I am sure this will really make some people angry but if a person who is supported by the government (us, the ones who work and pay taxes) keeps having children, what is the solution to this problem?......these kids are born almost without a chance of having a good life.......it isn't fair to them and it isn't fair to us.....wouldn't manditory sterilization be a good answer and to the benefit of all, inclluding the ones who keep making the babies?........
2007-03-29 05:14:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why aren't you asking why we shouldn't support mandatory sterilization for illegal immigrants? They are the ones that are overpopulating the country at our expense. Maybe an incentive to get off the welfare roles would be that there is some kind of mandatory but temporary birth control implanted in them. They could not have the birth control mechanism removed until they have been off the welfare roles for a period of 7 years. That would be a good thing, I think. If they went back on welfare, then they would be implanted again. Additionally, while they are on welfare, if they get pregnant, we take the babies and have people like the celebs who are taking in these foreign children adopt and care for them. We seem to be willing to punish citizens for being poor and we don't take care of them so, I think that would be equal treatment.
2007-03-29 05:29:52 · answer #1 · answered by MH/Citizens Protecting Rights! 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would agree with you but there was a woman who had like 7 or 8 kids. She also had syphilis. If she had not had that last kid we would be with out Beethoven.
That is a tough thing to say yes or no to. Maybe give these women a choice of sterilization or make them take birth control. If they don't and have another kid. Take them all away and cut support.
2007-03-29 05:22:16 · answer #2 · answered by Reported for insulting my belief 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's one of the things prohibited by Roe v. Wade, and later Supreme Court cases on reproductive rights.
The govt cannot impose a undue burden on reproductive choice. That includes not allowing the govt to make sterilization mandatory. A lot of people forget that side of the equation.
If Roe v. Wade overturned, and reproductive choice is no longer a fundamental right, then there is nothing stopping the govt from forcing mandatory sterilization, and nothing stopping the govt from forcing people to have abortions.
Either the choice is made by the individual, or by the govt. Personally, I don't want the govt having that kind of power.
2007-03-29 05:21:24 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why stop at "support"
Several Countries had mandatory sterilization in the 60's & 70's
Squads of sterilizers would grab men off the street at random and chop their ________ Off
Hey and look it made the world a better place.
2007-03-29 05:27:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While you have an excellent point - I'm afraid that many will disagree with you. It is actually amusing when you think about it; everyone wants to complain about crime, the rate of homeless people & the growing rate of people on welfare - yet they do not want to do a thing to help. I agreee something needs to done maybe madatory sterilization is not the answer but at least it's a start.
2007-03-29 05:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree. After one child that is not adequately taken care of there should be sterilization for the mother. The same goes for the fathers. If a father can't provide support of a child, he needs to be sterilized before he impregnates again.
2007-03-29 05:21:03 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if making it mandatory would be the solution. However, if the department of social services at least made this option more readily available, I'm sure many single mothers would have it done.
2007-03-29 05:20:41 · answer #7 · answered by T S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So what if you fell on hard times and did not practice safe and responsible sex? Would you submit to this? Doubt it, therefore no.
Many states already have cut off those on the dole and having more children. Do you have any statistics proving this is really still happening at the same rate as before? If anything, the abortion rate has gone up.
2007-03-29 05:17:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
In most states, women don't get benefits for any children they have after they're already on welfare, so you have absolutely no right to have any say over whether or not they have more kids.
2007-03-29 05:20:17 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe something like Norplant, which is reversible, would be more palatable to people.
It does raise a lot of issues.
2007-03-29 05:24:08 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋