Pay poor $1000 to have vasectomy or tubes tied?

[Lyndie]

I can tell you I live in one the biggest welfare states in the country. People have numerous children so they can get more money from welfare. My state instituted a program where you need to work 20 hrs a week to continue benefits, unless you have a disabled child or care for someone in your family who is handicapped. Guess what? A high percentage now take thier kids to the drs', get thier kids diagnosed with add or something and continue on welfare. If they want to find a way to beat the system they will. Also many of the children placed in foster care come from low income families here. The mindset among teen is 'oh well, if I get pregnant, I'll just go on welfare.'

Plain and simple, those parents want the welfare money more than they want their kids.

[NHL Fever]

What most people are ignoring here is there are racist implications in the program. This isn't to say that racism drove the program or even has anything to do with the intention of the program, but the consequences are racist.

This program would not discriminate. Consequences cannot be racist, since racism implies some willful intention. There's nothing racially about this program, especially when the action is 100% optional.

What demographic, statistically speaking, finds itself in rampant poverty? Minorities, specifically Latinos and Blacks. Thus, we would watch as such populations dwindled - rather than work hard to fix the problem (how come no Christians have come forward and chastised ourselves for not helping these people more?) we'd rather ERADICATE the problem.

Social programs also aim to ERADICATE the problem. Are lifeskill-training programs racist because they tend to be more useful for black people? No they are not, unless they exclude non-black people. If I high-five eveybody I see on the street, I'm not racist just because 80% of them will be white people, that's just who happens to be on the street around here.

The only discrimination that can legitimately be claimed here is class, if its offered only to poor people. In that case its discriminating against non-poor people, because its allowing poor people an additional choice not offered to non-poor people.

Always is right, what is to stop us from making this compulsory in some instances?

The law. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are legal, this is not a change. If somebody else pays for it, its not less legal, nor any less optional.

More importantly, who's to say it won't be compulsory now? If mom and dad are't liking the money their 18 year old daughter bring is, she could "willfully" go get her tubes tied, with mom and dad saying she's kicked out if she doesn't.

Mon and dad can already do that.

This bill stinks enough as it is. It's worse that Christians are supporting a bill that is antithetical to a Christian worldview.

The Christian worldview is to lead people to find and follow Jesus. Paying somebody $1000 to not have kids does not really have anything to do with that, since its not a moral decision, and there's no implicit connection to any person's witness for Christ.

[apothanein kerdos]

This program would not discriminate. Consequences cannot be racist, since racism implies some willful intention. There's nothing racially about this program, especially when the action is 100% optional.

Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.

Social programs also aim to ERADICATE the problem. Are lifeskill-training programs racist because they tend to be more useful for black people?

I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.

No, those aren't racist at all because it's beneficial. It's not aimed at hampering anything. It's also not "reverse racism" because it doesn't hamper White people. Eradicating a demographic is racist.

The law. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are legal, this is not a change. If somebody else pays for it, its not less legal, nor any less optional.

It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?

Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character?

Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?

Mon and dad can already do that.

...but there's no $1,000 incentive, which would drastically cause an increase.

The Christian worldview is to lead people to find and follow Jesus. Paying somebody $1000 to not have kids does not really have anything to do with that, since its not a moral decision, and there's no implicit connection to any person's witness for Christ.

That's not the Christian worldview. It's a small portion (a very small portion), but a far cry from a Christian worldview. You're basically taking 6 verses total and saying "This encompasses our entire view."

The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

[*Hope*]

The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

I think this sums it up nicely.

[AngelAuthor]

Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.

You talk like a liberal...a socialist. I'm stunned.

By your reasoning welfare itself is a racist program since most of the people on it will be minorities. And no it is NOT beneficial. The program has a far greater success rate of creating dependent SLAVES who, rather than try to stand on their own two feet, simply lean on the government from cradle to grave.

I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.

And here you abandon reason which also surprises me about you. Tell me, A.K., how do you "eradicate" something that never existed?

It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?

Are you kidding me? Have you taken leave of your senses? Paying people to HAVE children they're not going to have to put up with or raise? Heck...sign me up and line up the harem...I'M THERE!!

Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character?

yes...absolutely, America's ghettos are chock-full of character.

Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?

Scary that I'm using the same argument against you that I use on Always. Who says that Christian churches aren't doing this? Some are, in fact. And it's not your place to judge when a church is or isn't doing enough.

The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

It's not about believing the quality of the potential child is up to our standards. You talk about raising these people up. I guarantee you it is far easier to raise a single woman up out of the ghetto than it is a mother with 5 kids swinging off her hips. The responsible ones who don't have children have a greater chance of improving their lives...that's a FACT you need to consider here.

[NHL Fever]

Racism can also be an action even without having a racist intention. If a law is passed that drastically affects one race more than the other - even if it wasn't intended to - then it has racist consequences.

1) No it can't, it has to have intention. Find me a definition that does not include attitude or intention. If I high-five everybody on the street, its not racist just because I happen to high-five 80% white people in a neighborhood where 80% white people live.
2) If a consequence can be racist, then all programs are racist, because they inevitably do not affect all races perfectly evenly. It therefore renders the term racism meaningless.

I'm speaking of eradicating people. Social programs do not eradicate future generations of Americans - this plan does.

By this logic all programs promoting safe sex are eradicating people.

No, those aren't racist at all because it's beneficial. It's not aimed at hampering anything. It's also not "reverse racism" because it doesn't hamper White people. Eradicating a demographic is racist.

Hampering somebody is not what makes something racist. Racism means you believe race is the primary determinant of a person's value or actions. This can result in treating people based on race, either preferentially or detrimentally. This program is available to white people and everyone else, it does indeed 'hamper' as you put it, poor white people as much as anybody else. If it was available only to black people, or only to white people, then it would be racist.

Even assuming your line of reasoning, it is a form of reverse racism if there's a wealthy (by your assumption, white) person who wants to take this deal, but cannot because its only available to poor people. When one person has a legal right to a choice than another of equal age and humanity does not have, that is institutional discrimination.

It's the idea that we're telling these people they're hopeless and we'd rather pay them money than watch them have children. Why not, instead, offer them $1,000 for any new births (assuming we can get those children into families)?

If you give poor people birth control to counteract teenage pregnancy are you saying they're hopeless? No, you're applying harm reduction. Why is this any different?

Secondly, why is poverty such a bad thing for a child? Doesn't hardship build character?

Are you arguing for programs that create hardship?

Third, why aren't we...oh...I don't know...offering to help these people out as Christians and raise the children for them (as a church, not asking anyone to adopt)?

Offering somebody birth control does not exclude anybody from helping raise anybody else's children.

...but there's no $1,000 incentive, which would drastically cause an increase.

No parent who is wicked enough to pimp out their kid in this way, will be stopped by the lack of this program. For any program one can imagine a 1 in a million scenario with a bad outcome. Policy cannot be based on the exceedingly rare chance of something.

That's not the Christian worldview. It's a small portion (a very small portion), but a far cry from a Christian worldview. You're basically taking 6 verses total and saying "This encompasses our entire view."

If you can find a more concise description of what Christians purpose is, I'd like to hear it.

The worldview extends into the sanctity of life. Paying people not to have children because we don't believe the quality of life for the potential child is up to our standards violates this basic view.

This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. Using birth control does not take any lives, it prevents pregnancy. If you believe that preventing conception is violating the sanctity of life, then so are married couples who use birth control during sex.

[apothanein kerdos]

You talk like a liberal...a socialist. I'm stunned.

By your reasoning welfare itself is a racist program since most of the people on it will be minorities. And no it is NOT beneficial. The program has a far greater success rate of creating dependent SLAVES who, rather than try to stand on their own two feet, simply lean on the government from cradle to grave.

...so even though you're arguing for a greater social impact at the cost of tax-payer money, I'm somehow the socialist?

By the way - Welfare is racist, has racist consequences, perpetuates racism, and creates a social slavery. I've argued this for a while. It would be better to force people on welfare to get jobs that pay more than a welfare check and eventually wean them off of it.

And here you abandon reason which also surprises me about you. Tell me, A.K., how do you "eradicate" something that never existed?

By eradicating the possibility of perpetuating the people. That's another form of genocide. When you make it to where certain demographics can't birth children, that is slow eradication.

Remember the line from Braveheart - "If we can't kick them out, we'll breed them out."

By the way, do you know how to argue without insulting? If you do, it would be very nice if you'd employ it in this topic. If not...well then...

Are you kidding me? Have you taken leave of your senses? Paying people to HAVE children they're not going to have to put up with or raise? Heck...sign me up and line up the harem...I'M THERE!!

...and putting those children in homes where they have a future. That is vastly more ethical and logical than what is being proposed by paying people to eradicate their future.

yes...absolutely, America's ghettos are chock-full of character.

You've obviously never dealt with kids who are growing up in the ghetto. They are vastly more mature and hold more common sense than any Suburban kid. Granted, this is anecdotal, but I'd still say that I appreciate the "ghetto-culture" in terms of maturity more than I do the Suburban culture.

Let's face it, some of the most morally bankrupt kids around today come from families where the parents bring in six-figures. Should we pay them for tying up their tubes as well?

Scary that I'm using the same argument against you that I use on Always. Who says that Christian churches aren't doing this? Some are, in fact. And it's not your place to judge when a church is or isn't doing enough.

The way America functions says a lot. The way people in this thread are responding to it says a lot. Fact is, that so much poverty exists while our churches get bigger and richer says a lot.

It's not about believing the quality of the potential child is up to our standards. You talk about raising these people up. I guarantee you it is far easier to raise a single woman up out of the ghetto than it is a mother with 5 kids swinging off her hips. The responsible ones who don't have children have a greater chance of improving their lives...that's a FACT you need to consider here.

I didn't know we evaluated human life and dignity by "chance."

Look, here's what I'm going to ask everyone to do - leave the pragmatism at the door and let's look at this purely through a Judeo-Christian outlook. This means you can't say, "Yeah, but it'll save x amount of dollars" or "But they only have a y% chance of doing s." Let's look at it purely from a human point of view - does paying people to not have children because of the person's social status negatively impact human dignity?

[flybaby]

The other side to this, however, is that the government will be handing out these surgeries which will in turn lead to a higher rate of people having unprotected sx. This in turn, will lead to a higher incident of std's, aids, etc. And then who is going to be paying those bills????

Anyway you look at it, this is not a good solution to the problem of generational welfare. No, I don't know what the solution is, but it can't be this.

[apothanein kerdos]

1) No it can't, it has to have intention. Find me a definition that does not include attitude or intention. If I high-five everybody on the street, its not racist just because I happen to high-five 80% white people in a neighborhood where 80% white people live.
2) If a consequence can be racist, then all programs are racist, because they inevitably do not affect all races perfectly evenly. It therefore renders the term racism meaningless.

You can try to Supreme Court to begin with. They argued that "reading tests" as a requirement for voting were 'racist' and created an unequal opportunity. The reason is the reading tests were put in place in the first place is it was well known that, at the time, the majority of black people weren't literate (not their fault since they were denied education to begin with). Though this law prevented some white people, the consequences harmed black people (at least the majority).

If you'd prefer, we can drop the racist charge, but the problem is two-fold:

1) It ignores how it makes minority populations feel. As Christians, this is something we have to take into consideration.

2) It's still classist - this would actually be a bigger problem than the racism charge. So I'm willing to concede the racism point if you're willing to accept the law would be classist.

By this logic all programs promoting safe sex are eradicating people.

It's not targeting a specific group. We're saying to a specific group of people that we don't want them to propagate.

If you give poor people birth control to counteract teenage pregnancy are you saying they're hopeless? No, you're applying harm reduction. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. I'm saying we shouldn't give contraceptives to anyone who is unmarried - my tax money shouldn't be used to compensate for someone's lack of self-control.

Married couples should be able to receive contraceptives from private institutions, but even then, why should my tax money pay for their contraceptives?

Are you arguing for programs that create hardship?

Is that what I said? I said that economic hardships can often create great character. Thus, I don't necessarily see the disadvantage to being born into poverty. There's a reason I have a hard work ethic and it's not because I was born into a wealthy family.

If you can find a more concise description of what Christians purpose is, I'd like to hear it.

Heaven is a Place on Earth by Michael Wittmer.

That's a good book on explaining a Christian worldview. If you're not willing to read it, I'm not willing to discuss it [the issue on what a Christian worldview is].

This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. Using birth control does not take any lives, it prevents pregnancy. If you believe that preventing conception is violating the sanctity of life, then so are married couples who use birth control during sex.

You're arguing that poor people don't deserve to have babies and it would be better to pay thousands of dollars to prevent their ability to procreate than to let them enjoy having children.

By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.

[AngelAuthor]

By eradicating the possibility of perpetuating the people. That's another form of genocide. When you make it to where certain demographics can't birth children, that is slow eradication.

Firstly, we aren't FORCING this on anyone. The liberal tactic here is to use big, painful words like "eradicating people" and "genocide" when nothing of the kind is being proposed unless you suggest that ALL black people are going to sign up for this and therefore ALL black people will disappear over time.
The relative MINORITY of people who would up for this do not the bulk of a society or culture or race make, much as it cripples your argument to realize that fact. You could sterilize every single black woman in this country who is living in low-income housing and...

...trust me...

There are enough of us out of that demographic to perpetuate the species.

...and putting those children in homes where they have a future. That is vastly more ethical and logical than what is being proposed by paying people to eradicate their future.

So let me get this straight: You believe it is ethical to pay Joe Smith 1,000 to go knock some woman up and drop that kid off at the nearest orphanage, as if he's done society a favor?

You've obviously never dealt with kids who are growing up in the ghetto.

Try telling that to my mother who raised my brother and I in Compton, California in the 70's.

If you aren't familiar with the name, it's featured in quite a few movies like Boys in da Hood, and I assure you it is quite ghetto enough for me to have experience in the matter. I'll name you 15 children right now that I was neighbor to who have spent time in prison or are currently there...

and some of them are white!

Let's face it, some of the most morally bankrupt kids around today come from families where the parents bring in six-figures. Should we pay them for tying up their tubes as well?

If their parents are up for it, sure. I'm not discriminatory.

The way America functions says a lot. The way people in this thread are responding to it says a lot. Fact is, that so much poverty exists while our churches get bigger and richer says a lot.

That's the beauty of the church that Christ set up and Paul later established on his trips...we're all independent. That means I have no power over these mega churches you're talking about that seem to exist for no other reason to enrich the pastor and his staff. Forgive me if I resent generalizations that Churches aren't doing enough when my own little church(s) are doing plenty, like working to establish a Chrsitian orphanage in Sonora, Mexico.

I didn't know we evaluated human life and dignity by "chance."

First of all, not all human life is valuable to a society. Some of it is downright detrimental. But this isn't about the value of human life, it's about the option...the opportunity to improve EXISTING lives by reducing the possibility of POTENTIAL lives that can not be properly cared for. Again, facts are facts: the single woman raised to 18 years old is going to have a whole lot better chance of getting off welfare, going to school and getting out of the system, than the mother who is dropping a new child every 1 1/2 years.

You're talking about the value of life, but it's just talk, because you don't seem to want to make the hard choices required to improve the lives already out there on the street. Part of that improvement undoubtedly includes birth control. Let them have children when they have become self sufficient in life and can properly care for a child on their own.

Look, here's what I'm going to ask everyone to do - leave the pragmatism at the door and let's look at this purely through a Judeo-Christian outlook.

Unless you're going to tell me you're against birth control o any kind for any reason, I don't see what this has to do with the Judeo Christian outlook. We're offering permanent "condoms" to woman and paying them to take it. How is that any different than having a box of rubbers at the Social Services office that say "TAKE ONE"?

[AngelAuthor]

By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.

Low blow, and inaccurate.

Jesus wasn't born into a system that was going to provide welfare for Him and His family for one.

Jesus wasn't born to selfish parents who had their own interests (perhaps drugs and alcohol) preventing them from being able to care for Him.

Jesus wasn't born to parents who, by His birth, were going to be infinitely strapped with hardship and unable to improve their lives, status or situation.

Not that it matters. Jesus wasn't conceived in a way that could be stopped by a tubal...voluntary or otherwise.

[*Hope*]

Sterilization of the poor takes an already desperate situation and makes it even more hopeless. Even if you convince yourselves that it is "voluntary", you're sugar-coating it to make it easier to swallow. The fact of the matter is offering money (essentially a bribe) to someone who has little-to-no other resources is coercion. "Population control" is a poor answer because it does not address the root of the issue: the poor need assistance. They don't need alms. They don't need apathy. They don't need sympathy. They need people, specifically BELIEVERS to intervene on their behalf. The Bible has over 2,000 verses which address our call to aid the poor. Not one EVER suggests that we should encourage them not to have children. We should be spending money to support programs that educate the poor on health issues, childcare, and entrepreneurship. Not bribing them to stop procreating. Poor people deserve to experience the joy of bearing children just as much as the wealthy.

[NHL Fever]

You can try to Supreme Court to begin with. They argued that "reading tests" as a requirement for voting were 'racist' and created an unequal opportunity. The reason is the reading tests were put in place in the first place is it was well known that, at the time, the majority of black people weren't literate (not their fault since they were denied education to begin with). Though this law prevented some white people, the consequences harmed black people (at least the majority).

It was racist because as you imply, it was specifically intentioned to discriminate against blacks.

1) It ignores how it makes minority populations feel. As Christians, this is something we have to take into consideration.

2) It's still classist - this would actually be a bigger problem than the racism charge. So I'm willing to concede the racism point if you're willing to accept the law would be classist.

Christianity has nothing to do with how minorities feel. Its about bringing people to Jesus.

It may be classist in its current form. The solution would simply be to open up that option to people of all incomes.

It's not targeting a specific group. We're saying to a specific group of people that we don't want them to propagate.

But that specific group is not poor people, in fact its hard to tell who exactly this targets in intention. In fact it could be argued that its providing a benefit to those people who you believe it 'targets'.

Yeah, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. I'm saying we shouldn't give contraceptives to anyone who is unmarried - my tax money shouldn't be used to compensate for someone's lack of self-control.

Married couples should be able to receive contraceptives from private institutions, but even then, why should my tax money pay for their contraceptives?

I guess I didn't understand your position on this. So you're not for promoting condom use for example?

BTW, your tax dollars are specifically being used for someone's lack of control when they support welfare children, and to a much more expensive extent to you, than to pay for contraception.

Is that what I said? I said that economic hardships can often create great character. Thus, I don't necessarily see the disadvantage to being born into poverty. There's a reason I have a hard work ethic and it's not because I was born into a wealthy family.

You did not say that, you asked it. Hardship is not what this program is trying to prevent, generational welfare is. That's the beauty of it, there are those who will be built up by hardship, and those who will be defeated by it. The character-driven poor will not make the choice to give up the values of children for $1000, and will confer that drive and character to their children. Those who would take the $1000 are precisely the ones who will take the immediate, easy path anyway, and likely confer that model onto their children.

Heaven is a Place on Earth by Michael Wittmer.

That's a good book on explaining a Christian worldview. If you're not willing to read it, I'm not willing to discuss it [the issue on what a Christian worldview is].

What an odd comment - you are the one who brought this up, I'm not sure why you expect me to debate you on it.

I really don't care what a specific author that you have in mind thinks about it, I care about what Christ thinks about it. This is reflected in the bible, and therefore that's what I can discuss with you. I don't see anything implicitly un-Christian about it, as I don't really see a moral dimension whatsoever to it.

You're arguing that poor people don't deserve to have babies and it would be better to pay thousands of dollars to prevent their ability to procreate than to let them enjoy having children.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over children don't deserve to have children. The elegance is that its not paternalistic at all, nor does it single anybody out. It allows those people to openly make the choice to self-identify as those kinds of people. No accusations, no judgments, just choice.

By your argument, Jesus didn't deserve to live.

This comment is just offensive and has no tie-in with the discussion.

[*Hope*]

I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over childrendon't deserve to have children.

And you deny that this is an elitist/classist position? Because they are so desperate that a significant amount of money would convince them to be sterilized, this makes them undeserving of children? Desperate people will do desperate things. A person's financial situation has no bearing on whether or not they "deserve" to bear children. It may be unwise for them to bear children during their financial crisis, but that doesn't give anyone (especially the government) the right to take advantage of their situation in order to further their own agenda.

[diffangle]

I'm arguing that poor people who would take $1000 over children don't deserve to have children. The elegance is that its not paternalistic at all, nor does it single anybody out. It allows those people to openly make the choice to self-identify as those kinds of people. No accusations, no judgments, just choice.

Bingo!

15 characters