Money for tubal ligations?

[luckystar112]

What do you all think of this?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5886592&page=1


"As Hurricane Gustav loomed off the coast of Louisiana, thousands of impoverished people flocked into shelters, where some of them seemed unprepared to take care of their young children''s basic needs, forgetting to bring along diapers or medicine.

That heartbreaking scenario inspired Louisiana Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo to start thinking about ways to stem generational welfare, in which many welfare recipients have children who also end up dependent on government assistance, according to the representative.
His idea -- giving $1,000 to poor women to undergo reproductive sterilization by Fallopian tube ligation -- is stirring up controversy among some medical professionals, who say that the proposal is offensive and smacks of long-discredited eugenics programs."

 

[iheartscience]

Wow. I think that is incredibly offensive. It is absolutely eugenics.

And I''m curious-why didn''t he offer $1000 to poor men to get vasectomies?

 

[luckystar112]

Eugenics is addressed in the article--the argument is "how is it eugenics if it is voluntary, and how is it racist if most welfare recipients are white?"

The vasectomy question was also addressed in the article--it was one of his previous proposals.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Very interesting proposal..I'd prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren't opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he's proposed that before, though.

ETA: I don't think it's eugenics because it's voluntary and it's not because they're poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It's because, they're not able to afford birth control so we're offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don't, don't do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a "type" of population based on it being "undesirable" this is about offering people options. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

 

[luckystar112]

I actually agree, Sarah. Though I doubt something like this would ever be passed.

I fail to see how it is eugenics. Eugenics is about the improvement of hereditary traits. "Poor" is not a hereditary trait.

For that matter, if you go to a sperm bank and choose sperm based on the traits of the donor, is that not eugenics?
What about that article from before about how 90% of women choose to terminate a pregnancy if their baby has Downs?
These are all just rhetorical questions to think about.

In any case, it would be voluntary. It is another option for women to choose. I also fail to see how it is okay for abortion and other reproductive rights to be regulated by the government, but not this. Why not?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/25/2008 11:31:29 PM
Author: luckystar112
I actually agree, Sarah. Though I doubt something like this would ever be passed.

I fail to see how it is eugenics. Eugenics is about the improvement of hereditary traits. ''Poor'' is not a hereditary trait.

For that matter, if you go to a sperm bank and choose sperm based on the traits of the donor, is that not eugenics?
What about that article from before about how 90% of women choose to terminate a pregnancy if their baby has Downs?
These are all just rhetorical questions to think about.

In any case, it would be voluntary. It is another option for women to choose. I also fail to see how it is okay for abortion and other reproductive rights to be regulated by the government, but not this. Why not?

I agree - if the women CHOOSE to take the money and undergo the procedure I don''t see eugenics anywhere. I think the argument would be much different if it was a woman with 6 children ASKING the government for the money - then all the birth control rights talk would be happening.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS
Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.


ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, "eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable." And LaBruzzo wants to "stamp out" the "undesirable" population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.

Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.

Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about "paying for people who never work." Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

 

[iheartscience]

Oh, and as for it being optional, large monetary rewards are considered coercive ethically. If you''re on welfare, $1000 is a lot of money. So a woman may feel coerced to get a tubal ligation so she can pay her bills.

 

[luckystar112]

You have to work full time to be taxed?
Boy am I getting screwed!

 

[diamondfan]

I think it is nasty. And it does prevent new babies but it does not address the babies they currently have and cannot care for. That feels very spooky to me, very much improper practices. Can these people really give informed consent to this, and do they really understand the ramifications? Trust me, I am not saying inept and incapable people (poor or rich) should have tons of kids they cannot care for. Being poor makes it worse, you are less likely to have money for proper medical care and not have resources to help you, but a bad parent can be from any SES. But it does seem a bit big brother...how far would we be on a slippery slope to forcing it upon people? Aside from the obvious, who decides who is "unfit"?

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/25/2008 11:59:34 PM
Author: luckystar112
You have to work full time to be taxed?

Boy am I getting screwed!

To clarify-obviously you get taxed at part time jobs, but the taxes taken out of my past part time jobs were a joke. I didn''t start really paying taxes until I worked full time at a well-paying job.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:00:50 AM
Author: diamondfan
I think it is nasty. And it does prevent new babies but it does not address the babies they currently have and cannot care for. That feels very spooky to me, very much improper practices. Can these people really give informed consent to this, and do they really understand the ramifications? Trust me, I am not saying inept and incapable people (poor or rich) should have tons of kids they cannot care for. Being poor makes it worse, you are less likely to have money for proper medical care and not have resources to help you, but a bad parent can be from any SES. But it does seem a bit big brother...how far would we be on a slippery slope to forcing it upon people? Aside from the obvious, who decides who is ''unfit''?

I completely agree, dfan.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/25/2008 11:51:33 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.



ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, ''eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable.'' And LaBruzzo wants to ''stamp out'' the ''undesirable'' population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.


Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.


Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about ''paying for people who never work.'' Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

Wow, you are always quick to resort to personal attacks.

I just don''t see it as stamping out the unfit, but offering people an option they otherwise would not have. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for my personal funds (since you insist upon getting into my business - surprise), I am a full-time student, but I do have a job. And I did pay taxes during my summer internship to both the state and the federal government. And the rest of my income comes from loans and then supplements from my parents and my FI who pay taxes. So yes, there are multiple people involved in this equation that ARE paying for the people who are abusing the welfare system.

So I think I DO have a say in this contrary to whatever you may think.

 

[diamondfan]

Thanks Thing. I mean, I am all for population control and wish some people did not reproduce, but really, it is a fine line here. Rife with the possibility of misuse. Plus, you have no guarantee they spend the money on the surgery and what will you do if they do not? Handing someone who makes terrible choices 1000.00 and sending them off is a bad plan. It is also permanent, I had a tubal and very rarely are they reversible, so giving a permanent birth control option seems a bit harsh.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:07:51 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/25/2008 11:51:33 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM


Author: SarahLovesJS


Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.




ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, ''eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable.'' And LaBruzzo wants to ''stamp out'' the ''undesirable'' population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.



Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.



Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about ''paying for people who never work.'' Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

Wow, you are always quick to resort to personal attacks.

I just don''t see it as stamping out the unfit, but offering people an option they otherwise would not have. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for my personal funds (since you insist upon getting into my business - surprise), I am a full-time student, but I do have a job. And I did pay taxes during my summer internship to both the state and the federal government. And the rest of my income comes from loans and then supplements from my parents and my FI who pay taxes. So yes, there are multiple people involved in this equation that ARE paying for the people who are abusing the welfare system.

So I think I DO have a say in this contrary to whatever you may think.

And you''re always quick to feel attacked.

I just wanted clarification. You mentioned that you were sick of supporting these welfare recipients, and I was under the impression that you were a full time student so probably didn''t pay much in the way of taxes.

So you really don''t see the ethical problems with his proposal?

 

[luckystar112]

I knew what you meant, t2o2, I was just being funny...except I'm not funny. I better work on that.

Anyway...my only problem with it is that he is also trying to offer cash incentives for college educated people TO reproduce. That's where he lost me. That's what makes you go "hmmmmmm".
Cash incentives to get on birth control? I'm all for it!
Cash incentives for a tubal ligation? I'm all for it!
Abortion....not so much, but that's a hard one for me, because using abortion as a form of birth control and having more babies than you can handle while on welfare are of equal annoyance to me.
But heck, I'd love for another option to be out on the table. I think cash incentives will grab people's attention, that's for sure!

ETA: Regardless of the amount of money one makes or the amount of time one works, unless you are working under the table everyone has a percentage taken from their paycheck to provide for welfare programs. So we are all, as working citizens, in this together.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:10:59 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/26/2008 12:07:51 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/25/2008 11:51:33 PM


Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM



Author: SarahLovesJS



Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.





ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, ''eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable.'' And LaBruzzo wants to ''stamp out'' the ''undesirable'' population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.




Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.




Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about ''paying for people who never work.'' Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

Wow, you are always quick to resort to personal attacks.

I just don''t see it as stamping out the unfit, but offering people an option they otherwise would not have. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for my personal funds (since you insist upon getting into my business - surprise), I am a full-time student, but I do have a job. And I did pay taxes during my summer internship to both the state and the federal government. And the rest of my income comes from loans and then supplements from my parents and my FI who pay taxes. So yes, there are multiple people involved in this equation that ARE paying for the people who are abusing the welfare system.

So I think I DO have a say in this contrary to whatever you may think.

And you''re always quick to feel attacked.

I just wanted clarification. You mentioned that you were sick of supporting these welfare recipients, and I was under the impression that you were a full time student so probably didn''t pay much in the way of taxes.


So you really don''t see the ethical problems with his proposal?

Heh heh. And you always seem to want clarification about my personal life.

I see why you think there are ethical problems with it, and I also see the problem of potentially even more abuse of the system, but I think if it''s going to offer them an option they otherwise wouldn''t have and people don''t mind paying for it, then what''s the problem?

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:08:44 AM
Author: diamondfan
Thanks Thing. I mean, I am all for population control and wish some people did not reproduce, but really, it is a fine line here. Rife with the possibility of misuse. Plus, you have no guarantee they spend the money on the surgery and what will you do if they do not? Handing someone who makes terrible choices 1000.00 and sending them off is a bad plan. It is also permanent, I had a tubal and very rarely are they reversible, so giving a permanent birth control option seems a bit harsh.

Exactly. I am involved in behavioral research at my school and had to take a comprehensive ethics course to participate. Large monetary incentives (obviously large is relative) are considered coercive and unethical. Even smaller amounts (like $100) are considered coercive when offered to poor populations.

 

[luckystar112]

Another thing to think about....would the people who have babies in order to get money from the government be the same people who would cash in on this incentive? I''d say yes. But who knows.

 

[diamondfan]

If they WANTED and sought it out, I might feel differently. I am 100% pro choice but would much prefer a child not be created in bad circumstances. Anytime money is utilized as bait, it is bad. Only poor people would be the victims here. Wealthy people would not need this type of incentive for the most part and would have a private doctor do such a procedure if they decided it was right for them. This takes advantage of people on so many levels, a master race sort of set up. (let''s stop the poor from having kids and encourage wealthy or educated people to have them, presuming wealthy or smart people are always better parents and poor people can''t be loving and wonderful parents).

 

[Anna0499]

Hy lucky - do you know if this was an extra $1,000 PLUS a free tubal or if the $1,000 is to get a tubal? I don''t know how much those things cost so I guess I need clarification & it makes a big difference.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:19:32 AM
Author: luckystar112
Another thing to think about....would the people who have babies in order to get money from the government be the same people who would cash in on this incentive? I''d say yes. But who knows.

My guess would be no...they can only collect the $1,000 one time whereas they can collect on their children for years & for higher amounts.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:23:46 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Hy lucky - do you know if this was an extra $1,000 PLUS a free tubal or if the $1,000 is to get a tubal? I don''t know how much those things cost so I guess I need clarification & it makes a big difference.

Woah woah woah, that''s a huge difference. I understood it as the $1,000 to GET the tubal in order to pay for it.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:19:32 AM
Author: luckystar112
Another thing to think about....would the people who have babies in order to get money from the government be the same people who would cash in on this incentive? I'd say yes. But who knows.

Did you see the thread a while back about the welfare recipient buying lobster? Strm posted information about how much money welfare recipients received depending on the amount of people in their household, and it's extremely low. I don't know how anyone could live off of it, really.

Here's the web address of the Louisiana food stamp program. The maximum amount of food stamps a 5 member household can receive is $643 a month. For 6 it's $772. I couldn't feed me and my fiance for $643 a month. How many women really have an extra kid for $120ish a month?

ETA the address:

http://www.dss.louisiana.gov/departments/ofs/Food_Stamp_Program.html#HowMuchWillIReceive

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:14:58 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/26/2008 12:10:59 AM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/26/2008 12:07:51 AM


Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/25/2008 11:51:33 PM



Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM




Author: SarahLovesJS




Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.






ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, ''eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable.'' And LaBruzzo wants to ''stamp out'' the ''undesirable'' population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.





Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.





Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about ''paying for people who never work.'' Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

Wow, you are always quick to resort to personal attacks.

I just don''t see it as stamping out the unfit, but offering people an option they otherwise would not have. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for my personal funds (since you insist upon getting into my business - surprise), I am a full-time student, but I do have a job. And I did pay taxes during my summer internship to both the state and the federal government. And the rest of my income comes from loans and then supplements from my parents and my FI who pay taxes. So yes, there are multiple people involved in this equation that ARE paying for the people who are abusing the welfare system.

So I think I DO have a say in this contrary to whatever you may think.

And you''re always quick to feel attacked.

I just wanted clarification. You mentioned that you were sick of supporting these welfare recipients, and I was under the impression that you were a full time student so probably didn''t pay much in the way of taxes.



So you really don''t see the ethical problems with his proposal?

Heh heh. And you always seem to want clarification about my personal life.

I see why you think there are ethical problems with it, and I also see the problem of potentially even more abuse of the system, but I think if it''s going to offer them an option they otherwise wouldn''t have and people don''t mind paying for it, then what''s the problem?

The problem is the coercive nature of the program. I explained it in previous posts. And if people don''t mind paying for tubal ligations, why would they mind paying for birth control pills for these women?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:26:31 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/26/2008 12:23:46 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Hy lucky - do you know if this was an extra $1,000 PLUS a free tubal or if the $1,000 is to get a tubal? I don''t know how much those things cost so I guess I need clarification & it makes a big difference.

Woah woah woah, that''s a huge difference. I understood it as the $1,000 to GET the tubal in order to pay for it.

Yeah, it makes a big difference in how I view it as well; I couldn''t tell from the article.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:29:36 AM
Author: thing2of2

The problem is the coercive nature of the program. I explained it in previous posts. And if people don't mind paying for tubal ligations, why would they mind paying for birth control pills for these women?

My guess is that it's easy to go off of or misuse birth control pills...and Planned Parenthood already offers them for next to nothing.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:29:36 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/26/2008 12:14:58 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/26/2008 12:10:59 AM


Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/26/2008 12:07:51 AM



Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/25/2008 11:51:33 PM




Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/25/2008 11:18:52 PM





Author: SarahLovesJS





Very interesting proposal..I''d prefer this over abortions. *shrug* Hey if he wants to offer the money, and the tax-payers aren''t opposed to it, and women want the money..I say go for it. But they should offer vasectomies, too. Saw that he''s proposed that before, though.







ETA: I don''t think it''s eugenics because it''s voluntary and it''s not because they''re poor people and we want to stop poor people from reproducing. It''s because, they''re not able to afford birth control so we''re offering them a form of birth control. If they want it, great. If they don''t, don''t do it. How is that eugenics? Eugenics is trying to stamp out a ''type'' of population based on it being ''undesirable'' this is about offering people options. I don''t know about you, but I''m tired of paying for people to never work because they manage to have 38938923 babies.

Some of them ON PURPOSE. Some people face unfortunate circumstances and I can sympathize with them, but others flat-out plot how many babies they need to live off of welfare.

As you write, ''eugenics is trying to stamp out a type of population based on it being undesirable.'' And LaBruzzo wants to ''stamp out'' the ''undesirable'' population of welfare recipients. If you consider it birth control, why wouldn''t you just want him to offer free birth control pills, then? Or low cost abortions? That way, if a woman decides she wants to have a child later on, she can. A tubal ligation is permanent.






Furthermore, the article points out that welfare recipients have decreased dramatically, to over 280,000 in 1991 to 13,000 in 2007. So the welfare population doesn''t seem to be expanding too rapidly because of the rampant child-bearing of women on welfare.






Also, do you pay a lot of taxes? I thought you were a full time student. Just wondering why you''re so concerned about ''paying for people who never work.'' Apologies if you do have a full time job and pay tons of taxes to support these people.

Wow, you are always quick to resort to personal attacks.

I just don''t see it as stamping out the unfit, but offering people an option they otherwise would not have. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for my personal funds (since you insist upon getting into my business - surprise), I am a full-time student, but I do have a job. And I did pay taxes during my summer internship to both the state and the federal government. And the rest of my income comes from loans and then supplements from my parents and my FI who pay taxes. So yes, there are multiple people involved in this equation that ARE paying for the people who are abusing the welfare system.

So I think I DO have a say in this contrary to whatever you may think.

And you''re always quick to feel attacked.

I just wanted clarification. You mentioned that you were sick of supporting these welfare recipients, and I was under the impression that you were a full time student so probably didn''t pay much in the way of taxes.




So you really don''t see the ethical problems with his proposal?

Heh heh. And you always seem to want clarification about my personal life.

I see why you think there are ethical problems with it, and I also see the problem of potentially even more abuse of the system, but I think if it''s going to offer them an option they otherwise wouldn''t have and people don''t mind paying for it, then what''s the problem?

The problem is the coercive nature of the program. I explained it in previous posts. And if people don''t mind paying for tubal ligations, why would they mind paying for birth control pills for these women?

Well maybe someone should propose BC! Who said they wouldn''t support that? And is the program promising 1000 + tubal or 1000 for a tubal? If it''s just for a tubal I don''t see it as coercive.

 

[luckystar112]

You know...the more I think about it, the last time I was at planned parenthood the gyno was practically twisting my arm to get an IUD. When I inquired to a different form of bc, one that isn''t used that often, she sort of scoffed. Would not let up on the IUD. No idea what that was about. Was she judging me because I was at a planned parenthood? Who knows.

I also know a girl who, while pregnant with her second child at the age of 23, was told by her doctor that if she wanted to he could give her a tubal ligation during delivery. I thought that was odd. Was that his version of population control? Was he judging her?

Which brings me to another thought.....$1000 for a IUD would be so much better. Maybe I''ll email this guy.

 

[Inanna]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:49:30 AM
Author: luckystar112
You know...the more I think about it, the last time I was at planned parenthood the gyno was practically twisting my arm to get an IUD. When I inquired to a different form of bc, one that isn''t used that often, she sort of scoffed. Would not let up on the IUD. No idea what that was about. Was she judging me because I was at a planned parenthood? Who knows.


I also know a girl who, while pregnant with her second child at the age of 23, was told by her doctor that if she wanted to he could give her a tubal ligation during delivery. I thought that was odd. Was that his version of population control? Was he judging her?


Which brings me to another thought.....$1000 for a IUD would be so much better. Maybe I''ll email this guy.

That''s really interesting that you bring that up. When I was in college and went to Planned Parenthood, they were constantly pushing IUDs or the Depo Provera shot (is a quite risky form of birth control, health wise, and has been banned in many other countries). Friends of mine have had similar experiences at women''s clinics. Now that I have good health insurance and can afford more high-end health care, most of my doctors have been appalled when I''ve mentioned this practice by Planned Parenthood. My PCP recently told me her guess is that many clinic settings may assume their patients (young, low-income) lack the mental capacity to adhere to a daily or weekly birth control routine, therefore they recommend more long-term and risky birth control measures. I thought that was quite ethically unsettling.

And FYI - most reputable doctors only recommend IUDs for women in their 30''s and up who''ve already had all the children they plan on having.