If possible: Forced birth control for those on welfare to stop the next generation of poor

[Younigue]

If someone were to undergo forced sterilization and die from the procedure, I'm wondering how that might be seen ethically.

The people who would support this agenda would consider it acceptable losses. After all, they care about money not life.

I wonder how some of the religious factions out there would feel about forced birth control.

 

[interchange]

The people who would support this agenda would consider it acceptable losses. After all, they care about money not life.

I wonder how some of the religious factions out there would feel about forced birth control.

Don't be so pessimistic.

 

[soulcougher73]

Pretty rich for someone to decide who's worthy of reproducing when they don't know the difference between 'less' and 'fewer', that's fundamental grammar! I say we introduce a spelling and math test before you can have kids. I'd also support death penalty for anyone who says "more unique".

Ah, the old "i have nothing", so i'll attack your grammar mistakes. So childish and pathetic.

 

[soulcougher73]

Edit: I couldn't subject myself to reading the dude's entire post. As soon as I got to "all sex is rape" I knew I wouldn't finish reading it. I stopped after "it only takes one to take precautions to LIMIT the possibility of becoming pregnant."

Ahhh. Did reality and facts hit too close to home? Instead of blaming men for everything maybe women should take some responsibility for their actions.

 

[Younigue]

Don't be so pessimistic.

Those who believe in acceptable losses don't consider it pessimism. In fact, they add it to their overall optimism. I'm not offending their sensibilities. Neither am I being single mindedly pessimistic when I take in to consideration the depth of love for money too many lawmakers possess. I'm being a realist and they are being logical from their perspective.

 

[soulcougher73]

If someone were to undergo forced sterilization and die from the procedure, I'm wondering how that might be seen ethically.

Considering not a single person has talked about sterilization, your points is meaningless. Temporary BC is not even remotely the same as permenantly sterilizing a woman.

 

[Younigue]

Ah, the old "i have nothing", so i'll attack your grammar mistakes. So childish and pathetic.

OR you could improve and avoid such things all together?

 

[soulcougher73]

OR you could improve and avoid such things all together?

OR we could stick to the topic and not worry so much about spelling when it doesnt really matter to what is being said. Im not saying one shouldnt try to be grammatically correct, but attacking it pathetic. Its like peoples easy way out vs. talking about the topic.

Libs almost sounds like conservatards in this thread. STERILIZATION!!, EUGENICS!!, NAZIS!! vs. BENGHAZI!!, OBAMA!!, BUTTERY MALES!!

 

[soulcougher73]

OR we could stick to the topic and not worry so much about spelling when it doesnt really matter to what is being said. Im not saying one shouldnt try to be grammatically correct, but attacking it pathetic. Its like peoples easy way out vs. talking about the topic.

Libs almost sounds like conservatards in this thread. STERILIZATION!!, EUGENICS!!, NAZIS!! vs. BENGHAZI!!, OBAMA!!, BUTTERY MALES!!

The joy of being in the middle is i get to attack both sides for their silly views. Conservatards are far worse though, but libs have their issues as well.

 

[Younigue]

Ahhh. Did reality and facts hit too close to home? Instead of blaming men for everything maybe women should take some responsibility for their actions.

WTF are you talking about? I blame the women AS MUCH AS I BLAME THE MEN. This thread is directed toward women, I opted to change the narrative to include men because they are EQUALLY responsible regardless of which gender actually carries the pregnancy. *SIGH* Yes, you are a purposefully obtuse idiot in this. For ALL women I say fu*k off you simple-minded prick.

Psst... That lovely available option I mentioned previously? I'mma 'bout to use it. ... prolly.

 

[interchange]

Considering not a single person has talked about sterilization, your points is meaningless. Temporary BC is not even remotely the same as permenantly sterilizing a woman.

Actually they did earlier, but I erred nonetheless.

What if someone dies as a result of forced birth control?

 

[Younigue]

OR we could stick to the topic and not worry so much about spelling when it doesnt really matter to what is being said. Im not saying one shouldnt try to be grammatically correct, but attacking it pathetic. Its like peoples easy way out vs. talking about the topic.

Libs almost sounds like conservatards in this thread. STERILIZATION!!, EUGENICS!!, NAZIS!! vs. BENGHAZI!!, OBAMA!!, BUTTERY MALES!!

Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" sterilization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!

 

[interchange]

Those who believe in acceptable losses don't consider it pessimism. In fact, they add it to their overall optimism. I'm not offending their sensibilities. Neither am I being single mindedly pessimistic when I take in to consideration the depth of love for money too many lawmakers possess. I'm being a realist and they are being logical from their perspective.

Perhaps pessimism was the wrong word due to a misguided idea of your feelings on the matter.

If someone concludes that financial interests are of more value here than humanistic ones, it does not mean that all they care about is financial interest. In fact, all that is needed for many people to change stances is for someone to alert them to the presence of an alternative consideration they had not previously given due attention.

Those who have decided more affirmatively are likely those who will be most vocal. That phenomenon leads to a lot of false dichotomies being drawn.

 

[bshole]

Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" serialization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!

You want copies of him?

 

[werepossum]

eugenics scare the stuff out of me. Reminds me of how easy we can all become like Nazis

Forced sterilization is insanely creepy

This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward. Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work. Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual. There is no amount of potential saving that would justify forced sterilization, even temporarily.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Actually they did earlier, but I erred nonetheless.

What if someone dies as a result of forced birth control?

In any endeavor of society some level of risk must be assumed. People can, and do, die standing in line for food stamps.

The question is what level of risk is acceptable. Is death a foreseeable and reasonable risk of BC?

I think the answer to that is that there is some considerable risk of harm, and that risk reaches to unacceptable levels for some demographics. So, we could not apply this rule across the board, we would need some way to evacuate risk on an individual level, and from there the whole thing will start to spiral into the same sort of bureaucracy that people are complaining is wrong with the current system.

 

[Younigue]

You want copies of him?

Never.

But I would never actually subject anyone to forced birth control even @soulcougher73.

 

[Younigue]

Perhaps pessimism was the wrong word due to a misguided idea of your feelings on the matter.

If someone concludes that financial interests are of more value here than humanistic ones, it does not mean that all they care about is financial interest. In fact, all that is needed for many people to change stances is for someone to alert them to the presence of an alternative consideration they had not previously given due attention.

Those who have decided more affirmatively are likely those who will be most vocal. That phenomenon leads to a lot of false dichotomies being drawn.

I was talking about the detached professionalism many lawmakers approach making decisions for the people. Acceptable losses is absolutely a part of their vocabulary.

So yeah, I often refer to detachment as uncaring. I am well aware that isn't the rule but sadly, caring is the exception to the "rule". Caring tends to get in the way.

 

[interchange]

In any endeavor of society some level of risk must be assumed. People can, and do, die standing in line for food stamps.

The question is what level of risk is acceptable. Is death a foreseeable and reasonable risk of BC?

I think the answer to that is that there is some considerable risk of harm, and that risk reaches to unacceptable levels for some demographics. So, we could not apply this rule across the board, we would need some way to evacuate risk on an individual level, and from there the whole thing will start to spiral into the same sort of bureaucracy that people are complaining is wrong with the current system.

In the end, you are asking for a standard in order to force medical treatment on a person. There is plenty of legal precedent for such a standard, and it varies depending on state laws. However, I'm aware of none that allows you to force care on a person who has decision-making capacity in regard to the treatment. The closest might be involuntary psychiatric commitment, which notably deals with only commitment and not forced treatment. Still, the decision for psychiatric commitment is one where evidence of mental illness exists driving a person's imminent risk to self or others, thus essentially asserting that a person's mental illness impairs their capacity to choose unsupervised treatment. It is vastly different than what is being proposed here.

 

[Younigue]

This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward. Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work. Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual. There is no amount of potential saving that would justify forced sterilization, even temporarily.

Thank you. I said much the same with an earlier post. My Words were harsher but the jist was the same.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This, exactly. If we want to discourage people from having children that we'll all have to support, do it via encouragement, support, reward.

I agree.

Require work from welfare recipients, and make that work pay slightly better than welfare. Provide easily accessible free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care so that people on welfare have an easier time training for or looking for work.

Most of this is good. There is some problem with the work part. We basically already set minimum wage to below poverty level, so for welfare to pay less that work we have to either accept that welfare does not provide for someone's welfare, or raise minimum wage, neither is currently politically acceptable.

Free birth control, reproductive counseling, child care, training, and other such social programs most definitely needs to be a part of any solution. It dismays me that these things are not universally agreed upon. But if we started to offer those programs we would in just a few years have someone like SNC starting a thread on why he has to pay for women's birth control.

Make payments lower for successive children. Generally work to make it so there is less financial incentive to have additional children and more financial incentive (and fewer impediments) to be a responsible, productive individual.

While this sounds like a good idea if you don't think about it too hard, it simply will not work. All it will really lead to is starving children. People had more children than they could feed before we had welfare. There is no reason to think that people will be any more responsible now.

 

[soulcougher73]

Coming out strong to defend stupidity! You definitely should be subjected to forced "temporary" sterilization. The country can not bear the weight of the procreation of your kind. We can't afford it!

Don't worry i took it upon myself to not breed. Not due to money. I have plenty of that.

 

[interchange]

I was talking about the detached professionalism many lawmakers approach making decisions for the people. Acceptable losses is absolutely a part of their vocabulary.

So yeah, I often refer to detachment as uncaring. I am well aware that isn't the rule but sadly, caring isn't the exception to the rule. It tends to get in the way.

Those who speak the loudest are those with the most affirmative stance, not necessarily those with the least conflict. The conflict is evident in the detachment. The conflict is evident in the argumentativeness expressed by others here. You are noticing defensive operations of the mind because they care and can't tolerate it.

I think the most pragmatic solution is to not elect that kind of person. But our election results show that isn't a highly valued opinion.

 

[bshole]

Don't worry i took it upon myself to not breed. Not due to money. I have plenty of that.

You are a failure then. The only reason for life is to pass on your DNA. A welfare queen with 17 kids has succeeded in this fundamental imperative far more than you. Her DNA could be around a million years from now, yours won't.

 

[SMOGZINN]

In the end, you are asking for a standard in order to force medical treatment on a person. There is plenty of legal precedent for such a standard, and it varies depending on state laws. However, I'm aware of none that allows you to force care on a person who has decision-making capacity in regard to the treatment. The closest might be involuntary psychiatric commitment, which notably deals with only commitment and not forced treatment. Still, the decision for psychiatric commitment is one where evidence of mental illness exists driving a person's imminent risk to self or others, thus essentially asserting that a person's mental illness impairs their capacity to choose unsupervised treatment. It is vastly different than what is being proposed here.

I agree. Even involuntary psychiatric commitment falls back on the argument that they are not of sound mind to make decisions for themselves. It is actually a requirement that a doctor says that for someone to be committed against their will.

The closest thing to what we are talking about would be involuntary blood draws by police for sobriety checks. Something else I am strongly against.