Pay poor $1000 to have vasectomy or tubes tied?

***NHL Fever*** · Sep 26th 2008, 02:38 AM

This was one of the ideas proposed by republican louisiana state representative John LaBruzzo.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...n_plan_fi.html

These types of proposals bring out the hard-right side in me, and I have to say I think its a good idea. Mostly this comes from experience of dealing with the various socio-economic spectrum of people in the hospital.

Some will cringe at the thought, but I think its reasonable because:
1) Its a choice
2) Generational welfare is a reality which few programs can address well
3) It sorts out those who are poor because of selfish decisions from those who have bad luck/no opportunity. If you're willing to sacrifice your ability to have kids for a quick grand, you're probably not the best person for the job of parenting in the first place. But if you're somebody who's poor but still resists $1000 because of your values for marriage and children, then all blessings to you.
4) Most of the poor class who get pregnant did not want to be pregnant
5) It seems cost-effective
6) Would lower abortions

**AngelAuthor** · Sep 26th 2008, 03:02 AM

I didn't read it, but if it suggests giving a lump sum to people who are living off of government largesse in order to shut down their reproductive capability, then I'm all for it.

**Laish** · Sep 26th 2008, 03:24 AM

I think the whole idea is beyond evil . Giving people money to mutilate their bodies so we as a people ( the government) can save money an pay out less in welfare benefits is just beyond me . If we as a county would do this then count me out I will pack my bags an not look back. You know this sounds like something that Margaret Sanger would be for not a Christian

Your brother in Christ
Bill

***diffangle*** · Sep 26th 2008, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Laish

I think the whole idea is beyond evil . Giving people money to mutilate their bodies so we as a people ( the government) can save money an pay out less in welfare benefits is just beyond me . If we as a county would do this then count me out I will pack my bags an not look back. You know this sounds like something that Margaret Sanger would be for not a Christian

Your brother in Christ
Bill

Are you against birth control and voluntary vasectomies/tube tying?

***IMINXTC*** · Sep 26th 2008, 03:42 AM

Despite the harsh realities that make such a thing seem so plausible these days, it sounds to me like trading one's dignity and potential heritage for a bowl of soup. I find the whole thing utterly repugnant. Has self respect become a passing fancy?

Outside of Christ, I suppose it is anyway.

**Rebelnote** · Sep 26th 2008, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by SFASH

Despite the harsh realities that make such a thing seem so plausible these days, it sounds to me like trading one's dignity and potential heritage for a bowl of soup. I find the whole thing utterly repugnant. Has self respect become a passing fancy?

Outside of Christ, I suppose it is anyway.

I'm not sure what's more repugnant, this, or irresponsible parents who's children are all in foster care because they can't or won't take care of them.
I've been involved with the foster system most of my life through friends and family members. I know a 4-year-old boy who's mother never aborted him because she was too doped up to even know she was pregnant. Another little girl at age 2 has genital herpes, and vaginal mutilation from her meth-dealing mother's abusive boyfriend, and I could go on, and on, and on.
I know God can change hearts, but from the here and now perspective, there are just some people who should NOT be reproducing, or even within the vicinity of any children.

I think this legislation is a wonderful idea.

**AngelAuthor** · Sep 26th 2008, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Rebelnote

I'm not sure what's more repugnant, this, or irresponsible parents who's children are all in foster care because they can't or won't take care of them.

Too right. There are hundreds...thousands of men and women out there who are straight-up shiftless and indigent. No desire or intention to work or improve their lives...and they keep producing, bringing children into deplorable conditions of near (or total) starvation and sub-standard sanitation.

There is no reason for them to not WILLINGLY stop reproducing in this method that isn't necessarily permanent. It isn't abortion, no one is being killed, and the benefits to society go way beyond money.

**apothanein kerdos** · Sep 26th 2008, 05:37 AM

Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?

**AngelAuthor** · Sep 26th 2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by apothanein kerdos

Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?

It would be unethical to FORCE the issue. There are already plenty of programs in place to get people an education for free or very nearly so. These people aren't biting.

**Rebelnote** · Sep 26th 2008, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by apothanein kerdosl

Why not put money toward giving them education, or giving economically disadvantaged youth free education at quality institutions? If you want to solve the problem, why not do it with more ethical means?

This makes no sense. Even if all the money used to pay people to get the snip snip, it wouldn't even come close the amount of money it would cost to put those children in foster homes, and higher education. The average cost now to raise a child is over a million dollars.

And why is it unethical to stop irresponsible people from having children?

**AngelAuthor** · Sep 26th 2008, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rebelnote

This makes no sense. Even if all the money used to pay people to get the snip snip, it wouldn't even come close the amount of money it would cost to put those children in foster homes, and higher education. The average cost now to raise a child is over a million dollars.

And why is it unethical to stop irresponsible people from having children?

?? I think we're on the same side here, and you may have misunderstood my post. You're totally right, btw.

**Rebelnote** · Sep 26th 2008, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Angyl

?? I think we're on the same side here, and you may have misunderstood my post. You're totally right, btw.

oops, I quoted the wrong poster... soorry

I fixed the original post, if you read it, it'll make more sense.

***NHL Fever*** · Sep 26th 2008, 11:09 PM

There's plenty of evidence for the benefit of social programs on society. In Canada we have lots more social programs, and lots less crime and health problems. However there's no reason this contraceptive could not be added to the mix. Its truly a free choice, nothing is being forced on anyone. But it does make a real-world connection between priorities and logical consequences. If you're needing to fund a drug habit it serves to purposes:
1) Decrease likelihood of crime (although perhaps only temporary)
2) Decrease likelihood of drug addict having kids

Overall though, it still stand that if you want $1000 more than you want kids, than its a case of you get what you deserve.

***diffangle*** · Sep 26th 2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Angyl

Too right. There are hundreds...thousands of men and women out there who are straight-up shiftless and indigent. No desire or intention to work or improve their lives...and they keep producing, bringing children into deplorable conditions of near (or total) starvation and sub-standard sanitation(and create the next generation of those who have no desire or intention to work or improve their lives). This would help to diminish the numbers of future welfare users.

There is no reason for them to not WILLINGLY stop reproducing in this method that isn't necessarily permanent. It isn't abortion, no one is being killed, and the benefits to society go way beyond money.

Completely agree!

Who would ever find all those who need the $1,000 to keep them from making babies?

You do know the women would mostly pay that price, since so many men have nothing better to do than make babies all over the place and then disappear

Crack heads(men included) know how to get money from the system in order to support their habits... they would find this program.

**Diggindeeper** · Sep 26th 2008, 05:43 AM

Aw, come on, now.

Who would ever find all those who need the $1,000 to keep them from making babies?

Will we have Federal, State and County Purity Violator Officers?

Or just whisk them out of the delivery room to the Vasectomies/Tube Tying Surgery Room? (You do know the women would mostly pay that price, since so many men have nothing better to do than make babies all over the place and then disappear.)

Do we turn in the violators, or what?

Do we start this in High School or Middle School?

And, if one state makes that a law, can an offender visiting from another state be arrested and taken to surgery?

At what number of children would they be violating the Purity Law? I had 4 children myself. That would not be allowed in China, you know!

Listen, I pay enough for my Medical Insurance. I don't want my taxes raised to cover other people's non-essential surgeries. Is that all state representative John LaBruzzo has to do...sit around and dream up more noneffectual ways to get more tax money?

It would do just as much good to buy an island somewhere and ship all the offenders to the island, to fend for themselves, without my tax money. No government wefare for them. No more food stamps. No more government freebies of any kind. To me, that makes about as much sense.