Sterilzation laws. . .

  1. The debate is now called to order.

    The question:

    1. Should the govenment enact laws that limit the individuals right to concieve children under certain conditions, where the court can order sterization of individuals or deny them acess to reproductive technologies...

    For example any or all of the following: court ordered sterization for rapist/child molesters, parents with known history of severe child abuse, parents who are competent to care or raise a child, pyschopaths, etc.

    2. If not should their be an form of legally required parental class for all new parents.

    3. Or Do you feel that reproduction rights are no business for the goverment.


    RULES FOR DEBATE:

    Pick a question and label response with the questions number so veiwers can see which thought your responding too.

    Mature responses only.

    No slamming...professionally word insults only LOL.

    GO!!!
    •  
  2. Poll: See below and choose:

    • I agree that court ordered sterilization should be an option under a well controlled set of conditions.

      47.62% 10
    • I agree that sterilization should be manitory for any person charged with a serious sex offense, but not for any one else.

      9.52% 2
    • No sterization, but laws should be enacted to better prepare parents and determine if they have the skills and means to raise a child in a healthy manner.

      9.52% 2
    • The govenment should not have any right to sterilize anyone and should have no say on who can or should have kids. Kids are everones GOD given right.

      33.33% 7
    21 Votes
  3. 14 Comments

  4. by   MollyJ
    As a former family planning nurse, I feel really strongly about protecting reproductive rights even though way too many people don't have a clue about what they are about. The potential for abuse is too great when the government gets involved.

    Here are some areas I'd like to see the government butt out!

    Women on medicaid cannot receive a tubal ligation before age 21 and they must have signed the permit a month before the procedure. I think I've got the time line right. I do know why this rule occurred (docs were abusing their position and literally talking women into tubals during transition). Still, a 24 hour waiting period is sufficient (would need to be narcotic free). Age limit should be waivable if the doctor documents that the patient brings it up repeatedly over 6 months to a year. I knew a 19 year old who wanted a tubal after giving birth to #5 on her 19th birthday. She was ineligible until age 21.

    I would like to see the government butt out on sterilization of mentally retarded children. We trust (sometimes in the face of all logic) parents to make good decisions for their children, but the government intervenes on this one! I do think parents should be able to sterilize their minor children if they are mentally handicapped without going to the courts for permission. (these parents have to go to the courts, the court appoints a legal rep for the MH kid, and the judge decides. expensive and involved. Many families just don't have the wherewithal to do it.) Inspite of the tv movies, MR parents are all too often in over their head and it doesn't end up well for anyone (parents, kid, community).

    As a way to deal with sex offenders--well I think it only takes care of a small portion of the issue. Sex offenders are always about power not sex. A broom handle will do the same as an erect penis and will still express power over another. I think sterilization or chemical sterilization is simply the wrong tool for the job.

    The government also needs to butt out of contraceptive decision making and abortion but that's another thread altogether!
  5. by   aimeee
    Zahkrin, I don't like the way you have brought religion into the matter in your fourth choice but not into the other three.

    Quite aside from this, my choice is number 4 because sterilization is a permanent solution which would be applied according to the winds of political change. I agree with Molly's statement, "The potential for abuse is too great when the government gets involved."
  6. by   Q.
    Tough one. Hard to answer.

    Being an a L&D nurse and seeing women come in with their 12th child, doped up, drunk and collecting even MORE money from society as a result of her spreading her legs, I vote that if she is on the system, after child #3 she is either sterilized or no more money will be given to her.
    I mean, do people really think that she spends the money on the kids?
    I feel as a society we are continually rewarding her for her actions of having sex.

    It seems that people don't view having kids as important anymore. They take more time to decide on a dog or buy their car or stereo equipment than they do about raising a child. People view it as their God-given right to screw, but as a result, a child is born who needs love, support and guidance.

    There was a young gal that my mom worked with, who had 3 children and was living with the FOB. My mom asked if there were any plans to get married to this man. The girl responded that they weren't ready for that kind of responsibility.
    Whaaaaatt?? But having kids is NOT a big responsibility????

    Things in our society are backwards for some reason and I have no clue where to start.

    If I sound callous, maybe I am. Seeing these babies born one after another, holding them in my arms as they withdraw from coke or heroin, the mom not caring about them....after 4 years it tends to make you "hate" these people for doing this without regard.
  7. by   nurs4kids
    Well said, Molly and aimee!!! If it were POSSIBLE (which we know it isn't) for the gov't to fairly and indiscriminately regulate mandatory sterilization, then I would like to see some limits placed on the number of children persons on welfare can conceive. BUT, I think limits on what and how long welfare is available would also solve the abuse of the system..and it wouldn't infringe on someone's PERSONAL rights.

    Zhakrin,
    I'd love to have seen another choice on your poll: Should the gov't be allowed to mandate sterilizaton of MEN who continue to impregnate women w/o adequate emotional and/or financial support???
  8. by   shay
    Alright...I'll touch this one...even though I SWORE I wouldn't even w/a ten foot poll...so here goes.... (dons flame retardent gear... )

    The OB nurse in me, like Susy, is screaming STERILIZE 'EM ALL!!! RIP OUT THEIR FALLOPIAN TUBES AND SEMINAL VESICLES!!! WHERE DO I FIND THE SCALPEL?? I see abuse after abuse after abuse. Welfare brood mares with a different 'baby daddy' for each of their 5, 6, 7, 8....kids, no care in the world about birth control or anything else. My hefty state and federal government robbery fund (taxes) paying for these brood mares to procreate and yet live without ever working, but somehow 'finding' the money to buy pagers, cell phones, clothes, jewelry, and whatever else the latest fad is. The worthless waste of oxygen sperm donor (baby daddy) who decides to show up at the last minute, drunk of course, and lo and behold, the girl in room 5 is pregnant by him as well....he struts around like a rooster in a barnyard, as if it is a proud moment that his penis managed to shoot enough sperm to find an egg...wow...what an accomplishment. Meanwhile, I have a 33 y.o. G5P0 in the next room, miscarrying her 5th baby in 4 years, while her husband sobs and she has that deer in the headlights look. It's enough to make you REALLY, REALLY bitter and jaded and have the urge to smack every bleeding heart a$$hole who tells you the brood mares and the baby daddies 'can't help' their situations. ********.

    HOWEVER...the libertarian/republican in me says that our horrible, big brother, highway robbery, tax-you-even-after-you're-dead government does NOT need yet another locus of control on our perilously endangered FREEDOM.

    I firmly believe that it is everyone's basic right to be as stupid and irresponsible as they would choose to be. I simply don't think I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. But that is another topic entirely....

    So, as much as I would gain no amount of unbridled pleasure from watching the baby daddies and brood mares hump 'til the cows come home to create yet another money-sucking mouth with no success due to their government mandated sterilization, I can't say it should be so. Our government is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too involved already in our lives, and I'm not willing to say it's okay for them to intrude even further.

    Sorry Susy. I feel like a traitor.... :imbar
  9. by   Q.
    Hey Shay - don't feel like a traitor.

    Thing is, like you said, people can be dumb, I just don't wanna pay for it.

    Many, many, many many, MANY years ago, if people kept breeding without money to feed them or the wherewithall to take care of them, THEY DIED. Natural selection. That's the beauty. Unfortunately, since our society continually takes from others to support this, natural selection is eliminated and instead, we have a planet RAMPANT with people who need food, need clothes, need this, need that. And WE PAY FOR IT.

    Heck, if I didn't have to pay for the mistakes, natural selection would kick in and I'd be happy as a clam. Then, who needs sterilization?
  10. by   Cubby
    I saw a news report just yesterday about a woman whose newborn had died after being placed in a dumpster! She had
    6 other children who had been taken away by the courts due to her being an unfit mother. (What an understatement) Thats all I have to say.
  11. by   nurs4kids
    Originally posted by Susy K
    Heck, if I didn't have to pay for the mistakes, natural selection would kick in and I'd be happy as a clam. Then, who needs sterilization?
    EXACTLY, suzy!!! I don't feel we have a right to sterilize against one's wishes (although, like shay said, when I see the fifth kid on welfare and the other four are wearing Hilfiger and Mom's smoking and driving a Lexus..I could sterilize them myself with my dad's buck-knife)..anyhow, I don't feel we have a right to "play God" and tell someone what to do with their body, BUT I damn sure feel I have a right to tell them they can't have anymore money from my hard-earned pay!!! If I could only see that my tax money didn't go to the perpetuators...you're right, sterilization wouldn't be needed!
  12. by   SKM-NURSIEPOOH
    originally posted by zhakrin....1. should the government enact laws that limit the individuals right to conceive children under certain conditions, where the court can order sterilization of individuals or deny them access to reproductive technologies...

    for example any or all of the following: court ordered sterilization for rapist/child molesters, parents with known history of severe child abuse, parents who are competent to care or raise a child, psychopaths, etc.
    i'll be addressing this point.

    • convicted rapist/child molesters.
    • convicted murders of children (i.e. susan smith(sp?).
    • emotionally & physically abusive parents with too many kids.
    • deeply depressive or psychotic people (i.e. andrea yates(sp?).
    • birth control for those who want it.
    • birth control for those who need it (like those folks with say, have five plus kids before they're 18 y/o - whether male or female).
    • those severely mentally retarded individuals that clearly are incapable of raising any children on their own (so many are sexually abused by so called "normal" people) often it's the people hired to care for this individuals who have the opportunity to molest them.


    as far as people on welfare having numerous kids & getting more money...this isn't the case anymore...at least in the state of nj.

    here, when a person file for assistance, they're paid for any existing kids they have when filing. in other words, if a woman has for example, three kids & she's pregnant with the fourth while filing, she will only receive funding for food/shelter for those three kids only. if this same woman end-up with five kids, the government only still only will pay for the three. granted, the hospitalization for this woman's deliveries are supplemented by the government, they're not getting paid for the additional kids. also, these individuals have only five years to be on the role...they have to be enrolled in a job training program & remain there until they've finished. they're expected to become self efficient by the end of that five year period. yes, it's sad & quite disgusting whenever i see people living in the project & they're riding around in expensive cars & dressing in the latest clothes ...but i damn sure don't envy them ever!!! :uhoh21: most will never get out of that situation.

    i see foreign people come here with a lot of kids & get on the roles & don't have to pay taxes for the first few years. they know that there are all sorts of social service projects offered & they make damn sure to take advantage of them. they're set-up in whatever business adventure & soon come-off of the system...they have a plan. their off-springs then have a fighting chance at success in this land of opportunity. shame those other folks whom were brought-up on the system (urban or rual)wasn't taught that lesson. all they know is that the world owes them something & should pay for it.

    not so sure about the government butting out of people's lives...we need laws & regualations...too many folks would loose their minds without enforced law & order...of course...jmho.
  13. by   nurseratchett29
    BIG BROTHER NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET OFF WELFARE, DISCOURAGE PEOPLE TO STOP BREEDING LIKE RABBITS IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO FEED THEIR LITTERS AND MAKE SURE PEDOPHILES ARE LOCKED UP WHERE THEY CAN BE PROPERLY TAKEN CARE OF (DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO PEDOPHILES IN JAIL? BELIEVE ME, JUST MAKE SURE THEIR FELLOW PRISONERS KNOW WHAT THEY DID AND THE PROBLEM WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF) . SORRY IF THAT SOUNDS HARSH, BUT SO BE IT. AND THAT'S ALL i HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT
  14. by   peter73
    At first thought the idea of mandatory strerilization under certain instances sounds good to me. After all the abused kids I've seen, ie child # 6 whose siblings all removed from thier loving mother with in months of birth, left the hospital a healthy infant, wk#1- pnuemonia and exposure to elements(left in buggin outside in 40 degree weather. hospitalized and released to mom.
    wk#4- pnuemonia and malnutrition, failure to thrive....bruises of "unknown" cause... released to mom...
    wk#7- malnutrition, multi fx: clavicle, arm, dislocated shoulder, shaken baby syn(trach, vent, G-tube, blind, deaf...)
    Gut reaction, I say sign her up!
    But, then you think of the possible abuse of this type of legislation. In the not so distant past it was just done. mentally retarded persons and undesierable children and adults. If one was considered "slow" snip snip...even with an IQ at the low normal range. If you happened to be an "wild" child (many documented cases of girls who had been "normal" but rebelled against parents, sent to a bad girls home and guess what steralized). Many institutions required it, this includes juvinile facilities...Adults with any mental illness..steralized...legally against their will because the majority of persons believed they had no right to reproduce...
    Cases of unwed mothers being steralized for thier own good...after the first child, and the child removed from the horrible example to boot. People steralized for being poor regardless if they had 12 kids or none. Steralization for being gay/lesbian, mixed race, etc.
    Legislation that started out to do one thing ended up running wild with who is suitable to reproduce...just by a few little changes to wording by a few "well meaning" senators/representatives.

    Before taking a stand on an issue research the past...funny thing about the past, it tends to repeat itself if it is ever forgotten....

    Remember there are people, normal as you or I, alive and well in the US, who as a child or young adult have been tied to a stretcher, brought screaming to the OR, put under and steralized for thier own good and the good of society...for reasons that make no sense today.

    I for one will not take part in the mutilation (legally, no consent equals mutilation) of anothers body, even if the majority deems it acceptable and needed.

    peter
  15. by   Zhakrin
    Well said Peter!

close