I know what you mean. I have an niece who by the age of 25 had 4 daughters and she had custody of only one. She was in and out of jail constantly for a number of things (drugs, theft, etc). All I could think of was "Spay her for goodness sakes!" but it's a question of ethics isn't it? We don't have the right to make that decision for her yet her poor daughters were in and out of foster care and two of them were "special needs" because she was drinking and smoking while she was pregnant with them. So who foots the bill for their care? We, the US taxpayers do. And who pays the price for living a miserable life? Those poor girls do. What's my neice doing? Well she's still out sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry, stealing, smoking, coking and doing only Lord knows what else.
So yes I agree with sterility of women who can't take care of their own children.
2007-02-24 10:55:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by KOI 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
i think that all the worlds children are the same and they all need protecting and saving. the issue of these woman having children and not being able to support them is not just an issue in foreign countries. i think that the WORLD as a whole should promote the usage of contraceptives. but all the pills, condoms and patches in the world will do nothing for the children that are already here. there are plenty of americans out here today that are making babies and not having the means to support them. instead they abort them or dump them in trash cans in high school bathrooms. i think the usa's willingness to help others as well as trying to help ourselves is what makes us a beautiful country. i say if other countries have to be sterialized, then there are a few that could use it in the US too. that's just part of my opinion. :)
2007-02-24 11:00:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by momma to 3 handsome boys! 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
there's a wide distinction. A pup needs burglary. you could't do this if you're away 8 hours an afternoon. A pup should be socialized. you could't do this if you're no longer residing house. A pup needs a great number of time and interest in the course of the day to renounce it turning out to be distructive. if you're at artwork all day the in effortless words thanks to avert the distruction is to depart it in a crate all day. by the point it turns right into a canines it would already be housebroken and characteristic extra administration of it really is actual purposes so yet it ought to pass from the time you pass to artwork until eventually the time you get residing house. A canines must be socialized by the point it really is a canines and now no longer a pup. A canines regularly would truly sleep all day and be waiting for play and interest at the same time as it really is proprietor receives residing house. it would also be educated so it really is in simple terms no longer distructive once you're lengthy gone so it gained't favor to be left in a crate for 8 hours an afternoon.
2016-12-04 21:52:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by hertling 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who are you to think women should be sterialized? Just because they are unemployed or under employed they should not have the right to have a child? NO ONE has the right to take away the gift GOD gave to have children. In my opinion our world would be better off with out idiots like you!! Does that mean we should have people like you destroyed? ...........NO, it means you have the right to think what you want even if it is a closed minded, judgemental, cruel as it is. So tell me what would you do with some one you decided should be sterialized because they didn't have the money you thought they should have and then they won the lottery or became a successful but becuase of their past situation they are unable to have a baby.
And to answer your other question:
Abortion terminates the pregnancy and adobtion gives some one who is unable to have a baby a baby.
2007-02-24 14:04:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by tarows_sorrow 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The problem is not that these women are fertile, rather that they continue to have children without the means to support them. It happens in this country as well. You cannot simply sterilize someone just because you think that they will not be able to take care of children, especially since not everyone's situation stays the same throughout their life. So, they may be able to support a child later in their life. The only real solution to the problem is education for these people, so that they learn how to use contraception, and then make that available to them.
The world would not be a better place if we took these issues into our own hands. Eventually we would then be deciding who's lives were more important, and killing off the one's who we decided were unvaluable, so that those who have more importance (to those making the decisions) can have a better life. It simply is immoral.
2007-02-24 10:54:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by einstein_15650 2
·
6⤊
0⤋
I totally agree. I have 5 kids and I have never used tax dollars I raise them with my husband and we both work. I said in an answer before to send BC to less fortunate countries but just like here they are probably just as stupid when it comes to knowing how to use it so yes if a woman has a child and has to get our tax dollar support it and then turns around and has another one any way then sterilize her. If a man has a child with a woman and is not responsible for that child but goes out and has a baby with another woman then sterilize him. Bottom line if you cant support your child in every way a child need it then don't have one. Putting it up for adoption and or abortion is almost the same because some of the kids live in a child service home forever and some who get a home are beat up and neglected. It is so sad what people do with a baby and some just don't care they use abortion for BC.
2007-02-24 11:13:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sassy 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
You know, you and Dr Joseph "the angel of death" Mengele would have a lot in common - the sterilisation of inferior races to bring about a better world being one of them. Does this mean that everyone would have to take an income test, and if they don't pass then they get sterilised? What if in 5 years time these people get a better job - they're still sterile but now they can support children. How is this fair? If you lost everything you owned because of a market crash would you then be sterilised and have any children you have taken away from you because you can no longer support them? Or is it only non-white people who get sterilised?
If you want american children to be supported then support american children yourself. Other (even third world) countries sent huge amounts of aid to the US because of hurricaine katrina's effects - if the US wants to be so selfish as to withold all aid that's up to them, but if you interfere so violently with other county's affairs you will get bitten severely.
2007-02-24 10:59:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mordent 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I do think alot of women should be on birth control in the us and in other countries. The ones in the other countries know that they cannot even provide for one child but yet they keep on popping them out like they can really take care of them. When they are handing out that food to them over there they should be giving them birth control too or have their tubes tied but no they would rather their kids die from starvation.
Some people make mistakes and for those reasons they have abortions, or maybe they were raped, life were in danger or something was horribly wrong with the fetus and that is why they chose abortion which i have nothing against
Every woman has the right to choose and afterall abortion is 100% legal.
I for one though could not go through 9 months and then labor & delivery and had the baby over to strangers so i would opt for abortion because it would be MY body and no one else's so see that is why no one can do anything about a woman for getting an abortion.
If more people would get on birth control there would be alot less abortions but some are too good, or too embarrased to go to the doctor. I think it is a shame.
2007-02-24 10:54:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by ஐ♥Julian'sMommy♥ஐ 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Do the ads on TV make you donate money to these women? Do you think these women even ask to be on the ads? I don't think so.
How would you feel if you were under-education [not saying that all of them aren't education but sadly most aren't] and someone came in and told you NOT to have children--even sterilizing you? I know I'd be a little confused.
The way these people live their lives is normal to them. Poverty is nothing new to them, of course, they probably want more but chances are they don't even know what they don't have.
If you don't like a commercial pick up the remote and switch the channel. It doesn't effect your life here in the US negatively so why do you care? This is exactly what gets me about most Americans...they complain about a country that needs our help yet rally to blow up another. I just don't understand how people can be so self-centered.
2007-02-24 11:01:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by .vato. 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Abortion kills the fetus and Adoption is giving the child up. It wouldn't be fair to sterilze the mothers and not deal with the father's role. Why not sterilze the men? A woman can't get pregnant on her own. Because she or he may not have the means to support a child at present time doesn't mean they won't later in life.
2007-02-25 07:07:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by simpsonwd 2
·
0⤊
1⤋