I think forced sterilization is an excellent idea.  However, we have to select the parameters to use so that we can determine which should be sterilized.  And, while straight sterilization would be OK for women, men would have to be castrated to assure no reversals.  Now, to the factors to be used—I suggest that we determine the level of ethics and humanity of each person, either by tests or by published works of the person.  From the published statements of Louisiana state Rep. John LaBruzzo I would say he should be first in line for castration.   

Occam

Hmmm, what if you were born poor, perhaps had one child, went back to college and managed to get (for example) a PhD in Philosophy? According to the proposition, you would be sterilized after the first child, but what happens if you manage to pull yourself up to a class to be ‘paid’ to have children? Peole are poor for a variety of reasons, that is not taken into account. There is also the stink of eugenics attached to this, that can’t be wiped off!

Some other factors to look at.
Limitations on the number of children allowed,regardless of class.
Children born of stable families;out of wedlock children in excessive numbers,regardless of class.
The U.S. is a country of classes.Many like to pride ourselves in being a classless society,but this is obviously false.It could be beneficial to keep class differences blatant rather than to hide them behind a facade of equality.
When speaking of this hypothetical instance of sterilization of poor woman,I don’t think her sterilization will enhance her class status or the perceived status of her class.These citizens,many of whom live in inner-city ghettos or rural communities are real.
No matter what civil or private institutionalization of their persons are undertaken,it will not affect their standing.The biggest “crime"is boxing them into ghettos or rural enclaves where they neither have to be seen,heard or dealt with in any fashion.
This is what makes us a classless society,keeping the lower classes out of sight and out of mind!
It truly is “classless”(hee hee hee-pun intended)

I hope you realized, asanta, that I was being ironic and sarcastic.  I was saying that a jerk like LaBruzzo showed he had weak ethics by proposing such an idea, so he should be the one sterilized.

Occam

Paying the poor to be sterilized, you say.

Wow, I think this is offal, it reminds me of a few “B” rate movies that I have seen. I don’t think this would solve anything, only make problems worse. The problem seems to be the growing poverty rate, not people being born into poverty.
Hell, I was born into poverty… my mother was on social assistance and living in government subsidized housing when she found out she was pregnant with me, and we lived this way until I was 14, that’s when the government retrained her for the work force. After that she was able to get a job and has held one since. My mom couldn’t pay for me to attend a school of higher learning, and I even dropped out of high school and went straight to the work force (I did go back to high school some time after and graduated when I was 22)... now I have been working for awhile and they say I am in the “Middle-class” of society, but I think anyone who make under $40K per year should be classed as the working poor, beings that amount of money doesn’t leave enough for people to get there retirement savings in order.

A little off topic:

I have been thinking about this (the problem) for abit now. It has accrued to me that in W. Bush’s sate of the Union Address in 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
he spoke about how tax cuts for low income families would stimulate growth in the US economy. Normally I would agree with this, however this theory would only work if people only bought US made goods. Lets face it, any extra money (as little as it is) that people get would be spent on much needed house hold items… that are made in China.
So if Suzie house wife buys a… (lets say) toaster that is made in China, then Frank’s toaster Co. out of Pennsylvania still goes out of business… I would imagine that’s not good for the economy.
Don’t get me wrong here, there are still good companies that are North American owned… they just outsource all the manufacturing jobs to China, leaving people in North America with less jobs on the market. To me, I believe that the NA Governments allowed this outsourcing to happen and didn’t subsidize any of the higher education that people need in order any of the paying jobs here. Hence a vicious cycle that spreads the gap from poor to rich further apart, only to allow China’s economy to grow at a exponential rate.

Now there is a $700 billion dollar bail out for companies who had shady business practises and Royally messed our economy to the point of teetering on depression? Maybe some more tax cuts for the everyday Americans, who will use the extra money to support the Chinese economy and work force?

I am rather quite left on the political spectrum… however not to the point where I am against the Capitalistic way that North American does business (supply and demand dictates price, outsource to a company that can do it for less, thus keeping profits high). Maybe this is a social problem, and we as people in the society should start encouraging that our own citizens to buy US (or Canadian) made goods, we would pay a little more for items, but Jake father of two could get the job that will feed his kids and maybe have another one instead of a sate mandated vasectomy.

I have worked at a local retail store here in Banff for about six months (before I left). The one thing that I noticed was, people from UK & Europe would come in take a look around see a shirt/pants they liked, they would than come to me and ask “where was this made”... and of course it was made in China, they would then put the item back and leave the store out right refusing to buy anything from China. Now with that in mind, I have had the opposite happen, I have had so many US & Canadian’s come into the store see an amazing shirt hand made in Winnipeg Canada… than quickly place the shirt back only to buy the same looking shirt made in China for $10 less…. in my experience the European’s seem to have allot more social conscious to where their goods are from.
Now having said that…. when I started making some good money I went out and bought a amazing shearling jacket (if you don’t know what Shearling is check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearling), it was hand made in Uruguay and cost me a pretty penny because of it. The first day I wore the jacket to work a girl started giving me grief for “wearing the skin of a did animal”, you should have seen the look on here face when I informed her that I feed a family of 4 by buying the jacket and the 12 year old that made her jacket was probably dead by now…  maybe we should have People for the Ethical Treatment of People… before we give any credit to PETA.

Do you guys think that the forming of a social group that encourages people to buy local manufactured goods, and demanding (as customers) that US/Canadian retailers sell a percentage of goods made in North American, would curve anything or would it be just another drop in the bucket solving nothing?

Thank you for letting me rant on these slightly off topic, topics

VYAZMA - 27 September 2008 09:33 AM

Some other factors to look at.
Limitations on the number of children allowed,regardless of class.
Children born of stable families;out of wedlock children in excessive numbers,regardless of class.

I personally feel these ideas can lead down a very slippery slope towards human rights abuses. Limits on the number of children may lead to forced abortion, separating families, and excessive fines/penalties enforced on parents who accidentally become pregnant, which in China means that the rich scoff at the law and write a check, while the poor can face jail if they don’t come up with the fine. Birth control is not foolproof. Vasectomies and tubal ligation, while very effective, sometimes fail.

I disagree about having multiple children out of wedlock being a bad thing. There are many loving and stable couples, together for years, who choose not to marry because they are non-religious or because they don’t feel they need a piece of paper to justify their love.

source 1
source 2
source 3

Why not eliminate poverty instead?

I don’t think it is possible to eliminate out proverty.

I disagree about having multiple children out of wedlock being a bad thing. There are many loving and stable couples, together for years, who choose not to marry because they are non-religious or because they don’t feel they need a piece of paper to justify their love.

I’m talking about non-stable unplanned pregnancies.I used the term “out of wedlock"loosely.Children who are born to a non-existant family.Unplanned pregnancies.
Last week here in Buffalo,a 19 year old girl abandonned her newborn in a recycling receptacle out in some abandoned lot.The child was found dead by a metal scavanger.Now they want to prosecute her.There are a few places around town where people can abandon there newborn,instantly with no questions asked.A few churches and a public institution.
I don’t favor child limits I guess,I certainly don’t favor mandatory sterilization.
What is the impetus for this mans proposal? I guess I just have to wonder how much of a burden on society are unplanned children.
As someone who tries to see the socialist way of handling issues,I feel that responsible planning for the most part should be involved with the activities of reproduction.(as opposed to the biblical,or wartime approach go forth and multiply and life is sacred)
Is this a huge problem?I don’t know.Again,how much of a burden are unplanned children.
Should people plan for children,or at least have a plan if children arise?Do people actually know that sexual activity leads to childbirth.
We can all cite success stories,anomolies.But the facts are becoming more evident in the US.I hate to say it,but what does a progressive future hold for a society that wants to continue viability on this world.Does it include birth control?Why yes,we already use it.Maybe this guy from Louisiana was wrong to put the class issue in his plan.
Here is another example of people addressing population control,and being criticized.

If the lawmaker wants to offer free or subsidized sterilizations and follow up care then he should go for it. It’s the $1,000 incentive (bribe) that upsets me. A women who is on welfare may feel desperate for $1,000. Or her family or husband/boyfriend may pressure her to go get her tubes tied so they can have $1,000 to share.

Is the government going to pay for reversal surgery 5 years later if the woman gets a job or goes back to college? What if she meets the man of her dreams, and he not only sweeps her off her feet, but off welfare and into his apartment, and wants to start a family together?

A better non-surgical solution might be to offer free birth control pills or IUDs. But some christians claim these methods cause “miniature abortions every month” and anger god, because of the minuscule chance that sperm and egg will unite before it’s lost to the menstrual cycle. There is a Bush administration push to reclassify many types of birth control such as birth control pills and IUDs as abortion. (Source).

In addition to free and easily accessible birth control options, I’d like to see them take the money slated for all these $1,000 bribes invested in those school districts instead.

Occam - 27 September 2008 01:25 PM

I hope you realized, asanta, that I was being ironic and sarcastic.  I was saying that a jerk like LaBruzzo showed he had weak ethics by proposing such an idea, so he should be the one sterilized.

Occam

No, I was commenting on the original post.
You also bring up an interesting point. When (men) present these ‘solutions’ they ALWAYS speak of sterilizing the women. What about the men who impregnate them and don’t pay child support (this could include ex-husbands as well)? It is CHEAPER and LESS RISKY to sterilize MEN. But for some reason, the MEN who propose this would NEVER agree to sterilizing the men!!!

VYAZMA, I understand what you’re getting at. I just think that these sterilization incentives, once the door is opened for them, may soon become mandatory. I look back at what happened in the 1920s to 1950s with “negative eugenics” in America and see the same thing likely to happen all over again. It’s that slippery slope. Once the door is opened, it’s ripe for abuses.

VYAZMA - 27 September 2008 06:31 PM

I’m talking about non-stable unplanned pregnancies.I used the term “out of wedlock"loosely.Children who are born to a non-existant family.Unplanned pregnancies.

Marriage does not equal stability. I can’t BEGIN to count the number of unstable married families I have cared for. Almost ALL of the severely abused children I have had to deal with in the past 10 years came from a two parent family.

Asanta, after pressure from reporters, he did announce he may include “free vasectomies” in his plan. I guess that’s a step in the right direction? 

I thought this all sounded familiar, and did some searching online. This is what I found. Seems we’ve been down this road in the early 1990s with Norplant.

From the ACLU - Coercive Norplant Use - Full Article

How Has The Government Attempted To Use Norplant Coercively?

In several states, judges have given women convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy a “choice” between using Norplant or serving time in jail. In 1991, 1992, and 1993, legislators in more than a dozen states introduced measures that, had they passed, would have coerced women to use Norplant. Some of these bills would have offered financial incentives to women on welfare to induce them to use Norplant. Other legislation would have required women receiving public assistance either to use Norplant or lose their benefits. Some bills would have forced women convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy to have Norplant implanted.

What Is Wrong With Using Norplant As A Condition Of Sentencing Or Welfare Benefits?

Offering a “choice” between prison and forced contraception is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to bear a child and by imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it.

Attempts to require or encourage women on welfare to use Norplant also violate the constitutional right to reproductive and bodily autonomy. The incentive plans, while not couched as requirements, are nonetheless coercive. Particularly for low-income women, the offer of money to feed, clothe, and house their families—even if it is in exchange for giving up their constitutional rights—may be difficult to refuse.

In both the judicial and legislative schemes to manipulate women into using Norplant, some women would be forced or induced to take Norplant even when it posed a danger to their health. Moreover, allowing judges and legislators to control the reproduction of some women would legitimize the role of government as an overseer of women’s childbearing capacity in general.