Actually, Trav and I both tend to agree with your sister. Trav takes it one step farther and thinks *everybody* should have a mandatory birth control implant until they pass a parenting test.
I think there's a difference, though, between "People should prove they can be responsible parents" (which I can agree with in concept, anyhow) and "If you're poor you shouldn't be allowed to breed." (Which opens some very questionable ground...)
However it's more of: "Poor = unable to adequately provide for a child -> work to improve situation"
And since you can't very well improve your situation when every dollar you make goes towards living and caring for a child... and in many situations, those dollars alone are not enough.
True, but that doesn't mean automatic manditory birth control.
Not everybody on welfare is on welfare just for the free ride.
And not everybody on welfare who's on long term is able to get off [because depression sets in and that makes everything harder to do, and when you're on welfare you can't afford therapy or meds!]
No, it shouldn't have to mean manditory birth control. However, the way things are going it looks like a better and better option as time goes on.
And no, they aren't all on it for the free ride. But a responsibly couple in that situation would say "Hey... maybe we can't afford a child right now, so let's not have a baby."
And I hate to say it, but I don't have much sympathy for that third situation. But, I guess it was the way I was raised.
Regarding your lack of sympathy: Depression is not the same thing as laziness; don't make the mistake of confusing them.
And yes, maybe a responsible copule would say "we can't afford a child," but then again, you know how pro-life this country is. And accidnts will happen.
I never did make the mistake of confusing them. And don't make the mistake that I don't know the difference.
What can I say? I was raised by a father who had what should have been a debilitating physical handicap since about the age of 6, however he worked around it all his life to the point that you wouldn't know it existed if he didn't show you. But that's how I was raised.
You get what life hands you, and work with or around it.
Well, true. But considering that the welfare system rewards women for having babies by paying them more for each child, this is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.
Heh - you should pass the subsidized housing I pass every day on my way to work and count the Jaguars, Lexus, Hummers and Cadillac Escalades. No, not everyone on welfare drives a luxury car, but there are enough welfare cheats that it annoys me every damn day.
Because if under-privileged impoverished people stop reproducing, obviously there will be less of them and then when they die off there will be no more poor people ever again?
Her arguement was, I think, that if you need government assistance and resources, why reward someone for consuming more resources instead of getting themselves back to where they don't require the government handouts.
(Note: I do NOT support this, and I only caught the last bits of her explanations, so don't ask me to be detailed.)
The thing is that when society starts telling people who can have children and who can't, however worthy the reason, you create a whole class of people who have good reason to be angry at the state.
And where will that lead?
A better solution would be to make birth control (and any associated medial treatment) free for everyone all of the time.
California will happily chuck you free BCPs and so on if you're poor, along with a cheery green ID card that should say "Officially Too Poor To Breed" on it, but doesn't. ;)
Heh...little known fact about your Jori...she was on welfare for a couple years. Not the whole deal, but I got food stamps and such.
And before anyone conceptualizes me based on that, be aware that I worked full time the entire time at Meijer's (Minimum wage retail job). That job was the best I could get, but it wasn't enough to feed the kid, and despite all the applications I filled out and jobs I tried to get, no one else hired me. So I did the best I could.
Then I finally got a better job, got remarried, and now I own my own home, two vans, a retirment egg started, and benefits.
Being poor is not really an indicator of a person, and broad sweeping generalizations that welfare people are all sitting around at home doing nothing trying to get pregnant just hurt the problem of poverty. I did NOT want to get pregnant again, was out working and looking for better all the time, and trying to parent my child when I wasn't working, and volunteered to teach illiterate adults(and most were NOT immigrants, before that stereotype gets going) to read to help themselves while I was trying to help myself. Most of the people who were in line with me waiting on benefits were in the same boat. We had nothing better to do but chat while waiting. I worked with a lot of them.
Some people abuse it. SOme people abuse everything. Abusing a system gets better press, but we have to be more intelligent than the media gives us credit for and realize that they don't report on things going right, and people like me. And I certainly will not begrudge people whos jobs vanish without warning and take their futures away like Enron victims or factory closeouts or whatever caused the problem aid, or the joy of parenting. I aldo dont assume I know anything about them becuase of a media stereotype portrayed about them, because no one noticed me or the horde of people like me when I was living like that, becuase we're quiet, and just trying to get by. *shrugs*
You're sister was talking about me, whether she meant to or not. And I have to say, she doesn't have the right to assume that I had to undergo enforced birth control because I wasn't smart enough to understand that my circumstances would be bad to have more children, or that she had the right to determine anything about my body at all.
Also, the problem with mandatory birth control is, what kind? There's a lot of evidence that the most reliable forms of birth control -- hormonal forms -- can cause cancer and heart disease after long-term use, and that's the kind of use we'd be talking about for many girls born into poor families. Because, let's face it, some girls would start need whatever patches, shots, or implants at age 10. That's a really unfair burden on girls considering the only form available for boys is condoms (I'm not lumping vasectomies and other forms of sterilization in as birth control, because while a v. is technically reversable it often functionally isn't).
As a teenaged girl, I would have been really, really pissed off if the government (or anyone else) told me I had to have something put in my body that could cause fatal perforations (an IUD) or, later, cancer ... especially when I wasn't even having sex.
Also there's the image of the school nurse herding all the girls from the poor families out of class to get their shots ... yeah, that'd make an already-shitty social situation even more awesome :-\
I'm much more in favor of Dave's plan -- let's make sure kids actually get educated about their bodies and that everybody has ready access to a variety of reliable birth controls, including access to abortion providers if that's their choice after the condom breaks or the shot fails.
The biggest problem I think any real/reasonable solution will run into is Christianity. The hard-line voices on the political divide would almost certainly go berzerk about anything except an abstinence based program (despite that we have documented evidence that areas with abstinance based programs are total failures, since teen pregnancy and STD rates are MUCH HIGHER compared to areas that actually use science and reason).
The other thing I'd almost reccomend -is- researching ways to make surgical options like a vasectomy or having the tubes tied 100% reversible. I remember a bit from a Lois M. Bujold book where a character "Gets her ears pierced, her tubes tied, and the chance to experiment for a few years before she needed to make larger decisions", and it wouldn't be perfect, but it might at least be a step in the right direction.
I think mandatory birth control suggestions would be shouted down even more loudly by Christians ... Muslims wouldn't support it, either. The fundamentalist segment that sees things like Social Security numbers as equivalent to marks of the devil ... well, it'd make their heads spin.
Also, I think a certain segment of the conservative political sphere wants to encourage poor people to breed as much as possible so as to have a ready supply of disposable teenage kids who don't have any other job prospects besides the military. Iraq/Afghanistan may be just the first of an unending series of resource wars. From a certain standpoint, it's much more politically expedient to cut social programs and pooh-pooh make-work programs (fiscal responsibility! personal responsibility!) and wag a disapproving finger at moms on welfare (personal responsibility!) while knowing that you won't have to reinstate the draft quite yet because the poor kids keep signing up (reelection! whew!)
I actually have very little problem with Paris Hilton and similar imitators being hit with tranq darts, given treatment, and set back into the wild with radio collars.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:39 pm (UTC)"Poor = worthless = should not make more poor people" = very much disagree.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:30 pm (UTC)However it's more of:
"Poor = unable to adequately provide for a child -> work to improve situation"
And since you can't very well improve your situation when every dollar you make goes towards living and caring for a child... and in many situations, those dollars alone are not enough.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:32 pm (UTC)Not everybody on welfare is on welfare just for the free ride.
And not everybody on welfare who's on long term is able to get off [because depression sets in and that makes everything harder to do, and when you're on welfare you can't afford therapy or meds!]
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:50 pm (UTC)And no, they aren't all on it for the free ride. But a responsibly couple in that situation would say "Hey... maybe we can't afford a child right now, so let's not have a baby."
And I hate to say it, but I don't have much sympathy for that third situation. But, I guess it was the way I was raised.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:53 pm (UTC)And yes, maybe a responsible copule would say "we can't afford a child," but then again, you know how pro-life this country is. And accidnts will happen.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:58 pm (UTC)What can I say? I was raised by a father who had what should have been a debilitating physical handicap since about the age of 6, however he worked around it all his life to the point that you wouldn't know it existed if he didn't show you. But that's how I was raised.
You get what life hands you, and work with or around it.
So no, I don't have sympathy for that situation.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:36 pm (UTC)Also, facepalm headdesk.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:52 pm (UTC)Oddly enough, her opinon seems to mostly have been shaped by her Americorps stint.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 01:32 am (UTC)(Note: I do NOT support this, and I only caught the last bits of her explanations, so don't ask me to be detailed.)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:21 pm (UTC)And where will that lead?
A better solution would be to make birth control (and any associated medial treatment) free for everyone all of the time.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:34 pm (UTC)I like your idea.
When next November comes, I'll need your name so I can write you in on the ballot.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 12:03 am (UTC)And before anyone conceptualizes me based on that, be aware that I worked full time the entire time at Meijer's (Minimum wage retail job). That job was the best I could get, but it wasn't enough to feed the kid, and despite all the applications I filled out and jobs I tried to get, no one else hired me. So I did the best I could.
Then I finally got a better job, got remarried, and now I own my own home, two vans, a retirment egg started, and benefits.
Being poor is not really an indicator of a person, and broad sweeping generalizations that welfare people are all sitting around at home doing nothing trying to get pregnant just hurt the problem of poverty. I did NOT want to get pregnant again, was out working and looking for better all the time, and trying to parent my child when I wasn't working, and volunteered to teach illiterate adults(and most were NOT immigrants, before that stereotype gets going) to read to help themselves while I was trying to help myself. Most of the people who were in line with me waiting on benefits were in the same boat. We had nothing better to do but chat while waiting. I worked with a lot of them.
Some people abuse it. SOme people abuse everything. Abusing a system gets better press, but we have to be more intelligent than the media gives us credit for and realize that they don't report on things going right, and people like me. And I certainly will not begrudge people whos jobs vanish without warning and take their futures away like Enron victims or factory closeouts or whatever caused the problem aid, or the joy of parenting. I aldo dont assume I know anything about them becuase of a media stereotype portrayed about them, because no one noticed me or the horde of people like me when I was living like that, becuase we're quiet, and just trying to get by. *shrugs*
You're sister was talking about me, whether she meant to or not. And I have to say, she doesn't have the right to assume that I had to undergo enforced birth control because I wasn't smart enough to understand that my circumstances would be bad to have more children, or that she had the right to determine anything about my body at all.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 05:46 am (UTC)As a teenaged girl, I would have been really, really pissed off if the government (or anyone else) told me I had to have something put in my body that could cause fatal perforations (an IUD) or, later, cancer ... especially when I wasn't even having sex.
Also there's the image of the school nurse herding all the girls from the poor families out of class to get their shots ... yeah, that'd make an already-shitty social situation even more awesome :-\
I'm much more in favor of Dave's plan -- let's make sure kids actually get educated about their bodies and that everybody has ready access to a variety of reliable birth controls, including access to abortion providers if that's their choice after the condom breaks or the shot fails.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 03:12 pm (UTC)The other thing I'd almost reccomend -is- researching ways to make surgical options like a vasectomy or having the tubes tied 100% reversible. I remember a bit from a Lois M. Bujold book where a character "Gets her ears pierced, her tubes tied, and the chance to experiment for a few years before she needed to make larger decisions", and it wouldn't be perfect, but it might at least be a step in the right direction.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 08:17 pm (UTC)Also, I think a certain segment of the conservative political sphere wants to encourage poor people to breed as much as possible so as to have a ready supply of disposable teenage kids who don't have any other job prospects besides the military. Iraq/Afghanistan may be just the first of an unending series of resource wars. From a certain standpoint, it's much more politically expedient to cut social programs and pooh-pooh make-work programs (fiscal responsibility! personal responsibility!) and wag a disapproving finger at moms on welfare (personal responsibility!) while knowing that you won't have to reinstate the draft quite yet because the poor kids keep signing up (reelection! whew!)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 10:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 08:18 pm (UTC)