Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Mandatory Sterilization

Mandatory Sterilization

By 11:00 AM, I was at my doctor's office. The results of my CT Scan turned out great. I'm still a bit confused at times, but I believe that's due to the many challenges I already have, plus my life changing so drastically with so many more added responsibilities like my cousin's 3 babies. I'm still hyperventilating, so my doctor prescribed Lexapro Tabs. I hope they help me.

On another note, I stopped by a grocery store to buy a few items. What I saw while I was there, caused me to I asked myself a strange question. I would like to ask the same question of you.

Do you believe a law should pass, making it mandatory that single women who already have too many kids, and who are on welfare, be sterlized? Why?

Uma Canção de Brasil
Playgirl's Aquarela

Join The NRA

"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."


( 86 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)
Do you believe a law should pass, making it mandatory that single women who already have too many kids, and who are on welfare, be sterlized? Why?

Definately not. However, every person in America should be given solid, accurate, and complete sex ed classes at appropriate levels of their schooling.
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:38 pm (UTC)
I agree 100%. People need to be educated more than anything.

And I would like to add that they should be offered birth control, in whatever form (like condoms, the pill, etc.), which should be provided at little to no cost. The cost of providing birth control, compared to paying for a child is almost nothing. You would think the government would support that. But then some ultra conservative will think they are encouraging sex. You never win sometimes...
(no subject) - playgirl - Jul. 26th, 2007 05:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ytterbius - Jul. 26th, 2007 05:24 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:21 pm (UTC)
I am very glad your CT scan came out OK...That is GOOD news!!

No, I do not believe a law like that should be passed...It is too close to some of the laws in China. Now, I question if that person should get more welfare payment due to additional children. And maybe the children should be taken away from her.
Jul. 27th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)
Thank you! Looks like I'll be around for a while longer, much to the dismay of some! :o)

I suppose China had to do something with their over population. Hopefully, this country won't someday experience what they have, but at the rate these baby breeders for profit are going, who knows!
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:34 pm (UTC)
As much as it may at times seems that some people need to be sterilized, I don't agree with it in the least. It's a horrible violation of personal rights.
Jul. 27th, 2007 02:12 pm (UTC)
I don't know Sweety Pie! When I see the things I do at the grocery check-out counter, I can't help but feel my pocket book is being violated, too.
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:34 pm (UTC)
That is a tough one.

Part of me is all for it, as if you can't afford to support yourself, how can you afford to support additional kids?

I think that such a law would disastrously interfere with peoples sovereignty over their own bodies. You can not, nor should you be able to force someone to under go any medical treatment unless they do not have the capacity to decide for themselves, in which case a guardian of some sort should decide.

What happens for people's religious beliefs opposed birth control (Catholicism) or medicine (Scientology)? Or what happens if they are only on welfare for a while and recover and want more kids when they can financially support them?

Plus, this reminds me vaguely of the nazi's sterilization programs for handicapped and mentally challenged people. I think they might have also done it based on race, but I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

While I think children being born into poverty is a problem, sterilization is not the answer.
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:42 pm (UTC)
The NAZI's sterilization policy involved the ovens.... and they included anyone who was NOT in the immage of the Master Race, or who could possibly mix their seeds with the master race.

Aside from the Millions of Jews that are well known, there were thousands and thousands of Poles, Slovics, Hungarian's Turks and Homosexuals on any birthright. And as you mentioned the mentally and physically handicapped.

You are so very right though... We cannot even think of going down this road.
(no subject) - adameros - Jul. 26th, 2007 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 25th, 2007 10:09 pm (UTC)
Do you believe a law should pass, making it mandatory that single women who already have too many kids, and who are on welfare, be sterlized? Why?

Why on earth would you even pose such a question? Aren't there other rational questions to consider before you even think of mentioning such an *OBVIOUS* violation of human rights.

How do we cut this aid, reduce it or eliminate it for those single mothers who continue to have children while on aid, etc? Why do you pose the most extreme question first?

Ok, that's my rant :)
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:24 pm (UTC)
Here, let me soothe that vein popping out of your right temple again.

I ask because when I see certain things, I start asking myself questions about it.

I was in the grocery store for only a few minutes PENNY PINCHING as usual, and saw quite a few women, with oodles and oodles of kids, paying with the Lone Star card.

The question that I posed here doesn’t necessarily mean that I believe it should be mandatory for sterilization, but I do so wish these women would find some kind of solution to their ever GROWING problem, that WE as tax payers must pay, and pay, AND pay…
Re: PENNY PINCHING as usual - donchep - Jul. 25th, 2007 11:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: PENNY PINCHING as usual - playgirl - Jul. 26th, 2007 04:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: PENNY PINCHING as usual - playgirl - Jul. 26th, 2007 04:58 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: PENNY PINCHING as usual - donchep - Jul. 26th, 2007 05:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: PENNY PINCHING as usual - playgirl - Jul. 27th, 2007 06:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 25th, 2007 10:18 pm (UTC)
That's good about your medical status. bet you're relieved.

I ask myself what the reason(s) are for sterilizing certain women. I think mostly to prevent babies being born to people (married or single) who have shown that they have no means and are likely to have no means of supporting the baby thus essentially having the baby brought up in a welfare environment with a good chance that this will become a way of life for the baby as he/she becomes an adult.

It would be ideal to have a way of temporarily sterilizing these women so that iut could be reversed if conditions change significantly in a positive way. If not, I still go along with the sterilization.

Jul. 27th, 2007 02:07 pm (UTC)
Thank you!
I can fully understand a woman becoming pregnant because of an accident, and I fully sympathize with her. It's the ones who are so damn lazy to work, and that have no qualms about bring more and more babies into the world, so she can get more Welfare benefits.

Temporary sterilization would be useless, because these baby breeders for profit would never have it done.
Jul. 25th, 2007 10:26 pm (UTC)
My mom's best friend's oldest daughter Wendy (whom I lost my virginity to thank you very much) had three kids by three different fathers by the time she was 20. California couldn't force her to have her tubes tied since she was too young, and the girl never worked because in her opinion she earned more by collecting money from the state than she would have if she got a real job.

It's people like her that make me for a law of that nature, but it's hard to determine where the line should be drawn. How many kids is too many? Any single women only? What about married couples who have tons of kids? And why not have licenses for childbearing? And will you let me have a lap dance?
Jul. 27th, 2007 01:52 pm (UTC)
This was my reply to this person

As much as I try to feel humane about this issue, I just can't, because it upsets me terribly when I go to the grocery store and see these women's carts filled to the brim with all the goodies I just can't afford to buy for myself. It's times like this that make me realize that a lot of my work goes to pay for all the things these baby breeders have in their carts!

Lap dance? Just say the word and I'll shake my booty especially for you! ;o)
Jul. 25th, 2007 10:26 pm (UTC)
"Do you believe a law should pass, making it mandatory that single women who already have too many kids, and who are on welfare, be sterlized?"

Who is wise enough to determine how many too many is?
That is what welfare was designed to take care of.
Maybe if we could get a pool of people to have sex
for them it could be reduced.......
Jul. 27th, 2007 02:00 pm (UTC)
I believe 3 are too many for the woman who continues breeding babies for profit.
Jul. 25th, 2007 10:55 pm (UTC)
Ususally this topic is in regard to killing the vaginas, what the fuck?
I think that if people can answer this with a "yes," they should be the very same people to adopt and care for children. You know because they care about the children, right?

On top of that why don't we just spay and neuter BOTH men and women. The last I remember, it takes SPERM and eggs to make kids.

Clip'em all, not just some. AND yes, I do find the fact that anyone can be so evil as to even consider this notion. How do go abut finding the prerequisites to clip cock? Pervs, aggressives, physically/mentally mediocre ...

Tell me not just how, but WHO should be the people to decide this?
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:37 pm (UTC)
Re: Ususally this topic is in regard to killing the vaginas, what the fuck?
Let me ask you this question, do you feel a law should pass making sterilization mandatory for women with HIV who are sexually active?
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:30 pm (UTC)
Forced Sterilization? NO... under no circumstances.

I would like to see more realistic Welfare laws though, the more children a woman has the less she gets and she HAS to get out and WORK for what she gets.

Welfare was never meant to be a free ride, it was initially WORK FARE. the CCC was a great idea and helped thousands and thousands of people survive and not feel worthless. FDR had a good idea but it was the stupid socialists who made it into welfare gravytrain for those lasy assed individuals who felt like the world owed them something.

IS there a problem? YES is sterilization the answer NO (even though sometimes we may feel like it is. Education is not the panacea either because people KNOW that whjen they spread their legs they take a chance. The women know that each kid will be another check and the males know they cannot be forced to pay for their children or take any other responsibility. Many welfare women would not know which male they banged was the father anyway.

I would like the children to be removed from the house, and put into protective custody, the mother/father if known maxde to go to work and supportthemselves and help suppotrt their children and IF the breed sow got pregnant again, take that child after birth and the person go to jail.

You can thank people the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Jackson and Sharpton for making people feel they are useless and dependent on the government.

Well I know there will be much reprisal for my felings but hey.... it happens.
Jul. 26th, 2007 06:48 pm (UTC)
In theory your suggestion is a good one (taking the kids away and putting them in healthy homes) but the problem is that that there simply aren't enough people who ARE capable of taking in foster kids, and many of the people who DO take these kids take them for the same reason the we're trying to avoid... because the government pays them to do so. The end result there is that we've got foster kids in homes where the parents don't actually WANT foster kids, they just want the check, and many times the kids end up in worse situations. It's a very complex and sad situation, because we've got thousands of people trying to adopt kids, and many of them have a hell of a time making that work for them, yet we've got thousands and thousands of these foster kids who have been "temporarily" removed from unstable homes that very few people genuinely want.
(no subject) - playgirl - Jul. 27th, 2007 09:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:34 pm (UTC)
now that that is out of the way....

I am greatly relieved that your tests came out good... I will though continue with the prayers and good thoughts for you and your charges. (both 2 and 4 legged)
Jul. 27th, 2007 01:36 pm (UTC)
Thank you my Darling! Prayers are always a good thing, whether things are going well or not!

My prayers for you always!
Jul. 26th, 2007 12:44 am (UTC)
Against Her Will
I think you'd be interested in reading up on Catherine Bell, the subject of a very famous Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell.

In 1924, Virginia passed a law authorizing compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded for the purpose of eugenics. That same year, Dr. Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution whom he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society. According to Priddy, Buck's 52-year-old mother possessed a mental age of 8 and had a record of prostitution and immorality. She had three children, with the father of none of them known.

Carrie had been adopted. However, according to Priddy, she had eventually proved to be "incorrigible" and eventually had a baby. Her adopted family had committed her to the State Colony as "feeble-minded" (a catch-all term used at the time for the mentally disabled), no longer feeling capable of caring for her.

It was later discovered that Carrie's pregnancy was not caused by any act of "immorality" on her own part. In the summer of 1923, while her adoptive mother was away "on account of some illness," her nephew raped Carrie, and her later commitment has been seen as an attempt by the family to save their reputation.

Anyway, her defense argued that the state law for sterilizations was unconstitutional. Here's what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had to say:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

What really changed public opinion? Once people saw the full depth and horror of the Nazi eugenics programs, the laws were repealed.

Who would have thought, huh?
Jul. 26th, 2007 12:48 am (UTC)
Glad to hear that you are all right.

A law like that would never pass in this country.
Jul. 26th, 2007 04:41 am (UTC)
never say never
Thanks Sweety Pie!

I've learned to never say never. It could be a future possibility.

Jul. 26th, 2007 01:10 am (UTC)
NEVER. Under no circumstances.
Jul. 26th, 2007 04:46 am (UTC)
Not even if the women who are sexually active have AIDS?
(Deleted comment)
Jul. 27th, 2007 02:23 pm (UTC)
Big Brother seems to be everywhere. Perhaps it's time he got involved in the lives of these baby breeders for profit's lives, because their laziness is affecting my pocket book in a big way.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
( 86 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com