Welfare Babies

[proxy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=543688&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow

Am I the only one who thinks he makes a fairly good, albeit 'heartless', point?

[Biddle]

I think that there's definitely an argument to be made in favor of ow income families living conservatively and being responsible about producing children. But I think that you get into a sticky situation when you consider the reality of what you're proposing.

MANDATORY, INVOLUNTARY sterilization of any citizen. That's a scary premise. And it surrenders basic human rights to the government. Any government. Who enforces this? What happens if a citizen doesn't want to participate with this program? Jail time? Being drugged, dragged out of your home and then having surgery done to you, when you don't want it? Is that reasonable?

Who funds this? Where is it done? Who pays the doctors for their work? And do they HAVE to do the surgery? Or can they opt out of the program?

What happens if someone has this surgery done on them, against their will and they develop complications and die? Who can the family sue for compensation? The doctor? The government? (We barely provide compensation for soldiers families. I can't imagine providing it for the families of poor civilians that the government kills with this program.)

I think it's more feasible to promote a program where this sort of surgery is available to anyone who wants it, regardless of economic status, as safely as possible. Allow people the choice to get this done for themselves. Because I can't imagine the world where we, a mega-country founded on freedom and liberty, enforces a program that removes those two things.

Sure, the idea of moderation for the poor is a good argument to make. Sterilizing the poor, though, is a slippery slope. No wonder it doesn't get much traction when it's brought up. Ask a few more questions about it and you see how complicated it really would be.

Cheers,
COB

[robbersean]

I think that you should have to get a license to have a baby, just like you have to get a license to drive a car or shoot a gun.

There should be some sort of written test that you have to take, as well as an obstacle course to prove that you are ready to have a child.

Unlicensed parents would be thrown in jail, and have their children taken away by the state. The children raised by the state would be brought up as a warrior caste to be used in military campaigns around the world.

[Biddle]

You had me at "warrior caste system".

[proxy]

I do agree with the licencing thing, however....it's harder to get a puppy than it is to have a baby. There's something seriously wrong there.

I think having children is something to be earned, not a right. I also think that people who have children out of carelessness and/or their own benefit shouldn't be supported by the government, at least not nearly as much as some are.

To make it clear, my mom was on welfare for several years when i was a child. She put herself through a PhD program while taking care of three children on her own, and accepted financial assistance for less than 5 years. She got on her own two feet after a very difficult divorce (not to mention NO child support from my father), but even she would NEVER, say, have another kid during that time. What responsible person would?

Say what you will about mandatory birth control, but I say if you can't stop f*cking and you can't have an abortion, birth control is a pretty reasonable option.

[speedymarie]

How about we provide correct sex education in schools, rather than continuing to use "abstinence only" education which has been shown to increase teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy rates were dropping in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the mid 2000s, they started showing an increase again. Why? The conservative push for "abstinence-only" sex ed.

I talked to a friend who teaches middle school, who literally heard one eighth grade girl say to another "Ms. (whoever is the health teacher) said that condoms don't work, so my boyfriend and I don't bother using them."

Did your jaw just drop?

Abstinence only education attempts to get kids to not have sex by telling them that condoms are not "completely effective" and nothing is completely effective, so they just should not have sex at all. And what did this girl take away? "condoms don't work, so why bother?"

Teaching kids about contraceptives has been shown to increase the use of contraceptives, but NOT to lower the age kids start having sex (as Ab-only proponents claim). Basically, kids start having sex at the same age no matter what, but they only use contraceptives if they know about them, and easily know how to get them.

This is why you have a rise in welfare babies and teen pregnancy. If we get sex-ed programs that are realistic, we can work on this. Sterilization isn't the answer - education is. Also, not making it nearly impossible for a woman to get a perfectly legal abortion would be nice. And, teaching kids that its ok to ask their doctor about contraception. And parents TALKING TO THEIR KIDS.

If I was a fascist dictator, the first law I'd pass would be to require a license for having kids, but unfortunately that is impossible in a democracy, so we have to live in reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06birth.html

[Gass]

People, the thing to remember is that it takes place in England. They are a dying race, let'em have all the children they want.

ENGLISH-AMERICAN 4 LIFE!

[rdolan]

I think the sterilization of impoverished women is a great idea in the misogynistic, brutal, elitist, Stalinistic, evil sort of way.

[schaefe]

Somewhere in an Dublin graveyard, Jonathan Swift is rolling over and saying, "Didn't I cover this one already in 'A Modest Proposal'?"

[proxy]

Mmm...baby-flesh...

I must add, I'm slightly biased since I HATE children...but I think a large part of that hate is due to bad parents who have kids carelessly and then raise them to be lil' shits.