Who, if anyone, should be put on State mandated birth control?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Feb 2, 2010

Tucker Case said:
How is a subdermal implant that releases hormones a cruel and unusual punishment or an excessive fine?

If putting a little needle in someone's body to kill them "humanely" is argued to be C&UP, then putting a little needle in someone's body to control them is also C&UP.

FreshlyMinted · Feb 2, 2010

since we all basically agree that mandated birth control is contra a basic human right, I argue that those who violate other people's rights (right of property) through increased taxes due to a welfare system should either not be given publicly funded child support or failing that, not permitted to have children.

It'd be kind of like jail time. Those that offend another person's human rights are locked up at least in part so that they cannot continue behaviors that infringe on the rights of others.

Given a situation where having more children than one can reasonably support would infringe on the rights of others (almost always) then the removal of rights is a perfectly rational and legitimate response.

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's always the taxpayer's dollar, and there's this bizarre document that limits what the Republic can spend that money on.

Forced sterilization is a natural by-product of the elitist thought processes that lead to socialism. "It's not the person's body, it's the State's."

No one made the argument that the body does not belong to the person. If you can show where that argument was made I will address it, too.

And no, it is most certain NOT the tax payer's coin once it goes into the coffers of the Republic. It is the coin of the State and is spent on those things the State is granted power to provide.

If you can show me one instance in this "bizarre document" where the State's revenues are still the property of the tax payer, then you might have a point. As far as I understand, the Constitution makes no such provision for public ownership of the Republic's coffers.

Tucker Case · Feb 2, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If putting a little needle in someone's body to kill them "humanely" is argued to be C&UP, then putting a little needle in someone's body to control them is also C&UP.

So you are saying that you believe lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Feb 2, 2010

jallman said:
No one made the argument that the body does not belong to the person. If you can show where that argument was made I will address it, too.

And no, it is most certain NOT the tax payer's coin once it goes into the coffers of the Republic. It is the coin of the State and is spent on those things the State is granted power to provide.

If you can show me one instance in this "bizarre document" where the State's revenues are still the property of the tax payer, then you might have a point. As far as I understand, the Constitution makes no such provision for public ownership of the Republic's coffers.

The ownership of property is ultimately determined by who has control of it.

The state owns the house you live in, because you pay the state rent to occupy it. This rent is also called "property tax", but if you don't pay it, the landlord, the state, evicts you.

If the state can compel a surgical operation done to a person's body, then the state controls the body, and hence is the de facto owner. Everyone in the military recognizes the truth of this.

Also, Rousseau's The Social Contract makes the argument that because the King so nicely allows you to live in His kingdom, He can take your body and destroy it in any war He feels like having.

Socialist tracts are so enlightening, aren't they?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Feb 2, 2010

Tucker Case said:
So you are saying that you believe lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment?

Hell no.

I'm saying stupid people who make that argument are strangely on the other side of the bar when it comes to forced sterilization of citizens.

As far as I'm concerned condemned murderers should be executed before the moon's phase is repeated. I don't care how.

Aunt Spiker · Feb 2, 2010

Yep - Drug addicts (illicit) and Child abusers.

Can't be a decent human - you don't get to have children that you'll fail to care for.

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The ownership of property is ultimately determined by who has control of it.

Right. Now you need to establish what "control" involves.

The state owns the house you live in, because you pay the state rent to occupy it. This rent is also called "property tax", but if you don't pay it, the landlord, the state, evicts you.

The state does not own the house because it charges property tax. Property tax is an obligation of land owning gentry to the State to share the burden of funding public works, national defense of the property they own, costly infrastructure to and from the property, public safety, etc.

Calling property tax "rent" is patently absurd and blatantly dishonest.

If the state can compel a surgical operation done to a person's body, then the state controls the body, and hence is the de facto owner. Everyone in the military recognizes the truth of this.

Wrong. The State does not compel a surgical operation. The criminal relinquishes control to the State when she does not adhere to the law. The compeling of a surgical operation is not an assumption of ownership of the body; it is a penal response to a public menace.

Also, Rousseau's The Social Contract makes the argument that because the King so nicely allows you to live in His kingdom, He can take your body and destroy it in any war He feels like having.

Well Yippy Skippy for Rousseau and his king. We don't have nor ever will have a king. We do not live in a Kingdom and our representatives do not take our bodies and destroy them in any war they feel like having. We volunteer for our military service and there are guidelines that must be followed in determining whether we go to war or not.

Your entire comment on Rousseau and his king were irrelevant.

Socialist tracts are so enlightening, aren't they?

There was nothing socialist about that. It was a description of an authoritative monarchy. Which, by the way, is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

rivrrat · Feb 2, 2010

People receiving government assistance like welfare. That's not a mandate, that's not forced. It would simply be a precondition to getting paid by the government. Much like they should also be required to do 20+ hours of community service.

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
People receiving government assistance like welfare. That's not a mandate, that's not forced. It would simply be a precondition to getting paid by the government. Much like they should also be required to do 20+ hours of community service.

I don't agree that people receiving welfare should be forced to take birth control. That's where you are a crossing a line and widening lattitude from a "judicial response to a crime" to "stop the undesirables from breeding".

Winnb · Feb 2, 2010

jallman said:
I don't agree that people receiving welfare should be forced to take birth control. That's where you are a crossing a line and widening lattitude from a "judicial response to a crime" to "stop the undesirables from breeding".

The line is not very wide. It starts as a good idea because it meets our political ideology and forces "those bad guys" to do what we want.

Then it starts to get messy.

Winnb · Feb 2, 2010

jallman said:
OK, fair enough. But I guess we should clarify something since you are gonna be around for a while...I'm not libertarian in my views at all. In fact, I am probably a bit more authoritarian in my views on government. I believe that judicial response to criminal activity should be harsh, complete, and penalizing enough to prevent recidivism of the crime, even if prevention of recurrence is a matter of making that recurrence a physical impossibility.

Don't worry about your views. I respond to your posts because they are reasoned and intelligent. You make good points, you put up a good argument.

Thank you.

Unfortunately I cannot say that for everyone.

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

Winnb said:
The line is not very wide. It starts as a good idea because it meets our political ideology and forces "those bad guys" to do what we want.

Then it starts to get messy.

I don't see the similarity between "judicial response to criminal behavior" and "stop the undesirables from breeding" being close enough to cause confusion. I also don't believe in the slippery slope fallacy because...well...it's a fallacy.

Winnb · Feb 2, 2010

jallman said:
I don't see the similarity between "judicial response to criminal behavior" and "stop the undesirables from breeding" being close enough to cause confusion. I also don't believe in the slippery slope fallacy because...well...it's a fallacy.

I know. I loathe slippery slope arguments simply because they can be used to argue anything. Which makes them useless. And so many talking heads use them to strike fear into their listeners and viewers.

Buy I'm always worried when we start taking control away from people via legislation. Somebody robs a bank, we lock'em up. No problem with that. Murder, rape, molestation, beating someone senseless, I say lock'em up.

But forcing someone to become sterile, even temporarily... That just seems wrong on so many levels.

rivrrat · Feb 2, 2010

jallman said:
I don't agree that people receiving welfare should be forced to take birth control. That's where you are a crossing a line and widening lattitude from a "judicial response to a crime" to "stop the undesirables from breeding".

Nope. Has nothing to do with 'undesirables'. Has entirely to do with limiting the amount of money the government (i.e. the taxpayers) have to dish out. If someone is on welfare, they cannot afford the child they have. They have no business expecting US to pay for additional ones.

But fine, I'd accept a stipulation with welfare that if you have an additional child while on welfare, you don't get any additional money. That solves the problem as well, but IMO, in a more detrimental way.

Someone who is living off the support of others should expect restrictions on the extent of that support, or requirements in order to receive said support. I see nothing wrong with one of those things birth control. It has nothing to do with 'undesirables' and everything to do with $$$.

Want the money? Then you do xyz. Don't want to do xyz? Then you don't get the money. It's their choice.

Goshin · Feb 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Nope. Has nothing to do with 'undesirables'. Has entirely to do with limiting the amount of money the government (i.e. the taxpayers) have to dish out. If someone is on welfare, they cannot afford the child they have. They have no business expecting US to pay for additional ones.

But fine, I'd accept a stipulation with welfare that if you have an additional child while on welfare, you don't get any additional money. That solves the problem as well, but IMO, in a more detrimental way.

Someone who is living off the support of others should expect restrictions on the extent of that support, or requirements in order to receive said support. I see nothing wrong with one of those things birth control. It has nothing to do with 'undesirables' and everything to do with $$$.

Want the money? Then you do xyz. Don't want to do xyz? Then you don't get the money. It's their choice.

After some thought, I am totally with you on that.

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

Winnb said:
I know. I loathe slippery slope arguments simply because they can be used to argue anything. Which makes them useless. And so many talking heads use them to strike fear into their listeners and viewers.

Buy I'm always worried when we start taking control away from people via legislation.

What control is actually being taken? The control is always in the hands of the citizen prior to their criminal behavior. They hand over control by committing a criminal act. Control was always theirs until they decided to forfeit that control in favor of base animal conduct.

Somebody robs a bank, we lock'em up. No problem with that. Murder, rape, molestation, beating someone senseless, I say lock'em up.

So what's the difference between that and temporary forced sterilization? I mean, other than the obvious cost of incarceration, medical treatment, rehabilitation programs, education, etc...

But forcing someone to become sterile, even temporarily... That just seems wrong on so many levels.

Why? How is it any worse than locking them up? End result is still the same in that they are not breeding. In fact, it's just slightly worse to lock them up because instead of one freedom being denied in specific response to the criminal action they took, literally hundreds of freedoms are being denied now. Plus, the burden on the state is magnified a thousand times over.

No, go for the sterilization. It's better for everyone involved.

Winnb · Feb 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Nope. Has nothing to do with 'undesirables'. Has entirely to do with limiting the amount of money the government (i.e. the taxpayers) have to dish out. If someone is on welfare, they cannot afford the child they have. They have no business expecting US to pay for additional ones.

But fine, I'd accept a stipulation with welfare that if you have an additional child while on welfare, you don't get any additional money. That solves the problem as well, but IMO, in a more detrimental way.

Someone who is living off the support of others should expect restrictions on the extent of that support, or requirements in order to receive said support. I see nothing wrong with one of those things birth control. It has nothing to do with 'undesirables' and everything to do with $$$.

Want the money? Then you do xyz. Don't want to do xyz? Then you don't get the money. It's their choice.

But this is part of the problem. You're making people jump through hoops to get a handout. The welfare recipients are still getting our money. You're giving the government the power to take our money, then giving the government power to set requirements for others to receive our money.

We'd be better off to simply cut off the money.

---

jallman · Feb 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Nope. Has nothing to do with 'undesirables'. Has entirely to do with limiting the amount of money the government (i.e. the taxpayers) have to dish out. If someone is on welfare, they cannot afford the child they have. They have no business expecting US to pay for additional ones.

But fine, I'd accept a stipulation with welfare that if you have an additional child while on welfare, you don't get any additional money. That solves the problem as well, but IMO, in a more detrimental way.

Someone who is living off the support of others should expect restrictions on the extent of that support, or requirements in order to receive said support. I see nothing wrong with one of those things birth control. It has nothing to do with 'undesirables' and everything to do with $$$.

Want the money? Then you do xyz. Don't want to do xyz? Then you don't get the money. It's their choice.

This would all be a believably sincere except you are predicating our acceptance of this on the idea that we would suspend our disbelief and assume that it is not what we currently consider "undesirables" that are the main recipients of welfare.

This whole philosophy of yours is nothing more than a pig named Eugenics with a different shade of lipstick on it.

kansaswhig · Feb 2, 2010

Winnb said:
The answer then is to stop giving away the King's coin.

Right; except you and I both know that isn't going to happen.

Sure, and it would create a whole new batch of problems. The biggest one being that we just gave our government the authority to decide who gets pregnant and who doesn't.

No, it's pretty simple.

You want this welfare check? You're getting this 10 year IUD.

rivrrat · Feb 2, 2010

Winnb said:
But this is part of the problem. You're making people jump through hoops to get a handout. The welfare recipients are still getting our money. You're giving the government the power to take our money, then giving the government power to set requirements for others to receive our money.

We'd be better off to simply cut off the money.

Of course there should be requirements for others to receive handouts!

However, I also agree that greatly limiting the handouts is a good idea as well. That still has to do with requirements though

---[/QUOTE]

jallman said:
This would all be a believably sincere except you are predicating our acceptance of this on the idea that we would suspend our disbelief and assume that it is not what we currently consider "undesirables" that are the main recipients of welfare.

This whole philosophy of yours is nothing more than a pig named Eugenics with a different shade of lipstick on it.

Oh please :roll: They can breed all they want. They just can't expect us to hand them money while they do it. There's no eugenics there at all. Merely a stipulation to the receipt of unearned income. Merely a requirement that must be met before getting charity.

Winnb · Feb 2, 2010

kansaswhig said:
Right; except you and I both know that isn't going to happen.

No, it's pretty simple.

You want this welfare check? You're getting this 10 year IUD.

Well I agree with you on the "isn't going to happen" part.

I just have a problem with a scenario where we make people jump through our hoops to get our money. And yes, I know there are lots of examples of us doing that. But a welfare check for an IUD? We're holding money up in front of welfare queens and saying "do what we say and you get this".

I'd rather just not give them the money. Giving them money when they have more kids just encourages them to have more kids.

lizzie · Feb 2, 2010

MyOwnDrum said:
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.

The State shouldn't mandate birth control for anyone, but otoh, the State shouldn't be paying people to have babies either.

The Mark · Feb 2, 2010

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights.

Obviously, at least to me.

The question then becomes:

Are you still human if you rape/molest children?
Even more important...Is the desire to rape/molest children a genetic trait?

Either way, I would still take issue with giving the government (state) this kind of power.
The government has far too much say in what we do already, no need to give them more.

TheGirlNextDoor · Feb 2, 2010

MyOwnDrum said:
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.

The state should not be mandating anyone's reproductive rights. However, the state shouldn't FUND having children, either.

Just my :twocents:

Who, if anyone, should be put on State mandated birth control?

Who, if anyone, should the State force on birth control?

The mentally retarded

Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State

Drug addicts

Child abusers

Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)

Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)

Anyone failing a psychological test

Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)

Girls under 18

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights

Active member

Matthew 16:3

Cheese

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Goddess of Bacon

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Well-known member

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

&#58154;&#58157;&#58152;&#58155;&#57378;

