[DanaC]

I did NOT advocate sterilization for the poor. That was an assumption you guys made.

No Lady Sidhe you did not, however Wolf posted "I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots." I was poking fun at more than just your posts LS.

Oh and

Like it or not, when the government gives people money for every child they spit out, that there are those who are going to keep spitting out kids cause they're too lazy to get off their asses and work (NO, I am not saying EVERYONE does this, so chill out). Anybody who doesn't see the evidence right in front of their eyes every day has their eyes closed.

Perhaps ( if indeed the number of people having children in order to claim welfare is anything other than negligible when compared with what I would imagine are the majority of claimants who simply need a little assistance ) it might be useful if your government made social provision a) easier to get and b) not dependant upon having young dependants.

Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.

Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?

Do you REALLY think that people who abuse drugs should be able to procreate, passing the addiction, and the resultant brain damage, along to innocent children? These people don't care about themselves, and they certainly don't care enough about the fetus to quit while pregnant, so what makes you think that they will care about it once it's born? Especially if they have a history of this (like the girl I cited). Don't you think that they should prove that they can stay drug-free for at least a year before being allowed to consider procreation?

Especially if they have a history of this?.......ESPECIALLY? So......you still think they should be disallowed even if they do NOT have a history of this? Is being a drug addict enough reason alone to warrant enforced sterilisation? Again, do you not see how dangerous it could be to set such a precedent? What if the prospective mother can't stop smoking? is a hopeless nicotine addict? Do "we" step in and sterilise her? Who decides to do this? How enforcable would such a measure be? How about marijuana? There was a time when the medical fraternity in the USA swore blind that marijuana made you mad. Which drugs do we consider dangerous enough as to require the protection of the unborn foetus from them? Alcohol? Heroine? Cannabis? Crack cocaine? Tobacco?

I understand ( I really do) your concern for the unborn child. But it strikes me that we really must protect the rights of the currently extant human being rather than the idea of future progeny