Why not sterilize?

Seriously. What's the problem with telling a welfare mom who's clearly set on making a career out of breeding to either get "fixed" after 3 kids -- since it's clear that she's not even making an effort to get an education or job so that she can be able to support her own litter -- or stop receiving all government "assistance" [in my book, it's only assistance if you're helping with the expenses, not covering them all]?

Also, why not give the men who have several kids with several women a "choice" when they inevitably get arrested, to get neutered in exchange for a significantly lighter sentence or be given the absolute max prison time for their crime?

Sounds good to me.

Oh, we can't do that. We'd be going against our religious zealot president who thinks it's every woman's civil right to breed and breed, making more soldiers for gawd's little army. And hey, if they want to continue breeding more kids they cannot afford, it will just have to be society's problem and have the taxpayers pick up the tab, right? I hate the way things are going in this fucking country right now.

Even the liberals scream about taking away the welfare woman' right to procreate when this issue is brought up. I am a TrueBlue Liberal and I am with all of you on this topic but know that most people don't feel this way. Do any of you remember a woman who started a program to pay drug addicts a couple of hundred dollars to have a tubal ligation rather than continuing to breed drug-addicted babies? The liberals and the conservatives all hounded her. I don't know if the program is still in effect...

Look at this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12284518&dopt=Abstract

Demand increases for mandatory Norplant sentences.

[No authors listed]

PIP: Darlene Johnson, a 28-year-old unwed welfare mother from Visalia, California, was found guilty in January 1991 of beating 2 of her 4 children with a belt and an electric cord while she was pregnant with her 5th child. In addition to a 1-year sentence in a county jail she was ordered to receive the Norplant contraceptive implant or spend 4 years in federal prison. She agreed to the procedure, however, a few days later she changed her mind, and with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union she appealed the decision, arguing that the court was depriving her of a fundamental right and providing a frightening prospect for the country. The case is the most prominent in the controversy about how to prevent low-income teenagers, "crack" cocaine smokers, convicted criminals, and welfare mothers from having children. Legislation was introduced in Kansas providing free Norplant to women on welfare and a $500 cash incentive. In Kansas the cost of treating a baby born to a crack-addicted mother costs about $48,000 in the 1st year, and the annual cost of caring for cocaine-exposed babies amounts to $500 million. Critics charge that forcing contraception on women turns the government into caretakers of women's bodies. However, the rising number of crack babies, child abuse cases, and skyrocketing welfare numbers have convinced politicians and the public about the suitability of this approach. In May 1991 a Los Angeles Times poll showed that 46% of respondents strongly approved of making Norplant mandatory for drug-abusing women. In Denver, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has been using $50,000 in private donations to provide free Norplant to teenage girls from drug rehabilitation centers. In Seattle, where 50 disabled crack babies were cared for in 1990, 3 housewives formed a group to lobby for mandatory Norplant for drug-addicted mothers. If the California court ruling is upheld, Norplant debates are expected to continue as more states enact mandatory birth control.

PMID: 12284518 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The problem is that alot of folks don't want to have government in control over anyone's health care decisions. It just seems wrong to work to ban abortion, and limit access to birth control but at the same time work to forcibly sterilize "undesireable" people. It seems equally wrong to call a special session of congress and have Our Glorious Leader return early from a vacation to get involved in "saving" the life of a brain dead woman. Health care decisions should really be kept solely between the doctor and patient, because history has proven time and time again that when the government gets involved, then you end up with fun stuff like medical studies on folks who can't consent, or special "camps" for "undesireables".

To be honest, it's mostly sour grapes. Why can't I get money from whomever for NOT procreating? I mean, just because I have voluntarely decided not to breed because I know I'll be a poor parent doesn't make me any less worthy of a monitary reward or free contraceptive services than a drug addict.

I'm all for it! While I don't like the idea of govt. dictating what people can or cannot do with their own bodies, I'm sick to death of paying for their irresponsibility. A lot of my neighbors are crack ho's, and welfare queens, and they're living quite well. Better than we are, in fact. If the govt. can regulate abortion, emergency contraception, and pharmacists can choose whether or not to fill a prescription, based on personal beliefs, then why not hold these "undesirables" accountable? Someone has to, even if it is the govt.

I just cant believe that some people think a drug fucked mole could have any right to have kids!!!!!! What about the rights of the poor kid that hasant got a chance??? This makes me so mad.
These wefare drug adicted loosers should do us all a favour and top themselves....

When you give brain wizards, like Our Glorious Leader, the leeway to define "undesireable", and treat those people as...well...not human... you might just end up being labled "undesireable" for not using the womb and eggs god gave you. Just because the gov't is currently restricting abortion, contraception access and what not, in spite of the fact that the majorty of people disagree with their policies, doesn't mean it's something that should be continued and even expanded to include forced sterilization.

However, if people truely belive that it's right and natural for the government to decide who is deserving of the "blessing of procreation", and who should be sterilized, I can only hope they do it with equality and that there will be forcable sterilization of "men" who father multiple children with multiple women without providing support for the children they helped make.

And what would the definition of "undesireable"? In my opinion, well-to-do parents who coddle their children, refuse to teach them respect or responisiblity because it might interfere with Sprogliana's "creativity", and also refuse to allow educators to discipline or accurately grade their children are equally as reprehensible and just as much of a drain on society as a welfare queen's unsupervised hellions. I mean, just because a parent can afford to buy their kids every freaking thing on the face of the earth doesn't actually mean they're parenting.

feh you make some valid points.I agree with what you are saying.The real solution I think would be to make people get "a licence to have kids" would that be great or what?
In some places you have to have a licence to own a dog...how sad the same does not apply for potential parents.

The USA used to forcibly sterelize "mental defectives" or the undesirable in the early 20th century. Buck vs. Bell is an example of this. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Feh is right--we tread upon thin ice when we leave it up to the government to determine what is a social defective. And I agree that the crack and welfare mother is no more use to society than the disinterested wealthy mother who craps out a fresh loaf to ensure her hand in the perpetual wallet. Both are crap for parents.

Feh, you are right about well-to-do parents. I used to live in a wealthy county in the SF Bay Area. God...what a freaking culture shock when I saw how the "other side's" children behave. I would go on but I have to call a friend I haven't spoken to in awhile.

Under normal circumstances, I agree that health decisions should be kept between a doctor and patient. But in the instances of "career breeders", it's not just an issue that affects them -- it also involves the tax-payers who have to bear the financial burden for them & their offspring.

To me, this issue isn't about labeling people as "undesirable" or judging people's parenting skills or deciding who should have the right to procreate or not; I'm talking about accountability. Because in the case of the welfare mothers, the government is already involved in their health-care / reproduction-related decisions with every check they cash. Rich parents who spoil their children and turn them into raging assholes are bad parents -- I fully agree with that, but they aren't forcing other people to pay for the day-to-day care of themselves & their kids.

And if you read my original post, you'll see that I'm very much behind equal-opportunity forced sterilization. I do think that if any man has several children with several different women and no prospect of employment or means to support them, he should be fixed so that he won't be able to make anymore.

When a person chooses to be child-free, yet they're still paying for every aspect of the lives of these women & their children, I think that entitles them to have a say. If you're not taking care of yourself & your own children with your own means, then whoever is taking care of you & them should have just as much of a say [if not more] in everything involving you & your kids.