Should the government have the right to stop a woman from having children?

Question

If a woman keeps on having more and more kids, and continues to leech off the system should the government have the right to order a woman to get her tubes tied? Believe me I am all for personal freedom, with minimal government interference in our lives, but if a woman who is irresponsible and has kids uncontrollably continues to milk the system, that is not fair to the tax payers, plus later on in life the probably of her kids turning into thiefs and killers is increased because of bad parenting......what im trying to get at is, at what point does a government have the right to infrindge on this womans personal privacy because doesn't the government have to look out for us taxpayers?

Answer 1

I understand your point and this is one of the subjects legal scholars grappel with. You have a good point as to how tax payers are affected by the irresponsibility of others.

The age old question comes into play: Once you open the flood gates how and who determines what constitutes punishment. The right to have children is a fundamental right and to defeat that the government must show a compelling need to do so and that there is no less intrusive means to complete its mission. This is a tough standard to meet. Then once granted it becomes a sloping hill: meaning that who is to say good parents won't be stopped from reproducing by arbitrary rules.

You make a law that says if you are on welfare you can't have 6 kids....What if a woman has sextuplets? What if she has 6 kids and then looses her job and then goes on welfare.....where do you draw the line on number of kids? And what if the tied tubes doesn't take and she gets pregnant again? Abortion? I bet the people who really support this are against abortion. There are too many variables to answer that frankly cannot at this moment in time...it would be too difficult to legislate.

Answer 2

That's really an excellent question.
Years ago, a proposal was introduced in a southern state that proposed doing just this if a woman receiving ADC or other welfare had a second child out of wedlock - it never even made it into debate after the ACLU got wind of it.
I, like you, want absolutely minimum government intrusion into a persons life - and, despite the validity and common sense that this proposal has - I would have to grudgingly say no.
The government is into too many aspects of our lives already without any more intrusions. Perhaps the welfare system could use a little overhaul to curb the obvious incentives of having multiple kids which are the reason for this issue in the first place.

Answer 3

I say YES!
I am a women and I think if a women if having kids back to back and doesn't have a job and isn't trying to find one, then yes, the government should put there foot down and order her to get her tubes tied even if the government has to pay for it. I think in the long run it would be for the best expecially if she has 5 or 6 kids and doesn't seem to be done.
Women know about birth control and many choose not to use it or let men walk all over them and then men refuse to use protection, leaving the women pregnant.
So I say YES. Let the governement pay for them to get there tubes tied, it will be less expensive to us tax payers in the long run.

Answer 4

Here is another solution, (BTW, I do agree with you about milking my tax dollars). Let them have as many as they want, but with the stipulation that the taxpayers will only pay x amount and for x time. After that she is on her own, if she has more and can't take care of the kids, put them up for adoption. This way, the Govt stays out of the medical aspect, allows them their freedom, but puts the responsibility on them for their choices.
Too bad more Americans don't think like us!

Answer 5

i think of the completed subject with illegitimate infants is that there grew to become into no thinking occurring in simple terms before time, from the two the male or the female. basically hormones. once you're interior the throes of hobby, you do no longer end and picture "now, what's the government coverage if certainly i'm getting knocked up?"

Answer 6

What about mandatory birth control? In my experience, women in this situation a)do not intend to get pregnant over and over and b)have little to no knowledge of birth control or safe sex practices. This results in... drumroll... numerous children with mom dependent on the system because how is she going to put her 5 kids in daycare on her minimum wage salary? If everyone that received benefits had to prove they were on birth control, then they could decide when they were going to have another child and wouldn't get caught in this cycle of being dependent on the system. And I know that not everyone is unaware of birth control, just like not everyone on welfare is trying to get a free ride. I have just worked with so many young mothers who have several kids, and they're totally clueless about what they need to do not to get pregnant.

Answer 7

No
I'd be afraid to ever let the government have that kind of power.
It should be like in Wisconsin were a person can only get welfare for 5 years total in your life and then you are simply responsible to take care of your own.

Answer 8

There's a theory that the recent unexplained reduction in crime has to do with the passage of Roe v. Wade. I would suggest reading Freakonomics.

Answer 9

No.

Why are we all about dealing with things afterward. What about preventative measures? Things like quality education and health care?

Answer 10

just kill welfare