[Masthead] Partly Cloudy ~ 84°F  
High: 87°F ~ Low: 64°F
Friday, July 25, 2014

Mandatory sterilization?????

Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009, at 3:53 PM

I wrote a column in the T-G years ago some readers agreed with and others were opposed to my thoughts.

My feelings on columns were if everyone agreed with me I'd better watch my subject matter.

This column came after a high school senior I'd asked about her future plans, replied, "I'm going to have me a baby so I can draw all that money."

That statement hit me like a ton of bricks.

I'll admit now as I did then my thoughts on this matter may seem harsh to some.

After a girl or woman has her second baby at taxpayers expense, should mandatory sterization be required before tax dollars are shelled out for the second child?

At the time my thoughts went first to the children raised under such circumstances and then to the taxpayers.

And the same handling of this matter should be required of me who are fathers in name only and thinks others should pay for his responsibilities.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mandatory sterilization is not the answer ...Stop paying any benefits after 2 children if you decide to have a 3rd you better darn well have a job and be able to support it.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 4:43 PM

I say stop paying for benefits after the first child, but with a comment like the young lady made, don't pay for any benefits.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 5:15 PM

I doubt this could be feasible but I'd be tempted to want all persons to store their germ plasm (or other genetic material) and get a permanent or reversible sterilization as soon as possible.

People with genetic abnormalities might not choose to have their own biological offspring until apprpriate cures or treatments were available.

(They could still adopt or carry children that didn't have their physical problems.)

Any person who became a parent would do so deliberately and would be ready to take on whatever responsibilities came with providing for the physical,emotional and spiritual care of that baby.

Any being born (of whatever gender,species or appearance) would be wanted and accepted "as is".

One might select for certain traits or avoid preventable illness but no one would be rejected for not posessing this season's "designer genes".

As each pregnancy would be planned by responsible adults,there would be no babies conceived for the wrong reasons then jettisoned when they became inconvenient.

We'd have to be careful that any reproductive control measures were fair and voluntary and didn't invade privacy,moral codes or civil liberties and that sterilization didn't lead to "ethnic cleansing" or a targeted attack on a particular people.

In the past,prosperity itself was a form of contraception.

People who had choices in their lives,could get work and education (and didn't have to worry about infant mortality) started their families later and quit earlier so the children they had could enjoy a higher standard of living.

If you have no means or incentives to avoid pregnancy,you might wind up being productive in the ony way available to you.

You might create a person you could love who'd love you back,help you acquire new resources and,maybe,grow up to be your means of breaking free of an uncomfortable existence.

We don't need eugenics or population control measures that give government excessive power over our lives.

We don't need to encourage thoughtless breeding or a demand for air-brushed "perfection" or any other hint of elitism.

What we do need is a loving and competent family and supporive community for every child conceived.

We need for all persons born to come here with the optimum degree of health available and the means to cultivate their potential in the best ways possible.

Our children,pets,and all other life under our care are gifts.

We are not their stewards because of what we can gain from them (prestige or what-have-you)but we were offered dominion over them so we could bless them and maximise the good they could do for the world.

Rational and unselfish people can build families without turning into baby factories for their own agenda.

The rest haven't got the sort of character we need duplicated even if their DNA and RNA were ideal and our world's resources were without limit.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 5:48 PM

Sterilization may be a little much, but, I see no reason at all not to require women to get Depo shots, or other non-user controlled birth control before getting and while on any government assistance.

I think it should also be a requirement that a woman name the potential father(s) of her child(ren) before being eligible to receive benefits. Therefore allowing the state to make the father pay his share before putting taxpayers on the hook.

Children should be taken care of but the taxpayers shouldn't have to fund a woman's decision to become a human puppy mill.

I would also require random mandatory drug, alcohol, and tobacco testing with a positive test resulting in being kicked off benefits forever.

"Welfare" should be a helping hand for someone to work to get back on their feet and they can put off their destructive habits until they can fund them on their own.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 6:13 PM

i knew a woman that was a breeder. She had 5 children, all wards of the state.. welfare foodstamps and all, she'd dump them off on whomever and then go party and get knocked up again.

the last time, baby number 6 a certain doctor in town cut and tyed her tubes...when she had the c section.

I was so thrilled. hahah i don't mind helping folks out one bit, but when they party and use my hard earned money to just waste it.. that is a issue.

I think a welfare mom, should not get benefits for the second child and after the first one have to have mandetory birth control measures.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 7:27 PM

This is becoming an extremely prevalent issue in our society today. Not only is it creating a burden on the welfare system. It causes issues in our school system. As a parent I have to send extra supplies to school at the start of each and throughout the year, in order to insure that all of the children have what they need in the class room. This is an extra burden on my household as well as the others that send these supplies to school without question. There are parents that will not send the supplies and send their children without, knowing that others in the community fulfill their child's needs. I know of mothers that sell their children, figuratively, at tax time. The federal government only allows you to claim a certain amount of children on your taxes. The people that have above this amount will sell the child's SSN# to people to allow them to claim that child on, their taxes. So they can still make money on the extras.

-- Posted by docudrama on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 8:23 PM

Another good option would be to make people who receive non-military related benefits ineligible to vote in the calendar year in which they receive benefits.

It should come as no surprise that a hog at the government trough will always vote for more slop.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 8:47 PM

If we put a cap on the number of children allowed,I fear the less responsible types would jettison any "surplus" kids even if they were the result of one natural,multiple conception.

Or they might select certain offspring (whatever their age or birth order) and be ready to forget the rest.

Preventing "extra" pregnancies is one thing.

Labeling some kids "redundant" and unwanted is another.

Even if promiscuity doesn't lead to a conception,it can result in disease and destructive relationships.

I don't know if we should blame a void in these people's hearts or empty space between the ears but it would be tragic if our providing a safety net prompted folks to try sky-diving without a parachute.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 2:53 AM

Requiring public/community service for every penny of welfare received would be a fair exchange in my eyes.

How about baby sitting for someone who is working.

Working so many hours a week at a nursing home in town by helping clean and with laundry.

Helping with the animals at one of the shelter.

Washing dishes/taking out trash/cleaning in a school cafeteria or hospital.

-- Posted by Jacks4me on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 8:16 AM

I believe sterilization would be a good thing. Some of you say stop the benifits, thats not the answer,what happens to the childern when there is no food,or medical.You know as well as I do that if the parent is not doing anything to get out of the system, then they are not thinking of their childern, or their welfare.

I know this first hand, my daughter is a single mother of 2 beautiful girls, she was headed down that same welfare road.After her second daughter was born I CALLED the Dr and made the appt. for her sterilization.She was getting all of the benifits that are avalible,I convienced her to move to Indiana where I live.Here she got all the same welfare benifits as in TN, but here they cut out any money you get after you have been in the program for 2 years, you still get medical and food stamps.I'm happy to say she is making it. The only thing she gets now is food stamps, but those will be stopping as soon as she is finished with college.She works full time, takes care of her girls, goes to college at night.I feel the only way she is doing it is with the help of myself and the friends she has made here. The saying it takes a village is very true.I just wish everyone had this kind of support system, it really makes a different.My daughter will tell you that if it were not for me standing by her side helping she does not want to think where she and her girls would be.

Yes,sterilization would be better,and I'm not saying just for women.The BOY( takes alot to be a man) who fathered my daughters girls at last count has fathered 6 children. Children that he does not pay a penny of support for.All the state does is sticks him in jail and slaps his hands and tells him to pay.He is a great example of why sterilization would be a good thing.

-- Posted by redcat00 on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:03 AM

QuietMike, you should be a little louder. You make some excellent points.

(IUD's) should be mandated for ANYONE receiving assistance to raise their children.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/i...

Once you've been off public assistance for a 12 month period then the IUD can be removed if that is the Mother's wish. Mandatory drug tests are also an excellent idea. A positve test means no more support.

Just to be fair, I'd also be in favor of a Reversible vasectomy for men who have shown the inability to support their offspring. Probably more expensive, still cheaper than caring for a child for several years.

-- Posted by Dolittle on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 11:02 AM

"I believe sterilization would be a good thing. Some of you say stop the benifits, thats not the answer,what happens to the childern when there is no food,or medical.You know as well as I do that if the parent is not doing anything to get out of the system, then they are not thinking of their childern, or their welfare."-redcat00

If the benefits stop and the parent still won't work, remove the child and put him up for adoption. That will provide for the child and will also break the cycle of multi-generational welfare recipients.

If they continue to have children after one has been removed, then forced sterilization would be a viable option.

But personally I think public beatings would be more effective-something along the lines of the scourging scene from "The Passion of the Christ".

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 3:22 PM

Just to be fair, I'd also be in favor of a Reversible vasectomy for men who have shown the inability to support their offspring. Probably more expensive, still cheaper than caring for a child for several years.

-- Posted by Dolittle on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 11:02 AM

AMEN!!!!! Instead of throwing these men and women in jail for failure to pay child support, they should be faced with the possibility of reversible sterilization until which point they can take care of the children they have helped bring into this world. Make them pay for the procedure as well.

-- Posted by bcpwoman on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 3:27 PM

If the benefits stop and the parent still won't work, remove the child and put him up for adoption. That will provide for the child and will also break the cycle of multi-generational welfare recipients. quietmike

Have you ever checked on adoption or foster care for that matter.That will not work either, the system is full of kids in foster care andkids who are waiting to be addopted.I'm a volunteer for CASA here in Indiana.... I think they have the same there in Shelbyville, go there take their classes and become a volunteer to help with these kids you want to remove from homes. After you have seen what the kids go thru and If you come out of it all with the same mind set then I will personally say your right..."lets take them away and adopt them out.

-- Posted by redcat00 on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 3:29 PM

i knew a woman that was a breeder. She had 5 children, all wards of the state.. welfare foodstamps and all, she'd dump them off on whomever and then go party and get knocked up again.

the last time, baby number 6 a certain doctor in town cut and tyed her tubes...when she had the c section.

I was so thrilled. hahah i don't mind helping folks out one bit, but when they party and use my hard earned money to just waste it.. that is a issue.

I think a welfare mom, should not get benefits for the second child and after the first one have to have mandetory birth control measures.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 7:27 PM

Did the doctor cut and tie her tubes with or without her knowledge? And if he did so without her knowledge, even though I don't agree with her having all the kids, whoever it is should have their practicing license pulled and be sued til it snows in Hawaii....while I DO NOT agree someone should have many children and that we should pay for them, he/she still doesn't have the right to do that without someone's consent.

and tsk tsk on you Miss Perfect Christian lady, these children you balk at supporting are gifts from GOD, should she have had abortions? I bet if she had, you would be condemning her as well, oh well with as most christians, you are darned if you do and darned if you don't. As a christian, isn't it YOUR job to help the less fortunate (the children, that didn't ask to be born) as you people tell it "That's what Jesus would do"

-- Posted by stolen25 on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:14 PM

HMmmmmm....some of you are so quick to let the government step in and demand "mandatory sterilization" yet you are guys are the same ones that most likely freak out on the mention of "socialized medicine and health care" and the government approval of safe abortions. I find that interesting to say the least. Abortions or mandatory sterilization is still the government telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Perhaps the woman is catholic and believes she shouldn't use birth control. That is strongly against their beliefs. Even though I don't agree with anyone having that many kids, I nor the government has ANY right telling someone what to do with THEIR body. I think some people are too fat and their health care is driving up the cost of my health insurance, should the government also step in with a diet program, how about smokers, they are a nuisance to my health, I want the government to send out mandatory stop smoking patches ASAP!!! See how it is when you start letting the government make decisions for you?

You only want the government to step in when in might benefit you.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:32 PM

HMmmmmm....some of you are so quick to let the government step in and demand "mandatory sterilization" yet you are guys are the same ones that most likely freak out on the mention of "socialized medicine and health care" and the government approval of safe abortions.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:32 PM

A-frickin-men!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:35 PM

The government has stepped in with smoking, it's totally banned in restaurants, grocery stores, basically most public places. The state of Alambama is charging overweight folks a premium on their insurance, unless they are actively seeking a "healthier life style." Private insurance companies are starting to follow suit by charging increased premiums for smokers and some if you are overweight.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Thu, Feb 19, 2009, at 1:53 AM

HMmmmmm....some of you are so quick to let the government step in and demand "mandatory sterilization" yet you are guys are the same ones that most likely freak out on the mention of "socialized medicine and health care" and the government approval of safe abortions.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:32 PM

Let's examine the comparison.

With socialized medicine everyone must participate or go to jail for not paying taxes to support it.

No one is forcing anyone to get on welfare, in fact, I heartily encourage them to turn off the T.V., get off the couch, AND GET A JOB!!!

See the difference?

As for abortions, I see them as self-imposed liberal genocide, so hopefully my son won't have to put up with as much foolish whining as I do. ;-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 19, 2009, at 6:17 AM

And so Mr. Melson, it has began again. Myself? I agree with you. The woman in California should serve as a good reason to all of us to have men & women alike to use some form of birth control. That woman had 6 children already and wanted more. So she had 8 more. She is not married and does not work. That will be a burden on that state. That a doctor even did the precedure that impregnated her, should serve as cause to yank his license. Yep Mr. Melson, I whole heartly agree with you on this one.

-- Posted by MrsGailCL on Thu, Feb 19, 2009, at 6:21 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Just Some Thoughts
(91 ~ 10:40 AM, Jul 25)

Does TV Hold Us Captive?
(6 ~ 7:51 PM, Jul 24)

Any haunted places?
(37 ~ 6:15 PM, Jul 23)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)

Recreational Marijuana
(42 ~ 9:30 PM, Jun 26)