Would you support legislation to make it illegal to get pregnant with out a license?

No, but I do think felons, people who get abortions (both parents), and welfare recipients should be permanently sterilized.

 

I'd consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Actually, we're fine in the West, where only people like OctoMom want more kids than they can afford. Much of the population growth is coming from the Third World, and yes, we need to do our best get contraception and education to them.

A major problem though is that some of these poor women get blackmailed into having sex for survival's sake. Jobs are already hard to come by in the West let alone in poor countries, thus many who do have work are men. So women, even teens, may get pressured into having (usually) unprotected sex in exchange for food and/or shelter and medicine (I've read about this happening in Haiti). They in turn get pregnant and now because they have a child, it's that much more paramount that they are able to get what they need to survive and then they get even more desperate. The cycle keeps repeating as they get knocked up and impregnated again and again. The cycle then is passed down to their children and suddenly there are 50-100 new mouths to feed in 60-70 years' time in only one 3 generational family tree.

While feeing sympathy, I always wondered what these impoverished women were doing with so many children when they couldn't afford to take care of themselves but this is a huge (though not only) reason why. And we help this cycle by sending humanitarian aid, both a blessing and a curse depending on the issues being discussed.

As for the OP, I disagree because there's too much leeway for that to be abused. Imagine if Hitler had given out licenses for pregnancy. See what I mean?

 

For the same reason I am pro choice, I'd be against this kind of legislation. We can't tell people what to put in or do with their bodies. Just as you can't force a woman to carry a baby to term, you can't prevent her from carry a baby to term.

You can't tell people to not have sex, and you can't force people to use a condom, and you can't force people to be sterilized. It's unethical. As unethical as telling a woman she can't have a first trimester abortion - that their religious values supersede their right to control their bodies.

The only way to reduce overpopulation is by giving people a reason not to just sit around and reproduce - which is through education that leads to jobs and opportunity.

 

I have debunked the relevancy of this before on this board and many times overall. Heck, without rehashing every reason why this is irrelevant, I'll just say that if there's not enough fresh water then it doesn't matter if the world's population could fit in your house, people would die because they wouldn't have enough water. And we are having problems with haing enough water in some parts of the world.

 

Deadbeats and people whose children are taken away by Child Protective Services can be added to the sterilization list.

 

In Soviet Russia felon sterilizes you.

 

Whatever the case, I hope more money and power is granted to the federal government. Lord knows they don't have enough of either, and if we are ever to achieve salvation it will only be through a heavy-handed government.

 

Insanity

Rocket River

 

Guess we will see in about thirty years. China is using the one child policy with a little bit of modifications, India have no such policy. India is expected to surpass China in population by the next decade, in fact China is expected to have its population decline within the next twenty years. We will have prime test cases to see how each country turns out in the next couple decades.

My guess is you cannot sustain unchecked population growth in a country, but maybe science will prove me wrong and allow further population growth(not sure it is such a good thing even in that case).

 

the big issue is with low income families having litters of kids that eventually end up reliant on welfare... laws aren't going to change this.

 

IUDs work by preventing sperm from fertilizing the eggs in the first place. There is no conception for life to begin at. So yes, I still can't help but wonder why Republicans, who claim to want far fewer abortions, would oppose a very cheap program that would result in far fewer abortions.

 

It does seem pretty overboard.

What if the welfare recipient gets off welfare and ends up with a good standard of living?

What if the felon just happened to make a mistake. Felons aren't necessarily bad people.

What if the male disagreed with the female's choice?

Temporary sterilization would make a lot more sense.

 

I think it is a great idea. It can be called the "Saving Dear Mother Earth From Evil Mankind Act". I do not think it should require licenses and it should be voluntary. I think the government should pay to give anyone who wants it free sterilization, only they can never have it reversed. They can also set an income limit where they actually pay low income people to get free sterilization say around $5,000, or heck even $10,000 if there were not many volunteers.

Just think, all good liberals surely would want to save dear mother Earth from themselves so they would do it and all the people on welfare would do it to get the money. We could REALLY save this planet in a few generations if these groups stopped reproducing. Heck, they could even give out free cyanide to speed up the process.

 

Sickening

 

Is it a matter of invasiveness that makes this seem cruel and unusual? If so, what if the procedure came to the point of being a uninvasive as a vaccination shot?

I wouldn't support sterilization of "deadbeats" or welfare recipients, due to the precedent. However, I was curious as to what some opponents thought of my point of view.

I want to emphasize the reversible part, too. Permanent sterilization should be reserved for the Ariel Castros of the world, not doled out to the irresponsible.


On another note, I want to say that the best way of curbing overpopulation BEFORE it becomes a problem is education. As it is with many issues. People just need to be willing to make the investment. Unfortunately, investing in prevention is difficult since people don't want to acknowledge a problem until they a neck deep in it.

 

I voted yes, but would have to understand the mechanics behind what would happen if someone DID get pregnant without getting a license. If that would cause issues for the children, then I would have voted no.

 

A better question would be why others should pay for your birth control. If you want to have sex recreationally, you should buy the equipment. That really shouldn't be controversial if it is as cheap as you claim it to be.