# Forced sterilization **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298 "2017-09-02T03:45:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/101 "2017-09-06T01:39:25Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > So when the welfare queen pops out more and more kids and keeps getting her government check nothing should change? If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok? ‘Pops out’ is a fascinating insight. Good women, with money, procreate. Bad women, without money, spawn. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/102 "2017-09-06T01:58:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But, again, if we offer cash incentives to people who opt for self-sterilization, then it _would_ be relevant to say “I chose to get sterilized when I thought it made sense.” I don’t have much of a problem with that, but that’s not what **Bearcats** is advocating. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/103 "2017-09-06T02:33:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t have much of a problem with that, but that’s not what **Bearcats** is advocating. **Bearcats** _does,_ though, say this: > [@UCBearcats](#): > > So when the welfare queen pops out more and more kids and keeps getting her government check nothing should change? If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok? So, would _no longer cutting her a government check if she doesn’t stop_ be sufficiently like unto _cutting her a check if she does stop?_ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/104 "2017-09-06T02:39:56Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > I will accept as granted that Hitler was a fan of Eugenics. It was a core idea of his. > > He was also a fan of tanks and advanced military weapons. Also a core idea of his. > > We all agree that tanks and advanced military weapons are a good idea. Attacking your enemies before they can properly mobilize are good military strategies. (not every military decision made by hitler was a bad one) > > So can’t we at least discuss whether Eugenics might be a good idea or not without bringing Hitler into it? > > I mean, the basic premise of Eugenics - that traits that cause serious flaws in people are heritable, thus those who carry the genes shouldn’t have children - is _correct_. I mean correct in terms of : > > 1. World A, no restriction on kids, flawed people reproduce and make more flawed people. > > 2. World B, restrictions, less flawed people, healthier overall population. > > You can’t be intellectually honest and somehow claim that world A is better. The problem with Eugenics isn’t the basic premise, it’s that _in practice_, government institutions are themselves hugely flawed and have done some really terrible stuff in the past, and probably would fuck up eugenics if they had that power today. More than fuck up - essentially bureaucrats would now have the ability to cause the people they don’t like to be sterilized. > > So, yeah, I’m not voting for implementation of Eugenics, either, but I’m at least honest that the basic premise is sensible. You know who else thought the world had too many “flawed people” in it that needed to be removed from society? I’m not being facetious, there. The idea that you’re putting forward as a non-Hitlerish approach to eugenics is precisely the attitude towards the subject that makes Nazis moral monsters. The world would not be a better place if all the people who had, say, cystic fibrosis were gone. The world _would_ be a better place if all the people who had cystic fibrosis didn’t have cystic fibrosis anymore, but that’s not what you’re proposing. The worth of a human being is not determined by how sick they are. A sick person is not a flaw that needs to be cut out of the human species. A human’s rights should not be circumscribed by an accident of their genome. I will grant, however, that what you’re proposing it both rational and humane in comparison to what the OP is advocating. So you’ve got that going for you, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/105 "2017-09-06T02:54:25Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > So when the welfare queen pops out more and more kids and keeps getting her government check nothing should change? 😕 “Welfare queen”? Have you been in a cave on Mars since 1993 or something? Actually, scratch that; since the rover missions, even caves on Mars have more access to up-to-date information about modern-day government than your question indicates. Welfare recipients don’t just “keep getting their government check” indefinitely for having more babies. There are **lifetime** benefit limits on TANF of five years total, and you don’t necessarily get more money for having more kids even in that very short window. [QUOTE=UCBearcats] If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok? [/quote] She does? Who are these hypothetical women who are bound and determined to have 8 kids even though they have no money, no partner and only a tiny temporary hit of government assistance? What percentage of the population of poor people do they actually make up? [QUOTE=UCBearcats] The guy who doesn’t like rubbers and can’t pull out quickly enough should keep procreating even though the check from Burger King gets split 5 ways to cover support. [/quote] What guy? Again, who and where are these hypothetical fast-food workers who voluntarily, deliberately choose to make more kids to help support on a min-wage paycheck just because they don’t like condoms? AFAICT, people determined to have very large numbers of children who nonetheless can’t support or take care of them are an insignificant minority of parents. Most poor parents don’t intend to have more kids than they can afford and would have fewer kids if they had better access to reproductive control. So why are we fuming about hypothetical super-breeders who can only be kept in check by forcing surgery on them? You’re ignoring a genuine problem to obsess about a myth. [QUOTE=UCBearcats] There is a point when enough is enough. [/quote] Well, to make policy, we have to be prepared to say exactly where that point is. Exactly which circumstances are you proposing would make people liable to forced sterilization? If they receive any kind of government assistance and have more than four children? More than three? More than two? How about if they’re very poor but get no government assistance? Are you proposing to sterilize poor teens before they have kids just to be on the safe side? Show us exactly what you’re advocating here. [QUOTE=UCBearcats] We have other laws in place to protect people from themself. [/quote] Not by forcing nonconsensual surgery on them. Heck, we can’t even force patients to accept surgical treatment to literally **save their life** if they don’t want it, never mind for less important reasons. The government is rightly **very** hesitant to insist that citizens be sliced and diced by surgeons without their consent, for **any** reason. Even convicted rapists can’t be sentenced to surgical castration. And most states don’t even allow sentencing them to (theoretically reversible) **chemical** castration. The idea that the law should be allowed to force surgery on **non-criminals** strictly for social-engineering reasons is so unconstitutional that it would be stomped into the courtroom floor by the first judge that laid eyes on it. [QUOTE=UCBearcats] The data on abuse and the cost to society is staggering. There is a strong correlation between poverty and abuse. [/quote] So punish and monitor abusers, while helping and counseling the poor who are **not** abusive. But the notion of **pre-emptively punishing poor parents who haven’t committed any crime because you suspect they might become abusers** is right up there with the worst excesses of totalitarian states. If you want to save society money on unwanted and ill-cared-for children, support Planned Parenthood and proper sex education in schools. Making people go under the surgeon’s knife just because you think parenting **might** not go well for them is a sadistic fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/106 "2017-09-06T08:37:28Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > How do you change the economic landscape without throwing good money after bad? The current economic landscape is laid out in a way that punishes people for being poor. Employers steal from their employees, banks gouge their marginal customers, retail products get more expensive when you cannot afford the little bit extra for the mormon-size packages. People with hand-to-mouth syndrome get squeezed for every dime and are shoved, far too easily, toward/into the abyss. Poor/stupid should not be punished in this way. Education helps, but it is often not sufficient to keep some people out of the slums. I understand that the idea of regulation to reduce the poverty penalty is obviously unforgivably marxist, but there is a big picture. A great deal of crime percolates down from the top, through abuse and through example. Establishing a standard of fairness to reduce the pressure downward on the poor (and middle class, who are often skating the edge) would probably restore (or create) important balance and stability in our society. Of course, since such notions have the aroma of marxism, actually moving toward those goals seems like a pipe dream. I would like to see fairness in our socioeconomic system, but am not losing sleep over it not happening. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/107 "2017-09-06T11:20:08Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > So when the welfare queen pops out more and more kids and keeps getting her government check nothing should change? If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok? Not a thing. If you’d like, we could pause the discussion to give you a chance to catch up. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/108 "2017-09-06T16:48:28Z")
Quote from a woman in this article about it is her right time have additional kids on welfare. The article is in favor of removing the welfare caps that don’t incentivize having additional kids. It happens. [Why the Welfare Cap Should Be Repealed](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/why-the-welfare-cap-should-be-repealed/) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/109 "2017-09-06T17:47:03Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > Quote from a woman in this article about it is her right time have additional kids on welfare. The article is in favor of removing the welfare caps that don’t incentivize having additional kids. It happens. > > [Why the Welfare Cap Should Be Repealed](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/why-the-welfare-cap-should-be-repealed/) You forgot to put in the quote. What “Quote from a woman” are you talking about? I read through article, and I saw nothing in it that makes any sort of statement like you are claiming. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/110 "2017-09-06T17:59:17Z")
cannot get aid because the State wants to punish me and them—me for choosing to be a mom again while on welfare, and them for being born into poverty,” Ortiz said in her testimony to the California State Assembly. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/111 "2017-09-06T18:03:12Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > cannot get aid because the State wants to punish me and them—me for choosing to be a mom again while on welfare, and them for being born into poverty,” Ortiz said in her testimony to the California State Assembly. I do not understand how you get from that quote to it being the right time to have additional kids on welfare. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/112 "2017-09-06T20:15:19Z")
Not right time, but her right to. She is freely chosing to have another kid while on welfare and feels punished by the system for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/113 "2017-09-06T20:38:55Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > Not right time, but her right to. She is freely chosing to have another kid while on welfare and feels punished by the system for doing so. Ah, I completely misunderstood what you said there. I take it the “right time” was a typo for “right to”. This is a particular person who wants the system changed to benefit her. Not sure how that in any way refutes the fact that welfare does not work the way you seem to think it does. In fact, it should show you that it doesn’t work the way you think it does, because you quoted a woman complaining that it doesn’t work the way you think it does. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/114 "2017-09-06T22:33:16Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Ah, I completely misunderstood what you said there. I take it the “right time” was a typo for “right to”. > > This is a particular person who wants the system changed to benefit her. Not sure how that in any way refutes the fact that welfare does not work the way you seem to think it does. In fact, it should show you that it doesn’t work the way you think it does, because you quoted a woman complaining that it doesn’t work the way you think it does. It is the overall mindset of a person that is already on welfare with children that thinks she should have the right to irresponsibly bring another kid in the world. Her existing kids are already working with limited resources. This further puts them at a disadvantage and increases the likelihood of them doing poorly in school and being poor as grown-ups. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/115 "2017-09-06T23:50:23Z")
More great quotes from Ortiz in a different article. The article talks about Eugenics. > **[This Law Was Based on a Racist Stereotype. Now It Punishes Thousands of...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/06/the-maximum-family-grant-and-family-caps-a-racist-law-that-punishes-the-poor.html)** > > Last April, Melissa Ortiz, a low-income mother of four, gave testimony to a committee of the California Assembly detailing her life on the California... ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/116 "2017-09-07T00:27:31Z")
Another winner having multiple kids while on welfare and being surprised that she doesn’t more to cover them. > **[Growing number of states repeal family welfare caps](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/growing-number-states-repeal-family-welfare-caps)** > > The move to repeal family payment caps coincides with research that indicates the laws don’t reduce birthrates among those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/117 "2017-09-07T00:30:36Z")
This time the East Coast. > **[Advocates Seek Repeal of 'Family Cap' on Welfare Benefits](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2017-05-20/advocates-seek-repeal-of-family-cap-on-welfare-benefits)** > > Democratic lawmakers and advocates for low-income residents are calling for a change in a state welfare rules that deny additional welfare increases for families that have children while receiving benefits. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/118 "2017-09-07T00:45:21Z")
24 states have over 50% of their births paid by Medicaid. [http://sumo.ly/Fpdw](http://sumo.ly/Fpdw) ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/119 "2017-09-07T00:53:19Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > 24 states have over 50% of their births paid by Medicaid. > > [http://sumo.ly/Fpdw](http://sumo.ly/Fpdw) I agree we need UHC. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298/120 "2017-09-07T02:10:06Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I agree we need UHC. That would certainly help to reduce poverty and middle-class marginalization. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forced-sterilization/795298.md?page=7)