Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Permanent birth control

Oh Rick, ask mothers. Fedral law has helped and more do pay. As i said until 3 years ago I practiced divorce law. The ingenuity of men is mind blowing.

Rick - thank you for starting another thread on this (although I'm curious - is participation there limited to men?)

If we can wander back to the topic at hand that would be good.

Rick,

Way back in the 80's I represented women whose husbands QUIT their jobs to avoid paying child support (or got a friendly employer to fire them). One father (an engineer) went to work at another company but said he was unemployed. We had him followed (private investigator) in the early morning and found out where he went to work.

Another, with another friendly boss, also "lost" his job to avoid child support. Then, the employer started paying him under the table so his check couldn't be garnished.

Two out of probably 20 divorce cases I handled. Ten percent. Probably high and not indicative, but it certainly happens enough to be a problem.

But, what about women who have children, don't get child support (father long gone or in prison or what have you) and receive welfare? I think it should be the state pays for one child (unless they were conceived in marriage and the father disappears) born outside of a family bond. Any more children born with no father around to support the child is the responsibility of the mother. That should be an incentive to use birth control or get sterilized and it would be voluntary, not coerced.

I'm old enough to have formed this opinion 40 years ago. I was responsible and didn't bring into this world any more children than I could afford. I believe that all women (unfortunately, they are the ones who bear the brunt of bearing and raising children) need to be responsible. I was going to have my tubes tied after my second child (ended up having a hysterectomy instead) because I didn't want any more children and I didn't want to risk birth control pills for the rest of my child-bearing years.

Thank you for your post Dockside.

Women can join the thread.

Your brother is a rarity. Most of the single mothers that I come in contact with as a current Adult Girl Scout volunteer(their daughters are in Girl Scouts-obviously NOT during the 80's) are struggling to make ends meet. Most of the dads are dead beats, who skip from job to job, get paid under the table or outright disappear. two of my own friends are owed in exess of $25,000 in back child support, and the amount is still growing, since the children have not attained their majority. Several fathers claim that they don't want to pay because their exes benefit from the money-and it is more important to stick it to the ex than make sure that their children are housed, clothed and fed. If you think that skipping out on child support is a thing of the past, I suggest that you watch Judge Judy. You will find that it is a very common occurrence on her show...and that it is only the tip of the iceberg.

BTW, when my parents divorced in 1973, my 3 sisters and I were raised by my dad-and my mother had to pay child support. Which she did.

ON Topic

I find the act of "voluntary" sterilization-temporary or otherwise, in order to receive money to care for one's child to be heinous in the extreme. It is a subtle form of coercion and a huge form of gender discrimination. An unethical attempt at subjugating women under the guise of "saving money". It is a blatant strike to enforce someone else's idea of morality upon others.

Thanks, Scout.

I think what I have found so disturbing about this thread is that two days ago, on its parent thread, we were talking about the problems associated with reducing access to pregnancy prevention techniques - and now only two days later, we are having a [i]serious discussion[i] about whether or not it's all right for the government to sterilize women in exchange for public assistance.

I find this absolutely terrifying. On a site where any form of government intrusion usually brings howls of protest, sterilization by coercion seems, to some, to be an idea worth considering. I must confess I don't understand it.

Scout said it best -- it's heinous in the extreme.

I am not sure what is the distinction between temporary sterilization and some other forms of birth control... ie IUD or that injectable device that goes under the skin and provides 6 months of protection... that makes it so horrible

I cannot speak for others, but have personally endorsed and wondered how a similar approach could be applied to men...who I agree are really the bigger part of the problem.. and so do not see how it is inherently an example of gender discrimination.

I think that life in general subjugates people. As you become adult and need to take care of yourself come what may... and then need to take care of a family... come what may... we are mostly all subjugated to some degree.

I personally do not see the proposal as an specific attack on women. Instead I see it as a general reaction that very many people have to the idea of supporting reckless and ill-considered behavior of others of any gender.

I have separately posted (a admittedly poorly expressed thought) that if one is concerned to save government expense, there would be many more effective areas to consider for that purpose

It does not seem to me that the proposal is in any way designed to enforce a view of morality... except in so far as one might feel there is a moral compulsion to plan your family so that you can take care of your children. (to the extent possible within the uncertainty of life-- and specifically adding that this proposal is not-- and should not be targeted at people who fall into an unfortunate situation already having children as opposed to people who are not capable of caring for children and yet persist in having those children,,,, to the extent that there are such people... a circumstance that Julia has argued as rare... and therefore also a rare circumstance that this proposal would be applied.

Finally, I would like to propose the idea that the experiences of Julia, Scout, and the other women on this board may not be entirely representative of the the population as a whole. I suspect it is fair to say the the large majority of people who post on this board (especially including myself) have little awareness of the nature of life for those that live on the margins of our society.

The point being made is that it is enforced government intervention in the reproductive system, whether male or female.

How about we reverse the entire thought process and start from a different premise: Government should fund a liveable child support amount for every child born no matter the circumstances.

We then would recognize that children are a community responsibility. The program would be paid for by a tax on all parents, male and female, as a portion of their income.

Oh I can hear the wails of socialism and fascism now.