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

MyOwnDrum said:

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

Click to expand...

the State has no place in personal decisions--or they shouldn't would be more correct.

Winnb said:

I think that gives a sense of justice to the whole proceeding, but it doesn't limit the government's power. The best hope for that would be the Supreme Court striking down the sterilization law

Click to expand...

A trial by jury places the power with the people, not the government.

And with modern techniques, temporary sterilization can occur.

MyOwnDrum said:

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

Click to expand...

bristol palin?

MyOwnDrum said:

Why not just make crack legal and be done with it?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd be in favor of legalizing crack, and criminalizing having crack babies.

liblady said:

bristol palin?

Click to expand...

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

MyOwnDrum said:

By that argument, why have any penalties or laws? Why not just make crack legal and be done with it? No one should be sent to prison at all.

My point being, what is so damn sacred about letting a woman get knocked up vs throwing her in prison for 30 years? If the self same woman contracts active TB, the health dept WILL be coming weekly to her home to make sure she takes her TB meds. If she becomes schizophrenic and is released from a inpatient psyche unit to a halfway house, she WILL be required to comply with her medication regimen.

So, what's so damn special that the State shouldn't have an interest in a crack mother not having more damaged kids on the public dime?

Click to expand...

The state does have an interest in crack mothers getting pregnant. The question is what to do about it. What action should the government take? One option is forced sterilization. That's what's being discussed.

My objection to forced sterilization is giving the government the power to perform it. Once we give them that power we will never get it back. And the government has proven time and time again that one thing they're good at is expanding their power.


----

Tucker Case said:

A trial by jury places the power with the people, not the government.

And with modern techniques, temporary sterilization can occur.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think it should be an option.


I'll tell you why it's not though. Adoph Hitler. He took eugenics to such an outrageous extreme that now society won't touch anything like this with a 10 ft pole, even when it makes sense. We don't trust our own system, even though it's a pretty good one. We live in fear of the slippery slope, so it paralyzes us.

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...

lol...i thought it was pretty good. give me a minute.......

MyOwnDrum said:

We live in fear of the slippery slope, so it paralyzes us.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think that's a good point. Maybe it shouldn't paralyze us, but it should damn sure make us take a nice long pause.

Winnb said:

The state does have an interest in crack mothers getting pregnant. The question is what to do about it. What action should the government take? One option is forced sterilization. That's what's being discussed.

My objection to forced sterilization is giving the government the power to perform it. Once we give them that power we will never get it back. And the government has proven time and time again that one thing they're good at is expanding their power.


----

Click to expand...

Yet, we allow the death penalty, which I personally oppose, though I'm not zealot on the matter.

The mentally retarded

Impractical to apply to every Obama supporter.

Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State

Easier fix: The taxpayer, ie, the State, isn't responsible for the care of anyone.

Drug addicts

Cheaper to give them chemically pure heroin in unlimited doses.

Child abusers

Child abusers are supposed to be in prison where they can't reproduce, right?

Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)

Easier fix: The taxpayer, ie, the State, isn't responsible for the care of anyone.

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

If they can afford children, why not have them?

Anyone failing a psychological test

Kinda vague and abstract, isn't it?

Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)

Easier fix: The taxpayer, ie, the State, isn't responsible for the care of anyone.

Girls under 18

If they want a baby, why shouldn't they have one?

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights

Of course.

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...

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?

Winnb said:

The state does have an interest in crack mothers getting pregnant. The question is what to do about it. What action should the government take? One option is forced sterilization. That's what's being discussed.

My objection to forced sterilization is giving the government the power to perform it. Once we give them that power we will never get it back. And the government has proven time and time again that one thing they're good at is expanding their power.


----

Click to expand...

i think reversible sterilization might be the answer.

Winnb said:

Yeah I think that's a good point. Maybe it shouldn't paralyze us, but it should damn sure make us take a nice long pause.

Click to expand...

We have a lot of safeguards in our system. I like Tucker's idea of making this a penalty by jury. It could be an alternative sentence to hard time perhaps.

Tucker Case said:

Damn it. I wanted to join, but I'm not a handsome badass.

What about:

Handsome bad-asses and one fugly semi-retard against crack-whores?

Click to expand...

How about:

Handsome bad-asses & Co. against crack-whores.

I think that has a very professional look to it.

MyOwnDrum said:

We have a lot of safeguards in our system. I like Tucker's idea of making this a penalty by jury. It could be an alternative sentence to hard time perhaps.

Click to expand...

So maybe trial by jury... How about that coupled with temporary sterilization?

I don't know. It still makes me squeamish. I hate new laws that dole out power.

Winnb said:

Okay. Fair enough. As I told Ethereal, I can't argue with your reasoning for wanting to sterilize women that are popping out crack babies. I get it.

My only concern, which you'll probably get sick of hearing in a lot of threads, is the power we're granting. I know it seems like a good idea to give our government the authority to stop an activity we don't like. But that's how we ended up with the tremendous overbearing government we have today.

---

Click to expand...

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.

MyOwnDrum said:

Yet, we allow the death penalty, which I personally oppose, though I'm not zealot on the matter.

Click to expand...

I oppose the Death penalty because it places power in the government's hands that is not held by the people, it is not necessary in order to prevent recidivism, and it cannot be retracted once it is employed.

That's why I would only support reversible forms of sterilization as a form of punishment for birthing crack babies.

It is the minimum tactic necessary to prevent recidivism and it would be retractable.

Plus, sterilization of another person is legal under certain conditions, while vengeance killing is always illegal.

Winnb said:

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

Click to expand...

The answer is that this is America, we don't have a King and don't want one, and it's the taxpayer's coin.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The answer is that this is America, we don't have a King and don't want one, and it's the taxpayer's coin.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is the Republic's coin once it goes into the Republic's coffers.

If it were the taxpayer's coin, still, we would be talking socialism. And I know you don't agree with socialism, amirite?

MyOwnDrum said:

The government provides all sorts of other incentives, to businesses, farmers, drug companies, etc. They do this for the common good. Why not encourage long term welfare recipients, drug addicts, etc, to be sterilized?

Click to expand...

1) You're talking about incentives to businesses, while sterilization is incentive to an individual. Those are not the same thing.

2) While government provides all those incentives to companies, one aspect of those incentives is not "you get these incentives, but only if you never start up another business again." We don't force people who constantly bankrupt their businesses to be prohibited from starting another business later.

3) Doing forced sterilization on drug addicts and welfare recipients is inherently racist. It will affect minorities with fewer job opportunities and opportunities to get a higher paying occupations.

4) It is a permanent solution to temporary statuses of individuals. Sterilization is forever. Welfare and doing drugs isn't necessarily. For example, there are a lot of people on welfare right now during the current recession. Should they be forced to be sterilized for the rest of their life because they are relying on assistance despite the temporary economic recession? Also, people can treatment for their addictions and kick their habit. Many people fall into addiction of one kind or another. The lessening of the taboo of someone being an addict helps them to get treatment the treatment they need and to become and stay a productive member of society.

5) Not all drug addictions are equal. Are we going to sterilize those arrested for marijuana offenses just as much as we sterilize those arrested for cocaine or heroin offenses? If we do sterilization of drug addicts, then the government will have the power to sterilize anyone or any group they want by making a substance illegal.

6) Government funds to sterilization programs would be better spent elsewhere. Such programs include drug treatment programs, job training programs, universal mental health programs, and universal birth control programs. Why don't we try those before we do sterilization programs?

Tucker Case said:

Really, that's the only concern I have about it, too.

I think that any sterilization sentence should be executed after a trial by jury.

Click to expand...

Then again, there is that pesky 8th Amendment.

I suppose if the doctor smiled and gave her a lollipop we could bypass that, right?

jallman said:

No, it isn't. It is the Republic's coin once it goes into the Republic's coffers.

Click to expand...

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."

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Then again, there is that pesky 8th Amendment.

I suppose if the doctor smiled and gave her a lollipop we could bypass that, right?

Click to expand...

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

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...

jallman, it was a joke.