LA Rep: Pay Poor to get Tubes Tied

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iSaint, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #1
    Link

    As someone that lives in an area with high poverty, I support this. Men have babies with multiple women to "pass their name down." They have no means to support their family. Women have more babies for more welfare money. High school age mothers are a part of the game as well, as their own family will encourage giving birth to bring more money into the household.
     
  2. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    That's revolting. Would state ordered eugenics be the next step in 'solving' social problems?
     
  3. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #3
    Would you support state funded condoms/pills/diaphrams/NuvaRings? What about state funded abortion? State funded foster care/orphanages/adoption programs?

    How does state funded surgical birth control differ?

    As long as there is no state mandate to get the procedure, I fail to see why this is revolting or how it could lead to eugenics.
     
  4. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #4
    They also need to extend it to include poor men who might want a vasectomy.
     
  5. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    The problem is that these are surgeries which present risks that are simply not present with using forms of birth control such as condoms, the pill, etc. To compare the two as equal in any other way except what they are intended to do is laughable. Also, these methods are not necessarily reversible, especially getting your "tubes tied." Where as if you are using more traditional forms of birth control and choose you would like to have a child you can just stop using them.

    The way the story presents the issue is far from detailed, but I suspect the guy has good intentions. I think public education and making monies available for women and men who would like to have this more permanent option available to them would be great. However, offering up a "reward" of sorts to get it done is a little ridiculous in my eyes.
     
  6. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #6

    You don't find it repulsive that someone's bright idea for solving a social problem is to pay "poor" men and women to the neutered? I suppose it's easier than actually fixing the problem.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin, the proposal has the whiff of National Socialism about it.
     
  7. iSaint thread starter macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #7
    Did you read my original post? They are abusing the system at your cost.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    Quite awhile back I remember reading about a woman in southern California who donated a bunch of money to a birth control clinic. The purpose of the donation was to give ~$200 to every woman agreed to have the drug Norplant. It's a form of birth control that is implanted under the skin and lasts ~10 years.
    The clinic dealt with a lot of poor people and drug users.

    There was a lot of controversy at the time but I thought it was a pretty good idea then and still is today.

    Too many children is a quick way to poverty and women who do use drugs end up with drug addicted children.

    There's nothing wrong with helping women avoid pregnancy.
     
  10. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #10
    my 2c:
    offer a free service to man and women who want it, independent of census: fine.
    to mandate or incentivate it with monetary compensation: not fine.
     
  11. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #11
    Is this any different than European countries who pay couples to have children to stop their negative population growth?
     
  12. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #12
    Suure. I guess poor people only have children to abuse the system. That makes state sanctioned eugenics all perfectly fine and problem free.

    Man, some people …
     
  13. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #13
    Yes, because they are not targeting a special group of people. This, however, is all-out eugenics.
     
  14. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #14

    Yes. I've read your link plus some more and it gets better. Much better.

    Mr. LaBrozzu also proposes a tax incentive for college-educated, high-income, middle class families to propagate more.

    You'll have excuse me, but I read his idea as: "Oh my God, we're being overrun by poor blacks and hispanics! We need to f**k more!"
     
  15. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #15
    As someone from Louisiana, I am for this idea. We have a huge rate of low income households filled with children and there is no sense in that, especially when, as it mentions, the educated and affluent are not reproducing nearly as much. The collective population of this state, in many regards, is going downhill.

    They are not forcing people to get their tubes tied, they are merely offering a monetary reason to get it done if someone so chooses. There are a LOT of people who abuse the welfare system here. This could at least help solve the birthrate issue.
     
  16. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #16
    its not mandated.......holy cow take a chill pill
     
  17. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #17
    In short, when people stop being poor, people get an education and proper living standards, funnily enough, they also have fewer children. This is not only true in the western world, as it has zilch to do with "abusing the system" even though you can surely find some, this is also true in the rest of the world, no matter if there is a system to "abuse" or not.

    We know, we're discussing the idea, the ethics and so on. At least I am. Otherwise I couldn't care less, as I live on the eastern side of the Atlantic.
     
  18. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    I don't disagree with you. However, this isn't something that will wear off in time or that is entirely reversible, like condoms and whatnot.

    My biggest point of contention with the idea is that you are dangling a large chunk of change in front of people desperate for money for a permanent solution. Some thing like Norplant or even Depo Provera isn't permanent, nor is it as risky as surgery. That's all I'm saying. There are better alternatives than this.

    You hang $1000 in front of a young drug addicted woman, she gets her tubes tied, gets clean later in her life and then can't have her own child. That's not right. There's a difference between helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy and sterilizing them.

    EDIT: Just to say something else...

    Do you know how expensive it is to not get pregnant? I think the better solution would be to make things like the pill, or nuva ring readily available to women at reasonable costs. I am on a generic with good insurance and it costs $20 a month, it could be triple that or more without insurance. Wealthier, more affluent people, like those FrankieTDouglas mention can AFFORD not to get pregnant. Just another avenue to look at.
     
  19. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #19
    If I had a nickel for every time I heard that.... :D


    I'd have a dime. ;)

    BL.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    I agree that the proposal in Louisiana is a bad one. It's targeting the poor and in Louisiana that means mostly black women. It's racism in disguise. I also agree that coercing women into getting their tubes tied is a very bad idea.

    Like you say, birth control should be offered free to every woman who wants it. Putting up barriers to birth control is not a good idea.

    I do feel quite strongly though that women with addiction problems should have implants if they want access to services. Nobody wins when another drug or alcohol damaged child is brought into the world.
     
  21. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #21
    What are you talking about? Have you ever been to Louisiana that is not New Orleans? I was not even referring to black people. The poor in Louisiana is not just black women, it's a poverty line that transcends racial barriers. We have entire sections of neighborhoods that are typically viewed as the poverty regions, and while they are usually self-segregated and there is little to no racial crossing between regions, they are still equally poor. This is a very racially-diverse state. I don't know if there is an acceptable tolerance of the various groups in their views of each other, but the people are there.

    It's sort of the exact opposite of my experience this summer living in Maine, which was very racially tolerant of all people, yet it was also the least racially diverse place I've ever lived. Those views become switched here.

    An increase in education lowers the amount of children in a household, but it is hard to educate people who drop out of high school due to pregnancies. It is hard to offer education to people that are working two jobs because they have three children from two women and no wife to speak of. There is a continuing cycle that does not permit the people here to catch up, so they essentially repeat the mistakes of their elders.

    If people could receive free surgical solutions to prevent pregnancies, but were not paid any money, would this idea then be acceptable to those currently against it? Free birth control for men and women is available already to those without insurance. This is available at the health clinic throughout Louisiana, if not the entire nation.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    I suspect that the people who would take advantage of such a system are the ones who aren't interested in abusing the system. Without a coercive component, you'll never get those intent on abusing the system to change their behavior.

    And I think we'd all agree that forcibly sterilizing certain groups of people is well out of bounds.

    So I really don't see this doing much to solve the problem it purports to address. Free birth control and access to "morning after" pills would likely do much more to address the issue. But as we've seen, that is a non-starter in places like yours.

    Besides, wouldn't women having their tubes tied just encourage them to have sex? That's the same reason given by many conservative folks when the topic of birth control comes up...

    I agree. Instead of paying them to go this route, let's make it a free service available to all. Let those who want it get it done without cost, or incentive.
     
  23. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #23
    The point I was trying to make was that all options should be available and easily accessible, not just sterilization. I don't think offering up a monetary incentive to entice people not to have children makes any sense what-so-ever, and what's more, I think it could have some very negative results without the proper precautions being taken.

    As I said earlier, the article linked provides very little detail, other than to say participants (male and female) would get $1000. From what I know, vasectomies are sometimes easily reversible, tubal ligation, however, is not. Encouraging this option through a monetary incentive has the potential to render desperate women steril when their current situation might only be temporary.

    If, as you say, this option were simply to be made available for free, I think that would be a very positive thing. Then, women and men who are looking for a long term solution would have that option readily available.

    One thing to keep in mind though, is that getting a tubal can have other adverse effects on a woman's body. It increases the possibility of ectopic pregnancy (which is where the fertilized egg implants itself on the wall of the fillopian tube), which is very serious and can be life threatening, and can cause hormonal imbalances as well as irregular and sometimes increasingly painful periods. I've know a couple women who bled for months on end after a tubal and ended up having to have a full hysterectomy (or, in one case an endometrial ablation).

    So, then, the question becomes, if something goes wrong with the surgery who is responsible? If the state is encouraging the surgery through monetary incentives then should they be responsible for post-operative care if something goes wrong during the surgery (it is, after all, surgery)? By removing the monetary incentive and simply offering the procedure at no charge to the patient you then put all responsibility on the patient. Then it is strictly up to the woman or man choosing to get the surgery to be responsible for their own decision, leaving zero gray area.

    I think the best solution would be to put all those thousands of dollars into increasing public awareness of the availability of free contraceptives, educating men and women on "safe sex" practices that decrease the possibility of unwanted pregnancies, and providing access to and education about vasectomies and tubal ligations.

    Sorry, I can be a little long winded. :eek:
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Like most civilised countries, we already have all those things.
    It's bribery, it's racist, it's designed to appeal to those fearful of being overrun by the underclass.

    They are proposing just that.

    More than a whiff, it positively reeks of it.

    Who are "they"? Who are "you"? Do "you" define yourself by not being "them"?
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    Demonising people is not an argument validating putting pressure on them to undergo surgical procedures for your perceived benefit. You need to reevaluate your ethics.
     

Share This Page