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

Got it in one, Phil -- it's the government intervention that is the problem. Thank you for making it so clear!

Ardy, while it may be true that

No one ever claimed to represent the population as a whole. That would be silly. I don't know any small group that can be seen as entirely representative of the population as a whole, so I'm not sure I understand your point, or rather, I think it would apply to most posts at RR.

If facts have been presented that you feel need to be supported, I hope you will ask for links. But if it means anything, I have, in my life, been poor enough to get my health care from a government agency, and I have, in my life, had a pregnancy scare at a time when I knew I could not care for a child. That is, perhaps, more information than you wanted, but I think it does give me a certain awareness of the topic.

Again - not a challenge, just a statement.

Phil
I agree that this whole area is a minefield of concerns. From a practical standpoint I doubt that any such proposal could ever be legislated.

Never the less, if one starts with the assumption that the government has the athority to lock people up and even kill them in some circumstances, then it seems to me not a far stretch to consider "restriction" of reproductive rights in certain circumstances.

Just for example, even now I presume it would be possible for the government to lock someone up as a means of reversible birth control. And I suppose, in theory, the individual might be given the option to participate in voluntary temporary sterilization in liu of prison time. I believe that some sex offenders are already given the option of castration in liu of permanent incarceration. And so this proposed program would only be doing a similar thing to what is already done except for diufferent reasons.

Just thinking out loud here.

Ardy - I appreciate your continued participation in this thread.


The first assumption presuems that a crime has been committed. What criminal act would result in restriction of reproductive rights?


Again, are there criminal causes? And if not, what is the justification for extending criminal punishment to non-criminal behavior?

I can think of no legal theory under which such a power exists. A few judges have tried variations of this and been overruled. There may be such a case but I can't see how it would fit into the 4th and 8th Amendments.

I've finally caught up with this thread! Wow. I start, I think, with the same premise that Phil does, and that is that it is none of the government's business how people, individually, conduct their lives or make reproductive choices. Of course, I also agree that if we had universal health care that included education on birth control options and provisions for birth control it would be a better policy for the population as a whole than any form of sterilization, permanent or not.

The State may have an interest in reducing its burden in caring for children of profligate parents that are economically challenged, but that interest pales in comparison to the interests of parents in raising their children and making reproductive choices - even dumb ones. Although the issue of Carrie Buck's forced sterilization has come and gone from this thread, it is instructive in that that was a legal philosophy that prevailed in the country until only two generations ago - Carrie herself only died 25 years ago. Given the willingness of the current administration to forgo basic constitutional and moral proscriptions, it is healthy to be concerned with how such authority might be abused in the future.

For most people receiving aid or being sterilized is the kind of a Hobson's choice that most of us would consider heinous if presented to us, but is somehow less onerous if it is presented to those somehow deemed less worthy - just as waterboarding is torture if done to Americans, but an "aggressive interrogation technique" when used on "terrorists." (It's akin to the difference between "major" surgery and "minor" surgery - major surgery is anything that is done to me and minor surgery is anything that is done to you.) What it does, as I think Ardy tried to say earlier, is point out how little most of us know about living near the poverty line and how coercive financial pressure can be for those of little means.

I've been gone for two days.

Wow, this is quite a thread and one that from time to time really shocked, pissed me off and most of all dismayed or maybe better to say, confused me.

I share Phil's 'socialist' leanings toward the care of children in our community especially at risk children who are here innocently through no fault of their own and may not be getting the care they need and deserve.

I'm struck by several things here.
One of which is the demonization of 'welfare moms'. If we got nearly as upset about the tax abuse by the ultra rich as we do to the relatively small abuse of hard to get and keep welfare, we might make some progress.
I live in a neighborhood where single parent families are plentiful. Most are hard working, barely eking by with no welfare (it is really really hard to get and keeps getting harder) and often no child support.
I promise you that there is no "getting pregnant on purpose" going on. I also promise you many of these women (and men...yes) would love to have better birth control options (over and above expensive abortions) in order to have a more affordable life. (and I don't mean sterilization either!)
Sexual intercourse is a normal function and it's going to happen.
Do we really want to take that away from them too?

You know this whole conversation started based on some apparent efforts to get in the way of young women seeking routine birth control measures. In other words, not irresponsible young women just having sex with no thought to the consequences but women seeking to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies.

One last thought....
Sterilization as an option is cruel.
Yes unwanted children is a problem. So is lack of birth control options. So is not caring for children who have no one to do that for them.
Instead of demonizing women and young people so much and spending so much time talking about how to keep them from EVER having children again after what might have been just a youthful moment of passion, why don't we try a little logic?

Make birth control available to those who can't afford it so they CAN be responsible like most of them want to be.
I know I live here.

Are we still referring to Harv3's suggestion that a voluntary exchange between the pregnant female and the taxpayer be offered, or has the scenario been changed to "forced" sterilization? Just curious as to where the thread is being directed.



You mean the child's taxpaying neighbors and fellow citizens, don't you, Phil?


Actually, the children would quickly be "recognized" as the property of the state, while the parents, once guardians, authority figures, and primary sources of love and guidance, are reduced to mere custodians. Oh, and by the way, you are defining "community" as being only those who are parents. The first destroys the family while the second saddles its male and female entities with the financial burden of maintaining a familial shell.
Yours,
Issodhos

Actually, there is no coersion unless "coersion" is disguised to falsely mean having to make a "difficult decision". If the female engaged in an act that resulted in her becoming pregnant, it is the responsibility of her and the father to provide for the consequences of that act. If the father fails to accept his responsibility and she seeks to have her neighbors provide for the financial care of the child, her neighbors have a right to place restrictions on the awarding of that aid. There is no coersion.

Nor is it a question of "saving money" or morality. It is a question of who is financially respondible for raising the child -- the parents or the parents' neighbors.
Yours,
Issodhos

That is nice sounding, but the issue is not how "it is none of the government's business how people, individually, conduct their lives or make reproductive choices." It is about whether the taxpayer should foot the bill for raising a child, and whether it is okay for the taxpayer to require something in return.

As to Carrie Buck, it started as a "legal philosophy" during the Progressive era in America, which is different from portraying it as though it were somehow the law of the land from our nation's inception.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

That is the way you define things, but that is not immutable. There are very good reasons why the people who conceive children should not have the sole responsibility nor control of their offspring.

Many cultures have handled things differently.