• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pol Suggests Paying Poor Women to Tie Tubes

S

Southern Belle

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
167
Location
South US
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

ABC News: Pol Suggests Paying Poor Women to Tie Tubes

I just saw this this morning and wanted to put it in BN. What do you all think? I am for personal responsibility so I think it might be good for people who really can't control themselves and then their children suffer, but it's better than abortion.

It is a choice, and that's good. They can have as much "fun" as they like without consequences, just like they want to...

Really, though, we do have it kind of bad down here, it's just a sad situation. I think this could help the state.
 
Last edited:
I don't like that idea. At all.

But all we have to do is cut off the supply of free money and then maybe abstinence or birth control will be more appealing.
 

I'm all for it. It's a common sense approach and cheaper in the long run. The politically correct liberals will be screaming though. That's their future voting constituency not being born.
 
I don't really like the idea of making people take BC. I had to have it for a medical reason and it was like torture inside my body that lasted continually and never ended until it wore off. I would not want my worst enemy to experiance what I did, even though my reaction was probably rare, BC still has a million side effects. I think the surgery would be better for everyone, including the woman.
 
If the amount paid equals the cost of the surgery and is ultimately used to pay for the surgery I think it's a great idea. Men and women who can't afford to pay for a surgery to take control of their reproductive processes probably also can't afford pills & condoms which are ultimately over time even more costly than surgeries. So if it's a basic proposal for the government to cover these surgical procedure for people we are offering them an opportunity to take control of their own reproduction and I highly favor that.

However, if the $$$ is a "reward" for getting surgery I don't support that at all. In other words if a woman is poor but has insurance already which would cover the surgery or already qualifies for medicaid to pay for the surgery and the money is just a bonus carrot dangled in front of her to sort of exploit her poverty and coerce her into doing something for a pithy reward that's rather disgusting. I would not support that. It's too much like fooling a population into offing themselves.
 
Unf***ing believable. :shock:

How about we offer $1000 to any ignorant redneck living in a trailer to get "fixed". Oh wait, that's the repub base... :roll:
 
Slippery Slope said:
Unf***ing believable. :shock:

How about we offer $1000 to any ignorant redneck living in a trailer to get "fixed". Oh wait, that's the repub base... :roll:
Click to expand...

If the people in trailors are on welfare, it sounds like they will be eligible...:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Its called EUGENICS....

Lets see who else have used this method to "control" the population.. Nazi Germany did it against the Jews, homosexuals, handicapped and slavs, and some what against the socialists. I guess that was okay now? Basicly, saying that the holocaust was a okay then!?

The US states, used similar methods against blacks and native Americans for decades. They without the consent of the person involved, sterilized thousands of homeless or orphaned blacks and native Americans. This continued up to the late 1970s.

But politics in the US was highly influenced by eugenics policies especially in the 1920s and 1930s. It is argued that eugenics was the basis of the immigration act in the 1930's that basicly prevented millions of eastern European jews from fleeing Nazi Germany.... because they were not "western" looking enough.

Europe is not innocent either. We, even my own country, used forced sterilization against mental handicapped people up to the early 1970s.

This act, regardless if its for money or against their will, is horrible and exploiting the weak. Its undemocratic, and against every single religion on the planet.. except the religion of greed.
 
Let's talk about a word boys and girls.

That word is "eugenics".

It's a big word with lots of complicated meanings, but here we can see that La Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo does not want poor people to make babies as they'll just make poor babies. So he's going to stop them by pushing this class of folks into getting their no-no bits changed so they can't make babies.

A supreme court case in 1927, Buck v Bell, actually supported this type of systematic human breeding when the court ruled the state of Virginia could sterilize "imbeciles". Yup, the stupid people couldn't breed, well they could and that's the problem. And if you've ever been to Virginia, you can see how this program failed.

What's even more funny? LaBruzzo's position was previously held by KKK member David Duke. Mr Duke also supported sterilization, but guess what? Chicken butt. No seriously, guess what? Duke only supported sterilization via Norplant which would last 5 years. LaBruzzo wants it to be permanent.
 
Bad idea.

But we should cut off all taxpayer assistance.
 
If its made an option, I don't see the problem as its still people making a choice. I agree with talloulou's sentiment that it should not be dangled out there as a "reward", however.

If it were made mandatory, absolutely wrong.
 
Hmmm, actually population control like China or somewhere WAS my first thought when I saw the story. I don't know if you all will believe me due to my OP, but it was true. Then my mom explained that it wasn't that, but that it was just to stop poor people from having children that they couldn't support, because there are SO MANY people like that here, y'all have no idea. And then I remembered in Junior High when people would get in trouble for skipping class, they would actually say (I heard this with my own ears) "Who cares, I'm just here til I can get my welfare check at 18" so that made me think that maybe it IS a good idea, because the state and towns are suffering.

But I doubt if it targetted a specific group based on race or religion or handicap that anyone would support it. But LA really needs to do something about this issue.
 
Offering the surgery for free would be a reasonable compromise. Nobody should be pressured into loosing their reproductive ability, but making the treatment available to the poor would be beneficial. It has nothing to do with eugenics, its simply an attempt to lower the number of unwanted kids in a family that doesn't have the money to support them.
 
WI Crippler said:
If its made an option, I don't see the problem as its still people making a choice. I agree with talloulou's sentiment that it should not be dangled out there as a "reward", however.

If it were made mandatory, absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...
Ditto except could see a modest 'reward' for the lady as compensation for the few days she would have to take off from work or get a sitter for the kids.
 
Is that the law now, if you have an abortion, you must get sterilized? If not, in some cases it should be.
 
I don't mind offering the surgery for a modest price but the incentives is what's bad, imo. Ya know -- if someone is *really* broke when she's 24 and has a couple of kids, $1000 might seem like a lot of money. So she ties her tubes. At 35, she's in a much better place in her life and married now and forget having another baby because she made that PERMANENT choice when she was in a desperate situation.

Bad idea all the way around.

If a legislator wants to stop the welfare generation, stop the welfare.
 

Stopping the welfare dead would be severely inhumane, and all the homeless people would be all over our streets, and it would be so much worse. I think this is just incentive to get them to take responsibility. They wouldn't have to do it, they could just practice abstanance if they don't want children. Really, it's not that hard, unless there's something wrong with your brain or something...I mean who actually can't control themselves? It all goes back to personal responsibility at the end of the day...
 

I disagree. It is hard for adults to refrain from any and all sex. I think assuming people can just stop having sex is assuming too much.

If they're not having safe sex due to financial restraints then it might be worthwhile to help them out in that regard. Also, financially sound as you'd think it would keep them from adding more kids to the system which ultimately would cost more.

However it has to be a financial aid that helps people obtain surgery and/or condoms/pills etc. It shouldn't be a reward given for having surgery. It should be available to folks who couldn't otherwise financially afford the surgery. Not a carrot to exploit them into behaving in a certain way.

There's a huge difference between aiding people so they have control over their reproductive processes vs paying poor people to stop them from breeding.
 
Last edited:

If you're only tying your tubes because you've been given money by the government to do it, is that really taking responsibility? And how does that stop them from relying on welfare the rest of their lives with the kids they already have?

Ike showed again this scary group of people that thinks you're to rely on the government for sustenance two days after a storm before you rely on yourselves. :shock: That is a foreign concept to me but to these folks, it's a way of life. I don't think giving them money to sterilize themselves is going to change that.
 

Okay, I have a hard time believing it's hard, but if you say so... I guess I only know about myself anyway. ^^ I do still think it comes down to indivual responsibility though.
 
It'd probably work better if guy got paid money to get fixed. Better chance of reversal. But then again men can't get pregnant, and some would lie about being fixed so they didn't have to use a condom. I always hated those things myself.
 

Yes, it's a bad sad situation. This is my generation, and as I said before I went to school with these people. They didn't seem to have been taught the value of education from their parents. And now they are just having kids and living the way their parents taught them. It's a terrible thing, but it can't really continue, something has to give. Either they take responsibility for themselves and their children or they stop having kids the easy way or the hard way (and I'll let people decide which is which, lol)
 
As long as it's voluntary, I think it's a grand idea. I've seen far too many career welfare mothers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…