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

Okay. I'm really trying to step carefully here because it would be very easy to misunderstand, and I appreciate your patience with that.

Now.

This thread arose out of another thread about a move the Bush administration is making which could make it difficult, if not impossible, for government programs, clinics, etc. to provide information about birth control.

First, sterilization (permanent or reversible) is against the teachings of the Catholic church, as is birth control, so I think there would be some tall buildings to leap to get that sort of legislation passed.

Second, as I posted earlier, sterilization requires the expense of hospital equipment and surgical trainig, which is much more expensive than, say, birth control pills, IUDs, patches, or implants.

So why on earth would anyone want to reduce access to birth control but require "voluntary" surgery for single parents in financial distress - especially, those parents having trouble feeding their children because they are the only parent who stuck around to raise said child?

What point is there to even suggesting this idea, particularly given the fact that there are so many alternatives?

(Ardy, that question is not directed specifically to you; I know it wasn't your idea.)

This sounds like a control issue. Those proposing voluntary sterilization over birth control have some issues to deal with.

Having said that, should American society do anything about those that continually breed and who continually lack the economic resources to raise children?

Yes - it should provide reliable, inexpensive, and easily accessible pregnancy prevention.

I think that while there are women who have more children than they can care for, there are very few -- if any -- who do that just for the hell of it. It's more likely to be inability to control (by that I mean inability to control the male in question), failure of preventive measures due to misuse or inability to acquire, or to some unexpected economic failure.*

Women are not out there just happily having way too many kids. That's a myth. I know it's a myth because I know that abortion has been in demand for centuries. Women have always sought to limit the number of children they have -- not to have more than they can handle.

*Clarification: by that I mean an economic failure after the child was conceived or born which made a workable situation tenuous - loss of a job, for example, or a death of a parent.

I agree with your post for the most part Mellow.

Somewhat related, there is evidence of a phenomenon occurring of single woman who view men as wallets and will get preggers simply for the baby daddy's monthly check.

By having two kids (or more) by two different men (or more), a woman could collect a fairly good amount of money and never have to work by living off of that child support money.

...but this is a entirely different thread.

Show me the evidence, please. What you're describing sounds more like a movie than reality. I have yet to meet a woman who "lived well" off of child support. I have, however, met a number of women who were unable to collect the child support they were granted by the court.

I would consider this off topic, Rick, except I believe that it is a myth that women have children for money or (as I said earlier) for the hell of it. And it is precisely that myth that makes it possible for someone to suggest sterilization as a cure for this "bad behavior."

However, I'm all for your starting another thread!

Julia
In general I agree with what you have written and think that this country faces many questions that will have a much greater long term impact on the future of the nation than this question would ever have.

(Off topic)
The simple fact of the matter is that we spend immeasurably more money incarcerating people for no reason other than the fact that they have a substance abuse problem. We do not lock up drunks or chain smokers and I simply do not see why incarceration is the chosen method to "treat' other forms of substance abuse.

Ardy - I'm sorry; once again I'm not reading you properly. What does incarceration and substance abuse have to do with the topic? I mean, you said you were off topic, but I don't see any connection at all.

Rick, you have some seriously out of reality views on childbirth. I encourage you to spend a full day in your local divorce court and listen to the amounts awarded as child support.

First, most men pay NOTHING as support either because they are never located by the system or because their wages are so low the amount they can pay is miniscule.

I spent many years involved in these cases and there is no woman I ever encountered in over 30 years who could possibly live on the amount ordered as child support.

Yes, there are a few very cases where a very rich man, or woman, is able to and is ordered to pay large amounts for support. Britney for example.

But 99% of the cases are tragic in how little child support is paid. There is a huge difference between what courts order and what is actually paid.

Further, California bases the amount of support in part on income of the parties and in part on the amount of time spent with the child. So savvy fathers have learned to appear to spend lots of time with the child to minimize the amount ordered. I emphasize appear.

far from a cash cow for the mothers, child support is one of the great tragedies of modern life. Most single mothers live in poverty and have to work to even come close to a liveable standard of living.

My "evidence" is annoctodal from what I hear from guys at the gym, or from meat cutters.

I only have my own brother's experience.

My bro had two children with his wife. Wife cheated on him and got preggers by a red-headed guy. Baby comes, and our family is scratching their heads - no one in our family, or hers, has red hair.

Long story short, my bro has to pay child support because he no longer wanted to live with THAT woman. Court gives mother the kids.

I feel the court made a mistake because this mother is a bad example spreading her married legs and all - but that's my opinion.

My bro has to pay $750/mo per kid for a total of $1500.00 / mo. Again, because his wife cheated on him and got preggers.

The guy who got my bro's ex-wife preggers has to pay $500 / mo in child support.

I know for a fact that my bro's ex-wife did not work, and still does not work - mainly because she's married a wealthy guy.

Why that guy would marry her is beyond me - but he did.

Phil it used to be that way, back in the day - like the 80s - but's not not like that anymore.

There is no escaping paying child support any longer. Everyone pays - it's a federal law.

I've never heard of guy taking a lower-paying job to escape paying much child support.