Judge orders couple not to have children

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by glatt


I painted a picture with words.

Right now in other threads going on here in the Cellar, there are arguments about the use of war images. That in order to have an informed opinion about what war is, the images should be made available to the public. War is hell. People know this in the abstract, but images of it remind the public of that truth. Hopefully it will prevent wars from happening as easily in the future.

Talking in the abstract about sterilization while we all sit calmly at our keyboards is so clean and sanitary. So dignified. But we are talking about strapping people down and performing procedures on them against their will. It's worth at least mentioning that truth. It may be inflammatory, but it sure isn't irrelevant.

I think that clarifying the abstract first, having as much rational discourse as possible is what should come first.

Follow that with the application of it to real life situations so that you can modifiy the idea to fit the situation better.

Anyone who has ever had to work with an engineer as a technician knows what I'm talking about.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


How is it moot? This issue is going to be important in the future and like genetic research shouldn't there be some dialog about it before it becomes a pressing issue instead of an imminent one?

first off thanks for "moot". i couldn't figure out how to spell it.

second.....i say it's moot because in my mind even though this is a torturous subject, i can't see how any of it matters because i don;t want the government having control over anyone's body unless they have committed a capitol crime......in which case i say kill them quickly and be done with it.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by DanaC
Just to reign this away from personal insults and back to the issue at hand. What about people who are not mentally disabled/retarded whose future progeny are substantially at risk from certain serious hereditary disorders ? Would you advocate enfored sterilsation so as to prevent that furture child having to suffer ?

What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )

I know plenty about hereditary "disorders" (kidney failure, diabetes). Maybe not considered to some as "serious" but they are not living with it as I am and it *is* serious enough to consider getting a whole new organ in order for me to live.

At any rate, I say if it was discovered early enough, I don't think I'd "enforce" anything, but point out to the potential parents the tough situation they would be entering into by taking on a child with health difficulties: possible out-of-pocket expenses if their insurance doesn't cover certain procedures, medications, etc., possible special schooling, alterations to the home if the child is not able to be mobile, multiple hospital stays...it can get quite stressful. And will they be able to be emotionally strong enough in order to face these challenges and a possible premature death of that child. Granted, science is working on a lot of things everyday, but trust me when I say I've been doing enough research about my own situation to know that advances in medicine takes time and a LOT of money, so the breakthrough may not come in time to prolong the child's life.

So I'm thinking if the parents decided to take the chance in dealing with these issues regarding their child's health, then they should perhaps forfeit getting any special treatment and/or help (in the way of funding) in order to assist the child. This way, the ball is in their court and no one can cry that the government made them do anything against their will and so forth.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Which brings us to the other point my husband brought up, which is that if the woman was in jail for doing drugs, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. He thinks that we should be enforcing the laws we already have rather than making up new ones.

Women get pregnant in prison, from conjugal visits as well as prison rape.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

And while we're on the discussion of forced sterilisation, lets talk about rapists and child molesters. Should the males be eunich'd? Would that really help? What about females? How does eunich'ing the males prevent them from violating in other ways (bottles, etc)?

Chemical castration was only of limited success and as it stands they won't castrate the penitant one who asked for it, I can't remember his name.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Isn't the greater good of the society worth the rights of one who willfully and consistantly breaks that society's rules?

It's not just one person. This is a group who has decided that they don't want to follow rules for living in a, ostensibly, civilized society and now we have to decide how we are going to deal with them.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by lumberjim

first off thanks for "moot". i couldn't figure out how to spell it.

AT your service sir.

Originally posted by lumberjim

second.....i say it's moot because in my mind even though this is a torturous subject, i can't see how any of it matters because i don;t want the government having control over anyone's body unless they have committed a capitol crime......in which case i say kill them quickly and be done with it.

I agree whole heartedly.

Now let's figure it out.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
So I'm thinking if the parents decided to take the chance in dealing with these issues regarding their child's health, then they should perhaps forfeit getting any special treatment and/or help (in the way of funding) in order to assist the child. This way, the ball is in their court and no one can cry that the government made them do anything against their will and so forth.

Wouldn't that be fun to try and implement...

[Pie]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
So I'm thinking if the parents decided to take the chance in dealing with these issues regarding their child's health, then they should perhaps forfeit getting any special treatment and/or help (in the way of funding) in order to assist the child. This way, the ball is in their court and no one can cry that the government made them do anything against their will and so forth.

That punishes the disabled child, not the parent.

To drag in another issue, how about people's religious convictions? Some people believe in the fundamental immorality of contraception. Should they have those views overridden by the state?

- Pie

[glatt]

There are two camps here.
First camps says the government has no business telling you when you can have kids.

Second camp says they do.

There is no room for discussion in the first camp. It's absolute.

Second camp can talk until the wee hours about all the different scenarios. "Should the government get involved here?" "No." "how about here?" "yeah OK." "And over here?" "um, I don't know about that."

I'm in the first camp. The correct camp, by the way. All I can do is restate the the position using different wording. Oh yeah, and make personal attacks. Sorry.

I could talk about how I'm actually sympathetic to some arguments. That would tap into the sentiments that some have expressed, and we could reach some common ground. Lumberjim did this, and I agree with everything he said. Maybe I should have tried hs approach.

But the bottom line is either you think the government should be able to have control over its citizens' reproductive systems, or you don't. The rest is not relevant.

[jinx]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Incentivizing won't do anything because that would require some effort on the part of the parent to be.

I can only really see penalizing people having any affect.

CRACK (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) Pays addicts to use temporary or permanent birth control.


Salon.com article

[glatt]

Originally posted by jinx



CRACK (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) Pays addicts to use temporary or permanent birth control.


Salon.com article

I think it's a great idea. Free choice. They (in theory anyway) don't have to do it if they don't want to. I know the reality is that they will choose it just about every time.

[lumberjim]

linked by jinx:

Project Prevention was established by Barbara Harris.

The program is completely voluntary for participants. The participants, male and female, receive $200 for choosing to use long-term or permanent birth control.

Most participants who choose permanent birth control are those who have already had far more children than most people have in a lifetime.

The process goes as follows: The participant contacts us and we send out our paperwork. Our offer is good for 60 days after receiving the paperwork. She or he then makes an appointment with a personal physician or family planning provider of choice (we are not involved in this process). In most cases, birth control services are available at no cost, and the provider offers informative counseling to assist their clients in choosing an appropriate family planning method. If a participant chooses a tubal ligation, she is required by law to wait a period of 30 days before she may undergo the procedure. After she receives her services, she returns her completed paperwork to us. Once her paperwork is verified by our staff, the client receives $200.

What does she do with the money she has earned from us? We do not monitor where our money is spent, any more than the government monitors where welfare or other related money are spent. We know of several of our clients that have used the $200 for rent payments, diapers and other child related goods.

Project Prevention offers a $200 incentive for any of these birth control methods:

* Depo-Provera -paid over the period of one year
* Essure
* IUD
* Norplant (5 year contraceptive)
* Tubal ligation
* Vasectomy

so how much crack can you et for $200? a weeks worth?

this is great if there are takers for it. some of those people might actually WANT to be snipped/tied, too. who pays for those procedures? it says no cost in most cases......

i bet lots of crack whores would like to not worry about getting knocked up.



i

[warch]

Wouldnt it be cool if you could get birth control pills, whatever over the counter? RU4 86? At least there is Planned Parenthood. (have you thanked them today?)

Glatt's right. The government should never be involved in sterilizing people 'specially when it cant even execute them correctly.

[DanaC]

Wouldnt it be cool if you could get birth control pills, whatever over the counter?

Is birthcontrol difficult to acquire in the States?

Unsurprisingly my position on this remains unchanged :P I really dont think we need to be letting this particular genie out of the bottle.

Originally posted by Clodfobble

Keep in mind, this is the same woman whom we will restrain, kicking and screaming, while we pry her abused baby from her arms and take it into foster care.

Given where in the process the sterilisation would have to sit in order to be of use, there would be no guarantee that that scenario would play out in that way. Sterilising happens before the child is born to prevent the child being born. Until that child is born nobody can say for sure that the parent will be abusive. There is often a trend which can be followed.....But human beings rarely stay the same throughout the entirety of their lives. There is no way to be sure the person being sterilised would absue future children.

[Clodfobble]

Is birthcontrol difficult to acquire in the States?

Not difficult, but you do have to go to a doctor and get a prescription and then continue to go back once a year for a checkup, all of which costs money--much more if you're uninsured.

[DanaC]

Ahh *nods at Clodfobble* I can see how that might be problematic for some