I wish conservatives would make up their minds.
Their rallying cry is "smaller government, less regulation" yet everytime you turn around they're contradicting themselves with proposals to expand government and increase regulation. So it's perfectly reasonable to impose restrictions on a woman's right to procreate and practically mimic Communist China's family planning policy - that's a civic necessity of government but STAY AWAY FROM MY RIGHT TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON - that's none of the government's business.
Gimme a break.

Anonymous wrote:21st century Jim Crow (separate and unequal) in full effect.
Yeah you're a citizen and you've got freedom and rights in theory but you're poor and in all likelihood a minority so we'll just amend those freedoms and rights as we see fit since in reality you're not a full-fledged citizen.
Gotta love it.

Here's a different angle on this discussion. Fundamentally it's more about money than it is about rights. You have the rights and freedoms to swim laps in a banana cream pie 8 feet wide if you want to. IF you can afford it. You shouldn't have an expectation of taxpayers to cough up the money for your pie-sloshing frivolity. Similarly, it should never be your expectation to just pop out a bunch of babies when you have no means of support, and just expect the taxpayer to take care of your irresponsible frivolity there either. Just because you have the right to have babies doesn't mean you have some kind of God-given right to receive taxpayer money to help support them. And if you do receive money, why shouldn't there be preconditions on it? There are routinely preconditions on receiving money - when you borrow money for a home mortgage there are terms and conditions you must agree to in order to receive the money. Don't agree and you don't get the money. Screw up, and the deal is revoked. When organizations apply for grants, there are terms and conditions they must agree to in order to receive the money, and so on. Why should this be any different? Why should it be free money with no strings attached in this case? Why not have people agree to programs that would put them on a path to better economic and family stability as terms and conditions for receiving the money?

21st century Jim Crow (separate and unequal) in full effect.
Yeah you're a citizen and you've got freedom and rights in theory but you're poor and in all likelihood a minority so we'll just amend those freedoms and rights as we see fit since in reality you're not a full-fledged citizen.
Gotta love it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another great irony of this issue is that it is predominantly male politicians arguing the ethics and morality of this issue and initiating proposals to address this "problem" of women having babies while on welfare.
Where are the women in this great debate?
Where are the female legislators and elected officials on the matter?

How many female legislators do you think are fine with the number of teens that get pregnant? I doubt it's many.

Being against teen pregnancy dosen't mean you're an advocate of forced sterilization.

Oh FFS. No one is talking about "force" and "sterilization".

IF you want welfare you agree to
TEMPORARY methods that prevent pregnancy.

Decide on Monday you want the implant out, get it out on Tuesday. Goodbye welfare check. No force, and no sterilization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another great irony of this issue is that it is predominantly male politicians arguing the ethics and morality of this issue and initiating proposals to address this "problem" of women having babies while on welfare.
Where are the women in this great debate?
Where are the female legislators and elected officials on the matter?

How many female legislators do you think are fine with the number of teens that get pregnant? I doubt it's many.

Being against teen pregnancy dosen't mean you're an advocate of forced sterilization.

I think most here were just suggesting making it freely available - you've somehow twisted that into this vision of stormtroopers kicking down doors and forcibly sterilizing people.

Meanwhile, the only other alternatives that keep coming up here: a.) denying it's a problem and/or b.) deflecting attention away from it certainly aren't solutions to the problem. If there are women or female legislators who have a solution, nobody is keeping them from putting their solution forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another great irony of this issue is that it is predominantly male politicians arguing the ethics and morality of this issue and initiating proposals to address this "problem" of women having babies while on welfare.
Where are the women in this great debate?
Where are the female legislators and elected officials on the matter?

How many female legislators do you think are fine with the number of teens that get pregnant? I doubt it's many.

Being against teen pregnancy dosen't mean you're an advocate of forced sterilization.

Anonymous wrote:Another great irony of this issue is that it is predominantly male politicians arguing the ethics and morality of this issue and initiating proposals to address this "problem" of women having babies while on welfare.
Where are the women in this great debate?
Where are the female legislators and elected officials on the matter?

How many female legislators do you think are fine with the number of teens that get pregnant? I doubt it's many.

Another great irony of this issue is that it is predominantly male politicians arguing the ethics and morality of this issue and initiating proposals to address this "problem" of women having babies while on welfare.
Where are the women in this great debate?
Where are the female legislators and elected officials on the matter?

I'm a liberal in favor of universal healthcare yet I don't think people who can't afford to raise kids should be having kids. I think teenage pregnancies and single moms are a huge issue in our country and are a huge driver of poverty, and in particular it's a huge driver of multigenerational poverty as well as it tends to limit the mother's options.

So how do you propose to deal with this issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple fact of the matter is poor people don't mean shit especially those who are women and minorities and that's the prevailing stereotype about pregnant moms on welfare they're either black or Hispanic in other words subhuman, they're animals as far as society is concerned so the right to dictate their freedoms and the conditions of their support services is not even up for discussion, they're animals it's up to the rich civilized folk to decide what's in their best interests. Nevermind that most welfare recipients are white because while it may be true it's not what the stereotype says and that's all that matters is the image the impression the perception of the underprivileged and the only argument is about how to handle these animals without being too apathetic or too sympathetic.

As you point out, most welfare recipients are white. I have no problem dictating to these white people that if you want a welfare check, you go into the doctor's room to get an implant in your arm first.

The argument that it's a racist dog whistle is a red herring given how many are white. And the fact that they are white doesn't change the fact that it's a problem.

Who says it's all about pro-life right wingers? I'm a liberal in favor of universal healthcare yet I don't think people who can't afford to raise kids should be having kids. I think teenage pregnancies and single moms are a huge issue in our country and are a huge driver of poverty, and in particular it's a huge driver of multigenerational poverty as well as it tends to limit the mother's options.

I think it's a problem that needs to be dealt with every bit as much as income inequality, raising the minimum wage, the problem of corporate CEOs making tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, the problem of hedge fund managers and multinational corporations paying zero or minimal taxes. We need to deal with these problems at all levels, rather than just deflecting.

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

YES! They want No birth control, No abortion, and No helping the kids you end up having.

Makes No fucking sense.

So wait... They oppose contraceptives andante in ACA, close down abortion clinics any way they can, and then suddenly want to stick them with Norplant AFTER they have kids they can't afford.

How about this. It's the most economic, pro life anti welfare proposal in the planet. Offer Norplant and Mirena for free to every woman of childbearing age. No questions , no means test, nada. Just do it.

The result will be a dramatic drop in both abortion and kids on welfare, results already measured in studies.

What is the is the cost of this win win? $1 billion per year.

Best money ever spent. Pro life, reduces kids on welfare.

Anonymous wrote:Simple fact of the matter is poor people don't mean shit especially those who are women and minorities and that's the prevailing stereotype about pregnant moms on welfare they're either black or Hispanic in other words subhuman, they're animals as far as society is concerned so the right to dictate their freedoms and the conditions of their support services is not even up for discussion, they're animals it's up to the rich civilized folk to decide what's in their best interests. Nevermind that most welfare recipients are white because while it may be true it's not what the stereotype says and that's all that matters is the image the impression the perception of the underprivileged and the only argument is about how to handle these animals without being too apathetic or too sympathetic.

As you point out, most welfare recipients are white. I have no problem dictating to these white people that if you want a welfare check, you go into the doctor's room to get an implant in your arm first.

Because the government should have no role in baby-making decisions. Period.

And, luckily, despite what some fools on this thread may wish for, it will never happen.