Birth control for unfit parents

[Zorak]

Run from the fouth reich!!

 

[Minor Axis]

Which is why in the original post, I said "those with a proven track record of being unfit". So, not just birth control for everyone.

But whose definition of "unfit"? Left kids alone for 3 hours. Dangled kids out of window so fans could catch a glimpse. Knocked out kids tooth with a punch.

 

[Numnum]

what about those parents who drown and murder their kids in a bathtub?

.... true, jail may PERHAPS be a form of birth control - but I'd feel a little better if there was something more definate.

 

[Numnum]

Maybe we can euthanize the elderly as well. Think of all the hospital beds it will free up and the money we will save in social security alone...

You guys are scary........... really scary!

we're not killing people who are already alive!

... its like an SPCA for people - population control my friend! haha

I see both sides tho - you can't punish an unborn child for it's "unfit" parents.

 

[Numnum]

LOL! That's precious--I repped ya on that one Numnum! :thumbup

aww mulder my darling. mulder and numnum are like this - *crosses fingers as to imply that we are best friends*

 

[Obdurate]

Why would anybody want MORE power given to the law? Man.

 

[Obdurate]

Well I saw some people saying how they want the government or just the law in general to decide who can have kids (unless I read wrong which is possible cuz I'm tired/dumb), and I just can't fathom why anybody would want to give authority more power, especially over something like birth.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Just out of curiousity--for all those that believe parents should be allowed to produce as many kids as they want whether they can be supported or not, where does your concept of personal responsiblity come into play?

Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think they should be having kids either, but I don't agree on forcing medical procedures or medication on free people. If you can find a way to hold them accountable without forcing medical procedures or medication on them, fine. Or if they are incarcerated, well there is your form of birth control.

In other words, is it your viewpoint that it is society's responsiblity to support children that parents can't support and that those parents have the right to keep having kids they can't support? Just curious. Perhaps a program where all those in support of unlimited children economically adopt them and provide the support--just a thought! :rolleyes

I understand and agree with your argument, but money should not devalue life. I don't have an answer for you.

But whose definition of "unfit"?

Exactly. It creates a very dangerous slippery slope. Next thing you know parents will deemed unfit for taking their kids to McDonald's, for letting them watch too much violence on tv, for having too many chores, for not taking them to church, or for taking them to church. Who knows who will decide what is unfit?

BTW--for the record, I don't agree with a punitive measure--like anything else, i believe that coercing positive behavior should come from incentives rather than prohibitions (which is why our tax system is ass-backwards, but that's another debate).

I would be all for paying women who don't earn enough to get the 6 month injections--come up with a figure--$1,000 every six months they keep coming back--get the patch or whatever it is and give 'em a $1,000. It would never pass because liberals would never go for it, but it would be one of the most successful social policies ever put into effect--we'd eliminate hundreds of thousands of impoverished kids.

I could agree with this as it is not forcing medical procedures or medications on to people.

you can't punish an unborn child for it's "unfit" parents.

Exactly.

 

[Tim]

Why let them die at all?--we have machines that can keep people alive forever now.

And for that matter--why are we forcing parents to suppor their children--I'm sure you'd love to see us pass some laws giving parents $10,000 a year for each kid they pop out and we'll just tax the rich and the corporations to pay for it.

That's the type of thought that scares me.

Just out of curiousity--for all those that believe parents should be allowed to produce as many kids as they want whether they can be supported or not, where does your concept of personal responsiblity come into play? In other words, is it your viewpoint that it is society's responsiblity to support children that parents can't support and that those parents have the right to keep having kids they can't support? Just curious. Perhaps a program where all those in support of unlimited children economically adopt them and provide the support--just a thought! :rolleyes

I love your tactic. You disagree with a point so you take it three steps further than the discussion at hand... :24:

Where has anyone said anything about giving money for popping out kids? Who said anything about supporting unlimited children? Instead of distorting the discussion into a liberal vs the world debate, why not take the time and articulate your point so it actually makes sense in the context of the question?

So the question at hand is forcing "unfit" parents to take some sort of birth control.
My stance is that you cannot remove that right in America and it would be detrimental to all of us the second you give that sort of power to the government. Like Grace has pointed out, it's a slippery slope.

Now let me ask you a question. Since you were the one that was going to educate the forum on the constitutionality of warrant less wire taps, how would you suggest forcing people to take birth control without violating their constitutional rights?

 

[Zorak]

I never advocated forcing birth control on anyone. My suggestion was paying people to voluntariy sterilize themsevles.

Pay? God you have to have 74 children and be 98 years old before they'll happily give you the snip i nthis country

 

[Obdurate]

I see what you're saying, but then if I want to shoot you because you looked at me wrong, why should the government have the power to stop me?

Its a matter of balance of competing interests--the right of some crack cocaine addict to pop out 5 or 6 babies she can't possibly support against vs. the obligation of society to support and care for these children. We stop people from doing all sorts of things that are detrimental to society as a balancing of the rights of society as a whole vs. the individual's right. I don't like the fact that people can simply be free to have as many babies as they want without any penalty.

And this is where I absolutely cannot grasp the liberal thought process (term used loosely). On the one hand they want to force people to stop using petroleum products because its harmful to society yet they want to allow the unfettered right to procreation on a planet that is already over-populated with human beings--I'll never undestand that fallacy of logic--its emotion driven and devoid of any real practical considerations.

Well I really don't think I should be grouped into the group you don't seem to like, lol.

And "but then if I want to shoot you because you looked at me wrong, why should the government have the power to stop me?" isn't a black and white issue, so I can't really give much of an answer without going into some other "unrelated" issues, so there.

 

[Tim]

I never advocated forcing birth control on anyone. My suggestion was paying people to voluntariy sterilize themsevles.

Yet you vote yes?

The question was "Should we put unfit parents on birth control?"
You said Yes...
How is that not forcing birth control? :dunno

 

[Zorak]

What are you talking about?

My suggestion is provide a monetary incentive NOT to have any children. What's your statement have to with that?

But why would you want to?

 

[Tim]

Actually, you used it first--I just took it one step further.



So you'd be Ok then with eiliminating welfare for people with two or more children who couldn't afford them?

The practical consequence (and you know it) is that with as many liberal voices as we have in our government here in the US that we will never create a penatly for additional babies--in fact, part of the problem with the system is there is an incentive to have more children because it increases the benefits people receive.

Where the hell do you think we live? China? I thought you loathed the idea of communism.

and the topic at hand has nothing to do with welfare. I was very clear on my stance on this. I in no way want the government reaching into my life anymore than they already do. They don't need to set up some sort of fertility Gestapo.

 

[Zorak]

And what right do you or anyone else have to say to anyone that they can't have children?

The ONLY situation where I believe tax break or fiscal incentives may be used is if a country suffered from an extremely high birthrate and overpopulation.
But even then China had to give up their program because it was impossible to police.

 

[GraceAbounds]

As I already pointed out--we have courts making those decicons hundreds of thousands of times a day throughout the country. Children can't defend themselves so society has to come up with an objective standard for the minimally competent parent--below that standard you lose the right to raise your children--happens every day everywhere. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a "test" for fitness as a parent simply because it subjective? The slope is already there and has been there for decades--we already have the standards and the law to judge fitness of parents. Mind you again I am not advocating forced birth control, I am simply stating the "slippery slope" argument is a hallow one because we already do it.

It is a slippery slope when it comes to making people take birth control or have medical procedures done when we deem them unfit. That is the slippery slope.

Code of ethics in the medical profession is to do no harm to your patient.

 

[Zorak]

When I have to support the children they can't support, then I think I have the right to say. And society has the right to protect children against abusive parents.



What is your opposition to paying people not to have children? Its not forcing them--its an incentive. Its much cheaper to do that than support the children and the cycle of poverty and violence that occurs when people have children they can't parent adequately.

Leave aside the money aspects, you can't possibly tell if that works out cheaper for a country to do that.

Education is the answer to the problems you speak, not voluntary sterilisation.

 

[Tim]

It has everything to do with welfare. The practical consquence is that we have children being born to obtain benefits. So you necessarily support that practice if you oppose any sort of attempt to control the popluation. Or, as I asked you, then do you support eliminating benefits for couples who have more than two children, which they can't afford. You have some opinion on who should bear the financial responsibility.

I have no problem with some sort of program giving incentives to those who are not financially able to support children, not to have children. I'm just not sure how it could be implemented to actually work in the real world, but once again we are talking about a HUGE undertaking of the federal government. And I'm not sure I would welcome what they would have in mind.

You also need to look at the original question in context. This had nothing to do with the poor and the burden they put on society with having multiple children. This was a question of "unfit" parents in how it relates to abuse of the children. That is a completely different dynamic.

 

[GraceAbounds]

But its the same decision the court has already made! As I understand the question, this would apply in situations where parents have already been adjudicated to be unfit parents to the children they have. So the court has already determined them unfit. Then this would simply say since you have not been a fit parent, you can't have any more children. Again, I don't advocate that, but there is no slippery slope--the decision is made anyway regardless.

When the courts start forcing medical procedures and medications on free people that is a very dangerous slippery slope.

 

[Zorak]

Why do you think the birthrate of India is only now lowering?

They have invested the money into education and specifically aspects of contraception etc.
You only have to look in the poorest regions of Africa to see the effect of a lack of education. Their birth rates spiral, and their leaders can make compeltely ignorant comments about how a shower after having sex with someone will safeguard you against AIDs or HIV.

I know I have erred in my point slightly, but my theology remains the same: Education is the long term answer. Sterililisation as you have described is a minority, generational fix.