|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 9:13 am
So my sister's friend is adopting another child. She is not able to have children herself so she has adopted. Well the mother that she is adopting from has agreed to let her have the baby. This mother can not keep her children, the last two children were also put up for adoption because the mother is, by law, not allowed to have children. I am not sure the details, all my sister said was that the state forbids her to have children because it is a bad situation.
So my question is...
Why has this woman not been sterilized!?
She obviously does not care for birth control and if she is legally not allowed to have children then why let her be able to reproduce?
This is an situational example for my other thread, in which I said certain people should be sterilized. And this truely baffles me.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:26 am
This pickled vegetable...She could be a drug abuser or mentally unstable and as such is unfit to raise children.
The government cannot physically sterilize her because that would violate her basic human rights and they can't stop her form having sex for the same reason. All they can do is make sure any children she bears are taken away from her and taken care of. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:38 am
Renkon Root This pickled vegetable...She could be a drug abuser or mentally unstable and as such is unfit to raise children.
The government cannot physically sterilize her because that would violate her basic human rights and they can't stop her form having sex for the same reason. All they can do is make sure any children she bears are taken away from her and taken care of. ... could kick your a** !! I don't think that's quite true. The following states still have compulsory sterilization laws on their books: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:59 pm
They could threaten to lock her up if she doesn't get sterilized. If she is not allowed to have children, I am sure a good lawyer could turn her behavior on her to say she is violating a mandated regulation that has been applied to her.
Her issue is probably that the state won't pay for her to get sterilized. That is a problem here. I know a girl who just gave her children to her step-mom because she "didn't want DFS in her business". All the court stuff just got finalized, and she looks like she is pregnant again. The only reason she doesn't get tied is because the state won't pay. So instead, she'll stay a baby factory, and the state can pay for the couple dozen kids she pops out. Her step-mom can't afford to take any more so any future babies will be state kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:51 pm
I think the issue at large is whether or not it would be against her rights to have a child if say at a later date she were to turn herself around and wanted children.
Personally, there's too many idiots reproducing. Taking one out of the gene pool doesn't bother me one bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:30 am
To rmdra- She is in Virginia.
To Renkon- I'm sorry, but screw human rights. What about the children that she is popping out? Do you think they would like to know they came from a crack whore? There should be a line that they draw in these types of situations. She most likely will never make anything better of herself, hense why this is her third child up for adoption.
To Eltanin- I really do not think throwing this person in jail would phase her. She probably has already been in jail multiple times. My brother-in-law's step brother has been arrested 8 times, he just robbed a church two days ago. These type of people do not care. They see it as a free home, free food, free clothes and such...
To Lateralus Helica- I really do not see this person changing, so yea. Sterilize her now before she gets pregnant again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 9:26 am
True true, but at least while she is locked up, they can be sure she isn't using or having sex.
The point that I really want to bring up is that the state would rather pay for a dozen kids than for one operation.
She would probably be more than happy to not have to worry about getting pregnant, but she won't pay for the tubal, and she won't keep up with BC because she is too busy doing other s**t. I know that here in MO, if you want to get pills on state funding, you also have to go in for physicals every 3-6 months. She probably wants to avoid as many questions as possible.
I think that the government needs to rethink their policy on sterilizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:01 am
rmcdra Renkon Root This pickled vegetable...She could be a drug abuser or mentally unstable and as such is unfit to raise children.
The government cannot physically sterilize her because that would violate her basic human rights and they can't stop her form having sex for the same reason. All they can do is make sure any children she bears are taken away from her and taken care of. ... could kick your a** !! I don't think that's quite true. The following states still have compulsory sterilization laws on their books: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this doesn't always mean anything. It's very common in the US to have very antiquated laws still on the books but not enforceable. The reasons vary from obscurity to the outrageous cost of getting the law removed (it's literally more expensive to remove laws sometimes). You have to look at the date the law was passed in order to decide. It almost sounds like a 1910's eugenics law, anyway. That said, it's hard to say without knowing the whole issue. Like someone said it sounds like a drug issue. Then again, it's Virginia and they have plenty of (IMHO) unnecessary laws and regulations they love to air out every so often (yes I do live there right now. I'll save my rant for later). So I'm going to assume I know the whole issue for shicks and giggles. In addition to human rights issue, she probably hasn't been sterilized because one has to have reasonable proof that sterilization is necessary. Since eugenics is rarely supported, people would cry outrage at whom would get sterilized, that leaves medical. It's almost impossible to get a hysterectomy in some states if you haven't had a child. I'd be interested in seeing arguments for compulsory sterilization along that vein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 4:45 pm
4shi rmcdra Renkon Root This pickled vegetable...She could be a drug abuser or mentally unstable and as such is unfit to raise children.
The government cannot physically sterilize her because that would violate her basic human rights and they can't stop her form having sex for the same reason. All they can do is make sure any children she bears are taken away from her and taken care of. ... could kick your a** !! I don't think that's quite true. The following states still have compulsory sterilization laws on their books: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this doesn't always mean anything. It's very common in the US to have very antiquated laws still on the books but not enforceable. The reasons vary from obscurity to the outrageous cost of getting the law removed (it's literally more expensive to remove laws sometimes). You have to look at the date the law was passed in order to decide. It almost sounds like a 1910's eugenics law, anyway. That said, it's hard to say without knowing the whole issue. Like someone said it sounds like a drug issue. Then again, it's Virginia and they have plenty of (IMHO) unnecessary laws and regulations they love to air out every so often (yes I do live there right now. I'll save my rant for later). So I'm going to assume I know the whole issue for shicks and giggles. In addition to human rights issue, she probably hasn't been sterilized because one has to have reasonable proof that sterilization is necessary. Since eugenics is rarely supported, people would cry outrage at whom would get sterilized, that leaves medical. It's almost impossible to get a hysterectomy in some states if you haven't had a child. I'd be interested in seeing arguments for compulsory sterilization along that vein. Good old traditional republican state it is. I grew up in Woodbridge... (*coughHoodbridgecough*) myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:05 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia True true, but at least while she is locked up, they can be sure she isn't using or having sex. The point that I really want to bring up is that the state would rather pay for a dozen kids than for one operation. She would probably be more than happy to not have to worry about getting pregnant, but she won't pay for the tubal, and she won't keep up with BC because she is too busy doing other s**t. I know that here in MO, if you want to get pills on state funding, you also have to go in for physicals every 3-6 months. She probably wants to avoid as many questions as possible. I think that the government needs to rethink their policy on sterilizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:09 pm
A full out hysterectomy isn't necessary, a simple tubal would be all that was needed to keep her from having kids...
Just because a law isn't on the books, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Just because laws are on the books doesn't mean it should be, either.
I don't think that having children is a right. I think it's a responsibility. People who do not live up to their responsibilities get them taken away. If a driver violates their responsibilities behind the wheel, then they get their license taken. I think having kids is more serious than driving, but that's my opinion.
If having kids was a basic human right, then SS wouldn't be able to go in and take kids away from parents who were mistreating or neglecting them.
If a woman is going to continually be getting pregnant, and then aborting, pawning off, or neglecting her children, then she doesn't have any reason to be fertile in the first place. She is a drain on the system, and a danger to herself and the children she produces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 9:01 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia A full out hysterectomy isn't necessary, a simple tubal would be all that was needed to keep her from having kids... Just because a law isn't on the books, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Just because laws are on the books doesn't mean it should be, either. I don't think that having children is a right. I think it's a responsibility. People who do not live up to their responsibilities get them taken away. If a driver violates their responsibilities behind the wheel, then they get their license taken. I think having kids is more serious than driving, but that's my opinion. If having kids was a basic human right, then SS wouldn't be able to go in and take kids away from parents who were mistreating or neglecting them. If a woman is going to continually be getting pregnant, and then aborting, pawning off, or neglecting her children, then she doesn't have any reason to be fertile in the first place. She is a drain on the system, and a danger to herself and the children she produces. While I agree her fertility isn't a right, her body is considered her property. She has a right to her property. If I recall correctly it's part of the grounds for legal abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:26 am
4shi Eltanin Sadachbia A full out hysterectomy isn't necessary, a simple tubal would be all that was needed to keep her from having kids... Just because a law isn't on the books, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Just because laws are on the books doesn't mean it should be, either. I don't think that having children is a right. I think it's a responsibility. People who do not live up to their responsibilities get them taken away. If a driver violates their responsibilities behind the wheel, then they get their license taken. I think having kids is more serious than driving, but that's my opinion. If having kids was a basic human right, then SS wouldn't be able to go in and take kids away from parents who were mistreating or neglecting them. If a woman is going to continually be getting pregnant, and then aborting, pawning off, or neglecting her children, then she doesn't have any reason to be fertile in the first place. She is a drain on the system, and a danger to herself and the children she produces. While I agree her fertility isn't a right, her body is considered her property. She has a right to her property. If I recall correctly it's part of the grounds for legal abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 11:50 am
Aakosir 4shi Eltanin Sadachbia A full out hysterectomy isn't necessary, a simple tubal would be all that was needed to keep her from having kids... Just because a law isn't on the books, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Just because laws are on the books doesn't mean it should be, either. I don't think that having children is a right. I think it's a responsibility. People who do not live up to their responsibilities get them taken away. If a driver violates their responsibilities behind the wheel, then they get their license taken. I think having kids is more serious than driving, but that's my opinion. If having kids was a basic human right, then SS wouldn't be able to go in and take kids away from parents who were mistreating or neglecting them. If a woman is going to continually be getting pregnant, and then aborting, pawning off, or neglecting her children, then she doesn't have any reason to be fertile in the first place. She is a drain on the system, and a danger to herself and the children she produces. While I agree her fertility isn't a right, her body is considered her property. She has a right to her property. If I recall correctly it's part of the grounds for legal abortion. The issue is about sterilization, not about if it's ok to keep popping out babies. You made no indication the issue was convincing her of anything outside of a possible court order (your premise for the debate is too vague to make heads or tails of much). Moreover convincing an individual of sterilization is a far cry from reasonable proof for compulsory sterilization. So the issue is if it's ethical to force sterilization and does the state have a right to make someone stop reproducing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:32 pm
I do understand, and agree with 4shi, that a person's body is theirs to do with as they will, but there is another instance where the gov steps in and violates individual sovereignty; death-row.
I think that since these women are hurting other people, the ones they are bringing into existence, then they should be beholden to the same criteria. (Not put to death xp ) I mean that the threat that they pose should be eliminated. It is only a wish of mine that they could be forced to stop reproducing.
I am sure that the (proposed) need for mandatory sterilization would be significantly lessened if the state offered sterilization for both males and females for free.
There are just as many, if not possibly more deadbeat guys out there than gals, and they would probably jump at the chance to never have to worry about being chased by the courts and previous sexual encounters for their paychecks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
