View Poll Results: A license to have children?

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    31 25.41%
  • No

    85 69.67%
  • Undecided

    6 4.92%
Page 57 of 80 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 792

Thread: A license to have children [W:81]

  1. #561
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Plain and simple, the government doesn't have a right, should never have the right, to force medical procedure on us, no matter how upset you are about welfare.

    That social experimentation was tried, abused and ended.

    What are we doing now to prevent unplanned pregnancy? Cutting services and closing Planned Parenthood. If one is serious about reducing unplanned births, then one should be a strong advocate of the government increasing these services and making them available a low cost or free as possible. When offered, many low income women in a study presented in 2012, took the long term options given them.
    It feels like we're going in circles here. NO ONE is being forced to do anything. No one.

    Also, there is little excuse these days to continue to have unplanned pregnancies with the many low cost options already available. One need only go to the health department to get it for free. The only thing people have to do is exercise the slightest bit of self control. Too much to ask, I guess.

  2. #562
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    You know which part of her mission I'm speaking to, but I'll spell it out. Offering a person desperate for their next fix or hit, $300 dollars for their reproductive ability is immoral. It is taking advantage of them.
    Then should people who are so desperate for their next fix or hit be able to make ANY of their own decisions? You have called into question the ability of any active addict to make informed decisions.

    A woman doesn't have to be on welfare to abuse her unborn child and every woman who accepts welfare, as noted in Chelsea's post, will do it. Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor. That is what this policy would do.
    I was clearly referring to the government in that quote. Not that bogus "charity".
    Okay, so we're arguing about two different things at the same time. Most recently I've been talking about a private charity that offers cash to addicts to undergo the procedure. Requiring all current welfare recipients to become sterilized is quite a different idea... one that I acknowledge is not practical nor likely to find wide public acceptance.

    I won't be derailed. Since you quoted it, could you please respond to it?

    Then I will respond to the rest of yours.
    I think it's been addressed. You had some version of this idea in your mind that was different than what I was talking about when you used that exaggerative language (e.g. "assaulting their bodies," "imposing a surgical penalty").

    Regarding addicts voluntarily sterilizing themselves one more time, since you've suggested that addicts are incapable of making their own informed decision WRT sterilization, I'm still interested in whether you think they should have any rightful decision of their own. How are they incapable of making this decision, but capable of others?

  3. #563
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Birth control is NOT a surgical penalty. IF ANYTHING, having more children that you cannot afford to support is a penalty and a punishment to the child.

    Explain to me HOW exactly birth control is an "assault" too please.

    There is nothing unreasonable about taking birth control when you cannot afford children, and if you are relying on other people to support your children, then it is certainly not unreasonable to make birth control while receiving services mandatory. That is NOT an assault.

    Just like anyone else who starts birth control, it would be under the supervision of a physician. If there were any complications or side effects, the BC can be discontinued, and another avenue pursued.

    This is all just pure hyperbole. Birth control is one the SAFEST medicines we have out there and has been around for a LONG time. Most people can take them (or at least SOME form of them) without complications.
    I was responding to DA60 and his reference to permanent sterilization, as that has been part of the discussion. The woman in his scenario, temporary as her condition maybe would be subject to permanent sterilization, as has been suggested over the course of pages of discussion and that is punitive. I didn't say a thing about BC in that post, nor did DA60, so I cannot explain how it is an assault.

    Now, as to birth control, I will say, having the government mandate medicine or a medical procedure, insertion of an IUD, as a condition of receiving benefits is not acceptable either. It goes in our bodies. I draw the line at the government forcing medication on us, regardless of how mostly safe it might be called. There are side effects to BC pills. There is a chance of perforation of the uterine wall by an IUD and that can have severe consequences. If a woman is offered and chooses this, fine. She has fully accepted the possibilities of complications of her own free will, not under the duress of trying to feed hungry children.

  4. #564
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor.
    lol

    Requiring that people provide and care for the children they produce is not a frickin punishment. People are not entitled to welfare. I don't want to pay for other people to bump uglies. That's not my responsibility. You gotta pay to play. Such is life, and freeloaders shouldn't be having large families for the rest of us to fund for two or more decades. THAT is punishing everyone else for making better decisions.

  5. #565
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    It feels like we're going in circles here. NO ONE is being forced to do anything. No one.

    Also, there is little excuse these days to continue to have unplanned pregnancies with the many low cost options already available. One need only go to the health department to get it for free. The only thing people have to do is exercise the slightest bit of self control. Too much to ask, I guess.
    The government has no right to impose, force, coerce a permanent surgical solution on citizen. There is force being applied. Receive help to feed her children by submitting to the will of the government, exercised on her person, or they go hungry.

    The imposition of financial limitations, she can't be on welfare above a certain level of income, fine. But this what you are talking about is invasive.

    I agree, birth control,condoms, pills and longer term should be be free and easy to get for low income people. They will take advantage of it, as was shown in the study minnie posted.

    The government doesn't and shouldn't have a right to exercise its control via surgery. That is not too much to ask.

  6. #566
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    It's interesting that so many religious and other traditional GOP conservatives will fight to the death to make sure the society protects all fetuses from abortion but then don't think the society should be responsible for paying to raise the fetus. And on the flip side, that so many liberals will fight to the death to keep reproduction absolutely sacrosanct but don't have any effective ideas for interrupting the intergenerational cycles of poverty.

    Both of these sides are keeping the cycle of intergenerational poverty going because the thought of abortion and/or sterilization makes them emotionally upset. Liberals want society to be on the hook to pay for the needs of all the least functional people without any effective plan to prevent the dysfunction. Conservatives want to protect all fetuses but then don't want to be on the hook. Both are being led by their blind emotions.

    "More education" is not going to help the people who DON'T WANT to be educated and make smarter choices. Some people WANT TO BE STUPID and party, because being stupid and partying is the only escape they know from the painful realities of their lives. Offering people a smart alternative to stupidity is not going to work for a lot of people who rely on that escape to cope with their own pain. They aren't going to care about free birth control. It's already damn near free. It could hardly be easier to prevent pregnancy. And yet it's not happening.

    I think we need to think outside the politically correct talking points and start getting a little more serious.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-26-13 at 02:56 PM.

  7. #567
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Then should people who are so desperate for their next fix or hit be able to make ANY of their own decisions? You have called into question the ability of any active addict to make informed decisions.

    Okay, so we're arguing about two different things at the same time. Most recently I've been talking about a private charity that offers cash to addicts to undergo the procedure. Requiring all current welfare recipients to become sterilized is quite a different idea... one that I acknowledge is not practical nor likely to find wide public acceptance.

    I think it's been addressed. You had some version of this idea in your mind that was different than what I was talking about when you used that exaggerative language (e.g. "assaulting their bodies," "imposing a surgical penalty").

    Regarding addicts voluntarily sterilizing themselves one more time, since you've suggested that addicts are incapable of making their own informed decision WRT sterilization, I'm still interested in whether you think they should have any rightful decision of their own. How are they incapable of making this decision, but capable of others?
    So your answer is to declare drug addicts wards of the state? That's a step off the cliff. The government's power grows even greater?

    Yes I have called into question their ability to make a free choice because you are offering a desperate person the thing they are aching for in exchange for their fertility. Their ability is impaired, not absent.

    You quoted my post about the government not having a right to impose a permanent surgical penalty as cost to receiving welfare. So while we are discussing both, you did not address the quoted post. I'm glad that you don't think this will go anywhere.

    If you follow the posts backwards, it is clear what I was quoting and discussing as to whether it was the government or the charity. I stand by my language in each line of discussion. I don't believe you addressed the government portion of the debate though. We can leave it at that or you can now.

    Above, I answered that last question. Exploiting an impairment of judgement caused by drugs, by offering money that will surely, and acknowledged by the person running the charity, go for more drugs does not rise to the level of being declared a ward of the state. That, fortunately, has a very high standard, so that power may not be abused.

  8. #568
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    lol

    Requiring that people provide and care for the children they produce is not a frickin punishment. People are not entitled to welfare. I don't want to pay for other people to bump uglies. That's not my responsibility. You gotta pay to play. Such is life, and freeloaders shouldn't be having large families for the rest of us to fund for two or more decades. THAT is punishing everyone else for making better decisions.
    No, and I didn't say providing and care for the children was punishment. Requiring surgical procedures is though.

    I guess the idea is to make them pay as painfully and as egregiously as possible.

  9. #569
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    So your answer is to declare drug addicts wards of the state? That's a step off the cliff. The government's power grows even greater?
    I'm just trying to follow your insinuation that addicts can't make this decision to its logical conclusion. Trying to figure out what your opinion really is of the capacity of addicts to make their own adult decisions...

    Yes I have called into question their ability to make a free choice because you are offering a desperate person the thing they are aching for in exchange for their fertility. Their ability is impaired, not absent.
    Still seeking clarity, as this brings up an interesting legal issue about who calls the shots for these people (themselves, or someone else who's not under the influence).

    You quoted my post about the government not having a right to impose a permanent surgical penalty as cost to receiving welfare. So while we are discussing both, you did not address the quoted post. I'm glad that you don't think this will go anywhere.

    If you follow the posts backwards, it is clear what I was quoting and discussing as to whether it was the government or the charity. I stand by my language in each line of discussion. I don't believe you addressed the government portion of the debate though. We can leave it at that or you can now.
    I have almost no faith that those in government or other positions of immense power would actually want the poorest 50% of the country to end the cycle they're in. Our economy has become quite accustomed to the zero-savings, consumer-driven and debt-driven cycle of most people spending money faster than they make it. That's what all our policies, monetary, fiscal and otherwise are trying to accomplish: the whole country putting itself into debt and spending money faster than they can find it. It is not just because people are opposed to reproductive control measures that the government would never go there. Having children has a calming effect on otherwise unpredictable and destructive people. Some people unfortunately need to have children to halt their path toward self-destruction. Many people do fall in line somewhat and become obedient, humble citizens just wanting a bit of food when they have a family. Government and other powerful institutions like these types of desperate people very much.

    Ending the cycle of intergenerational poverty and dependence on the state would cause major social, political and economic disruption, so government would never even go there. I realize this doesn't completely answer your challenge about the invasive nature of the welfare-for-sterilization concept, but I have argued my position nonetheless because my belief system de-prioritizes reproductive rights relative to fetal/babies' rights, especially in the most severe cases such as drug dependence.

  10. #570
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    ... They aren't going to care about free birth control. It's already damn near free. It could hardly be easier to prevent pregnancy. And yet it's not happening. ...

    .
    Long term Birth control options are much more expensive than pills or condoms.
    $700-$800 one time for about 5 years for long term BC vs. $10-$50 a month for BC pills.
    But they are also more effective.
    The failure rate of BC pills or condoms is 1% to 5% even when used correctly.
    The failure rate for long term BC is about .3% (that's point three percent)

    FRom the following article:

    But when cost and other barriers are lifted, the opinion notes that the Contraceptive CHOICE Project found that
    ]U]more than two-thirds of women age 14-20 chose LARC methods.[/U]


    The project, at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, recruited 9,256 women and studies the effect of free access to birth control methods.

    Perhaps the biggest consideration for women -- and especially adolescent girls -- is a contraceptive's upfront cost.

    At an average of about $700-$800 before insurance, the $10-$50 cost of a monthly pack of birth control pills can seem favorable.

    Without a reduced fee, the lowest price Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania can offer Mirena is $800, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, vice president for public affairs for the local chapter.
    Experts recommend women pick long-term birth control method - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    Peventing pregnancy is happening in fact pregnancy among teens has gone down.
    From this article:

    There’s good news from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute. “Only” 7% of teens and “only” about 16% of sexually experienced teens got pregnant in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

    It’s good news because the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to drop. Way back in 1990, the teen pregnancy rate peaked at 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 teen females. That means 11.7% of all teens got pregnant that year.

    Among sexually experienced teens — those who ever had intercourse — 22.3% got pregnant in 1990.

    The teen birth rate and the teen abortion rate also went down:

    4% of teens gave birth in 2008, down from the 1991 peak of 6.2%.
    1.8% of teens had an abortion in 2008 — the lowest abortion rate since abortion was legalized and down from the 1988 peak of 4.35% in 1988.
    From 1986 to 2008, the proportion of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped by a third, from 46% to 31%.
    Why is the teen pregnancy rate dropping? According to a 2007 study, it’s mainly due to better use of birth control. Teens are using more effective forms of contraception.
    Read more:
    Drop in Teen Pregnancy Due to Birth Control « WebMD Newsroom
    Last edited by minnie616; 02-26-13 at 03:27 PM. Reason: typo
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

Page 57 of 80 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •