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

Winnb said:

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".

Click to expand...

That's not at all what's happening. The "welfare queens" would be going and asking for money and be told they are welcome to have it if they do xyz. Otherwise, they can get their handouts elsewhere.

People SHOULD have to jump through hoops to get our tax dollars. The money shouldn't just be given to anyone for any reason for any amount of time.

MyOwnDrum said:

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

Click to expand...

My answers are dependent on if everything else stays the same.

The mentally retarded- Maybe, it depends on if they receive state aid in order to live because they may be unemployable.

Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State- Maybe, If they are on state aid and the potential for passing it on is high, you betcha.

Drug addicts- Definitely, they some the last people who need to have children.

Child abusers- Probably, depends on the situation.

Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)- Definitely, you don't need anymore mouths to feed if you can't fill your own.

Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)- If they can pay for them, more power to em.

Anyone failing a psychological test- Depends, that's too vague.

Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)- Not really a big deal.

Girls under 18- It probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Winnb said:

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

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many Americans LOVE entitlements.

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".

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the idea. If they want the money, they get the IUD. No kids for them for ten years. We don't have to continually give out more money for more kids.

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

Click to expand...

Agreed. See point 1.

I think that all pedophiles should be forcibly castrated before they're let out of prison.

Britney Spears.

Poll Options said:

The mentally retarded 4 12.90%

Click to expand...

This is too broad. Much as I'd like to impose such a restriction, I think this gives too much latitude to the State and would allow them to abuse the law by expanding the definition of "mental retardation" to suit them-- much as they've done with the definition of "felony" in order to strip people of other rights.

Poll Options said:

Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State 3 9.68%

Click to expand...

Again, too broad.

Poll Options said:

Drug addicts 6 19.35%

Click to expand...

I agree with Jallman here, but believe this is better addressed under child abuse. Of course, I don't have any objection to stripping reproductive rights from drug-addicted men who have sired drug-addicted children by their drug-addicted mothers. Not sure how to address that properly, however.

Might be one use for paternity tests that doesn't turn my stomach.

Poll Options said:

Child abusers 7 22.58%

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This should be standard procedure upon second conviction of child abuse. Possibly upon first conviction, but I think it might be better to allow people one chance to turn themselves around under State supervision.

Poll Options said:

Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare) 7 22.58%

Click to expand...

As long as it is temporary and only for the duration of benefits; no "ten year plan" unless the form of sterilization is entirely temporary and is removed at State's expense when benefits cease.

Before anyone accuses me of wanting to "weed out undesirables", which I've never denied to be part of my motivation, I'm currently applying for government benefits myself. I would be all too happy to submit myself to temporary sterilization until I'm capable of supporting myself again. It would save me the worry of reproducing accidentally, which in my current state I would consider unacceptale.

Poll Options said:

Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation) 2 6.45%

Click to expand...

Large families should be encouraged. If people can continue to support their family, they should absolutely be allowed to have as many children as they desire.

Poll Options said:

Anyone failing a psychological test 2 6.45%

Click to expand...

Which psychological tests are we talking about? What conditions should disqualify a person from having children? Like "mental retardation" above, this is far too broad and far too open to abuse of State discretion.

Poll Options said:

Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies) 0 0%

Click to expand...

There is a risk present, but it's overblown. It's no worse than the risk of first cousins marrying-- which is still legal in much of the world. The risk is also considerably reduced in women that have had several children prior to 35.

Poll Options said:

Girls under 18 1 3.23%

Click to expand...

This might not be a bad idea, but much of the problem with underaged girls having children is actually that they are unmarried and can't count on support from their families. Might as well suggest that women be required to use birth control until they are married-- and I'm not willing to support that.

The age of legal adulthood should be lowered.

Poll Options said:

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights 20 64.52%

Click to expand...

I don't believe in human rights. Several of the items on this list are perfect examples of why.

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".

Click to expand...

It's not because they are undesirable. . . and it's only BC which is temporary.

It is because they are currently not capable of caring for a new child - to the extreme that they need to get support from the government.

If you're poor (like I use to be) and on welfare (again, like I was) - then any new children you might have while you're on the system will only burden you more - pregnancy costs money. Having children demands time, money and healthcare.

Money isn't the only factor - the point of welfare is to temporarily assist people while they find a job so they become independent and care for family - even if it means they have to go to college first.

Permitting people on welfare and other forms of assistance to have more children while receiving assistance will only make it that much more difficult for them to get on their own two feet and care for the children they *do* have.

Most people receiving assistance only qualify because they *do* have children - the care is really more for the children than it is for the parent. (Single or couple) - so it makes no sense to permit them to have more kids while they already have children that they cannot care for.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are the only person who is making that stupid argument in this thread, only in reverse.

You are making that argument against forced temporary sterilization, yet you are strangely on the other side of the bar when it comes to lethal injection of citizens.

Why are you calling yourself a stupid person for your positions?

Once someone has abused a child, sterilization and/or birth control should be mandatory. I'd include drug abusers (who use drugs while pregnant) in this category, as well.

For those who are receiving financial benefits from the state (Aid for Dependent Chidlren), they should be required to be on birth control as long as they are receiving benefits, and if they become pregnant, their benefits should be curtailed. The whole point of AFDC is that it is geared towards providing for CHIDLREN. Allowing moms who are receiving AFDC to continue to produce offspring is counterintuitive to the purpose of AFDC. It is supposed to be a temporary measure for young children.

To further my point about BC being required for welfare I'll use my ex husband and his wife.

When I was married to him we had 2 kids. . . he became a drug addict and an abuser, I left when our 2nd child was 6 days old - my ex didn't care to see the kids and I got my life back together.

However, he never did get his life together. Though he was suppose to pay child support I simply didn't persue it because I knew he didn't have a job or the money - it was a waste of time and I didn't care at all.

So years later he was out of jail, got a job, and then my state started to garnish his paycheck for child support (as they are required to do) - and soon after his wife called me to harass me about it.

AT that point they had 4 kids and she was pregnant with her 5th one.

Now - a former drug addict just starting to work and caring for 4 children with one on the way and a stay at home wife - all on welfare.

Do you think they can or will ever be able to adequately care for their children?
No, they won't. They have yet to do so, unfortunately for the children.

Do you think she ever started taking birth control?
No - she's currently pregnant with child #6.

I, however, actually felt bad for all of his kids and had him sign off his parental rights to end the child support - sure, he still owes arreas (past due child support) from the time that he didn't work and the state didn't collect (legaly, I have no say in that - it's the state law).

I have 4 children - and out of care and respect for them and our overall family I had a tubal and I will not have anymore children.
Why?
Not because I think children are horrible - but because that's what responsible people do - they try to care for the family they DO HAVE before making the family bigger and burdening or robbing their already-here children of things that they need.

Like - I don't know - hmm - food, shelter, clothing, education.

Without a decent job you cannot provide those things on your own.

Now -do you think my ex and his wife will ever stop having children? No, I don't think so. They'll be the Duggars - only at least the Duggars are financially stable and *not* dependent on the government for support.

My ex and his 6 kids and wife are not.

She should be forced to be on BC if she wants to continue to receive state-assistance. . . and if they fail to care for hteir own children their children should be removed from them.

You cannot care for your children and prove incapable of figuring out how to do it after years and years of continual state assistance - the state should be able to let you go from their burden.

Howeve,r that's illegal - it is illegal for the state to deny food and shelter to any child who needs it. So the state is stuck and there's really nothing they can do about it unless federal mandates change.

I don't think anyone should be forced on birth control, although I think that encouraged birth control is fine. If you're getting money from the taxpayers, you have a responsibility to control yourself. That means not breeding when you cannot even afford to feed yourself. I'm entirely fine with saying that once a person goes on welfare, they will not get paid extra for additional mouths they generate to feed. Then it leaves the responsibility to the individual, not the state.

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights

Click to expand...

Agreed, then again I do not believe mandatory taxes should be taken from some to pay for the responsibilities of others. This is a violation of basic rights imo.

Rev. Ted Haggart

Baralis said:

Agreed, then again I do not believe mandatory taxes should be taken from some to pay for the responsibilities of others. This is a violation of basic rights imo.

Click to expand...

I completely agree, here.

Why can't the government have demands and expectations - when they demand and expect us to support everyone else?

My tax money goes to support my ex's 6 children, his wife and himself.
What did he do to deserve such widespread, open armed support?

He became an abusive drughead - gee, how sweet.

Oh wait, it's not open armed support, it's slit wrist support. I get the two mixed up sometimes. It's support by proxy.

i think we should put people who are unable to have children on birth control, there sterility might be genetic, and we don't want it passed on to future generations

Kandahar said:

No. Most forms of mental retardation are not hereditary.

Click to expand...

Depends what they have, if they could safely use birth control, etc. I don't think people with severe genetic diseases that are likely to be passed on should be reproducing.

Click to expand...

And you think these decisions should be made by others?

No. The logistics of mandating this would be nightmarish.



Possibly. Depends how severe the abuse was, how long ago, if they've shown remorse or taken any action to correct it, etc.



No. This is thinly-veiled racism.



No. That's just not a problem in this country.



What kind of test?



No. The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding at what age people are allowed to have kids.



In most circumstances, I would agree. There were a couple on your list that I'm on the fence about though.

Click to expand...

liblady said:

jallman, it was a joke.

Click to expand...

It wasn't funny.... I was going to suggest you for making that "joke", but thought better of it.

Layla_Z said:

I don't know about forced birth control, but as a foster parent I've seen some people who would make you in favor of it. One girl had 3 kids by age 21. All of them had been taken away. She said she wanted her tubes tied but medicaid wouldn't pay for it. She's had another child since and that child was taken by the state.

She has let her medicaid lapse so the bills for her 3rd child were not covered. This child was born at 24 weeks and spent 4 months in the neonatal ICU.

Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood has a sliding scale for people like her. She ought to look into it.

jallman said:

No, she opened the can of worms...

Liblady, what, exactly, has Bristol Palin done, apart from having been born with the last name "Palin" of course, that would warrant mandated birth control?

Click to expand...

Having the 1st name "Bristol". That name sucks, and if she takes after her mom chances are she'll end up naming her next kid something even suckier. So for the poor little bastard's sake, I have agree with liblady. :lol:

spud_meister said:

i think we should put people who are unable to have children on birth control, there sterility might be genetic, and we don't want it passed on to future generations

Click to expand...

WTF for? Are you being serious in your above statement?

As a person who had infertility issues for years, I was able to conceive without medical assistance only after the adoption of my son.

If someone is unable to conceive, why would you put them on birth control? Pardon my ignorance, but I really am not sure of your logic OR even if you are being serious.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

WTF for? Are you being serious in your above statement?

As a person who had infertility issues for years, I was able to conceive without medical assistance only after the adoption of my son.

If someone is unable to conceive, why would you put them on birth control? Pardon my ignorance, but I really am not sure of your logic OR even if you are being serious.

Click to expand...

i wasn't being serious, i was making an attempt to ridicule the idea of state mandated birth control, i think its ridiculous

MyOwnDrum said:

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights

Click to expand...

In response to your last option, violation of human rights is when poor or diseased or drug addict brings in an innocent child into this world THAT is what violation of human rights is

If other people pay for your existence, they have a right to have some say in what you do-including preventing you from engaging in activities that cause them to have to fork over more money.

this isn't about freedom--if people are worried about freedom they would oppose the government forcing some people to pay for the existence of the irresponsible before we ever get to the freedom of freeloaders to breed like rabbits on the coin of others

MyOwnDrum said:

Come on liblady, there's already a Palin thread today (started by yours truly, no less). You can do better than that. :doh

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. We need to neuter her younger sister too before she gets preggo by A-rod. :mrgreen: