Comments:Voluntary sterilization of poor women proposed by Louisiana state legislator

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


by acknowledging the concept of "generational welfare" you are putting the final nail in the coffin of the American Dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I too would get a vasectomy if it was for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sieg Heil, Amerikaner!! Can't let the poor untermensch soak in all your tax dollars. Better let the poor die off and let the rich live. But wait, if the poor die, who will polish your shoes, who will wax your cars, who will chew your food for you, who will fight for you in Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Who? You yourselves? It's exactly because of people like that legislator that over sixty million people died in WWII! Eugenics is a dead pseudoscience! The role of the state is to support its inhabitants, not to cull those who don't live up to the top 1%'s expectations! People are poor not because of laziness, but because of a whole host of circumstances. And the reason poor people get more kids is because they don't have careers to put ahead of their families! Idiocracy was ONLY A MOVIE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offended saying only the poor fight for the US. But this plan sounds like Communism too me, and a son of a Cuban Exile that is not a good thing.-- 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, 88. 66, I'm not sure why you think it's communism. Surely you would understand it's almost the opposite. It's trying to get rid of the poor not by helping them but by literally trying to get rid of them. --Poisonous (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the demographics matching income with race, I'd be interested in a poll of those constituents who 'embraced' this propoals, first asking them what their race, and then asking what race they suppose these 'poor people' are. 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw those poor people, they're terrible for tourism, sleeping in the streets and building their trailer parks everywhere (do you know how little room there is to build country clubs these days?). They're all addicted to meth, so they'll get the sterilizations if we pay them, right? I hope so, 'cause I don't want to teach them Sex ED when they're most likely to become impregnated. That's borderline pedophilia, you know. --Smackdat (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an interesting thought: One of the reasons the poor may be getting poorer and the rich may be getting richer is number of children; as the poor are more likely to have large families, the poor also must divide an inheritance among a much larger number of indivuals, leaving even less for each individual. Additionally, the poor have fewer resources to provide for each child; less money to pay for each child's college, etc. While the rich, who have tons, and could provide for more, don't, instead funneling their huge inheritance into fewer individuals, concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. It's downright Medieval. Jade Knight (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people talk of the poor like they were another race? And why do people want to preserve poverty? I can tell you being poor doesn't make one happy, like in the movies. It's a sad life. Being poor is one of the many many reasons not to make children. Those who fight against abortion, and contraception want a world of poverty and suffering. Contraception, sterilization, and abortion should be free. Family planning and sex education should be mandatory.

People who make more than two children are irresponsible. Bringing a child into this world is a serious thing, children are not toys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irresponsible simply for having more children, or irresponsible to have more children and not have the resources to properly raise them? As 1 of 8 children, 2 of which are at West Point, and with both parents with BAs or MSs, I'm insulted sir. Not all large famlies are poor, or morally degraded for choosing to have large families. Or religious zealots for that matter (my family is completely secular). I wouldn't have it any other way. Large families are becoming a lost culture in the Western Civilization. Any attempts at dissuading large families is laughable; if you have the means than do it. Zidel333 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this proposal modern-day eugenics?[edit]


It's always there...

I think this is a great idea as long as it's not limited to the poor. Government rewards people for having kids so why not reward them for NOT having kids?

How many women / men would like to get sterilized but cannot afford it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden it[edit]

What are the logical arguments against this policy?

Mandatory sterilization to every man or woman after his or her second child.

"Wah wah it's my RIGHT to overpopulate the Earth" is not a logical argument. - 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The slippery slope of taking away one's liberties. Where does it end? --Kitch (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia:Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Can you demonstrate the causal link(s) between the loss of destructive, unlimited reproductive license and the loss of other specific liberties (preferably ones that do not have grave consequences for the world as a whole)? - 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not smart enough to decide who lives, who dies or who can reproduce. Yes, my friend, we have the right to reproduce. We will fight to protect it. There is enough for everyone, please learn to share better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not men?[edit]

Why not sterilize the men? Men will choose sterilization more easily. Nyarlathotep (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any society wants poor people who'll work for little money, but we've discovered that poor Mexican (illegal) immigrants are "higher quality" than American poor because they'll work harder, work for less, and pay taxes for services they'll never use, like social security and welfare, etc. So the overarching economic goal here is replacing non-working native poor with working foreign poor.


Paying an indigent person $1,000 to be permantely steralized is no different than paying an indigent family $1,000 to place their baby for adoption. Both options exploit the poor, and neither can be undone. Shame on John LaBruzzo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigrl (talkcontribs) 17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis have always had a pretty thorough eugenics program

Not fascism...[edit]

Notice "voluntary" in the title of the article. It is not a good idea though. Many, many, many of those who are poor make it out of poverty each day. If they decide to sterilize themselves while they are unable to care for a child, but later on do wish to have a child, it will have been too late. A much better idea would to make contraception more available, for free or real cheap. If they still do decide to have a child, then they are just terrible. Do not get me wrong, I hate to see people living out on the street, or without food, and especially hate seeing handicapped people or veterans living out on the street (but charity is for churches not the government). In the end, if contraception is made more available, welfare spending might decrease, as well as a decrease in STDs. 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sterilizaton of poor women[edit]

Yes, it is a suggestion that could lead to a return of the eugenics movement. The safeguards to keepit truly voluntary---meaning no penalty for not submitting would have to be in place and with the condition of our freedom right now, I am not sure that would happen.

If you are going to do it, then make it worth the person's while, namely $10,000, not just a measley $1000 that barely pays bills for a month. $10,000 can make a difference in the person's life--a good car to get to work or a down payment on a house. Second, it should be open to EVERYONE with no questions asked including those who are past childbearing age and gay people who don't want children.

Finally the emphasis needs to be on sterilizing men, not women. A woman can only make a baby once a year. A man can create one every day and plant his seed in 10 different women in a day if he chooses. STERILIZE THE MEN. Plus vasectomies are cheaper and less invasive with few side effects. Tubal ligation is painful and may leave the woman with abdominal problems. Encourage men to do this by telling them if they get sterilized, in addtion to the $10,000, they do not have to pay child support for the kids they already have unless they are married to the mother!!!! They will flock to the clinic.

Create another positive benefit, namely a full scholarship to college or vocational school for anyone who has it done. If they present the certificate there is no tuition, fees or book payments for school. Give the same to any children they already have. Mama or daddy gets sterilized, they and the children get an education---rapid decrease in poverty.

In other words make it desirable. And don't check income. Open it up to EVERYONE. That will keep it away from being a eugenics policy.

Rhonda —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlization of The Poor[edit]

The rationale behind this proposal is to prevent the poor from collecting more Welfare money by preventing them from having more children. Why is it okay to give $700 billion to the wealthy investors/bankers/businesspeople on Wall Street to bail them out, but it's not okay to give money to the poor? -Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizziemcgee (talkcontribs) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that simply giving them a birth control shot (which lasts for two years) after approval but before welfare benefits are actually paid makes a lot of sense in breaking this generational welfare cycle that is wreaking havoc on government budgets across the country. At the end of two years, if they want to continue receiving welfare they must get another shot. If, they leave the welfare system at some point they can then have kids again. Viole`

Problem is there given a lot of cash as is, and some people make a living off welfare, where as business employ the people who pay for welfare, so if they go down the amount of people applying for welfare will jump up. Plus they tend to go down like dominoes, if you don't trust me find a person who remembers the last time the business went down, and ask them if they got magic money while the nation was on its back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This almost sounds like the movie Fortress. Although women were not sterilized, they were put in a maximum security prison for having more than one child. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea anyone other than myself and a few people I dragged along had ever seen that movie... So delightfully bad. I suppose I should make a substantive comment here. So let me say that although I don't like the idea of this policy comparisons to Nazism, and Orwellian scifi seem overblown given that this proposal would be completely voluntary. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's About time![edit]

Applause! Applause! Applause! It's about time some politician got his/her head out of their ass and actually DID something for the people! I think this is a great idea for ALL poor woman and men too to be sterilized so I and the rest of the American public can stop paying for these lazy welfare recipients. Has the people who "support" welfare forgotten why welfare even came about? It's not to keep getting checks the more "pups" you can squeeze out or living in hole in the wall places completely jobless making our communities look like dumps. Welfare was about helping people get on their feet again, not keeping them lying on their backs! I was a former educator and it makes me sick what that the adults on welfare are just teaching the kids of today to be as lazy and a non contributing American just like they are! Let's make them sterile so they can't corrupt more children too! Talk about a great Welfare Reform!!!! Elizabeth (NY)

Actually, learn some facts first. :) Half of all welfare recipients are just there temporarily. A large amount are also seniors or children and can't get a job because of that. The stereotypical teenage mother with 50 kids doesn't make up the bulk of welfare recipients. --Poisonous (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare does breed welfare and that cycle needs to stop. As a taxpayer I am tired of paying for deadbeats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop calls LaBruzzo’s sterilization proposal 'anti-life'[edit]

The Catholic church has a long tradition of supporting all human life. With an Italian name like LaBruzzo, this guy is likely Catholic. I hope they ex-communicate him until he gets with the program.

The archbishop's statement:

— (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Programs like this have a long RACIST history in the USA[edit]

Here is some information about the racist founder of "Planned Parenthood" Margaret Sanger: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keeping birth control and abortion available to whites but away from blacks is racist. It forces them to have more kids where whites can 'cheat' and not have kids and stay wealthier. --Poisonous (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impeach this sick bastard![edit]

This Louisiana legislator should be impeached and removed from office for conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. This is comparable to similar schemes in Germany during the 1930's. In 1936 Joseph Goebbels proposed to pay 500 reichmarks to pay Roma and Sinti (gypsy) women to undergo sterilization. It also bears a striking resemblence to the sterilization program directed against Quechua and Aymara women in Peru under Alberto Fujimori. There is no place whatsoever for such twisted nazi fruit-cake ideas like eugenics in 21st century American politics

That is not the worst of it. Not too long ago, those that were disabled, both mentally and physically were also forcibly sterilized as well, to keep from "polluting the human gene pool". See that shit on Google, your history books. Powerzilla (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are part of "genetic engineering" and "social engineering" that is still going on. Powerzilla (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on![edit]

This is spot on. I have been saying this for years! It doesn't make sense that the upper crest and middle crest of society have largely an equal proportion of kids to adults or less in most cases and the poor get a subsidy to procreate the whole maternity ward. This doesn't make sense and can only end in disaster. When the largely educated are having less children the largely religious and ignorant are having more children eventually that system will collapse. Sorry but its true. And btw, I was on welfare for 2 years when I was a child, but my parents didnt have another kid and they got off it immediately. So I dont want to hear about how i'm some rich boy in the hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of money = lack of rights?[edit]

Lack of money does not equate to lack of the right to have children. She's proposing manipulating people who are vulnerable into giving up their human right to have children. This is not just unconstitutional but also goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rights of the taxpayer? I should not be burdened by the poor decisions of others. It is Constitutional in the fact that it is voluntary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many welfare recipients are veterans?[edit]

Your view on welfare may change if you discovered the percentage of welfare recipients who were veterans. I don't know the figure but it's worthy of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't modern-day eugenics, it's eugenics[edit]

duh —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Eugenics, technically[edit]

As long as its a voluntary "program" it really doesn't qualify. People who would hypothetically sign up would be choosing to remove themselves from the reproducing population. Such choices are expressed everyday by millions of people using other forms of birth control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics is simply the improvement of the human genepool by intervention (although not really since the term also refers to ideas prior to people understanding genes). That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is mandatory. It is just that historically many forms of eugenics have been mandatory. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Modern-day eugenics?

Moar liek modern-day AWESOME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some use kids as meal tickets, they buy things better then I can with gov money[edit]

Key thing is "Voluntary" and yes its fun to act like its some horrible thing and scores some self-righteous brownie points, but considering I have a lot of family members who instead of learning there limits, learn the government will step in and save them.

I got an uncle who got divorced about 12 years ago, he found out that if he gained a little more weight (he was already overweight) and claim he was depressed, he could get a check for the rest of his life. And his oldest child after seeing this lovely example quickly realized her having kids with a deadbeat, could secure her a steady income, she managed to pop out 2 more children after she already resorted to welfare to support her other 2. Of course she still lives with her mother, so her mother gladly takes the EBT card (Food stamp debit card, its less traumatic to pull out,) and uses it to buy groceries for herself that I couldn't afford, getting the children generic brand products, and her leftovers.

I spent a lot of time working with food, and during that time in my state Ive seen a lot of poor family s with 4+ kids, exploiting the system. I can't count how many times Ive sold some one large jugs of cheap hard liquor, and then had them buy less food then me, and rack up a bigger bill then I can with there state issued EBT card.

The best part is they not aloud to buy half the things they get by state law, but if you tell someone that they use the coveted line wear they claim the stores competitor does it all the time. Ive had a regular who bought pounds of fresh cut expensive deli meat, I told 3 managers that the law and the card specifically states that there only aloud prepackaged food, I even found out one person who threatened to not due business there again got a custom wedding cake with there card.

Ive seen to many family s that should have had the inelegance to stop breeding about 3 kids prior, I did a little bit of digging, and found that poor large family s are a wrecking ball waiting to happen, they can destroy lives, thanks to governments and hand outs they don't die, but expecting a kid in a large poor family to come out on top is putting a lot of pressure one them to overcome the odds, not to mention how miserable the parents become before they finally submit to the emotional wear and tears of living outside there means.

Also for those who think we need to dump more money into helping them pay for there ever increasing family, or think that its fascist to allow them to get sterilized for free, I just have to remind you that a lot of people view welfare as communism. And if you look at the figures as of right now for what we dump into welfare, the projections for future payments, and the fact unemployment is rising by leaps and bounds, and you might see how allowing a mother who realizes she can't take the stress of having one more child while poor to get sterilized on uncle sams tab would be cheaper in the long run then her risk popping out more mouths to feed when theres already grown ones who can't eat.

In conclusion I am for this, its not as horrible as abortion, and considering alot of familys ive seen are to messed up with stress from what ever sent them to the poor house, then to realize they might want to set up a budget and stretch out there free ride, instead of buying on impulse, which kind of doesn't help the situation. I would feel better if there was a program to try and reach out and teach them how to manage finances,to get them on there feet, but people today would rather take free money then admit fault for there lives and try to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)