8 kids by 6 different women

[Freakshow]

So in little breaks between my workout, I'm watching this documentary on TV about parole. A guy goes before a parole board, and they talk about how he has 8 kids by 6 different women. He hasn't paid child support, because even when out of prison, he had trouble holding down a job. If I understood him correclty, he said during the parole board that he would consider having more kids in the future. I think he was trying to say that he couldn't say for sure that he was done having kids.

W...T...F?????? Can't we sterilize somebody who is THAT irresponsible? We lock people in prison that commit crimes. Why can't we cut off people from having children when they continue to have them, with no way to support them?

And if you are opposed to forced sterilization...would you be okay with letting them continue to conceive, but just have abortion-on-demand? Why would you be okay with one, and not the other. Where is the line drawn, to do something about people that keep having kids, without being able to support them?

ETA: I realize a difficult part of this is where to draw the line, in a legal standpoint. How many kids? What income? What sort of prison record? The details would be extremely difficult to implement.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have this silly notion that if you have kids, you should be able to support them. I guess I'm just old fashioned. :rolleyes:

I'm all for forced sterilization in this case.

[slingblade]

W...T...F?????? Can't we sterilize somebody who is THAT irresponsible? We lock people in prison that commit crimes. Why can't we cut off people from having children when they continue to have them, with no way to support them?

No, we can't, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it, and it also doesn't mean or imply abortion-on-demand (which I'm not necessarily against) is the natural or only alternative. To some people, abortion wouldn't be the father's alternative to consider, anyway, so it's a biased response.

First, we need to agree that it's not "society's" responsibility to take care of all children. Not because that's true, but because if it is society's responsibility, then we have no argument. :)

So, instead of telling people they can't produce any more children and enforcing that by rendering them sterile, we make them work, and we make them pay child support. We make them take the responsibility they have so far refused. I know there are problems with that "solution," but I feel it is a more logical consequence of irresponsible reproduction than forced sterilization. If nothing else, you keep them working so hard, they don't have the time or energy to make any more children!

And if you are opposed to forced sterilization...would you be okay with letting them continue to conceive, but just have abortion-on-demand? Why would you be okay with one, and not the other. Where is the line drawn, to do something about people that keep having kids, without being able to support them?

I think abortion is a piss-poor method of birth control, but it's not for me to say a woman can't have one. Yes, I make exceptions to that; late-term abortion for one, is something I can't conscience. But I generally feel a woman should be able to choose an abortion in the first trimester.

Here's a thought: although society would tend to condemn such a man, nature would applaud him. After all, he is widening the gene pool, isn't he?
Yes, I'm smirking. I just couldn't resist.

[bob_kark]

It would be more impressive if he had 6 kids by 8 different women. But really, it takes, at least, 2 to tango. Sex Ed classes don't work, free condoms at clinics don't work, no one wants to take personal responsibility for their own choices, and we don't live in a totalitarian nation. Seems like a lost cause in so many ways.

[CFLarsen]

So in little breaks between my workout, I'm watching this documentary on TV about parole. A guy goes before a parole board, and they talk about how he has 8 kids by 6 different women. He hasn't paid child support, because even when out of prison, he had trouble holding down a job. If I understood him correclty, he said during the parole board that he would consider having more kids in the future. I think he was trying to say that he couldn't say for sure that he was done having kids.

W...T...F?????? Can't we sterilize somebody who is THAT irresponsible? We lock people in prison that commit crimes. Why can't we cut off people from having children when they continue to have them, with no way to support them?

Wow. That's as draconic as anything I have ever heard. And from someone who wants the government to interfere as little as possible.

It's even worse than Communist China. There, they have a one-child rule. That doesn't preclude that couples have more than one child, though.

While I can understand the reasons why China desperately wants to control their population size (we are, after all, talking about over a billion people here), I fail to see why people should be forcibly sterilized just to save a few tax dollars. It is way out of proportion to suggest this.

And if you are opposed to forced sterilization...would you be okay with letting them continue to conceive, but just have abortion-on-demand? Why would you be okay with one, and not the other. Where is the line drawn, to do something about people that keep having kids, without being able to support them?

What's wrong with abortion-on-demand?

ETA: I realize a difficult part of this is where to draw the line, in a legal standpoint. How many kids? What income? What sort of prison record? The details would be extremely difficult to implement.

Go ahead.

[CFLarsen]

Sex Ed classes don't work

With regards to what?

free condoms at clinics don't work

With regards to what?

no one wants to take personal responsibility for their own choices, and we don't live in a totalitarian nation. Seems like a lost cause in so many ways.

Arh, come on. The vast majority are taking personal responsibilities for their own choices.

[clarsct]

"Congratulations, you're the newest government employee. Please report to the city's Sewer and Waste Management division. By the way, 2/3 of your paycheck will go towards child support. Failure to comply will result in immediate state-mandated sterilization as well as a prison term and a fine not to be less then $50,000. Please report Monday to your new job! Have a nice day."

[CFLarsen]

Does the same apply for women?

If men who get babies they can't support are forcibly sterilized, should women who get babies they can't support also be forcibly sterilized?

[shecky]

Part of me wants to say "He's the man!"

I personally understand the desire to have kids so desparately. I could see incarcerating the guy for not financially supporting his kids. Forced sterilization is too Nazi for my tastes, though. Ditto forced abortions.

In this case, I'd think one may want to consider the mothers' opinions and responsibilities.

[sophia8]

Why should steri8lisation for the man and abortion for the women be the only solutions?
Why not give the women education, decent childcare and decent wages so that they can support themselves and their kids? I believe it's been shown that the more education a woman gets, the less children she is likely to have. Never mind "Teach a man to fish..." - give a woman some life choices!

[CFLarsen]

Why should steri8lisation for the man and abortion for the women be the only solutions?

It's called "less-than-well-considered knee-jerk reaction".

The refuge of those with a too-simple outlook on life.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's called "less-than-well-considered knee-jerk reaction".

The refuge of those with a too-simple outlook on life.

Or in my case, someone who is tired of paying to support trash.

[CFLarsen]

Or in my case, someone who is tired of paying to support trash.

"Trash"?

[Beth]

And if you are opposed to forced sterilization...would you be okay with letting them continue to conceive, but just have abortion-on-demand? Why would you be okay with one, and not the other. Where is the line drawn, to do something about people that keep having kids, without being able to support them?

ETA: I realize a difficult part of this is where to draw the line, in a legal standpoint. How many kids? What income? What sort of prison record? The details would be extremely difficult to implement.

I am opposed to forced sterilization. In large part because of the difficulties you mention in your last paragraph. Also because I think such a policy would become a tool used for political purposes. I have no problem with abortion-on-demand for any reason. As far as where the line is drawn, for me it comes down to who makes the decision. The decision for abortion is made by the woman involved. I would be just as opposed to forced abortions (ex: a woman who already has 8 kids by 6 different men and can't support them) as I am to forced sterilization.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"Trash"?

Someone who has 8 kids by 6 women and supports none of them.

[CFLarsen]

Someone who has 8 kids by 6 women and supports none of them.
Perhaps society should step in and make him, instead of forcibly sterilize him?

You can't revert the operation, you know. So, you are punishing him for life.

[C S Costa]

My wife works for our local county family court and deals with many multiple partner-multiple offspring situations on a daily basis.

In most cases their reasons for it have little to do with wanting to have children. They think having unprotected sex is love! If they do happen to get pregnant, it'll be the glue to hold the relationship together.

How do you go about sterilizing an idea like that?

This is not an attitude confined to the poor and uneducated either.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Perhaps society should step in and make him, instead of forcibly sterilize him?

You can't revert the operation, you know. So, you are punishing him for life.

Society steps in and "makes" him now. Except, that when he doesn't pay as ordered, nothing happens. Oh sure, once in a while a deadbeat will be tossed in jail for contempt of court for not paying, but then the whiners start whining "Waaaaah!!! How can he pay if he is in prison and can't get a job? Waaaaaah!!!" But then when he is released, and still doesn't get a job, and still doesn't pay, they are silent.

I have no problem punishing him for life. He is punishing us (taxpayers) for life.

[Tmy]

Shouldnt your beef be with the women than the guy. After all HE"s not the one giving birth.

In a way, 6 different women is kinda a good thing. At least they aint having multiple kids with this loser.

[CFLarsen]

Society steps in and "makes" him now. Except, that when he doesn't pay as ordered, nothing happens. Oh sure, once in a while a deadbeat will be tossed in jail for contempt of court for not paying, but then the whiners start whining "Waaaaah!!! How can he pay if he is in prison and can't get a job? Waaaaaah!!!" But then when he is released, and still doesn't get a job, and still doesn't pay, they are silent.

I have no problem punishing him for life. He is punishing us (taxpayers) for life.
Aren't you blaming the flaws in society on this guy?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Aren't you blaming the flaws in society on this guy?

Not at all. He is taking advantage of the flaws in society.

[Tmy]

Not at all. He is taking advantage of the flaws in society.
Hes in jail. Howz that taking advantage?

The problem here is the stupid bims getting knocked up by this dude.

[Freakshow]

"Congratulations, you're the newest government employee. Please report to the city's Sewer and Waste Management division. By the way, 2/3 of your paycheck will go towards child support. Failure to comply will result in immediate state-mandated sterilization as well as a prison term and a fine not to be less then $50,000. Please report Monday to your new job! Have a nice day."That would also be an option I'd support, if there were sufficient jobs available.

[Tmy]

Do you really want a loser ex-con working for the city?

Some courts will make the dude do community service if he cant find a job.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That would also be an option I'd support, if there were sufficient jobs available.

There are.

[CFLarsen]

Not at all. He is taking advantage of the flaws in society.
Why punish him? Why not fix the flaws in society?

[CFLarsen]

There are.
There are jobs for all unemployed?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why punish him? Why not fix the flaws in society?

I'm all for it. But nobody else seems to be.

[Tmy]

Any healthy guy can find a job. Not a great job, but a job none the less. These guys usually make money under the table. They can afford to pay somthing.

By the way, who is whining for these deadbeats??? Whos pro deadbeat????

[Tmy]

Why punish him? Why not fix the flaws in society?

What flaw are we talking about? having kids you cant afford? In welfare they have whats called a "cap baby". Ifyou have another kid while you are on welfare, you dont get any extra money for that kid.

[CFLarsen]

I'm all for it. But nobody else seems to be.
Why advocate taking it out on him, then? Fatalism?

[casebro]

The city already has too many 'welfare recipients' on the payroll.

I'd say, give him a vasectomy. He can have it reversed when he can afford to pay the doctor- after getting caught up on his past child support. I'd think we ought to offer vasectomies to all prisoners, as well as welfare recipients. Just as a fringe benefit to the prisoners. My own health plan covers one, why doesn't theirs?

Or is child welfare one of the growth sectors of the economy?

[CFLarsen]

What flaw are we talking about? having kids you cant afford? In welfare they have whats called a "cap baby". Ifyou have another kid while you are on welfare, you dont get any extra money for that kid.
Why should the child suffer?

[Tmy]

Why dont we put a limit on kids period. No one actually pays for their children. All kids are basically on welfare. Free schooling is one of the biggest taxpayer expenses.

[Tmy]

Why should the child suffer?

The child doesnt really suffer. he gets medical care and food stamps. Nobody starves. But mom has to tighten her belt for her own crap.

[CFLarsen]

I'd say, give him a vasectomy. He can have it reversed when he can afford to pay the doctor- after getting caught up on his past child support. I'd think we ought to offer vasectomies to all prisoners, as well as welfare recipients. Just as a fringe benefit to the prisoners. My own health plan covers one, why doesn't theirs?

Although there is a procedure to reverse vasectomies using vasovasostomy (a form of microsurgery), it is not effective in many cases, and men considering vasectomies should not think of them as reversible.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy)

Comments?

[CFLarsen]

The child doesnt really suffer. he gets medical care and food stamps. Nobody starves. But mom has to tighten her belt for her own crap.
That is incredibly naive. And wrong.

You want to be raised on food stamps? Fun start in life, bro.

[Tmy]

That is incredibly naive. And wrong.

You want to be raised on food stamps? Fun start in life, bro.

Economies of scale. If welfare mom has a roof over her head and a monthly check already, and you add a second child. Her expenses dont really increase all that much.

Mom has to take some responsibility. If she doesnt want it tough, then get an abortion. Or dont get knocked up, OR make sure the dad has a job and can pay child support.

[CFLarsen]

Economies of scale. If welfare mom has a roof over her head and a monthly check already, and you add a second child. Her expenses dont really increase all that much.

:dl:

O.............K.

[Freakshow]

Hes in jail. Howz that taking advantage?

The problem here is the stupid bims getting knocked up by this dude.It is true that they have responsibility in this situation also. That is a good point that you brought up. The reason I singled out the man is because most of the mothers only had 1 kid from him. But this man is a serial offender. He keeps doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

[Freakshow]

Hes in jail. Howz that taking advantage?Because the rest of us have to pay to support his kids. This is a big part of the socialized healthcare debate. I don't want to pay the healthcare for this idiot's kids. I know your response: "But you are already!" And you are right. But how about changing things (snip, snip, sew, sew, done), so that I don't have to pay for some idiot's kids?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why advocate taking it out on him, then? Fatalism?

Because he is the subject of the story. I'm advocating "taking it out" on all others like him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There are jobs for all unemployed?

Why do you think all those illegal aliens are needed to pick lettuce every year? So yes, while there may not be a job for every single welfare recipient, there are jobs for tens of thousands of them.

[Tmy]

That is incredibly naive. And wrong.

You want to be raised on food stamps? Fun start in life, bro.

I think yor are the one being naive. The kids are gonna be just fine. Sure they may grow up to be creeps, but that has to do on how they are raised. There are lots of kids whos parents have plenty of money, but they still turn out horrible. (paris hilton comes to mind.)

If you have irresposible parents, all the money in the world wont raise that kid right.

Plus its annoying when someone in that situation has ANOTHER kid when they cant afford the first one. Cripes, I donteven own a dog cause it would cost to much in time and money. Nobody cries for me and would be Fido.

[shalomsteph]

Why dont we put a limit on kids period. No one actually pays for their children. All kids are basically on welfare. Free schooling is one of the biggest taxpayer expenses.

Well, by all means, lets NOT educate the kids, either.

My kids go to private school, but I don't mind paying taxes so that all kids can be educated. It is one of the best investments we, as a society, makes.

As for the original post, I am really annoyed by that behavior, especially now that women with children are being kicked off of welfare and expected to work. The fathers of these children should be expected to work as well.

I do not believe in mandatory sterilization, tempting though it may be. Encouraged sterilization, now that's a different story...:D

[Tmy]

Well, by all means, lets NOT educate the kids, either.


Im fine with public education. But the underlying implication is that if you have money its OK to have all the kids you want cause the state aint paying for them. That isnt true. The state ends up helping for everyones kids.

[CFLarsen]

I think yor are the one being naive. The kids are gonna be just fine. Sure they may grow up to be creeps, but that has to do on how they are raised. There are lots of kids whos parents have plenty of money, but they still turn out horrible. (paris hilton comes to mind.)

If you have irresposible parents, all the money in the world wont raise that kid right.

Plus its annoying when someone in that situation has ANOTHER kid when they cant afford the first one. Cripes, I donteven own a dog cause it would cost to much in time and money. Nobody cries for me and would be Fido.

:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Because he is the subject of the story. I'm advocating "taking it out" on all others like him.

But you are taking it out on him, then. Is that fair, simply because he is the subject of a newpaper story?

Why do you think all those illegal aliens are needed to pick lettuce every year? So yes, while there may not be a job for every single welfare recipient, there are jobs for tens of thousands of them.

Seasonal jobs, where the employers can press the wages down to almost zilch. Try make a living and pay child support based on that.

[Amapola]

Seasonal jobs, where the employers can press the wages down to almost zilch. Try make a living and pay child support based on that.

Isn't that the whole point? "You are not going to be able to afford a lot of kids, so DON'T FATHER ANY". (Not that I would really consider a guy who sires 8 kids on 6 women, and then does not support those kids, a "father".)

A lot of people just don't want to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not sure you can make them be responsible in their own minds. Although I can see sterilizing people who are completely irresponsible with their reproductive systems, the problem lies in who makes those decisions..... and where do we draw the line? For example, I have always thought it would be a terrific idea to castrate (or spay?) all rapists and child molestors. But this is just not a tenable solution....... what if the guy was not really guilty etc. It sounds great on paper but I doubt it would work in real life.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But you are taking it out on him, then. Is that fair, simply because he is the subject of a newpaper story?

This makes no sense.


Seasonal jobs, where the employers can press the wages down to almost zilch. Try make a living and pay child support based on that.

Then you work 2 jobs. Or 3. Whatever it takes. And if you don't like it, then don't make kids you can't support. Simple, isn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Isn't that the whole point? "You are not going to be able to afford a lot of kids, so DON'T FATHER ANY". (Not that I would really consider a guy who sires 8 kids on 6 women, and then does not support those kids, a "father".)

Problem is, he has fathered these children. How is he going to help them financially, if he can't get a job that allows him to support them?

A lot of people just don't want to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not sure you can make them be responsible in their own minds. Although I can see sterilizing people who are completely irresponsible with their reproductive systems, the problem lies in who makes those decisions..... and where do we draw the line? For example, I have always thought it would be a terrific idea to castrate (or spay?) all rapists and child molestors. But this is just not a tenable solution....... what if the guy was not really guilty etc. It sounds great on paper but I doubt it would work in real life.

That's exactly the problem: It sounds great on paper (well, to some), but those solutions have a tendency not to work in a complicated world.

[username]

W...T...F?????? Can't we sterilize somebody who is THAT irresponsible? We lock people in prison that commit crimes. Why can't we cut off people from having children when they continue to have them, with no way to support them?

.

I understand where you are coming from, but I would have to know whether the mothers of these children can support the kids and if not, why they didn't use birth control and/or put the kid up for adoption or have an abortion.

I mean the guy is certainly guilty of having the morality of an alley cat, but ultimately whether or not a child comes into this world is up to the woman and the woman alone. Even the law recognizes the male has no say in this matter.

So, what is the guy actually guilty of doing wrong? Being a player who doesn't take responsibility for his actions? The guy is already in prison and sounds like he will be in and out of prisons his entire life the way he is going so there just isn't that much to do with him.

Since women are the baby factories and men just have an orgasm I have to view the women as having the responsibilty for deciding to have the child and the responsibility of supporting them. Who has kids with an obvious loser and has a real expectation of getting financial support? I have to think any woman with a shred of self respect wouldn't have had sex with this loser.

[CFLarsen]

This makes no sense.

I know. I don't understand your reasons for wanting this guy sterilized, that's all.

Then you work 2 jobs. Or 3. Whatever it takes. And if you don't like it, then don't make kids you can't support. Simple, isn't it?

Sure, in a perfect, simple world. But the point is, he has these children. And, sure, he should bloody well support them. So, what will you suggest? He can't support 8 kids on 3 sub-minimum wage jobs (leaving no time for either eating or sleeping, but let's forget that).

What's he going to do?

What's the overall goal here? Make him pay? Make the kids suffer as little as possible? You can't have both without public support of the kids.

[Freakshow]

This makes no sense.



Then you work 2 jobs. Or 3. Whatever it takes. And if you don't like it, then don't make kids you can't support. Simple, isn't it?I knew there were reasons I liked you other than having the Three Stooges in your avatar. :)

[epepke]

Isn't that the whole point? "You are not going to be able to afford a lot of kids, so DON'T FATHER ANY". (Not that I would really consider a guy who sires 8 kids on 6 women, and then does not support those kids, a "father".)

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if he did support them he wouldn't be a father either. He'd be a visitor.

I'm old. I remember a decades-long effort to wipe out the concept of the father, by people who patted themselves on the back constantly about how excrementally progressive they were. And so this stuff happens. Well, what exactly, in the name of Rocket J. Squirrel's animated anus, did you expect?

What is amazing it that there are still some regressives who manage to do fatherhood. But they're laughable, right?

[CFLarsen]

What, exactly, do people mean when they say "support"?

How much money does it take to "support" a child?

I'm talking - as always - specifics here.

[luchog]

To me, this has always seemed to be one of those areas where the proposed "solutions" are always worse than the problem itself. There really aren't any real solutions to forcing people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, because it simply cannot be done. You cannot make people responsible, they have to choose to be. You can penalize irresponsibility, but then you start to run into the problem of individual liberty.

It's not an issue of lack of education. Children have been required (forced, under penalty of law) to attend state-provided schools for far longer than I've been alive, but these sorts of situations remain unchanged. Just like personal responsibility, you cannot force someone to get an education if they're not interested. They can, and do, drop out; with no regard whatsoever for the long-term consequences. For the most part, you're dealing with groups and cultures (or subcultures) that simply do not value education very highly.

And though, as others have pointed out, that sort of irresponsibility is present in upper classes as well; it's nowhere near as common as in the lower classes. The two conditions, poverty and irresponsibility, are strongly linked.
Unless people value education and personal responsibility, nothing is going to change; and nearly all proposed solutions come down to either totalitarian control over consensual behaviour, or forcing everyone else to pay the consequences these pepole refuse to take responsibility for. More welfare money isn't the answer, since that merely encourages people to live irresponsibly (and I speak as someone who has been on welfare due to disabilities, and has a number of friends and family members who are, or have been, in the same boat). Making education and job training mandatory for welfare recipients? Sounds like a good idea, but it's only effective if people on welfare actually care about getting an education and employment, instead of sitting around leeching off the state.

Yes, people will get hurt. They will hurt themselves and they will hurt others. That's a fact of life. The issue is, how do you minimize the problem without creating a whole world of new problems as bad, or worse, than the original one?

It's a sad, depressing state of affairs; but there are no easy, pat answers.

"To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem."

[Luke T.]

Why should steri8lisation for the man and abortion for the women be the only solutions?
Why not give the women education, decent childcare and decent wages so that they can support themselves and their kids? I believe it's been shown that the more education a woman gets, the less children she is likely to have. Never mind "Teach a man to fish..." - give a woman some life choices!


I understand where you are coming from, but I would have to know whether the mothers of these children can support the kids and if not, why they didn't use birth control and/or put the kid up for adoption or have an abortion.

I mean the guy is certainly guilty of having the morality of an alley cat, but ultimately whether or not a child comes into this world is up to the woman and the woman alone. Even the law recognizes the male has no say in this matter.

So, what is the guy actually guilty of doing wrong? Being a player who doesn't take responsibility for his actions? The guy is already in prison and sounds like he will be in and out of prisons his entire life the way he is going so there just isn't that much to do with him.

Since women are the baby factories and men just have an orgasm I have to view the women as having the responsibilty for deciding to have the child and the responsibility of supporting them. Who has kids with an obvious loser and has a real expectation of getting financial support? I have to think any woman with a shred of self respect wouldn't have had sex with this loser.

These two posts coincide with my thinking, and I think somewhere between these two posts is the answer.

I am going to go ahead and make an educated guess the man in this story was black. Is this story really all that unusual in the black culture in America?

I don't think so.

We are looking at a mindset that is alien to most of us.

[CFLarsen]

Apparently, Robert Thompson, who killed 2-year old James Bulger 13 years ago, has become a father.

Do those who think the father mentioned in the opening post should be forcibly sterilized, also think that Robert Thompson should have been forcibly sterilized?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Apparently, Robert Thompson, who killed 2-year old James Bulger 13 years ago, has become a father.

Do those who think the father mentioned in the opening post should be forcibly sterilized, also think that Robert Thompson should have been forcibly sterilized?

No.

Speaking of which, what do you think should be done with the "father" in the opening post?

[CFLarsen]

No.

Why not?

Speaking of which, what do you think should be done with the "father" in the opening post?

If he can't pay, fine him. If he still can't pay, put him in jail.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If he can't pay, fine him. If he still can't pay, put him in jail.

So you are in favor of debtors prisons? That suprises me.

[Roboramma]

I don't see it a horrible injustice to sterilize someone. The guy's shown that he is incapable of using what's got responsibly. Maybe he should be given a warning - "If you have any more children before you can support the ones you've already got, the state will sterilize you."
There. Now he's got a choise. If he wants any more kids, he's got some work to do. If he ignores the warning, well, who's fault is it but his own?

As the opening post said, why do we see sterilization as so much worse than imprisonment?

If the blind can be disallowed the right to drive, why shouldn't the horribly irresponsible be disallowed the right to reproduce?

[slingblade]

As the opening post said, why do we see sterilization as so much worse than imprisonment?

If the blind can be disallowed the right to drive, why shouldn't the horribly irresponsible be disallowed the right to reproduce?

Because it's my body, and I will fight to protect my right to my own body. Sterilization is a cruel and unusual punishment.

I don't think your specific analogy works, because no one has the inherent "right" to drive: everyone must first prove they are minimally capable of driving, through both a written test and a demonstration of ability. It's not so much that the blind are forbidden to drive, but that they can't perform the demonstration of ability, and so they can't get a license.

I am fully aware this next is a slippery slope argument, but I still must ask: If we think it right to sterilize the reproductively irresponsible, do we then think it right to blind the child pornographer, paralyze the drunk driver, or cut off the shoplifter's hands?

Telling this irresponsible man that he'll be sterilized if he fathers one more child isn't offering him any choice but permanent celibacy: no method of birth control is 100% effective, so this "choice" doesn't just remove his right to reproduce, but to have sex at all, ever again. Cruel and unusual, IMO.

Make him support his children. I don't see where we have any right to surgically alter people so they'll behave the way we think they should.

[Freakshow]

Because it's my body, and I will fight to protect my right to my own body.And its your freedom, but it can be taken away (by locking you in prison) if you behave in an irresponsible manner.

Sterilization is a cruel and unusual punishment.More cruel than being forced to live in a cage?

Telling this irresponsible man that he'll be sterilized if he fathers one more child isn't offering him any choice but permanent celibacy: no method of birth control is 100% effective, so this "choice" doesn't just remove his right to reproduce, but to have sex at all, ever again.How does sterilization remove his right to have sex? I'm not following you at all. Why do you think men get vasectomies? Because they want to have sex!

Make him support his children. I don't see where we have any right to surgically alter people so they'll behave the way we think they should.After being sterilized, he can behave however he wants. He just won't be producing children as a result of that behavior anymore.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Make him support his children.

And if he doesn't (which is what is occuring now)?

[Tmy]

Why should a poor person having multiple kids be castrated and a rich person wh multiple kids not?

[Freakshow]

Why should a poor person having multiple kids be castrated and a rich person wh multiple kids not?NOT "castrated". We are talking about a vasectomy. Not castration. Huge difference.

If you meant sterilization, and not castration, your answer is here: because the poor person can't afford to support them, and makes the rest of us support them.

[Tmy]

NOT "castrated". We are talking about a vasectomy. Not castration. Huge difference.

If you meant sterilization, and not castration, your answer is here: because the poor person can't afford to support them, and makes the rest of us support them.

Yeah well I also support the supercatholic couple down the street with their 7 kids. Lousy tax breaks and free public schooling!!!!

Arent we assuming that this guys kids are on state assistance? They have moms. Maybe they support themselves, or have husbands or whomever to support the kids.

[Freakshow]

Yeah well I also support the supercatholic couple down the street with their 7 kids. Lousy tax breaks and free public schooling!!!!You are talking extremes. I am talking percentages. Why make the situation worse? Or why not try to improve the existing situation? If you reduce the number of kids on welfare, you reduce the amount of money that has to be taken from citizens to fund welfare. So there is a reduction, even as tax breaks for kids or support for public schools stays the same. Make sense?

[Tmy]

Believe me. I have no sympathy for the guy. I say you send him to work in the fish house and take his check.

But chem castration and the like kinda bother me. Its not a crime to knock up all these women.

[slingblade]

And its your freedom, but it can be taken away (by locking you in prison) if you behave in an irresponsible manner.

I know it can be taken away. That's why I protest this kind of action, and why I'd fight against it. I'm not saying the man is not irresponsible; I'm saying the correction should not involve surgically invading his body.

More cruel than being forced to live in a cage?

Yes, I would say so. If we have to imprison, we take the whole body--we don't just forcibly shut down one function because it displeases us. But I don't think jail is necessarily the first or best option, though it may have to be a last resort.

How does sterilization remove his right to have sex? I'm not following you at all. Why do you think men get vasectomies? Because they want to have sex! After being sterilized, he can behave however he wants. He just won't be producing children as a result of that behavior anymore.

Fine, so it works better for men than it does for women. Women can end up with many kinds of complications, and yes, I speak from experience. I still don't think a society should have the right to surgically alter someone's body.

Got a pill? Maybe I'd be in favor of a pill that would render him sterile but functional. I don't think we have one of those yet for men, though.

Sorry. The idea of the court forcing surgery on me makes me feel all hinky. Creeps me out, no sir, don't like it.