Sterilization plan fights poverty

Yes, it's the 60 billion a year or so we spend on welfare that's the problem. On the other hand this 1 trillion bailout of wallstreet is just pocket change.
 
we need to tie a trillion tubes...maybe even a quadrillion
 
typical conservative hypocrite too gutless to push the idea to it's logical conclusion:

LaBruzzo said he opposes abortion and paying people to have abortions. He described a sterilization program as providing poor people with better opportunities to avoid welfare, because they would have fewer children to feed and clothe.
Click to expand...

he should be beaten to a bloddy pulp with a philopian tube
 
How are we going to stay on top of China if we can't keep up with our children counts? China has a 1 child maximum for couples! Even with a 20 child per couple minimum in the states, we'd not be able to surpass China's wild population growth!
 
operation 'stop poor people from ****ing'
 
I have no problem with this idea, its not forced upon them so its not got any real moral ethical roadblocks to it.

A voluntary scheme, the evil evil bastard...

But I agree he's a hypocrite if he's against abortion. Which I'm not. BTW.
 
I don't think this is right. It's like organ-selling; people are going to be tempted to do it just for the money.

If he really cared he would offer it for free.
 
i think stern was referring to phillip opian, a tube maker in sweden.
 
actually I had philos on the brain

even though it's spelled phylo

mmmmm spanakopita

Spanakopita+(Greek+Spinach+Pie).jpg
 
If they are offering to pay these people, then it's not fascism, it's capitalism.
 
You don't think there's a problem that it's very poor people who are being offered this money?

Why isn't the operation for free?

EDIT: Hitler paid people to take social decisions (eg marriage, children) too, loloolol Godwin
 
Why not just make the pill free? It would be a lot cheaper than performing a bunch of operations.
 
Which is exactly the problem when you are aiming your policy at the very people who need the money most. How many people would go for the operation, even against their better judgement, because it was an easy way to get cash? And if that would be irresponsible behaviour on the part of the people, it's irresponsible of this politician to encourage it. Hey, let's pay people to sell their organs as well, I'm sure everyone will choose to keep at least one kidney even when they fall on hard times.

How about taking all that money and buying a bunch of pills to hand out.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Which is exactly the problem when you are aiming your policy at the very people who need the money most. How many people would go for the operation, even against their better judgement, because it was an easy way to get cash? And if that would be irresponsible behaviour on the part of the people, it's irresponsible of this politician to encourage it. Hey, let's pay people to sell their organs as well, I'm sure everyone will choose to keep at least one kidney even when they fall on hard times.

How about taking all that money and buying a bunch of pills to hand out.
Click to expand...
Because there's no guarantee these people will take birth control pills.
If they offer to pay in order to have females' tubes tied in families on welfare, it would be the most discreet way of saying, "we don't want to pay for your shortcomings anymore". Money's tight here in the US and even $1000 would sound good to many folks right now. In fact, it's getting to where the US can hardly afford to pay welfare anymore anyways. It's a matter of something that has to be done lest we all suffer poverty in the near future in the eyes of whosever idea this was. Has anyone even been reading the threads about how screwed our economy is lately? It really isn't up for debate. These are desparate times that calls for desparate measures. (You can thank the Bush administration for this mess)

Money talks, BS walks. That's how it's always been in a capitalist regime.

I don't know if it's the same subject or not, but signing up as an organ donor is setting yourself up for failure if your ever hauled to the emergency room too. At least here in the US. Though I'm not sure which organs we're discussing here that can be reused.

Lots of corrupt/morally bankrupt doctors who'd rather the patient just die so the organs can be extracted.

EDIT> BTW, I never said I was pro/against this course of action stated in the OP, I was just enlighting you all on how these politicians think.

Also, this is evidence imo that money is the root of all evil.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Way to not answer my points D:
Click to expand...
Oh sorry! :eek:

Could you look again though? Even if I did fail to answer your question(s)?

Do you agree/disagree?

Honestly, I have no answer to your questions. Just more questions.

toaster-man said:
Saturos, while tubal ligation isn't necessarily going to put a woman at a greater health risk (the only reason I can come up with is a slightly greater chance of an ectopic pregnancy), that doesn't mean it should be done frivolously. There's a reason why most doctors will refuse to do the surgery unless the woman is at least in her mid to late 20s or has had a child. Choosing to be sterile for the rest of your life is not a decision that should be made based on whether or not you badly need that $1,000 just to get by.
Click to expand...
While there's no question to the unethical point in all of this, at least they're getting paid is what I'm saying. Some countries would either just force them to have their tubes tied or just take their babies away. THAT's fascism.

BTW, are you toaster-chan?
 
Saturos said:
Of course it's unethical, but so are abortions imo. IIRC, most members here are pro-abortion anyways ammirite? So why are we worried about moral correctness here?
Click to expand...
Because the Government doesn't pay poor people money to have abortions?

If they did we'd be objecting to that too - just a bit less strenuously as sterilization is permanent whereas someone having an abortion can go on to have children later.


We're not saying sterilization is unethical, it's this proposed scheme that we're objecting to.
 
Saturos said:
Of course it's unethical, but so are abortions imo. IIRC, most members here are pro-abortion anyways ammirite? So why are we worried about moral correctness here?
Click to expand...
Because we might think abortion is moral, lol.

And nobody advocates that poor people should be paid to have abortions.
EDIT: What Eijit said basically.

I think that anyone trying to justify such an unethical policy needs to show (with arguments? statistics?) that a) welfare is bankrupting the US, that b) this policy would at all help solve that problem, and that c) the good effects of the policy would outweigh its bad effects. That "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OUR BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL ON THE ISSUE OF STERILISING THE POOR" bullshit of yours has really got to be better supported.

As Toaster said, the principle is absurd; instead of trying to solve a problem, this just pays people off to chip away at the symptoms, and pretends to give them some measure of help or liberty.
 
Eejit said:
Because the Government doesn't pay poor people money to have abortions?
Click to expand...
True

Eejit said:
If they did we'd be objecting to that too - just a bit less strenuously as sterilization is permanent whereas someone having an abortion can go on to have children later.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I don't like it either way. That's my personal opinion though. Oh well.

I just don't understand people who would pay to have an abortion when it's just as easy to just send the kid to an orphanage so that a couple can adopt who will actually love the child.
On the other hand, the government is offering to pay females on welfare to have tubes tied. A bit off topic though, because it's all about ethnic/populace control either way.

...

...

...

Sulkdodds said:
Because we might think abortion is moral, lol.

And nobody advocates that poor people should be paid to have abortions.
EDIT: What Eijit said basically.

I think that anyone trying to justify such an unethical policy needs to show (with arguments? statistics?) that a) welfare is bankrupting the US, that b) this policy would at all help solve that problem, and that c) the good effects of the policy would outweigh its bad effects. That "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OUR BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL ON THE ISSUE OF STERILISING THE POOR" bullshit of yours has really got to be better supported.

As Toaster said, the principle is absurd; instead of trying to solve a problem, this just pays people off to chip away at the symptoms, and pretends to give them some measure of help or liberty.
Click to expand...

Meh, I just hate humans/human nature in general and it's complexity. Nothing personal.

This conversation is making my head hurt. lol
 
toaster-man said:
Setting aside your assumption that because you find something unethical it automatically becomes unethical, I still have to wonder if you even read our posts or not.
As Sulk pointed out, these people are in situations where they're desperate for money, and by offering up payment for sterilization we are taking advantage of that desperation. This plan is not about meeting the needs of those in poverty, it's about taking advantage of people so that those living more comfortable lives don't have to deal with the results of refusing to help the poor.
Click to expand...
Of course. Capitalism at it's finest. (or worst tbh)

Yeah, I see your point there too, and and I can agree I don't like it either. I wonder if all this trouble with the US economy was planned from the start by the MJ-12/Illuminati for the sole purpose of taking advantage of these groups for the sake of crowd control? *Puts on tin-foil hat* :rolleyes:
 
toaster-man said:
Choosing to be sterile for the rest of your life is not a decision that should be made based on whether or not you badly need that $1,000 just to get by.
Click to expand...

No, it should be based on whether you think you can afford, or think its fair to bring a child into your shit hole of a life, when you cant even afford to look after yourself let alone a kid, and burden society with having to deal with that kids poverty as well as your own.

Western society has decided to provide welfare to the poor because we have decided to varying degrees to try and help our poor and less fortunate.

We shouldn't though just suddenly live in this fairy tale of entitlement where we should expect the government to crawl on all fours to save us from ourselves and irresponsibly bring children we cant support into the world causing an even bigger burden on a system we think should be wiping our arses for us.

Just because it's not forced doesn't make it okay.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure it does. The problem with your opinion (like allot of peoples) is that opinion does not equal universal fact and truth.

How many women do you honestly think are going to go for this even though they don't want to be unable to have kids ever?. Yeah, not many thats who.

I really think a society that has a healthy snuff and murder movie industry, where people dying horribly is considered a good night out at the cinema, contact sports, and all that, really needs to reevaluate its poorly reasoned squeamishness to the subject of fertility and abortion and all that.

Able to have a kid or not or whether to abort a fetus or not should not get in the way of an already existing human beings own wishes and wellbeing.

So yeah, if a woman decides she wants money over the ability to have kids, fine, thats her choice, you might not personally approve, bless democracy and all its inherent freedoms and liberties to your own thoughts and opinions, but to tell a woman what she can or cant do with her own body because you personally disapprove is no better then stoning a woman for being seen talking to a man that isn't her husband or whatever, its forcing your beliefs on others.
 
Saturos said:
While there's no question to the unethical point in all of this, at least they're getting paid is what I'm saying. Some countries would either just force them to have their tubes tied or just take their babies away. THAT's fascism.
Click to expand...

Which countries do this as policy?
 
Your rant RE welfare isn't exactly on topic, Nuri. :p

Nurizeko said:
No, it should be based on whether you think you can afford, or think its fair to bring a child into your shit hole of a life, when you cant even afford to look after yourself let alone a kid, and burden society with having to deal with that kids poverty as well as your own.
Click to expand...
Eh? We're talking about permanent sterilisation, not "whether I should have a kid or not yet".

But regardless, the real way to allow people to choose responsibly on the basis of their own positions and prospects would be not to pay them for it, nor to ask them to pay for it, but to provide the service free of charge, perhaps through a service like...the NHS? Oh snap!
 
Saturos said:
I just don't understand people who would pay to have an abortion when it's just as easy to just send the kid to an orphanage so that a couple can adopt who will actually love the child.
Click to expand...

I personally prefer that solution (some family friends were trying for many years to find a child to adopt), but I believe each woman should be allowed to choose for herself. I also understand that pregnancy can be pretty tough, and even dangerous on occasion, it makes sense that some women would rather just abort.

I do believe that the government shouldn't legislate over such an intensely personal choice, however.


On topic:
Yeah, what Sulk said Nuri.
 
Sulkdodds said:
But regardless, the real way to allow people to choose responsibly on the basis of their own positions and prospects would be not to pay them for it, nor to ask them to pay for it, but to provide the service free of charge, perhaps through a service like...the NHS? Oh snap!
Click to expand...


That would be ideal, but I'm still not fundamentally against offering incentives, its no different then when other governments offer tax breaks or incentives for families to have more kids or less kids or no kids.


Why don't men need to be sterilized?
Click to expand...

We don't have periods.
 
nurizeko said:
That would be ideal, but I'm still not fundamentally against offering incentives, its no different then when other governments offer tax breaks or incentives for families to have more kids or less kids or no kids.
Click to expand...
It.
Is.
Permanent.
 
Note that the bill would offer vasectomy incentives to men as well, in order to avoid charges of gender discrimination. Read the article.

nurizeko said:
That would be ideal, but I'm still not fundamentally against offering incentives, its no different then when other governments offer tax breaks or incentives for families to have more kids or less kids or no kids.
Click to expand...
No, it is different; it's effectively permanent because the reversal is so expensive. It's not the same as holding off having children until later in life or something.

Taking the money over any future children would be very irresponsible behaviour on the part of a citizen (who is admittedly at hir liberty). But using government money to provide an incentive for people to engage in it, giving people a legal and tax-funded way to swap future fertility for a quick grand, is supremely irresponsible behaviour on the part of government, especially if it's that government's excuse not to actually solve the problem of poverty.

If you want people to have the liberty to choose infertility, don't let the procedure be caught up in the financial constraints which are imposed on the poor. Offer the operation for free.
 
toaster-man said:
Gosh, what was I thinking. Women just magically get pregnant and give birth for no reason, right?
Click to expand...
i didnt say that i just said we cant give birth
if a man has sex can he get pregnant and give birth?
if a woman has sex can she get pregnantand give birth?
 
Bad idea. I think we should have a tv-show where poor people are offered $1000 if they eat their newborn babies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top