Should the gov’t be allowed to sterilize women/men?
I’m so tired of seeing these mothers who get pregnant over and over again and the government doesn’t do anything to stop them from drinking and doing drugs during the pregnancy or to stop them from getting pregnant again, resulting in babies being born going through horrific withdrawals and having lifetime effects of what their mother did while pregnant, and then does it all over again!
Women like this should be forced to at least have their tubes tied. It’s something that if for some miracle they change their life and prove to the courts they’ve done so, then it can be reversed. Though they’d already have kids they should be taking care of and not be wanting to have more.
The money it’d cost for having a woman’s tubes tied is minuscule compared to paying for their pregnancy, birth, medical insurance for the child and everything else. And honestly, even if the woman didn’t see it at the time, it’s help the woman by taking the burden of pregnancy off of her. But women shouldn’t be the only ones held responsible. Men who go around getting multiple women pregnant, especially if he’s not paying child support, should also be forced to either man up, pay his dues and stop hoeing around having unprotected sex OR be sterilized.
I know this sounds like a completely radical idea, and people who are against government interference would totally be against it, but it’s for these children who are suffering being born to these parents.
- MarvinLv 73 weeks ago
It has been tried. They even have tried offering them money to get sterilized. The problem is with political correctness. If 100,000 blue people take the offer, 100,000 purple people take the offer, and 100,001 orange people take the offer, the ACLU will call the program genocide against the orange people. That is how it happens in the USA.
Insert the colors as you see fit.
All that being said, every state has a department of family planning were anyone can get sterilized for free. Free sterilization has been around since the 70's and is nothing new.
The best thing to do is put an end to benefits. Singapore has no benefits. That is why unplanned babies are almost non-existent. Most couples have one or no children. Most wait until they are in their 30's and have over 100K in the bank. Why, because there is no welfare, no disability, no unemployment, etc. That is why Singapore is much more functional than the USA.
- MissALv 71 month ago
You think the government doesn't do that?
I mean it's a horrific violation of personal autonomy and everything but it happens all the time.
- PippinLv 71 month ago
And you know what costs even less and is even more societally productive? Providing treatment for substance abuse. This not only protects the health of potential children, but allows the woman (or man) to become a productive member of society.
For many women, pregnancy is the push they need to SEEK treatment -- but it's not always available.
You are also completely delusional if you believe that tubes can just be 'untied' when desired.
Make long acting contraception affordable and available. That's easy to reverse when the woman feels ready to have a child.
But no -- in free countries we have this thing called bodily privacy -- and 'the government' cannot force women to have major surgery. (And yeah, it's major surgery.)
- Anonymous1 month ago
Heather, what you are speaking of HAS in fact been tried, not only in the US, but in other countries around the world. And everywhere it has been done, the results have been disastrous. I'm sure you know that China, for example has its "one child" policy. The government there adopted that in order to control the country's population, because there were so many cases of kids starving to death or dying from disease because of lack of resources to care for them. Chinese couples must get permission from their local authorities before they attempt to get pregnant, and under the law, second children are NOT tolerated. If a woman gets pregnant a second time, she will be forced by the government to abort the pregnancy. That's one of the reasons why Chinese nationals who come to the US to go to school, or artists or athletes who come to compete or perform often end up defecting, in fact. NO government should ever have the power to tamper or interfere with peoples' right to procreate, period. It isn't the government's business what people do in their private lives. Just because someone like you believes that poor women or women who have substance abuse problems shouldn't be permitted to be parents, doesn't mean everyone ELSE feels that way.
And this whole notion that poor women should be prohibited from becoming mothers, just because they're poor, smacks of discrimination based on social and economic standing. The US tried a version of that, too, back in the early 20th century. Try looking up the words "eugenics movement" online sometime, Heather. You'll get an eyeful, believe me. Because it wasn't just people with developmental disabilities who were targeted in that movement- it was basically anyone who was deemed to be unfit to either be a parent or to live, regardless of what their personal situation was. Anybody with a criminal background, who was illegitimate, who was poor, who stuttered, who lived hand to mouth, and on and on- they all were targeted by those who wanted to "breed" such qualities out of the human race. This also included members of the LGBT community, too- because homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness at that time, and was illegal in most if not all US states. It would be decades before it was finally de-criminalized, and even more time would pass before being gay was no longer considered to be an illness.
One of the results of this thinking was that there were at least 2 dozen states across the country which instituted involuntary sterilization programs for anyone who was deemed to be physically or mentally "unfit" in any way. The state governments did this by establishing what were then called "colonies" for the "feeble minded, criminally insane, or the "unfit". These were little more than warehouses- they were large institutions with thousands of residents. And some if not most of them became notorious for the cruelties that the residents who lived in them got subjected to. They had names like Willowbrook in New York ( on Long Island) Muscatatuk in Indiana, and the "Delaware Colony for the Feeble Minded" here in Delaware where I live. And the stories that were told about what happened to people who were sent there- often as infants or very young children- have become the stuff of legend. Willowbrook came to public attention in 1972, when conditions at that place were exposed by a young TV journalist named Geraldo Rivera. The outcry following his report was enormous. People compared Willowbrook to the Nazi concentration camps- that's how bad things were.
Of course, these places have since been closed down or have been renamed, and there are no more cases of forced sterilizations for those who are deemed "unfit" by society any more. But the legacy of shame and tragedy that they created still exists. If Congress were to pass legislation that re-implemented such policies, Heather, there would be another huge public outcry- and rightly so.