Ditto, Ditto, Ditto

everything procreates but I still recommend spaying and neutering your animal-why? b/c there are too many strays/starving animals. So some people say "well humans aren't animals, you can't compare us to dogs/cats"-I say yes we are animals and there are some people out there that breed like rabbits and don't take care of their business. I have to deal with people everyday that don't have a dime to their name, are completely ignorant and are raising the same type of children (and also have animals they should not have)-it is disgusting and if people haven't noticed it is getting out of hand. I think people should be limited to two children-that is it. If you get re-married then you can apply to have more and that can be reviewed. I am sick of these people going around spreading their "seed" and basically expecting kids to raise themselves, yes there are shitty moms out there but fact is men make up the majority of these a$$holes. I say down with both the men and the women.

off soapbox.

BTW I am waiting for 2 people to come in that have dogs that got into "poison" and have no money-IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY THEN DON'T HAVE A PET OR A CHILD!!!!!!

uh, excuse me but the republicans are the ones that are always trying to get into people's business-you can't get married if you are gay, you can't have a peaceful death by euthanasia if you are terminally ill and you can't have an abortion is you don't want the child you are carrying. I am so sick of people saying that democrats are sticking their noses into people's business when the republican's are the one's telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

And yes people should have a f'license.

I agree.

why not they make alot of other rules about what we can and cannot do.

ok Tom aren't you against abortion? So what if the woman did not want the child but abortion was illegal-what is she goin to do now-give it up for adoption? That is a choice but again there are so many children that need adoption-where does it all end?

Could you please provide a link to this story? I did a google search, but I could only find one relevant article. Thanks in advance. :)

Oh yes, government can do whatever it pleases...

I couldn't find ANYTHING on it. Or at least a summary of the situation would be nice.

I have to say that I tend to be pretty liberal, and I am appalled at the idea of the government having the power to force sterilization on anyone, regardless of whether or not they would make fit parents.

Perhaps making him volunteer at a school or some other work benefitting children would be a more appropriate method of rehabilitation.

Here is the only relevant link that I found. It is a large article about the government sterilizing women without their consent and includes the sad story of the Relf sisters.

Here they are. I felt that it would be better to have those interested do a websearch, 'cause I didn't want my sources to be attacked as overly left-leaning or feminist. Plus, I originally read about the case in one of my Female Sexuality books, and I couldn't find it (I found it now). Here are two links in addition to Peaches-n-Cream's, from two (I feel) reputable sources.


Summary of the Supreme Court Case from Georgetown Law

From Houghton-Mifflin (textbook publishers)

I originally learned of the story from Angela Davis's Women, Race and Class. She discusses the early birth control movement in general, then she goes into the forced sterilization. Of course, I'm not using this as my sole source of information about it. I consider Georgetown Law, a major textbook maker, and the Harvard School of Public Health pretty impartial sources.

Regardless of your political views, forcing tubal ligations on TEENAGERS (one of the sisters was 12!) should be viewed as SICK, especially when they deliberately hoodwinked the mother into believing it was "just a shot." Each time something like this happens, it pushes us closer to eugenics. And you know who practiced eugenics. :rolleyes:

Very well said! Amen my Triad sister!
(coming from a woman who has marched on Washington). BTW I consider myself a middle of the road chick!

What my sister said. :)

Guess what, I'm going to disagree with this, for several reasons. First of all, it's not the government's business to intrude into someone's personal life to tell her whether he/she can or cannot reproduce (and yes, I am pro-choice). Who will determine the qualifications for a permit? What would you do if you didn't pass and one day became pregnant and had your child taken away?

The thing is, I'm not big on everyone reproducing. I think that many of the problems in our world today are caused by overpopulation, but I don't think that government intervention is the key -- I think that the key is education and cheap, easily available birth control.

As a side note, I work counseling parents who have abused or neglected their children, and do you know what? The best way to help shithead parents is to educate and counsel them so that they can be better. It works quite often. I'd much rather try to help people than take their children away because they're not living up to my standards.

I was just watching the news and they were profiling a family that was in a homeless shelter-a woman and her SEVEN children-all under the age of 10 (no husband in the picture)-HELLO, WTF? I feel sorry for the children but come on-when are people going to realize that it takes money to have kids. The woman was complaining b/c while she is thankful for people's donations during Christmas they are forgotten after the holidays-WELL EXCUSE ME IF I WAS SUPPOSE TO SUPPORT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ALL YEAR ROUND-PLLLLLEEEEAASE.

I agree education is the key but then in many instances religion gets in the way (here goes my pope "bashing" again). Until we have religious leaders also preaching birth control education will continue to fall on deaf ears for some people. In that case-if you want tons of kids then put up or shut up.

eegnog!
 

mmmm mmm mm goooooooooddd!11!!

Get rid of welfare.

-Rudey
--Manu Chao says so.

This is exactly why we shouldn't have permits...among other obvious reasons, 100% of the people will not be 100% happy with the criteria. Marriage, educational level, income--plenty of people of varying circumstances raise children just fine.

My posts in the related thread (I suggested a high level of education in order to have a child) were deliberately sarcastic.

If Democrats want to have 10 kids per family then go ahead but pay for your own damn kids.

Where did THIS come from? :confused:

Thanks for the links. I took many women's studies classes, but I don't remember learning of this story.

It's a pretty tough question to answer here.

On the one hand, I'd like the government to stay the hell out of people's bodies unless what they are doing directly effects someone else. A strong case can be made for abortion here, whether it's right or wrong, but I'm more/less on the side of your pro-choice folks up to a point.

What becomes difficult in figuring out whether this is a good idea or not is who gets to decide who can have children and by what criteria? If we have criterian based on socioeconomic status or how someone scores on an IQ test (note, I did not say actual intelligence), then I think we will have a disproportionate amount of minorities effected by this. On the other hand, an extension of affermative action as far as permission to procreate is something that I'd almost find to be humorous.

If someone far smarter than myself could come up with a fair system by which we could judge someone's suitability to procreate, then I'd be for it. However, I don't think such a system could really ever exist.

What China has done is an interesting variation of such a system. Each woman is only allowed to have one child. If they have a second, an abortion is forced. I don't think anyone, liberal, conservative, green or whatever thinks that system works very well (or is very fair).

I really don't see this as a liberal/conservative type of debate. I think this is an issue that people that identify with either end of the spectrum would be divided amongst themselves on. To oversimplify it in a liberal/conservative manner really doesn't do it justice.

Now, if we could just perfect a way to reproduce without actually involving the human body, that would solve all these problems completely:D

well, most days, i will say that parents should get permits, but realistically, i disagree. the whole idea teeters on a very slippery slope that could very well lead to genocide.

certainly a more effective way to help these parents is education. we are not running around having 10 kids and can't care for them....because we are a group of well educated people. not everyone is as educated....and that doesn't mean that they are bad or would be inappropriate parents. wouldn't it be great to teach our young women that if they meet a guy who already has 6 kids to run fast and far? wouldn't it be great to teach our young men that if they father a child they better be ready to care for him/her?


truthfully, it is both a man's and a women's responsibilty to care for the children that they have, but more often than not, one parent is absent. the majority of the time it is a man, but certainly there are absent mothers. some fathers feel after a divorce that the child isn't really their problem anymore and that it is the mother's issue. for example (and this is something i have heard from several single mothers that i know), the father does not want to pay child support because he doesn't want to give her any money. the thing is that in order for her to have a job, she needs to send her 3 yro to day care which costs roughly $700/month. interestingly, the child support is set at $700/ month. he doesn't give her one dime. she pays for her daughter's clothes, food, toys, entertainment, etc which she is only able to afford because she has a job. when her daughter is sick he REFUSES to take a day off work to stay home with her, so she ends up using all of her sick and vacation days. is this guy a royal jerk? absolutely! should he be snipped? nope.

It is simply too complex to determine. Here are two real life stories of people I know and in both situations, someone could argue at some point that they shouldn't have had children OR that they were fine to have children, but things changed...

Situation #1: 21 year old college student at Michigan State gets pregnant by long time boyfriend. They quit school, get married, but after 6 months, he can't handle the pressure and disappears. She goes on ADC, goes to a technical school and obtains some skills and a good job and continues to raise the daughter with some financial help from her mother at times like Christmas. She essentially pulls herself out of the worst of the situation. She's now 34 or 35 with her 13/14 year old daughter. She's been on welfare once or twice when laid off, but always gets a new job and goes back off of it. Is she a "welfare" mom who shouldn't have more kids if she meets someone special and gets married again?

Situation #2: Perfect couple, happily married, two kids. very stable financially. Mom stays home and raises the kids, Dad is a very successful car salesman until the economy goes bad in California in the early to mid 90's. House is sold for less than they owed on it, they move back to Michigan and he tries to find work. He becomes a truck driver and gets a job as a car hauler. Falls off the top of his car hauler one day at work, has a closed head injury which affects his emotional stability. He is totally off the deep end and can't work. Workman's Comp makes a settlement which will pay off the house, but now Mom must go back to work. Can't leave the kids with dad during the day because he's so mentally unstable so has to pay day care. She divorces him as he's becoming abusive. She is now on welfare. She tries to work odd jobs under the table to get enough cash to live on and keep her kids in a decent school, etc. She ends up meeting a great guy and re-marries and things are great for her again. He takes care of her kids as he would his own and they've had another child together.

The reality is.. things change, situations change. Someone who is totally fit to be a parent in all ways may lose it all and someone who seems unfit might turn themselves around with the responsibility of a child. The permanency of sterilization combined with the changes that can occur in people's lives makes it impossible to determine who should or shouldn't have kids. On the same note, I'm a Democrat who doesn't think we should punish the kids for the situation they were born into. I do think that aid should be in forms that will directly help the kids to deter someone who is having more and more kids to get the money from the govt. Provide day care, food, heat and electricity rather than the cash. I'm also very big on "workfare" if the person is capable of working (ie. not disabled).

Dee