Legacy (& abortion rights...)

Who said you were liberal? You claim to be moderate, but you're coming across as a fascist to me. What are you going to do, compulsory sterilize people?

Without those children, they wouldn't have anything to feed themselves with.

A womans right to choose vs. a fetus' right to life. Roe vs. Wade.

I don't here anyone screaming ABSTINENCE for HIV. What I do here are calls for less sleeping around to cut down the HIV rate. I hear calls for abstinence to cut down on Teenage pregnancies, but what are my age group having sex for anyway? The reason is: they can't control themselves. They've lost all self control. Along with the rest of society. We've been encouraged by 'liberals' to care only about ourselves, to do whatever the hell we like. And some of the people I know who are older than me... it's scary. I suppose it all comes down to how we've got it so wrong about ages of consent. Sexual age of consent; let's define it at physical and mental maturity. Voting age; let's define that at mental maturity. Age of drinking; phsical and mental. Sheesh, it would make the world a lot better.

I know my version of Democracy cuts dangerously close to Anarchy, but this is just insane.

The liberal agenda is that we should all be free to persue our own happiness and act as we wish as long as in doing so we don't impinge on anyone elses freedom, which is were government comes in.
The anarchist agenda is that we should all be free do do as we wish. Full stop. The survival of the strongest ensues.
The conservative agenda is that we should all be free do as we want as long as it is deemed socially positive by the right. The survival of the powerful ensues.

The trouble is the actual Liberal agenda is sounding a lot closer to Anarchism than the one you gave. The trouble with teenagers having sex is that most aren't at the level where they can make that sort of decision. Not all are like that, although I suspect the ones who aren't don't do it anyway.

But promiscuity = spreading HIV and other STIs is a no-brainer.

Ok. I was in no way suggesting mandatory sterilization. What I was suggesting is a procedure that would allow women to have control over their bodies. They could VOLUNTARILY get the procedure done. As for sponsorship programs and welfare, part of the problem is these programs are abused by recipients. A mother/family receives a certain amount depending on how many are in the family, and the more that are in the family the more they receive. There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money. To minimize the chances of this very expensive form of assistance abuse, make one of the conditions of getting into this program that they have this procedure done. It's still voluntary in that they don't HAVE to apply for assistance, but if they do it's not on their terms.
As for a woman's right to choose, to choose this procedure as an option means there's no fetus to deal with.
When I was talking abstinence I was referring to abstinence outside of marriage, fornication. THAT is what the religious right is targeting. As for teenage pregnancies, it's not just self control, it's naivite. Conservatives are living in denial thinking that their children are not going to have sex just because they preach abstinence. How many teenagers do you know who listen to their parents without question? How many teenagers do the exact opposite of what their parents say just to be rebellious?
Granted there is a puritanical attitude with regards to behavior in our society. It's all or nothing, good or bad, right or wrong. That is exactly why I'm moderate. Instead of trying to look at things in black and white look at the grey area. Permissiveness with regulation and responsibility.
Tobias, maybe you're one of the exceptions to the rule for voting, and you are right, there are a disturbingly large number of people older than you who are irresponsible. So how many tests do we give people to take? One for voting, religious choice, free speech, alcohol, drugs, gambling, driving, consent to sex, entering into a legal contract, gun ownership, selling guns, selling alcohol, selling drugs, selling securities, practicing medicine, practicing law, hunting, joining the military, getting married, having children, I could gone on and on. Where do we draw the line, Tobias?

Why would we need a test for free speech?

Now a lot of those can be combined into one test. All we'd need is a mental maturity test and a check to see whether they are physically mature (not hard).

Er... here in Britain we've had a lot more sex education (and NOT based around Abstinence, if anything, it's discouraged) and we've got the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe (that's HIGHER than Americas, not LOWER). And I expect it to go up with this new introduction of compulsory sex-ed from 5 up to 16.

Wiki says no. Uk had 26 per 1000 births compared to the US's 46 as of 2007. Difference is higher if you count those not brought to term.
Rates of teen pregnancies are lower in countries with more comprehensive sex education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_pregnancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_and_sexual_health_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Pregnancy

And look at Americas sex education! The figures, though I have got them mixed up, still bear me out. Americas sex-ed in public schools is terrible. Condoms on Cucumbers.

My expectation? The teenage pregnancy and teenage STIs will rise in Britain with the new sex-ed scheme.

Intuitively American sex ed should be terrible at preventing pregnancy and STD's, if teens are preached abstinence they're hardly going to be prepared contraceptive wise when they do have sex, a girl waiting for marriage is hardly going to be carrying condoms and on the pill.
However teen pregnancy rates are probably a lot more tied up with social inequality and poverty than anything else.

I would propose finding out which countries have the lowest teen pregnancy rates and find out why. From there implement the most realistic measures in our country.

A lot of the difference though is cultural more than anything else, and imposing a culture is a lot like holding water.

You can do it with an electrohydrostatic force, but it's energy intensive.

Especially as an analogy.

A lot of analogies don't work the way the person wants them to. E.g. 'It's like trying to mix Oil and Water'. Which do mix, with a third ingrediant.

Quote :

You can do it with an electrohydrostatic force, but it's energy intensive.

Especially as an analogy.

lkm, I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

And Tobias, you're right, a lot of times analogies don't work. They are an over-simplification, but I still find myself using them.

NoMoreLies wrote:

A lot of analogies don't work the way the person wants them to. E.g. 'It's like trying to mix Oil and Water'. Which do mix, with a third ingrediant.

This is so true! Like "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," But add a third ingredient, beer, and this changes the whole situation! Of course in the morning you have a whole new analogy, "coyote ugly!" LOL

I take it 'normal for Norfolk' hasn't jumped the pond then?

Not yet. We just make references to the movie Deliverance!

davamanra wrote, "There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money."

Do you any empirical data to support such an assertion? In such an unlikely event, I have a few quiestions:
How are the number of kids "they would normally have" determined?
How are motives determined?
Is any effort made to determine effect on total fertility, rather than some time limited fertility period?

Just considering the diffiuclty of approaching such question, the assertion could only be supported by extremely rigorous and very expensive research, which would probably be seriously tainted by ideological issues.

Which leads me to suspect that there is no empirical data.

Theoretical basis?

Bob

It's certainly true that families in lower income brackets and with a poorer educational background tend to be larger, the foundation of the so called idiocracy theory. However this is almost certainly due to the richer families sacrificing fertility in exchange for better economic advantages for their remaining children.
The smarter and richer you are, the latter you marry and have children, ergo you have fewer. However all this can very easily look like poorer families having children for the hell of it, and could be argued to be functionally equivalent.

bobunf wrote:

davamanra wrote, "There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money."

Do you any empirical data to support such an assertion? In such an unlikely event, I have a few quiestions:
How are the number of kids "they would normally have" determined?
How are motives determined?
Is any effort made to determine effect on total fertility, rather than some time limited fertility period?

Just considering the diffiuclty of approaching such question, the assertion could only be supported by extremely rigorous and very expensive research, which would probably be seriously tainted by ideological issues.

Which leads me to suspect that there is no empirical data.

Theoretical basis?

Bob

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

Bob,
Please read these pages in their entirety as well as go back and read my entire post, because I'm tired of having what I've said taken out of context or having to repeat what I've said. You might also do a little research yourself rather than attacking one sentence out of a rather extensive post.

First, I said "a number of abuses", I did not say "all" or "most" are due to having more kids.
Second, take away social and religious pressures and the temptation to supplement household income through a welfare program and a large number of families/women would only have as many children as they could afford to have. Some education along these lines would be very useful as well.
Third, there are a number of horror stories related to poverty stricken families. Mothers selling their kidneys to black market organ traffickers, or children sold into slavery or to black market baby traffickers to support the family. These atrocities could be minimized.
Finally, my proposal was based on a VOLUNTARY enrollment in this program. If a family/woman is bound and determined to have a lot of children that they can't afford to support, fine, but then they aren't eligible for this program.
This idea wasn't meant to be some kind of panacea to all the world's problems, but it is a step towards minimizing some problems.

Your first source is primarily concerned with demonstrating the additional problems imposed on single parent households by illegitimacy.

Your second and third sources deal with welfare fraud.

Your fourth source deals with the hypothesis that taxation and welfare systems jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance.

There was absolutely nothing in any of these sources about “families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”
No mention of the number of kids "they would normally have."
No mention of the motives of people on welfare with respect to having children, let alone an attempt to determine such motives.
No mention of the effect, if any, of welfare on total fertility, nor on the timing of births.

On balance the references, which you counseled me to read “in their entirety,” had nothing at all to say on the subject you raised.

As for reading your entire post, what you wrote was, “There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.” This is plain English, and it means, regardless of the number of abuses, that you assert that one of those abuses, if not the only one, is that “families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

I asked you, “Do you any empirical data to support such an assertion?”

You’ve presented none; absolutely nothing in four lengthy references. You may be tired of having what you’ve said taken out of context, but your context doesn’t change the meaning of your sentence. I, myself, am tired of reading irrelevant references.

“You might also do a little research yourself...”

Well, I have done such research. As far as the eye can see there is no empirical data to support your assertion. You obviously haven’t found any either. You made the assertion; if you’re unable to support that assertion, it should be withdrawn. I will assert that the reason people on welfare have more children than the general population is complex, and the precise motives are largely unknown.

You might recall why it was that the Oracle of Delphi revealed Socrates as the wisest man in Athens.

Bob

“take away social and religious pressures and the temptation to supplement household income through a welfare program and a large number of families/women would only have as many children as they could afford to have.”

How do you know this?

“there are a number of horror stories related to poverty stricken families. Mothers selling their kidneys to black market organ traffickers, or children sold into slavery or to black market baby traffickers to support the family. These atrocities could be minimized.”

Are any these horror stories true? If so, how many? What are the quantities involved? And to what extent is any of this a result of relatively increased fertility? To what extent, if any, would these horror stories be minimized under your proposal for “voluntary” sterilization?

Have we entered the world of double speak? “If you don’t want your children to be homeless and starve, you may volunteer to be sterilized.”

Bob

bobunf wrote:

“take away social and religious pressures and the temptation to supplement household income through a welfare program and a large number of families/women would only have as many children as they could afford to have.”

How do you know this?

“there are a number of horror stories related to poverty stricken families. Mothers selling their kidneys to black market organ traffickers, or children sold into slavery or to black market baby traffickers to support the family. These atrocities could be minimized.”

Are any these horror stories true? If so, how many? What are the quantities involved? And to what extent is any of this a result of relatively increased fertility? To what extent, if any, would these horror stories be minimized under your proposal for “voluntary” sterilization?

Have we entered the world of double speak? “If you don’t want your children to be homeless and starve, you may volunteer to be sterilized.”

Bob

First, you've conveniently overlooked that this proposed method of sterilization is meant to be REVERSIBLE.

Second, a more accurate "double speak" would be "since we're footing the bill for this financial assistance, you accept this assistance on our terms not yours. One of the terms of this assistance is you don't get yourself further in the hole by having more children. If you want to have more children by all means do so, just go elsewhere for your financial assistance"

Don't confuse child sponsorship with welfare. This previous paragraph was primarily focussed on child sponsorship. With respect to welfare, their would be a large number of additional conditions to help people get off of welfare, or at least minimize the degree of financial assistance.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/should-organised-trade-be-legalised-in-india/57595-3.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/FYI50.cfm

The actual sources for my arguments are numerous news programs from a few years back. I didn't know I would need a bibliographical list in the future so I didn't write them down. Forgive me my inability to predict the future.

What is your beef with this idea, Bob? Please be specific so that I can address your concerns.

After my last experience I think I’d advise readers to ignore your links, especially if they’re counseled to read them “in their entirety.”

You still haven’t answered my questions: “Do you have any empirical data to support” your assertion that “families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

And: “How do you know” that “take away social and religious pressures and the temptation to supplement household income through a welfare program and a large number of families/women would only have as many children as they could afford to have.”

And: “Are any of these horror stories true? If so, how many? What are the quantities involved? And to what extent is any of this a result of relatively increased fertility? To what extent, if any, would these horror stories be minimized under your proposal for ‘voluntary’ sterilization?”

Presumably all of your above assertions are just hot air, unsupported by anything.

My beef is that developing public policy on the basis of uninformed hot air seems likely to result in bad public policy.

Bob

The poor, lame, blind, idiots and single mothers have been dealt with since the origin of the species. The English had, and still have, all kinds of struggles documented in the Poor Laws over at least eight centuries. They had an absolutely obsessive concern about the “sturdy beggar,” fearful of welfare fraud.

Lots of really smart people have worked on these issues for centuries with some success, made difficult by the fact that we are here dealing with the most powerful of human drives. So, in all humility, we must acknowledge that these issues are unlikely to be solved, or even reasonably dealt with, in an ad hoc fashion without background and data.

Here are some problems with making aid to dependent children contingent on a woman’s acceptance of “voluntary” sterilization:

What happened to the fathers of these children? In the real world fathers are required to support the children they sired. Frequently they are not very responsible about this obligation; sometimes it takes decades to collect. Which leaves the question, What happens to the children in the meantime? Diapers, food, clothing, medical care, schooling, etc. won’t wait. The state fronts the money, subject to a maximum; and later hopes to collects from the father.

The state is quite aggressive and rather effective at collecting this money: garnishing wages, seizing bank accounts, lottery winnings, tax refunds, real and personal property, passports and suspending driver’s licensees—all with very little due process.

With all of this, one would think it would be a deterrent to fathering more children, but 16 year olds don’t act rationally when it comes to sex. Frequently, 60 year olds don’t either.

So, when the mother applies for the assistance of the state in collecting the money due to her from the father (it does also happen the other way—mother owes father), do we say, “You’ll have to be sterilized if you want our assistance.”

I think the only reasonable answer is no.

Which eliminates at least half of the receipents of aid to dependent children. Give them aid, but no sterilization.

More to come.

Bob

Going back to the very beginning of your attacks,
"A number" does not mean "all" or "most", just enough to make it a problem. I have made a reasonable effort to find pertinent references for your "empirical evidence." The sources of my information were reports gathered from news programs over several years. Again, I didn't think that I would have to present a bibliography in the future otherwise I would have written all of these reports down. I am not going to spend a number of hours trying to go back and find references just to please you, however the references I have given you indicate the problems that I am addressing clearly exist.
I am not for one second saying that a public assisstance program isn't a necessity. A bunch of rich conservatives who have never had to worry about where their next meal is coming from having such a calloused attitude toward people needing a safety net or help getting back on their feet, and now asking for corporate bailouts is the most despicable hypocracy I can imagine. However, there is SOME validity to their claims of welfare fraud, abuse and dependency. Is it as widespread as they want to lead the public to believe? No, but it is still there. How better to deflate their arguments than to take measures to address the issues they point out and minimize them. I did not say eliminate them, I said minimize.
This idea of easily REVERSIBLE sterilization, a factor you seem to have conveniently dismissed, was first, to circumvent the church and their irresponsible attitude toward abortion and birth control. Second, to allow women in impoverished conditions from being trapped in this cycle of poverty. Third, to empower women to control their own destiny, rather than be a victim of their reproductive system. In an ideal world the males WOULD step up and be responsible, but in this flawed reality the women bare the burden of biology. Fourth, to minimize irresponsibility with respect to public assistance thus taking away some, not all, of the criticisms of the conservatives. Fifth, to minimize the senseless suffering and deaths of millions of children in third world countries and impoverished areas.
You have only focused on the welfare aspect of this idea. Had you gone back and read earlier posts you would have seen these other aspects were addressed. It really steams me when someone tries to pick apart one small aspect of a grander concept, attacking without any consideration towards resolution or consensus and offering no solution of their own. At least I'm willing to put myself out their by presenting these ideas, rather than cowering behind a wall of pragmatism and hurling attacks without ever leaving yourself exposed with ideas of your own.

“I have made a reasonable effort to find pertinent references for your ‘empirical evidence.’

You haven’t come up with any empirical evidence addressing any of the questions I raised.

Zero. The reason it is zero in some of the cases is because there is no empirical evidence.

You can’t find what doesn’t exist.

Posting numerous irrelevant links is not a good tactic to arrive at an understanding of a problem.

Bob

“This idea of easily REVERSIBLE sterilization, a factor you seem to have conveniently dismissed”

??

Where have I dismissed this? I haven’t dealt with the issue at all. Yea, nay or abstain.

“to circumvent the church and their irresponsible attitude toward abortion and birth control.”

These people aren’t stupid. How do you suppose they would react to “voluntary” sterilization? Not well, I can assure you. You would stir up even more of a hornets nest.

“to allow women in impoverished conditions from being trapped in this cycle of poverty.”

This is a big leap—from “voluntary” sterilization to the middle class. I imagine there are a whole lot of steps left out. Birth control is, in my opinion, the least of the issues.

“to empower women to control their own destiny, rather than be a victim of their reproductive system.”

That’s pretty arrogant. You’ll empower these women by “voluntary” sterilization; reversible at the command of a bureaucracy, which will probably suffer even more than the usual bureaucratic absurdities. You don’t really think these women lack the ability to control their fertility? Rather, you think you are a better judge of what their fertility should be than they are.

What you’re saying is, “I’ll empower you by controlling your fertility.” To which the response will be dangerous and counter-productive anger. More than justified.

“the women bare the burden of biology.”

It’s not a question of biology; it’s a question of money. In about half the welfare cases, the father’s do end up supporting the child. In which case, what are you doing, arrogantly telling other people how to live? Without evidence? Just hot air. With complete disregard of Hippocrates’ “First, do no harm.”

Eventually, I’ll move on to the other cases, and examine the effects of “voluntary” sterilization. Something you haven’t bothered with. After all, they’re just poor Blacks. Who cares?

“to minimize irresponsibility with respect to public assistance thus taking away some, not all, of the criticisms of the conservatives.”

You won’t take away any criticisms. Waste, fraud and abuse have been rallied against from the beginning of time. It will always be thus. Involuntarily giving your own money to other people is painful; people will find reasons why it’s unnecessary, undesirable, a fraud and just plain wrong—no matter the degree of waste, fraud and abuse—if any.

“to minimize the senseless suffering and deaths of millions of children in third world countries and impoverished areas.”

Of course, you have nothing at all to back up this assertion; trace cause and effect; quantify; invoke reputable theory.

“Had you gone back and read earlier posts you would have seen these other aspects were addressed.”

I won’t even ask just what “other aspects” mean. I haven’t seen you successfully address any of the numerous questions I’ve posed in any of your posts, earlier or not.

“It really steams me when someone tries to pick apart one small aspect of a grander concept”

Oh, my. The Grand Concept.

Built on hot air.

By the way, it really steams me when someone posts numerous lengthy irrelevant links with the admonition to read them “in their entirety.”

“cowering behind a wall of pragmatism”

If something doesn’t work, what is one to do? How about admitting it, saying something like, “I don’t know,” and moving on.

“without ever leaving yourself exposed with ideas of your own.”

I did suggest that the fathers might not be irrelevant. That’s also pragmatic; and it works a good hunk of the time.

More of my good ideas to come.

Bob

First, let me address your idea of “voluntary” sterilization.

You intend to tell women, “We’ll give you money to support yourself and your children, if, and only if, you submit to sterilization.”

After you’ve finished a meal at a restaurant, your payment for the meal is entirely voluntary in the sense that you are mis-using the word; you can pay or face civil and criminal actions. You had best pay; it’s not voluntary as the English word is used.

One Guido was once charged with collecting a ransom. Guido defended himself saying the payment of the ransom had been entirely voluntary. The parents had complete free choice whether to pay or not, as in any market transaction. Guido was found guilty.

Lincoln pointed out that “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Calling sterilization “voluntary” doesn’t make it so.

The correct term is “coerced sterilization,” a term which I will use appropriately and without distorting the language.

Bob

Consider a woman, confronted with coerced sterilization, courageously saying, “No!”

Well, she didn’t have to apply for assistance, and now she won’t get it. What happens next? The children still need diapers, food, clothing, shelter, medical care; not to mention 24 hour child care.

In Pennsylvania under William Penn the first Assemby in December 1682 enacted a “Body of Laws.” Chapter XXXII provided, “That if any pereson shall fall into Decay and poverty, and not be able to maintain themselves and children, with their honest Endeavors, or shall die and leave poor orphans, That upon complaint to the next Justices of the Peace of the same County, the said Justices, finding the complaint to be true, shall make provision for them…that then care shall be taken for their comfortable subsistence.”

In Philadelphia in 1767 an Act of Assembly, with Benjamin Franklin in attendance, resulted in the raising of two levies (taxes) “To be applied to the maintence of the poor of the said city.”

There are hundreds of other such instances throughout the colonies.

Reading over these enactments, one can’t help but feel a sense of pride and admiration for what these ancient ancestors (at least in spirit) of ours attempted. The founding fathers of the United States came from this background. These approaches to welfare continued thorough the Revolution and afterwards developed, expanded, and continue to do so up to the present day.

We, of course, are infinitely wealthier. I wonder what they would think about the idea of coerced sterilization. I think I’d be ashamed to tell them.

So what do we do with these children of the woman who said “No!”

Obviously, we take care of them, as our spiritual ancestors would have. It was an idle threat. The alternative is too shameful to face.

Bob

Ah, I love the smell of apocryphal evidence versus empirical data. That sort of argument can be endless if done right.
Now I don't mean to be mean here, but I thought american news reporting wasn't to be trusted to accurately report the time let alone complex welfare and society issues. At least not well enough to base a solution on.
However, puting aside the fact that this whole idea is crazy wrong, human rights breaching, fundamentally immoral and just no, if you must consider coerced sterilization of the most vulnerable in society you're clearly targeting the wrong gender.
It's the deadbeat dads who should be neutered. I suspect demographically it would be more successful to sterilize the absent fathers who refuse to support the children they already have and prevent them having more. I would have thought, without any evidence, that there are many more men who move from woman to woman fathering children than the reverse and that among the impoverished it is more likely to be the male who leaves. You would have a bigger impact I think. Still wrong though.

lkm,
Your point is well taken. Again, the idea of this birth control option was meant to allow women to have control over their reproduction.
With respect to welfare, which I have tried unsuccessfully to communicate,
was a way of putting conditions on the receipt of public assistance. My experience in the military (which can be considered a welfare state of sorts) made it clear that you need to have standards, regulations and requirements otherwise the system will fail. I don't however believe it needs to be in the form of the military's iron fist. I hope you and Bob can at least acknowledge that a woman having more children while on welfare is not helping the situation, and that simply saying "just say no to sex" to a welfare recipient is not going to be very effective. If it were then I wouldn't be advocating this idea.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html
While in the military it was clear that without regulations fraud, waste and abuse would become rampant. The same has been true of the welfare system.
http://www.bustathief.com/welfare-fraud-social-security-scam/
The necessity for a conditional welfare system is clear. Here are a few ideas that I had. Mandatory education in basic life skills, like cooking, cleaning, financial management (yes, while in the military I met a LOT of people who didn't have a clue about how to balance a checkbook. In fact in basic training they actually had a course in brushing teeth! No kidding!) Mandatory education in basic job skills (when I joined the military I didn't know how to work a floor buffer.) Mandatory education to get a GED. These are just a small number of conditions that I would have in my (clean slate?!?!) welfare system. If this sounds like a breech of human rights then stay away from the military!
Along these lines, would it be coersion for a destitute person to join the military? Or is it still voluntary? Does the military prey on the vulneable in their recruiting practices? When you think about it a voluntary military is a form of indentured servitude. Yes you receive pay, but your life is not your own, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice is far from being a democratic document.
In fact that might be the conservative solution to welfare. Discontinue welfare entirely and tell people in need of public assistance if they want food, clothing and shelter to enlist in the military!
As I stated my political views are moderate, I would prefer them to be liberal, but sadly I have to acknowledge that SOME of the conservatives attitudes have validity. Their needs to be some degree of imposed social responsibility, at the same time their can be permissiveness with regulation, as well as conditional public assistance.
lkm, your point about going after the deadbeat dads and absent fathers is well taken. The problem is that trying to sterilize SOME men doesn't stop others from taking their place. One fertile man is all it takes to impregnate several women, but a woman can only get pregnant with one child at a time. This REVERSIBLE procedure that I am proposing is not sexist, it's just realistic. Again it's meant to give women control over their reproductive system.
To summarize this discussion that has gotten completely out of hand:
1. This idea was for a safe, simple and EASILY REVERSIBLE sterilization procedure.
2. This was not meant to be a mandatory procedure. It was only meant to allow women to have control over their reproductive system.
3. With respect to welfare this was meant to be a condition for enrollment as well as many other conditions to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize the success rate of the program, a condition similar to the military where in exchange for providing one with food clothing and shelter and a steady paycheck, one might be asked to kill or give their LIFE for this country, a much higher price than REVERSIBLE sterilization.
4. To specifically attack #3 to the exclusion of #1 and #2 is not addressing this idea in the spirit with which it was presented and I'm not going to dignify any more attacks along this line.
5. If someone wants to discuss birth control, fine. If someone wants to discuss welfare reform, fine. But #3 has been warped and twisted out of context to the point of absurdity.

"without regulations fraud, waste and abuse would become rampant. The same has been true of the welfare system."

What is your evidence for this assertion? Aside from horror stories?

Please, no lengthy, irrelevant links to be read "in their entirety."

Bob

I don’t think military analogies have any place at all in determining public policy with respect to aid to dependent children and other welfare issues.

The military has the purpose of ensuring the survival of the body politic and the individuals within it. The survival of the body politic is not at stake when considering how best to provide diapers to needy babies.

You keep harping on REVERSIBLE. It makes no difference. As ikm pointed out, the “whole idea is crazy wrong, human rights breaching, fundamentally immoral” and, I might add, impossible and unproductive.

What do you do with the children of women who courageously say “No!”

Obviously, you take care of the children. Coerced sterilization is an idle threat. The alternative is shameful beyond words.

Bob

“This was not meant to be a mandatory procedure.”

That is pure nonsense.

Telling a woman that you will starve her children to death if she doesn’t submit to sterilization does not lead to a voluntary decision. It is dreadful, shameful, sickening coercion.

“It was only meant to allow women to have control over their reproductive system.”

Do you really believe that women applying for aid to dependent children do not have the ability to control reproduction? That is pure ignorance.

Bob

“With respect to welfare this was meant to be a condition for enrollment as well as many other conditions to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize the success rate of the program”

Presumably infant mortality isn’t considered when judging success. Jonathan Swift had a modest proposal you might be interested in.

Bob

Considering how passionate you are about this issue tells me that there is something deeper going on than public policy. You have fixated on this one aspect of the larger idea to the exclusion of the rest of it. Sorry if I haven't been able to spoon feed you references that address this issue to the letter, but after reviewing the references I have given you there is a definite correlation. On the other hand I haven't seen you present any empirical evidence that the abuses or fraud in the welfare system are so insignificant as to be irrelevent.
Here's a few more links that give actual empirical examples of welfare fraud including ones with children involved:
http://spamlaws.com/welfare-fraud.html
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/PG270.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy69.html

Also please drop the sarcasm with respect to these references. You wanted evidence I'm giving you some.

You may not think that the military analogy has a place in determining public policy, but it most definitely does. The military has families and has all the same family issues and problems that welfare does. A spouse is overseas or is disabled or killed or missing in action. The dependent family still has to cope with the situation, and the military has agencies to address these. As for the learning of basic life skills the military has had a great deal of experience with taking very naive recruits and teaching them life skills, the same life skills that one would need to go from welfare to independence. As for providing diapers to needy babies, the military does have classes for expectant mothers, whether they are active duty or dependent to teach them about raising children. How many welfare programs do you know of that do that? If you can please provide empirical evidence. This would be another aspect to be incorporated into a clean slate welfare system.
Reversible does make a difference, but I have a feeling that you are also opposed to birth control and abortion as well, that's why you do not consider the other aspects of this idea. So I will ask you two specific questions:

1. For a single independent woman who simply wants to have control over her reproductive system, do you or do you not approve of this procedure?

2. Along these lines for a single independent woman who wants to maintain sexual independence do you or do you not approve of birth control and abortion?

Wikipedia:
Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."

Offering women the option of a permament or semi-permament end to their fertility through health services is fine, but refusing women welfare unless they submit to it is a clear breach of law. Not just American law but good old UN law, and you know you're doing something pretty nasty if you're potentially liable to the international criminal court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

An effective welfare system should be a safety net for society, catching those who stumble or fall, picking them up, dusting them off and puting them back on their own two feet. It can only work as part of a synchronous whole in conjunction with effective health and education services which allow those caught in the net to be treated for their ills and taught the skills they lacked that caused them to stumble. If a destructive relationship behavior is part of that then that can be addressed. But you can't say get sterilized or we wont help you. That's just wrong.
And it's a measure of just how wrong it is that we keep focussing on it.
As for fathers, as you say a serial mother can only have one child at a time but a serial father could have dozens, so shouldn't you castrate the father instead?

“Considering how passionate you are about this issue”

There are two issues I feel passionate about with respect to this subject:

1. The Truth: You’ve made numerous statements, which you haven’t been able to support in any way. They’re just hot air. The outstanding, outrageous, example is: “families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

Your response to my asking how you knew this was a smokescreen of irrelevant links.

2. Coerced sterilization: In the modern world in the 21st century advocating coerced sterilization is advocating behavior which the community regards as deeply offensive, immoral and criminal—not to mention crazy, impossible and very counter-productive.

Among other things, you seem to be completely oblivious to the rage such a policy would justifiably produce in the subject population. Violent revolutions are made of such stuff.

“there is something deeper going on than public policy.”

Considering that you blithely and persistently advocate such amazingly off-the-wall behavior as coerced sterilization might bring one to opine that something deeper than public policy is going on--with you.

Bob

“drop the sarcasm with respect to these references. You wanted evidence I'm giving you some.”

As I’ve pointed out numerous times, the last set of lengthy references, which you counseled me to read “in their entirety,” had nothing at all to say on the subject you raised. Did you read your own links?

Let’s try again. Your latest batch of links, which “give actual empirical examples of welfare fraud including ones with children involved.”

I might argue that a few dozen media filtered examples concerning a public policy affecting tens of millions of people are a really poor means of arriving at quantified data. One could support any point of view that way, including alien abductions and the young earth theory. But let’s give it a try.

From link 1: “In 1977...It was claimed that Taylor used 14 alias names to receive an estimated $150,000.”

Sterilizing her would have prevented the use of aliases?

“In 1981, Dorothy Woods was jailed on 12 counts of welfare fraud. She claimed 38 non-existent children”

Sterilizing her would have prevented these non-existent children? That is a neat trick.

From link 2: “fourteen defendants were found guilty ...as a result of their failures to reveal on their applications for Cash Aid, Food Stamps, or Child Care benefits that they were not eligible for such benefits.”

Sterilizing the 14 would have prevented lies of omission?

“Kenneth Eurdean Hopper III, 40, applied for food stamps even though a felony conviction disqualified him from receiving such aid”

Perhaps castration would teach him to keep out of the line to apply for food stamps?

“The accused allegedly received $1,694 in cash and food stamps, for which she was not legally eligible, by using fake Social Security numbers similar to her own. The charges also included allegations of identity theft and perjury.”

Sterilization would prevent use of fake social security numbers, theft and perjury? Amazing.

As for link 3, I think I’ll leave the “Utah Paying a High Price for Polygamy” story alone.

One again, these links don’t support any of your assertions. They’re just a smokescreen.

I asked for evidence, and, once again, didn’t get any.

Bob

davamanra wrote:

Considering how passionate you are about this issue tells me that there is something deeper going on than public policy. You have fixated on this one aspect of the larger idea to the exclusion of the rest of it. Sorry if I haven't been able to spoon feed you references that address this issue to the letter, but after reviewing the references I have given you there is a definite correlation. On the other hand I haven't seen you present any empirical evidence that the abuses or fraud in the welfare system are so insignificant as to be irrelevent.
Here's a few more links that give actual empirical examples of welfare fraud including ones with children involved:
http://spamlaws.com/welfare-fraud.html
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/PG270.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy69.html

Also please drop the sarcasm with respect to these references. You wanted evidence I'm giving you some.

You may not think that the military analogy has a place in determining public policy, but it most definitely does. The military has families and has all the same family issues and problems that welfare does. A spouse is overseas or is disabled or killed or missing in action. The dependent family still has to cope with the situation, and the military has agencies to address these. As for the learning of basic life skills the military has had a great deal of experience with taking very naive recruits and teaching them life skills, the same life skills that one would need to go from welfare to independence. As for providing diapers to needy babies, the military does have classes for expectant mothers, whether they are active duty or dependent to teach them about raising children. How many welfare programs do you know of that do that? If you can please provide empirical evidence. This would be another aspect to be incorporated into a clean slate welfare system.
Reversible does make a difference, but I have a feeling that you are also opposed to birth control and abortion as well, that's why you do not consider the other aspects of this idea. So I will ask you two specific questions:

1. For a single independent woman who simply wants to have control over her reproductive system, do you or do you not approve of this procedure?

2. Along these lines for a single independent woman who wants to maintain sexual independence do you or do you not approve of birth control and abortion?

NO MORE OF YOUR TRICKS! ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS, BOB!
OR ARE YOU AFRAID IT MIGHT REVEAL YOUR *TRUE* AGENDA!

Calm down now, it's only a web forum. If we can't all play nice we might as well all go to bed without supper.
You know from previous debates that I am a basically pro abortion pro choice libertarian, so when I say I have great sympathy with bob's position you must know that I am not saying this from the standpoint of some, undisclosed anti abortion quiverfull a priori idealogical keep. And if you can accept that of me, then you must be able to give the same reasonable doubt to bob.
Having said that, the foundation of new ideas cannot solely rest with the analysis of data, sometimes the idea must come first to force us to ask the right question. I have no idea if emprically there might be some truth to what you say, it could well be that a decent epidemiological study of child births, poverty and welfare may ascribe an extra child in ten thousand to the ease of welfare, as it will certainly find an extra 1000 alive which would have otherwise died without such a state. However I don't know what that proves.

NO MORE OF YOUR TRICKS! ANSWER THE SIX QUESTIONS, davamanra!
OR ARE YOU AFRAID IT MIGHT REVEAL YOUR *TRUE* LACK OF EVIDENCE, THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL, AND YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

These issues are complex, have a huge theoretical underpinning developed by really smart, knowledge people over centuries, an immense body of academic studies and empirical evidence.

In case you forgot my questions:

Oh, forget it. You can look them up and answer them when and if you feel like it.

But, I will answer your questions:

“1. For a single independent woman who simply wants to have control over her reproductive system, do you or do you not approve of this procedure?

2. Along these lines for a single independent woman who wants to maintain sexual independence do you or do you not approve of birth control and abortion?”

What has any of that got to do with coerced sterilization?

I believe that men and women should be free to choose whatever means of birth control they wish as long as the practice does not harm other people and within the limits of affordability and safety. Lots of men and women choose sterilization of various kinds, and, frankly, I don’t think that is anybody’s business but theirs, and maybe their partners. A prudent welfare system will make means of birth control available to its clientele.

Abortion is not a matter in which men should have much of a voice in my opinion. I have a daughter who would never consider an abortion for herself in any circumstance, including fetal abnormality. But she also feels that the choice belongs to all other women. She would take to the barricades over coerced sterilization. I think some legal limits are probably appropriate for very late term abortions.

That’s what I, and my daughter, think.

So what? My beliefs have nothing at all to do with scientific evidence and theory concerning coerced sterilization, and the various assertions that I have questioned.

Bob

“it could well be that a decent epidemiological study of child births, poverty and welfare may ascribe an extra child in ten thousand to the ease of welfare, as it will certainly find an extra 1000 alive which would have otherwise died without such a state.”

Thank you Ikm. I think that is the point exactly, “it could be,” but there is no evidence at all on the subject. Without evidence, the assertion that “families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money” needs to be preceded by the phrase, “it could be.” Then again, it might not be.

From my own experience with academic studies, I feel reasonably certain there will never be any good data supporting such a speculation.
It would be essentially impossible to determine within the necessary accuracy the number of kids "they would normally have."
It would be essentially impossible to accurately determine motives.
It would take decades to determine effect on total fertility, if it were possible at all.

As you pointed out, even if the speculation could be proven, which it can’t, the leap to coerced sterilization isn’t justified, to put it mildly.

Bob

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THESE TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS, BOB!

YES OR NO. DO YOU APPROVE OF A SINGLE INDEPENDENT WOMAN USING BIRTH CONTROL?

YES OR NO. DO YOU APPROVE OF A SINGLE INDEPENDENT WOMAN GETTING AN ABORTION?

Cool it. Shouting is pretty stupid.

I think I answered your questions, irrelevant as they are.

“I believe that men and women should be free to choose whatever means of birth control they wish as long as the practice does not harm other people and within the limits of affordability and safety... A prudent welfare system will make means of birth control available to its clientele.”

What is hard to understand about that answer?

“choice belongs to all other women...I think some legal limits are probably appropriate for very late term abortions.”

What is hard to understand about that answer?

Approve or not, as I stated, it’s usually none of my business. I would consider it unbelievably prying, arrogant and insensitive to tell either of my daughters (one of whom is single), “I approve of your use of birth control.” I shudder to think of their reaction to such a dumb statement.

“I approve of your getting an abortion.” “Mind your own business, Dad. How could you even think of saying such a thing?”

By the way, who are you to approve or disapprove of whatever my daughters, or anybody else does about birth control or abortion? Let alone coercing it. Mind your own business.

Bob

Now, finally the smoke screen is being lifted.

Time to clear it away completely.

ARE YOU PRO-LIFE OR PRO_CHOICE?

How about a clear, concise answer for everybody on this forum.

I think given the current overwhelming gender bias in all western democracies it behooves all of us to engage with this issue because it is a choice politically provided and although you feel it is a choice solely, and rightly, belonging to women, its provision rests upon the shoulders of mostly old white men. Saying it is none of your business is an abdication of your democratic responsibility and will leave it up to those men who feel it is their business, those who preach it as an abonimation.
Now having said all that, I really think bob's been pretty clear in his position, the only possible ambiguity in it is when he considers a person to exist, that would impact upon:
"... as long as the practice does not harm other people"

"ARE YOU PRO-LIFE OR PRO_CHOICE?"

I'm a label hater. You tell me. I don't feel the government should have any role in these decisions, except for late term pregnancies. I can’t really define what late term means; maybe viability? But the issues are not sharply defined. There are other things to consider: fetal abnormalities, the mother’s life and heath, and probably lots of other things. Thank God this is not my job.

"... as long as the practice does not harm other people"

is not an attempt to smokescreen or weasel out. I don’t regard eggs, sperm, embryos, or early term fetuses as people. Using toxic chemicals that get into the environment as a mean of birth control, I, and, I think, just about everybody else in the world, would regard as harming other people. I can’t really think of other examples, but there probably are some.

In my view, life is too complicated and nuanced for labels, which only serve to turn off thinking.

For some reason davamanra seems to think I’m some kind of pro-life nut because I regard forced sterilization as morally repugnant--to put it mildly. I don’t get what pro life or choice has to do with forced sterilization. Don’t send me any links.

Bob

Despite the fact the he implies Pro-choice, but won't use the actual words speaks volumes about our friend Bob.
There is a concept in the military called asymmetric warfare. It allows an inferior force a chance to defeat a superior force. One aspect of this is a full frontal assault with everything you have at the enemy’s weakest point. It is very effective and has been used successfully many times. However, ultimately it is a gamble and if the inferior force does not achieve a decisive victory in a short period of time, the conflict eventually deteriorates into a war of attrition, which the inferior force will ultimately lose.
This same tactic is used by fundamentalist Christians in evolution debates. Since creationism is nothing but a whimsical notion based only on hearsay, conjecture and supposition, they have no defense, so instead of presenting a reasonable substantive argument for their point of view, all they can do is attack the other side, and they do this very effectively. By not offering any defense they do not open the door to scrutiny and instead can devote 100% to unrelenting attack. By doing this they claim a metaphorical knockout, but all they’ve really done is cause a trivial nosebleed.
This was the tactic of our friend Bob. Unrelenting attack, and make no mistake about it, welfare was NOT his true agenda. It was merely a stepping stone to attack birth control and abortion. The fact that he kept sidestepping “reversible” and the other aspects of this procedure as a method of birth control was just a smokescreen. He also sidestepped any religious aspects especially my last reference about polygamy which directly addresses his accusations which tells me he is not driven by “public policy” but by self-righteous morality. When he was finally confronted with two simple but revealing questions about birth control he again tried to sidestep them, which revealed his true agenda.
I will say this about our friend Bob, he is very adept at this asymmetric form of debate. Instead of addressing a point, or a paragraph or even a whole sentence, he takes snips of a sentence out of context and attacks them since he can’t hope to attack a complete thought. By doing this he tries to lure the opponent into a fight on his terms. It’s extremely effective, but when the façade falls away and his true motives are revealed he demonstrates his lack of character and integrity. If he had the courage to reveal his true agenda at the beginning of this debate then we could have had a reasonable and honest discussion, but now I have no respect for him or his point of view. I attempted to be reasonable but all he did was attack, attack, attack. Now I feel no remorse about exposing him. In fact I just consider him to be pathetic. I would be curious to find out where he’s from. I would not be surprised to find out that he was from upstate New York and was an acquaintance of our good friend Commodore. Their debating styles are very similar.