To "British" RPers...

[Jude]

I think all of this is dancing around the unfortunately necessary topic of whether or not we should sterilize people.

If they're on government benefits, I'd say it's within our right to demand they be sterilized if they want to keep receiving their paychecks.  They can always turn them down and put their children up for adoption (or if this rule is in place they'd probably not have them at all).

EDIT:  I'd say the cap should be 2-3 kids that we'll support you on before you have to get sterilized (plus there should be some sort of inquiry into your spending habits to make sure you're not treating your government handout as disposal income as these people obviously are).  Just require receipts for everything and accounting of where your funds go.

[September]

Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

[Trieste]

If Random Young Woman were living off of Random Boyfriend, and kept having kids so that he'd have to pay more money and so that he could not leave her out of moral obligation, he would not have the right to demand that she sterilize herself or allow him to sterilize her.

The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.

[Jude]

If Random Young Woman were living off of Random Boyfriend, and kept having kids so that he'd have to pay more money and so that he could not leave her out of moral obligation, he would not have the right to demand that she sterilize herself or allow him to sterilize her.

Difference is, random boyfriend only has to continue to pay so long as he continues to get her pregnant and father these kids.  He can stop fucking her at any point and he's not liable.  What exactly can the government do?

The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.

It's a false analogy, the two are completely different.  For one, you could argue if the Government has a moral responsibility to pay (and even if you agree yes, I'm sure you can agree the responsibility of the father is much stronger).

It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

[Trieste]

Difference is, random boyfriend only has to continue to pay so long as he continues to get her pregnant and father these kids.  He can stop fucking her at any point and he's not liable.  What exactly can the government do?
It's a false analogy, the two are completely different.  For one, you could argue if the Government has a moral responsibility to pay (and even if you agree yes, I'm sure you can agree the responsibility of the father is much stronger).

It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

The point that continues to be lost - and one that you pointed out, Jude, and since seem to have forgotten - is that there is no evidence that this is widespread, and any legislation meant to curb the excesses of folks like the Daveys are going to hit families not cheating the system as well. They are painted with the same broad strokes, and whatever system is devised will be open to fraud. The non-cheaters are the majority of the system. What happened to figuring out which is the baby, again?

The boyfriend in my analogy will still have to pay child support by our current laws, and he still doesn't have the right to demand sterilization-or-I-walk.

Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

Did you actually have a point, or were you just wanting to take a moment to gloat at your own ability to be smug and glib and all those things?

[HairyHeretic]

Ok folks, let's keep things civil, hmm?

[Trieste]

Thanks, Hairy.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

It seems like blackmail.

There are too many variables to settle this.  All we can do is argue the way we feel and what we believe and that's the reason the laws are the way they are.  Everyone who has a voice and depends on the votes of their constituents has a hand in forming the laws that govern these benefits. 

[Jude]

Do you mean that he has to pay child support to the children he fathered, or all of them?  If it's all of them, I wasn't aware of that (could very well be the case--I think it varies state to state right?).  I meant he can keep his costs the same by no longer fathering any of her children (which is roughly analogous to forcing the mother to be sterilized if she goes over the limit of children in the government situation in my opinion).

I can understand where you're coming from though, some people are fundamentally not OK with removing someone's reproductive potential, even in the case of child molesters (not that I'm saying that's you).  I personally think that's a principled stand which can't be debated since... it's based on principles.  If that's the case in how you feel about it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree or discuss alternatives (I'm sure there are other ways of handling the situation which solve the problem without such drastic measures now that I think about it).

The rest of your point is well-taken though and you're absolutely right about my indiscretion there.  If this isn't a frequently occurring phenomenon then there's no need to worry about it, but if it is, I would support those rules (in lieu of a better idea).

EDIT:  Cleaned up some grammatical errors and strange word choices.

[Vekseid]

Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

Right now, if they got any sort of decent job, they'd lose all of the benefits. That's the trap of the welfare system and part of the reason why I'm so vehemently opposed to 'Fairtax'. That sort of thing actively encourages a welfare class.

What I'd love to see is actually providing rewards for partial effort. The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Making Work Pay credits are absolutely brilliant in this regard. "We'll help you get started, but you need to take part" is miles ahead of "If you make a cent get bent."

The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.

That's fine if the government can also absolve itself of responsibility for the children, which is even harder to politically tolerate. What is going to happen, revoke citizenship?

[Oniya]

I'd have to point out that there are people out there who are financially and emotionally able to care for the children that these people are using as meal tickets.  And if the children were removed from situations where they were being used as meal tickets, then the abusers of the system might catch a clue that repeated pregnancies weren't going to benefit them any.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Who decides this children should be taken away from their families?
Who decides where these children should go?
Where do the children go?  Are they adopted?  Are they put in foster care?
Where, in this world, is the foster care system better than the welfare system?
You would be exchanging one system of paying people that have children for another system of paying people that take care of children.
No matter what, it's still the children who are punished most.

[Serephino]

I think I'm with Veks right now.  The system as is fucking sucks!  People like this annoy me to no end because they use up funds so they aren't available for honest people that actually need it. 

I'm disabled.  I can't go look for a job that pays more.  I'm stuck.  Yet I can't afford health insurance, and I can't get Medical Assistance.  My benefits, which aren't enough to live off of, are too much.  I recently had my food stamp benefits reviewed, and even though my income hasn't changed, they lowered it!  I too could be better off if I stopped getting benefits and acquired a few kids.

One guy I dated in high school had a mom like that.  She didn't work, but rather lived off of child support, food stamps, and SSI that she got from one of the boys being autistic.  They didn't go on fancy vacations, but they lived pretty well.   

[RubySlippers]

Might I make a case here if children are important to a nations future and the parents overall are not breaking any laws here and no one made that case then what is wrong

I would say having children will make the future society stronger even if the girls turn out like the mother they have then more children and there is no proof they will turn out the same way.

[GeekFury]

Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

While I admit that would be the best idea, I myself am struggling tof ind one ( Though I don't have a kid to feed let along half a dozen. ) but I agree with Vekseid, it might just be best then to sterlize them if they think poping out spawn entitles them to more money. Otherwise it's normalize all benefits to that of a 4 person family and if they want more they have to find away to subsadize it, if even via work based scheme like public service and what have you.

[DarklingAlice]

Who decides this children should be taken away from their families?
Who decides where these children should go?
Where do the children go?  Are they adopted?  Are they put in foster care?
Where, in this world, is the foster care system better than the welfare system?
You would be exchanging one system of paying people that have children for another system of paying people that take care of children.
No matter what, it's still the children who are punished most.

This seems unduly cynical. In what way would the children be harmed by being adopted? Adoptive parents generally must meet certain economic standards and receive scrutiny from child welfare agencies for the first several years. The children would be in a more stable environment that actively desired them for purposes beyond a pay-check. Further, most foster parents do not rely on state money as their sole (or even majority) source of income, allowing the foster family to be less of a burden on the state than the welfare family.

Now, under what circumstances you can remove children is a contentious issue. I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance. However, Oniya makes the very good point that there are plenty of stable adoptive and foster families worldwide, and to equate them with welfare families ignores the benefits (especially in the areas of health and education) that an adoptive family can give a child.

Might I make a case here if children are important to a nations future and the parents overall are not breaking any laws here and no one made that case then what is wrong

I would say having children will make the future society stronger even if the girls turn out like the mother they have then more children and there is no proof they will turn out the same way.

It is fallacy to think that societies are made stronger by increasing their population. This works up to a certain limiting factor at which point the population begins to struggle under the weight of its members. This can be seen all across nature and humans are no exception. Having children is beneficial to societies  when it stabilizes their population size and replenishes it after disasters and losses. Blind population increase leads to a peak catastrophe.

While I admit that would be the best idea, I myself am struggling tof ind one ( Though I don't have a kid to feed let along half a dozen. ) but I agree with Vekseid, it might just be best then to sterlize them if they think poping out spawn entitles them to more money. Otherwise it's normalize all benefits to that of a 4 person family and if they want more they have to find away to subsadize it, if even via work based scheme like public service and what have you.

There is no basis for the government to sterilize anyone, nor do I really think you could find one. If you want to give economic incentives for people to have themselves sterilized, maybe that's okay. If you only want to extend economic benefits for having children to the first x children, maybe that's okay. If you want to put in a child cap, even that may be okay. But sterilizing someone crosses the line. It is less visually graphic but analogous to cutting of the hands of thieves. It is a disproportionate response that has permanent consequences.

[Jude]

If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

[DarklingAlice]

If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

You have mentioned that before. Do you actually have an argument? Or just a feeling?

I agree this should be criminal, but even if a law is made against it, why should it be punished differently than any other crime? Forced alteration of the body violates some very key rights to the control of your own flesh, it is a permanent solution for a crime that probably does not warrant life-long punishment, and it is cruel and unusual. What could possibly give any government body the right to forcibly sterilize someone?

[Beguile's Mistress]

This seems unduly cynical. In what way would the children be harmed by being adopted? Adoptive parents generally must meet certain economic standards and receive scrutiny from child welfare agencies for the first several years. The children would be in a more stable environment that actively desired them for purposes beyond a pay-check.

I think it's naive to believe it right to take children away from their parents simply because you've decided they are abusing a benefit system and nothing else.

It's also naive to believe that foster homes are better for these children than parents who love and want them but feel it's better to take benefits from the government than subject their children to substandard housing and nutrition as well as leave them to the mercy of relatives, friends and strangers for care while both parents work to support the family and earn less that they get in benefits.

A system that provides parents with the ability to work it this way is what needs to be changed, not where the children live.

Further, most foster parents do not rely on state money as their sole (or even majority) source of income, allowing the foster family to be less of a burden on the state than the welfare family.

Most families receiving benefits don't do it for that reason either.

However, I personally know of two foster families who take in children on a temporary basis until a more permanent position can be found.  The children are there from one week to thirty days yet the family receives a full 30-day benefit check for the stay.  No money is spent on these children other than to provide food and housing.  One family, in one month, housed more than 20 children and received a full month benefit for each of them.  The longest stay was 17 days, the shortest stay was less than 12 hours. 

And, yes, I was told by both that they do this because it's easier on them, they don't get attached to the kids, they don't have to worry about school, doctors and dentists and they don't have to by clothes.  They do it for the money.  Now, both have children of their own and neither adult works.  They live off the state subsidies. 

According to the thinking supported here, not only should the foster children be taken away from them but so should their own children.

Now, under what circumstances you can remove children is a contentious issue. I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance. However, Oniya makes the very good point that there are plenty of stable adoptive and foster families worldwide, and to equate them with welfare families ignores the benefits (especially in the areas of health and education) that an adoptive family can give a child.

I don't want to live in a country where someone can go into a home and remove children simply for a political reason.  I don't have to agree with parents who abuse the system this way.  They may be unethical but they aren't criminals, though.  I certainly don't want to be the one to tell a child "Your mommy and daddy aren't your mommy and daddy any longer because I don't like the way they get the money to feed and house and clothe you."

[Jude]

You have mentioned that before. Do you actually have an argument? Or just a feeling?

I'm not seeing you put forth a logical argument either.  Claiming something is a right as a basis for your judgment is sort of... well... not an argument.  That's a statement of principle, and if you believe, on principle, that people should not be sterilized by the government under any circumstances, then that's your prerogative.  I can't argue with that.

As far as your analogy goes, cutting off someone's hand severely inhibits them in many ways.  Being sterilized just means you can't reproduce.  It's more akin to removing someone's ability to steal on a cognitive level than cutting off their hand; there's no collateral damage (well, there may be relatively minor collateral health effects I'm not aware of, but I'm fairly sure it's a negligible risk or else people would never voluntarily get their tubes tied).

There are also different degrees of sterilization, and perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I know having a vasectomy is a reversible process.  Whatever they do to prevent people from reproducing it doesn't have to be permanent.

I agree this should be criminal, but even if a law is made against it, why should it be punished differently than any other crime? Forced alteration of the body violates some very key rights to the control of your own flesh

People's rights are removed all the time when they break laws.  You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't make the death penalty (the taking of your life) unconstitutional.  Granted, there are some rights which are universal and extended even to prisoners.

it is a permanent solution for a crime that probably does not warrant life-long punishment, and it is cruel and unusual. What could possibly give any government body the right to forcibly sterilize someone?

It could be done in a cruel and unusual fashion, but I'm willing to bet there's a relatively surgical, clean way to remove someone's ability to reproduce with minimal invasiveness and a relative degree of civility.  You're using hyperbolic language to describe it as something other than a simple medical procedure someone would have to undergo if they want to continue to receive benefits.  They aren't deprived of choice completely; if they want to keep their ability to reproduce, all they have to do is stop taking the government benefits.

I just don't think that such a punishment is cruel or unusual; the terms are ambiguous enough that to some people it may be seen that way.  That doesn't, however, make you right, or me wrong.  The language is imprecise.

While I don't think this particular course of action is fundamentally wrong, it's probably not necessary.  An enforced "child cap" would be a fair alternative, but you're going to step on people's rights no matter how this goes.  However, I think you have the right to tell people what to do when they're receiving money from you.  If they don't want to, they can refuse it.  Sorta like when your parents told you, "my house, my rules."

[RubySlippers]

Didn't the UK support pretty much all the major human rights conventions and treaties and vote for the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so wouldn't sterilizing anyone violate their fundamental rights to reproduction. And removing the child from generally fit parents would violate their rights under the same agreements and the treaties regarding childrens rights in the UN. I just don't see how any civilized nation can do what you propose and get away with it unless you want to go the way of China and piss on international law among civilized nations.

I will again not they are not breaking any laws are they and not doing anything the UK system is not allowing to happen under their guidelines, so why make such a big deal about it? These people are not being fraudulant in any way.

[DarklingAlice]

Beguile's Mistress:
I think we might be misunderstanding each other. As I said:

I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance.

I am clearly presuming no authority, power, or even giving an opinion on this particular issue. I was responding to your post as an opinion on the entire institution of foster care and adoption, as that is what I took it to be. To repeat, I do not have enough information to say what should be done in this particular instance, I objected to the perceived idea that it is never a good idea to employ the institutions of foster care and adoption.

Jude:
You hold the burden of proof making the ontologically positive statement that also runs against established convention, specifically the claim that governments have a right to sterilize their civilians. Your talk of principle seems to be an attempt to side-step that obligation. If you truly believe it an irreconcilable matter of principle, what was the point of asserting your indemonstrable principle multiple times? By your own admission it would have been impossible for you to have anything further to add to the conversation.

Since you insist on a logical argument I will oblige: Your premise fails because it lacks proportionality to the infraction and, more importantly because the underlying premise is non-universalizable. Your premise as derived from the statement:

If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

If someone abuses their ability to perform [action x] in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, [there is no] problem with taking away their ability to perform [action x].

For the sake of justice such statements need to be universal and do their best to share a common punishment. There is a reason we do not take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Rather we punish disparate infractions similarly with (to characterize it with broad strokes) fine, imprisonment, and in the rarest most heinous cases death. This is done because it ensures proportionality in punishment. Without such a system justice is no longer blind nor balanced.

To take away the physical ability to perform X in one case via surgery, and in another via imprisonment for similar crimes is unjust. We do not lobotomise people who defraud governments in other ways in order to remove their ability to defraud a government, we imprison them. The burden is on you to show that this case of defrauding a government is substantially different to warrant different penalty.

[Trieste]

That's fine if the government can also absolve itself of responsibility for the children, which is even harder to politically tolerate. What is going to happen, revoke citizenship?

That's sort of the problem, isn't it? No politician worth his salary will offer up a solution that cuts off kids' care, which is part of the reason why 'repeal and replace' is being painted by opponents as 'removing health care from underprivileged children'. Kids drag up all sorts of emotional responses. If they didn't, we really wouldn't be human, though, would we? *has been watching too much V*

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't make the death penalty (the taking of your life) unconstitutional.

Actually, this can be (and has been vehemently) debated. Current law says that it is not unconstitutional, so legally it is not. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is named by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable rights' endowed by the Creator. It never made it into the US constitution BUT it made it into the Massachusetts constitution. Ergo, I could argue that the death penalty in my state is unconstitutional, and it has in fact been declared unconstitutional in MA. We have not murdered a criminal in nearly 50 years.

This is a side note, and I'm not going to get into the full debate in this thread, but I wanted to point out that your statement is either personal opinion or partial fact, but not absolutely true.

I can understand where you're coming from though, some people are fundamentally not OK with removing someone's reproductive potential, even in the case of child molesters (not that I'm saying that's you).  I personally think that's a principled stand which can't be debated since... it's based on principles.  If that's the case in how you feel about it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree or discuss alternatives (I'm sure there are other ways of handling the situation which solve the problem without such drastic measures now that I think about it).

The rest of your point is well-taken though and you're absolutely right about my indiscretion there.  If this isn't a frequently occurring phenomenon then there's no need to worry about it, but if it is, I would support those rules (in lieu of a better idea).

Yes, it's a principle. It would be a barbaric law, in my opinion.

I actually was thinking about Oniya's mention of vouchers, and I think that would solve a good amount of the problems. If people were forced to spend the money they got on ONLY food instead of, say, $200 Air Jordans (hurr hurr showing my age) then they might not be so eager to have another mouth to feed. Also, I think that federal assistance money should be banned from being liquidated into cash (unless you get some sort of unrestricted stipend, which should only happen for those on full disability), and it should be absolutely banned from buying anything with an alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or high sugar content. (e.g. it would have to be spent on juice, not kool-aid, or peanut butter instead of Fruit Roll-ups).

[Cheka Man]

Once unmarried mothers were treated like scum, and rightly, that needed to change, but it seems the volunteers have been put in with the conscripts.

I have never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?

[Jude]

You hold the burden of proof making the ontologically positive statement that also runs against established convention,

Established convention holds weight simply for being that now?  That's an is-ought fallacy.

specifically the claim that governments have a right to sterilize their civilians. Your talk of principle seems to be an attempt to side-step that obligation. If you truly believe it an irreconcilable matter of principle, what was the point of asserting your indemonstrable principle multiple times? By your own admission it would have been impossible for you to have anything further to add to the conversation.

Which is why I tried to move into a different direction by my own admission several times.  I said there are probably less severe ways of dealing with the situation (but simply re-iterated that I don't that situation would be innately unjust).

Since you insist on a logical argument I will oblige: Your premise fails because it lacks proportionality to the infraction and, more importantly because the underlying premise is non-universalizable. Your premise as derived from the statement:

Kantian ethics?  There are numerous problems with them, I won't bother to parrot at you what you can look up on Wikipedia.

If someone abuses their ability to perform [action x] in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, [there is no] problem with taking away their ability to perform [action x].

You're universalizing what I said in a way that makes your argument, yet there are countless other ways of "zooming out."

For the sake of justice such statements need to be universal and do their best to share a common punishment. There is a reason we do not take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Rather we punish disparate infractions similarly with (to characterize it with broad strokes) fine, imprisonment, and in the rarest most heinous cases death. This is done because it ensures proportionality in punishment. Without such a system justice is no longer blind nor balanced.

Where exactly did you prove that this was even a disproportionate response?  You've merely assumed such.  Some people don't care about their ability to reproduce (and would gladly give it up) and to others it's a precious commodity.  We're wandered into the realm of personal preference, which is precisely where Kantian ethics begin to break down.

To take away the physical ability to perform X in one case via surgery, and in another via imprisonment for similar crimes is unjust. We do not lobotomise people who defraud governments in other ways in order to remove their ability to defraud a government, we imprison them. The burden is on you to show that this case of defrauding a government is substantially different to warrant different penalty.

Well, yes, because lobotomizing people for defrauding governments hurts them in numerous ways.  It leaves them unable to perform a multitude of other tasks, crippling them mentally.

Sterilizing someone... just sterilizes them.  There may be residual effects which occur as a result of that, but the act itself doesn't impair their ability to think in a certain way, or act many others.  They just can't get someone pregnant.  You're disabling someone's ability to do one particular thing, whereas lobotomy disables a family of unrelated actions.  Isn't this that very proportionality you were discussing?  If the crime is excess reproduction, what better solution is there than stopping that reproduction?

The whole notion of reproductive rights is without merit in my view.  I've never seen a solid argument put forth backing it up, so I don't understand why I should accept it as a valid "fundamental truth."  At the same time however, I don't expect you to except anything I've but forth, because you're right.  I haven't offered proof.

Not that I'm unwilling to change my point of view on it.  If someone did present me with an argument that resonates with me that explains why reproductive rights are valid, I would change my point of view.  If someone presented me an argument showing how non-invasive, civil methods of sterilization are severely damaging to people outside of their ability to produce, I'd adjust my opinion.  Or you could simply put forth a viable alternative to my proposed solution which is less severe, and I would agree that option is the better choice.

I have never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?

Because you survive off of the hard work of others.  You're only allowed to live the life you do because other people are paying for it, by force, through the way our government is structured.  You're taking advantage of laws which take money from other people at gunpoint (essentially, if you refuse to pay taxes you go to jail) and giving it to you.  In my estimation that's clearly wrong, unless you are somehow incapable of working for a living.