Socialist – absolutely. You got it.
P.S. I would like to see your obliques!
Posted by Arm Jerker J. on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Anti: You man-whore.
Stiletto, three strikes you are out law is perfect.
I mean if the hooker is there that many times, just stick it up there and save a possible pathetic life? I know only one high-end ho. And I think she has the wisdom to protect herself. If you read anti’s rant about hookers, you will see that I’m not saying no hos. Just no hos havin’ babies.
Posted by jonolan on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 9:43 am
Well I think they’ve finally figured the reason for the RATE of pregnancies among hookers and strippers. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4435.html LOL!
Posted by scandalouscandice on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Eventually some form of breeding control will be necessary. Forget what is acceptable in parenting. We are so overpopulated and are showing no signs of slowing down. It’s killing this planet. Ridiculous people who can’t accept natural selection and go out and have IVF or numerous other insane forms of hormone injections and weird treatments just to be able to produce their own offspring. The latest news is uterine transplants. Adopting a child simply isn’t enough and now the rules and regulations and sanctions against foreign baby adoptions makes these psycho alternatives look appealing. And everyone points the fingers at junkies and hookers but who is pointing the fingers at religious rules? Catholics that breed out of control and other religions that don’t allow any forms of birth control. It’s so absurd these religious rules and yet no one stops to say hey I really don’t think God’s plan is to breed this planet to death. And we have taken away all forms of natural selection to deal with over population. Everything has got so far out of control now that eventually there will have to be some form of breeding rules. And like it or not it’s getting to a point where there will be no choice or say in the matter. Brave New World anyone?
Posted by scandalouscandice on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 1:18 pm
It’s also clear that some people live in a bubble when it comes to what this government can and can’t do. We are all aware of what they can’t do but does that mean they won’t? No. Look at the smoking bans. Now they are starting to tell people that they can’t smoke them in their own homes. New renters in two communities in California cannot smoke in their apartments or condos. And some places are blackmailing landlords with insurance if they allow smokers in their buildings. They figure we have come this far in the banning lets keep going. Most cry baby pussies who fought about smoking in bars, didn’t think that next steps in would infringe upon civil liberties. They just want what they want and damn the costs to anyone else including individual freedoms. What was wrong with having sings on bars that say enter at your own risk it’s a smoking bar? Or having employees choose the right to sign a waiver to work in certain establishments that allow smoking? Because the non smoking bars tanked. And it’s an opening to force in and edge new rules. Right to free air is the anti-smokers biggest complaint. They say it’s bad to the environment these killer cigarettes. So how come big gas guzzling SUV’s haven’t been banned? Or any other company that dumps pollutants or massive amounts of chemicals in the environment? Cigarettes will kill you but not as fast as skin cancer from no ozone layer. But yet they haven’t banned cigarettes. You can still buy them in stores. Too much money on the taxes from them. If they wanted to make a point they should have banned smoking in the U.S. all together and stopped production on them. Now we have this huge gray area where slowly but surely small rights are being taken away. Sounds ridiculous and conspiracy theory but they are doing it.
So with all of that said, who is to say that the government won’t move on to bigger issues in controlling our daily lives? Like birth control and population control? When they said smoking bans were going in to effect lots of people believed it would take hold. Well it did and now it’s starting to take place that you can’t smoke in your home. Slowly but surely and stupid small issues that people think serve the greater good in health reasons are going to be the wedge that allows the government to come in and make new and harsh rules about our daily lives. Maybe it won’t happen in the next two years but i see a very different world in 10 years.
Posted by Arm Jerker J. on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 11:33 am
Wow Candice! Welcome. You have some interesting opinions here and they are well-argued. I agree with your point about religion. But of course there are plenty of Catholics who go against the grain on that topic. Many obviously use protection. But what about those cults in Utah?!!
Seriously though, doesn’t China already do this? I know I’m going to get shot for that comment.
Posted by jonolan on Monday, October 8, 2007 at 7:54 am
Actually China enforces a strict limit on the number of children a family can have, but it’s completely arbitrary – all families get the same number, with an exception made for rural (agricultural) families who might need more children for working the farm.
This is solely for population control and has little or no bearing on avoiding piss poor people from having children. China’s “best and brightest” are limited in the same manner as their whores and junkies.
Posted by Does the average man think like Tom Leykis? « Single is the New Relationship: Part II on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 10:57 am
[…] my opinion, but he has some fairly provocative points somewhere in all of his muck which sometimes I’m ashamed that I agree with to a point.I also listen because I want a better pulse on what the average guy is thinking and […]