I can see this is really bothering you. I’ll take you through it and type slowly.
The original author objected to programs that discouraged women from having children they can’t support. He deemed this “behavior modification”–the implication being that it is wrong for the government to try to modify its citizens’ behavior.
I gave two examples of behavior modification efforts made by the government to which presumably no one objects. Behavior modification attempts per se are not a problem for most people. You went on about how drunk driving is not the same as getting pregnant, which has nothing to do with anything.
I would have ignored it were it not for your amazing observation that women have a “genetic imperative to have children”. That’s sounds like something an evangelical or Catholic or Muslim fundie would say. But you hate religion, so it’s not God; it’s DNA making women this way. Like when animals go into heat?
Hehe.
Actually, I think you feel very strongly that poor people are 100% victims and you are compelled to defend them from anyone who doesn’t see how totally helpless they are.
I think the way you string words together sometimes gets in the way of making your point. To wit:
I don’t know where the logical or factual foundation for that statement is, but more importantly, I don’t know what the hell it means. We intentionally make poor people extra poor so that others will work harder to earn money? Actually, never mind. I don’t care what it means.
I think your “genetic imperative” statement was just you trying to use big words and saying something you didn’t mean. Amplifying that makes me a little guilty of a straw man argument here, but in my defense, your response was all rant and n substance.
