Yes indeed. Now we are seeing stronger antiabortion sentiment in state governments where they are trying to slowly squeeze accessibility of abortions. These laws are not going to affect the middle and higher class- they will mearly go someplace else.

It will be the poor who end up with unwanted children. You know- the government money sucking poor everyone hates? The poor who breed crime and everyone complains about the cost of maximizing punishment for every little misdeed?

Big Government can't regulate businesses or air quality- but they certainly can regulate morality. That is the purpose of the Federal government.

I'm sure the cost effective abstinence only education will work. Afterall, even if two young people keep their legs together until they get married- does that mean they are going to want kids? Going to be able to afford kids?

Suck it up religious right and accept two ultimatums: Either provide birth control or expect growing amounts of giving out benefits, growing poverty and more crime.

How about they learn what time of the month is or satify themselves as well as their partners in other ways. We do not need to pay for their HC, most are doing this because its in the plan even if they say it was unplanned. Its the easy way out of having to be responsible and find a job and work until you can actually afford to have children. Its time we start holding people accountable for their own actions. We need less of the poor, young and illegals popping out the kids so that those who actually are responsible are not burdened more with having to pay for these children. At a few hundred a month in food costs alone with over $10,000 a year to educate in public education this is what needs to stop rather than raise taxes on people making $250k a year or more. Public education is not free, real taxpayers have to pick up the costs.

First, it is not solely a woman's issue. Regardless of who is involved, man or woman, if you can't afford to have a child then DON'T HAVE SEX. People need to take responsibility not only for themselves, but also for their sexual partner and for the child that could potentially be born from their sexual activities.

Birth control is not an entitlement, it's a personal responsibility.

The solution is very easy and very cheap. The answer is lettuce, Romaine or Iceberg, take a piece of lettuce, place it on the inside of the left knee, and hold in place with the inside of the right knee.

1950 called steve. they want their 'humor' back

if you can't afford to have a child then DON'T HAVE SEX

How exactly do you plan on enforcing this convenient little rule?

Maybe you should research how well abstinence-only education has worked in the past.

@kevin: unfortunatly telling people to not have sex has not, and will never, work.

What will work is educating young women and men about birth control options, and making BC accessible for people of all income levels. You are correct about personal responsibility, however. Too bad people seem to be lacking it these days.

I dont know about the rest of you, but I dont feel that its my responsibility to pay for other peoples children.

Can someone tell me why, after over 30 years of the Woman's Rights movement, are we still having unwanted pregnancies and births? Did not the pioneers of the movement fight not only to give women the freedom to choose but the education to avoid the pregnancy in the first place? A woman's reproductive rights and responsibilities begin BEFORE she gets pregnant, not just afterwards. Why haven't women only seem to want to end the pregnancy instead of avoid it in the first place. And don't give me the story about the poor, uneducated woman or teenage girl not "having a chance" or understanding history. Women's health, education and equal rights have been taught in the public school system for years and instilled in every child equally. How many more years must the same fight for a woman's reproductive rights be waged? Our mothers and grandmothers already fought and won this battle. Why are our daughters of today not learning from the lessons of history? Why do they choose to fight a battle that has already been won and act with conviction upon the rights they already have to say NO to unprotected sex, to insist upon birth control, to hold themselves accountable just as they should hold the sperm donor accountable if they should carry to full term and choose to keep the child. Women, please stop fighting a battle for reproductive rights that have already been granted and already won and instead teach our own daughters and granddaughters the personal responsibility that comes with hard earned reproductive rights.

Or their access to common sense.

This article is a shocker.....not!

Like the reported said, educated women are working on their careers and make a conscious choice to not have babies (especially if they can't afford them). Poor women who may not working have all the time in the world to "keep themselves entertained with something" and during the process don't give it a second thought until opps I'm having another one.

This story is so stupid. There are only 2 people to blame for an unwanted pregnancy. The woman who had sex off birth control and the man who didn't wear a condom when he had sex with that woman. The funniest thing is that they aren't the ones who end up paying for the child.

The movie Idiocracy is proving very true.....

Hey ladies, if you can't afford the baby, keep your freaking legs shut! "Men", if you stick your thing in a lady, you are responsible for what comes out. Be a "Man" and raise your kid!

Another thought I had that would maybe explain the gap is that there is higher stigma associated with having an unplanned baby (at least for single women, cant say for married couples) in middle class and wealthier communities.

I'm convinced that conservatives are trying to take away a woman's right to an abortion or to quality affordable birth control because poor people who are overwhelmed financially, trying to make ends meet simply don't vote. Typically, poor and middle class vote democratic. They are attempting to knock out a whole section of voters by cutting planned parenthood. They know exactly what they are doing. Keep the poor very poor and uneducated, and they don't vote and don't cause a ruckus politically. George Carlin said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=share

Carrieberry- Who do you think voted of President Obama? Do you think the "rich" folks did?

You can walk into any Planned Parenthood and get free birth control.

You can buy condoms for less than $1

How is poor women having unplanned babies "keeping" them poor? Were they raped? Immaculate conception? NO! Unplanned pregnancies are the direct result of having unprotected sex. Show me a woman, rich or poor, in the US that doesn't know that having unprotected sex can result in getting pregnant.

Quit making excuses for the personal decisions people make, and maybe we can force them to take responsibility for their own actions!

How is it that I see way to many women/couples on public assistance (SNAP, Welfare, WIC), who smoke, drink, and have a car as nice as mine? Where do they get the money for that? I'm beginning to think they are getting it from me! The best part is that towns will cut teachers before they cut welfare. Think about that, the only thing that will break the welfare cycle is education, and that's the first thing we cut.

Makes me sick!

Hey ladies, if you can't afford the baby, keep your freaking legs shut! "Men", if you stick your thing in a lady, you are responsible for what comes out. Be a "Man" and raise your kid!

Truly, an effective solution.

Todd right on...

Anyone can get sleeves of condoms free at Planned Parenthood. Anyone can get condoms for $1.00 at any gas station bathroom.

And everyone knows condoms are 100% effective, never break or fail.

I'm not going to argue with stupid, Todd. My point is that millions upon millions of women depend upon Planned Parenthood to prevent the sort of things you're trying to argue about. If republicans get their way, there will be no access to these very important resources that keep the poor from having unwanted children. This is the extent of my argument with you about this. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. But you are correct about one thing. We shouldn't cut education and there need to be a lot more resources available to people so that they CAN educate themselves.

Whoa! Hold on, there, PBN! Condoms aren't effective? So, what do you propose you should do to avoid these unplanned pregnancies? I mean, if THE GUY is assuming his share of the responsibility by wearing a condom, but even that isn't 100% effective. . . what then? Just blame the guy when you end up pregnant? Or actually assume some responsibility for your own well-being and make sure YOU are taking precautions (which may include but are not necessarily limited to abstaining from sex)?

Carrieberry- I have no problem with Planned Parenthood, sex education, free birth control, etc. I draw the line on tax payer funded abortion (feel free to donate your own money to fund this), but I do support a woman's right to choose.

My main point is you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. There is SOOOO MUCH free contraception already out there that I don't buy the excuse that's its not readily available. Does this mean that poor women are lazy? Stupid? Ignorant? Stubborn? I don't know, but the growing number of "Oops" babies indicates something. And that something has ZERO to do with Republicans, Democrats, or Politics in general.

Perhaps the definition of morals and acceptability in today's society has changed to the point that this is the new norm. I hope not because there won't be anyone left working to support those babies in the next generation.

Oh yeah, just because my opinion is different than yours does not make me stupid.

So is this what women's lib was all about? F*cking, $ucking, and eyelash plucking with no consequences? I don't think a woman's income has anything to do with her being promisicuous or her ability to put babies out like a vending machine. Also, I believe abortion should be regulated to a certain extent. As it stands today abortion is basically viewed by many as a scapegoat of some means, you know the whole "it's ok for me to do the hanky panky with no thought to it and get pregnant. I'm only sixteen, with no job, and less than three dollars to my name. I'll just go to the clinic and get an abortion."

The problem isn't lack of access to contraceptives. You can get bags full of condoms from all sorts of clinics and hospitals for free.

And everyone knows condoms are 100% effective, never break or fail.

This 50% increase is not from broken condoms. They just aren't using them in the first place because 'it doesn't feel good' or whatever (and really, it doesn't, condoms kind of suck). But still, why would people risk having a baby for that? There are other ways...

It's because they do not care. Responsible people see having a child as a big deal, life-changing, a major responsibility... but there is a culture in the US where having a baby is not a big deal, it's a source of income, welfare, and free food. They can pawn the baby off on mom or grandma and go about their daily lives while collecting a check.

There is no sense of personal accountability. No sense of responsibility, duty, or integrity. We've become a nation of coddled, spoiled brats.

They just don't care when the only opportunities that they perceive for themselves is to make babies and live off the government. "Unplanned" is planned in most of these cases.

Here in rural GA just about every woman in her 20's has a couple children. Some have already been divorced or are just unmarried. The only women without are those who went to college and started working. It's a culture that I don't entirely understand.

Unbelievable. So if you are poor you shouldn't have sex with your husband? "Sorry honey, I know you lost your job and all and you are super duper stressed, but I am being very responsible and keeping my legs together as I as told to do on Newsvine."

You holier than thou types do realise that the rythym method is not particularly failsafe? Some husbands aren't going to settle for just some other form of fooling around. Some of you do realise that some husbands out there are quite expecting ( I don't condone this btw) but lets be realistic men you old fashioned types do think a wife's job is to "service" her man, keep the man happy....yet when it comes right down to it , if they are poor, well its a different story.

Todd- I am glad you brought up planned parenthood and that you have no problem with them providing birth control, good. But do you understand that NO abortions are paid for with government money. LOOK up the HYDE AMENDMENT, it prohibits tax payer dollars from paying for abortions, and has for many years.

All of you people so bothered by abortion and welfare and poor people don't see that paying for a pack of birth control pills is a bit more cost effective and far better in the preventive department.

That is a lie. Birth Control may be "free" in some places, but they make you jump through hoops to get it, like requiring a $100 pap smear before they will prescribe you BC. been there, done that. And abortion and adoption are not so easy. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you don't have any morals or ethics when it comes to abortion. There need to be resources out there that allow women access to healthcare and any form of birth control, without all the hoops to jump through. You all can sit in your comfortable houses, infront of your nice computers and talk about how easy it is for a poor woman to just stop having sex or just go to a damn clinic and get birth control..sounds easy, huh? Well what if you are in an abusive relationship, you cant get away from the sex, or him, and you need him so your babies can eat. How is one supposed to get to the clinic without a car? Have you tried taking 4 small children on a 30 minute bus ride to the clinic and then have to sit there for hours and wait to see someone all the while the children are crying and hungry? Its not easy. Before anyone makes a judgment about how a woman in poverty getting pregnant is her fault and she has to deal with her own damn choices, how bout you leave your comfortable life and try ours for awhile? See if the solution you talk about is as easy said as done. This hate for women and the hate for the poor needs to stop. That is the only way things will change. Women need to be able to make choices, have options, when it comes to their health, especially birth control. And if that birth control fails, because not all of us women living in poverty are running around having "careless sex", we need to have options, not just options to abort our babies, but resources that help us to raise our children up out of poverty. But i don't see a day like that coming too soon. Most are to comfortable in their safe houses, away from the poor and the minority, blind to anyone else's suffering, to bother to share or help us. I pray that that all changes one day.

Peace

Been poor. Not an excuse. If your "man" won't let you get away, how would providing all these things help? And, since you mention "needing" your "man" so your "babies can eat," how did you get "babies" in the first place?

No amount of free stuff or sympathy can save you from bad personal choices.

I do agree that birth control should be available for free-without hassle. If tests are required to safely use the birth control that also needs to be provided. Abortion is available for those who chose it...I did not mean that it should be done. As for those in an abusive environment-leave because if he is abusing you-he will abuse the children (experience talking here). There are resources to help escape.

I do not live in a big, fancy house. I was a single mom of 3. I do not vote republican or democrat-I vote for the person.

FREE? How about a minimum of $120 just to walk into the doctors office, then a mandatory pap smear and STD testing? How is that free? Even at Planned Parenthood, who aims to give women of ALL incomes and backrounds access, this can run you at LEAST $200!

Women with the means, transportation, and money can afford to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Like Emey said, try taking a 30-40 minute bus ride to the clinic while religious terrorists picket outside with anti-choice posters.

But those protesters want every woman to shoulder every pregnancy she is 'blessed' with..whether it was intended or wanted or not.

Then they are the first ones to scream about section 8, WIC and foodstamps that these people require to live off of, because they couldn't afford or have access to birth control....

Its not all about bad personal choices, sometimes it is circumstances. Some women don't know any better because it's how their mothers, their aunties, their grandmothers lived. Where is the compassion? No one is looking for a hand out. I think ALL women, rich/poor, black/white, young and old deserve free birth control. We are one of the only developed countries in the world that does not have access to completely free birth control. Why do you think we have the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies and teen pregnancies in the world for a developed country? We simply do not care about our women or the poor. And we should. Nor am I proclaiming that everyone here is rich, but very few know the true plight of the poor, or even care. How scandalous it is to allow a women, especially a poor one, to make her own decision about her health, and to have freedom in regards to her sexuality. What is so scary about having free birth control, and guaranteed access to it for all women? How horribly will it affect YOUR life, that some poor women has access to it?

How about just learn to know what time of the month it is as well as satify themselves as well as their partners in other ways rather than add more burden to the real taxpayers of this country. Its time we hold those accountable for their own actions. Stop the handouts and just a quick period of time these folks will learn that having kids when they can not afford themselves gets them nothing.

So you'd rather not have to pay a little bit of extra taxes so that ALL women can have birth control, instead you still want to pay for all of those prenatal visits, births, food stamps, and any other costs for this "unplanned" child. Sounds like that math class in high school did you wonders.

Emey, my household that has not kids and never will already pays over $5000 a year towards the local school district. We have no extra money anymore, its time we hold those accountable for their own actions.

How many kids do you have in public school Emey and how much are you paying towards your local school district via property taxes. If you have 3 kids in public education, that over $30,000 a year times 13 years=$390,000 if they finish all of schooling. How much of that are you covering and how much of the burden is placed on others shoulders? Public education is not free, real taxpayers have to pay that.

@Emey: I've got lots of compassion. However. . .

Some women don't know any better because it's how their mothers, their aunties, their grandmothers lived.

??? Where do these women live? On Mars? You can't tell me they've never seen television or seen or heard about other people who do NOT live like that. In fact, judging from the number of kids from poor areas who aspire to be wealthy, I'd say that environment has a built-in DISincentive to follow in the footsteps of mothers, aunties, grandmothers and friends. That argument makes no sense at all.

You want women to take personal responsibility. How about MEN? They need to take responsibility too. How many of them do NOT support the children they have sired -- and continue to go out and get MORE children as proof of their "manhood".

Many of the poor women who have unwanted children CAN'T afford birth control and some are not even educated enough to know WHERE to get birth control. (You know, those wonderful abstinence only classes.)

I'm almost to the point I'd like to see it added to the water! (Yes, I know it's not possible ... just the concept.) Then EVERYONE would have birth control all the time and you would take a pill to opt IN to having a child!

Oh yes ... the government also need to quit dishing out money to women who keep having baby after baby. Lose the incentive.

Birth control and the associated costs SHOULD be free to all ... and that includes men once they figure one out (Personally, don't think they've tried very hard). But once you are receiving ANY kind of government assistance, if you have another child, you're off the program. A combination of both would definitely cut the numbers of unplanned pregnancies (and some PLANNED ones!).

That's why virtually every State in the country has a child support enforcement office - because whether it's right or wrong some men are going to knock you up and take off. Wouldn't it simply be better to at least try to minimize this risk by being a little selective about which/how many men you get into bed with?

If I were a woman, I wouldn't deliberately set myself up to end up in that situation. And, given the number of women who are known to selectively fail to use birth control in order to try to "trap" a guy, I'm not convinced that handing out free pills is the answer.

They actually HAVE figured out a 100% foolproof birth control method for men. Unfortunately, apparently even women are willing to accept the excuse that "it's impossible for people to not have sex." So, ultimately, ladies, it's up to you to be, well, ladies. You want control over your bodies, right? Then take control. Don't expect some dude to look out for your well-being!

That's why virtually every State in the country has a child support enforcement office ...

LOL and do you actually know how well that DOESN'T work? I have friends who were married, had children the "right" way, and then dad took off. The state "child support enforcement" is essentially useless. But I admit, it looks good on paper.

" So, ultimately, ladies, it's up to you to be, well, ladies

WOW, oh just WOW! Too bad you can't ultimately be "gentlemen" then either.

2.11 - Spoken like a true "man" (I use that term sarcastically).

[disregarding previous and subsequent trolling by nica]

@Beth: I totally agree that guys won't be gentlemen. And, that's exactly why women should protect themselves rather than expecting the guys they sleep with to assume any responsibility.

I simply do NOT get how this position offends you (or others). I'm basically saying that YOU have the control. Use it. Don't rely on guys because most guys are like dogs. They want to get laid. Period. They are not thinking about the consequences and it's not going to be them carrying a baby for 9 months.

Hey. You want to hold out hope that a guy is going to do the right thing, be my guest. But, you should know better.

So speaks the "man" that tells women they "should keep their legs closed" - talk about trolls.

@nica

Trolling: making irrelevant comments which contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.

You don't have to agree. That's the point of a discussion. But, simply saying that you disagree doesn't contribute anything to the discussion and only invites hostility. Hence, "trolling."

Troll: One who trolls. In this case, YOU, the one who has basically contributed NOTHING to this discussion in any of your posts.

Not only is it sometimes very difficult as Emey pointed out when you are actually in that position and Unreasonably expensive at times like HairyNutley estimated (where the heck does PP get this "sliding scale" that thinks poor women have access to $200 at atime to spend on themselves?). I have met many women (and even more men) who really and truly - now in the 21st century - do not understand birth control and how it works.

I'm with Miker. Take responsiblity for your own actions as a female, either don't crawl into bed with every man you know (and I don't mean that literally, although it will alter your chances), or accept the consequences of doing so.

People will be people. Some of those people are irresponsible. No one else can be held accountable for your decisions.

nica.....don't you just "love" it when men tell women to keep their legs shut. Why it's just so cute and original and so male in it's thinking.

And miker.....did you know that one of the first places government starts cutting back jobs is in the non-essential personnel......like child support enforcement workers. My former case worker estimated that 1/2 of the women who received some type of government aid wouldn't need it if the "sperm donor" (my choice of words, not hers) paid what they were court ordered to pay......

So, let's just start putting the blame on both sexes 100% of the time, shall we?

I am putting the blame on both sexes. But, I would never sell myself short by having unprotected sex with some fool, and when the the worst case scenario happens, expecting anyone to take care of me and a child.

He's telling to use your power as a woman to say NO, to choose who you sleep with, and how to go about doing so safely. He didn't say close your legs, he said use your voice, protect yourself. How can you not see that?

And, don't be presumptious, I am a woman. -_-

@aih8children: Thank you! That's exactly what I've been trying to get through some pretty thick heads all afternoon!

Absolutely no problem, Miker; when you're right, you're right.

This isn't about "blame", it's about prevention.

How about Democrats and others like you who believe in free handouts donate their own money and time to help these folks out. Its time we hold those accountable for their own actions.

Just curious, how many kids do you have and how much you pay in property tax towards your local school district? We need the Young, illegals and poor to start being responsible and stop being baby factories.

Yeah, the lazy poor just need to get jobs and stop having sex! Hey Republicans, where are those jobs you promised?

UAW, why don't you rent a place then? If it bothers you so much that you are paying for others(who paid for you when you were in school) then get out of the situation.

Also, if you worry so much about property taxes and how expensive they are then how can you not support access to birth control. If there are less babies, then there will be less schools or money spent on schools and thus your property tax will either decrease or go toward different items.

Celibacy doesn't work eh? Then how come I am a virgin as are many of my friends...some of whom are engaged, I might add. It does work, but you have to work at it, like not putting yourself in a position in which things could happen, such as not being alone with your significant other at home or dorm room. Once the passion starts flying, the hormones start going up and it becomes a lot harder to control.

Just like I am part of the facebook group "I can do this amazing thing called having fun while sober" there should be one about "I can love my bf/gf and have a great time with them without having sex". Yes, it is a personal choice, but it sure comes with a ton of consequences.

Well aren't you a holy little virgin!

Celibacy, as a theory, works. Celibacy, when you actually try to implement it through abstinence-only education, doesn't work, and that's been proven.

Providing alternatives to celibacy: birth control, condoms, education, has been proven to work.

There will ALWAYS be unintended pregnancy. You simply cannot, and should not, tell people to not have sex. The best you can do is provide resources.

HAHA MusicGirl23 you are a weenie.

Why are you even here on this discussion? Shouldn't you be knitting cat sweaters or crying yourself to sleep?

MusicGirl23, Kudos to you. I also waited and after 31 wonderful years of marriage to the same/only man I know I made the right decision! In this day and age of irresponsibility, you chose to honor your body by waiting for that person who really loves you, not just for sex. My close friends were the same, and they are all, (yes ALL) still married to their one and only for about the same number of years I've been married or more. I'm sure your parents are proud. You are a courageous person. It's very easy to do what everyone else is doing. But you went against what most are doing!! Hold your head up high. You deserve it!!

Sex is natural and beautiful...not something to be ashamed of or 'just for making babies'. We aren't hamsters.

We are intelligent, sexual, sentient beings

If you choose to keep your archaic ways, good for you. Just don't think for a second you are superior because you choose to deprive yourself of something so wonderful.

Please show me where anything was said about superior feelings or the degrading of anyone else. On the other hand, MusicGirl was the one who took the brunt of it-Being called a "holy little virgin", and a "weenie" tells me that she was the one made to feel inferior. And then you talking about my "archaic ways" also denotes that my lifestyle is inferior. So I think you are the one who feels superior. You bet I am a sexual human being. I love it!!!! I just wanted it with the one I chose to spend my life with. Deprived-I certainly didn't feel that way. But I personally felt special about myself and body because I was saving it for that special one. Sex is "just for making babies". Well, Harry, after 31 years and only 2 kids (which is what we wanted), I guess we consider sex not just for making babies. You are the one passing judgment, not us. MusicGirl was responding to the statements made that celibacy is not feasible. Well, it is. It was our choice, our friends choice, and more than you think. We didn't berate you for your choice, but you have us for ours.

I want to applaud Musicgirl and her friends for respecting themselves and their bodies, and making good choices.

I have two daughters about that age. Both have made the choice to wait for marriage. Part of what made them choose was seeing their friends who didn't wait. Beautiful smart young ladies who ended up dealing with too early marriages or as unwed mothers. One daughter is a newlywed, she and her husband both just starting out on their careers, and they say they are looking forward to starting a family in a couple of more years. The other is in college and says she is not about to risk her education for any guy.

Unplanned pregnancies are about a lot more than access to birth control or even sex ed. It is about self-respect, having goals, having the self-discipline that it takes to reach those goals.

Both have made the choice to wait for marriage.

Hahahaha yeah. That's what I told my dad, too.

MusicGirl23, what happens when you or your friends get married? What happens when you and/or your husband lose your job and/or the money is tight? Are you suddendly going to turn the clock backwards and reclaim that virginity? Will it suddenly be- oooops sorry now we are poor- no more sex, we cannot afford children? Perhaps you cannot answer these questions if you have not experienced sexual activity with a man/husband. It is not too uncommon for a wfe to actually want to participate in sexual activity with her husband, and certainly almost all men want their wives on a pretty consistant basis. How do poor people handle this situation?

I've handled it for 31 wonderful years. I don't see your point. Why in heaven's name is MusicGirl being berated for her choice to do with her body as she pleases. You must be a Tea Partier because they are accused of interfering with a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body. Music Girl did not judge other people. Why would you judge her? Or are you ashamed of your own "activities"? I just don't get it.

I agree. There are repeat offenders everywhere.

I know a girl living off of food stamps and WIC, and when she gave birth to her first child she was offered birth control by the hospital but she refused it.

She now has TWO children, still complains at her part time job that she has 'no food' in her house, and her husband that works 2 jobs doesn't want any more kid...but SHE does.

Why? Because they don't pay the outrageous hospital bill for every birth, she collects any hand outs she can, and is now applying for a HUD house.

And btw..shes white.

Crap comes in all colors folks.

What about the men in these scenarios? Are they free to impregnate however many girls/women they way want with impunity??? I may not agree with you, but I could respect you a h#ll of a lot more if you were insisting on sterilization for BOTH parents. It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. No girl in the history of the human race has ever "gotten herself pregnant."

I do think that every person deserves a chance and a helping hand. However, having a child is or at least should be a major responsibility. People who have children that they cannot provide for are in effect causing a situation of child neglect/endangerment. Any person who cannot provide for their child/children should be able to receive public assistance. However (and this is a BIG however), to get that assistance they should have to agree to not have additional children until such time as they can provide for them. The penalty for non-compliance could include: 1. Terminating the assistance. 2. Removal of the children for their own health & safety. 3. Criminal prosecution for child neglect/endangerment. 4. Incarceration or sterilization to prevent future child neglect/endangerment.

Notice, please, that I have referred to "people" throughout. The fathers are just as responsible in these pregnancies.

Sterilization? Really? Sounds like a jolly good way to get rid of undesirables. Isn't that what you really mean?

God, I love how Republicans are sooooo anti "Big Government", but they sure don't have a problem coming up with a laundry list of laws and punishments for infractions when it comes to the poor (not to mention other marginalized populations). Sterilize them! Prosecute them! Remove their children! Make them stop having sex! Anti-big-government my ass.

As long as your bank accounts are protected, and the police are watching your bedroom, this country is running just as it should be.

I am for prochoice but it's not enough when people do choose to stretch beyond the socio- economic limits. but not sterilization; I have said it umpteenth times, it's VASECTOMY for the sperm factories, the culprit of all the woes. leave women fertile for planned parenthood. All these invitro, sperm bank and vasec-reversal, are all techno-possible. Why violate the women's body all the time.

God, I love how Republicans are sooooo anti "Big Government", but they sure don't have a problem coming up with a laundry list of laws and punishments for infractions when it comes to the poor... Anti-big-government my ass.

They want "big government" to shrink to the size where it can be put into a woman's vagina.

Some people seem to be very fertile. Others not so much. You know its quite easy to sit in judgement of other people. Who is it that warned about that?

Or they were trapped in abusive relationships that they could not get out of. Women didn't necessarily keep their legs closed back in the good old days, they were just married at a very young age -- or were forced into shotgun weddings when they got caught with their pants down. Not only single women have unwanted children. It has happened since the dawn of the species -- only the details have changed. I absolutely agree that not having sex is the only sure way not to have a kid -- but you are living in a fairytale if you think it never happened in the past.

433rivers-

The unintended pregnancy rate 20 years ago was indeed unlike today's, however, it was higher than the current rate. Thus, there is some hope that comprehensive sex education and increased access to birth control actually makes a difference.

Hey Men,

Do YOU know what a condom is? Do YOU know how to keep your pants on?

Sadly, Harry, I'd say the men we're talking about here are not going to accept that responsibility. It's an age-old argument, but it sort of points to why "the old ways" came to be such long-standing traditions. In this case, teaching girls to preserve their "virtue" has a very practical, real-world benefit which has nothing to do with religion or morals. It has to do with not getting pregnant.

If I know that I'm suceptible to contracting a very dire illness, I don't rely on other people to cover their mouths when they cough; I make damn sure I avoid those people who don't cover their mouths and I take whatever medications I need to protect myself. If I'm short on money, I cut down on smoking or drinking or even eating to make sure I can get that medicine. In short, while other people could help ensure that I don't come down with an illness that could ruin my life, I don't leave it to others to make sure this doesn't happen.

How about teaching boys how to keep their pants zipped? Better yet, how about teaching males and females about masturbation? The only safe sex is with yourself, you know. ;)

Sarah: First, see above with regard to your first question. Second, in the immortal words of Tina Fey of SNL fame, your mouth can't get pregnant.

In this case, teaching girls to preserve their "virtue" has a very practical, real-world benefit which has nothing to do with religion or morals

Actually, it was just a way to keep women in control, to keep them from having freedom of thought and action. I sure don't see how letting men run amok with freedom to have sex with whoever they will, while I stay cloistered in an ivory tower, is practical or beneficial.

I'd say the men we're talking about here are not going to accept that responsibility.

Well, maybe they should start. It takes two to get pregnant, after all.

If I know that I'm suceptible to contracting a very dire illness, I don't rely on other people to cover their mouths when they cough; I make damn sure I avoid those people who don't cover their mouths and I take whatever medications I need to protect myself.

I see the point you're trying to make, but comparing pregnancy to a very dire illness was a poor way to make that point. But since you're going to compare pregnancy to an illness, don't you think a man should nut up and accept a little bit of responsibility for knowingly spreading an "illness"? What if instead of pregnancy, it was AIDS? Shouldn't he accept responsibility and disclosure?

@PrecededbyNone:

I sure don't see how letting men run amok with freedom to have sex with whoever they will, while I stay cloistered in an ivory tower, is practical or beneficial.

As you point out, it takes TWO to tango. If YOU aren't running amok having sex with whomever you will, and if none of your sisters are doing it, well, you pretty much leave the male dogs who run amok to have sex with. . . ? Each other? Their hands? Sheep? None of which will result in an unplanned pregnancy. That's the benefit of you keeping your legs together. Yes, it's a two-way street. But, on a two-way street, if one lane is blocked, guess who has control? Not the guy coming the other direction. . .

Sorry about the "illness" metaphor, but it was really the only way to convey the point. No intent to compare pregnancy to an illness. It was a metaphor - a parallel comparison which does not connect with the real-world situation at any point. Still, you have dodged my point. Yes, certainly the man bears a moral responsibility to protect and disclose. But, hey, for my part, I'm going to look out for myself - not trust someone else to do their part. That's why I wear a seatbelt; I'm pretty damn sure I'M not going to crash my car, but I don't trust anyone else on the road to exercise the same care. Nobody on this planet is going to look out for you as well as you.

To paraphrase the words of a fairly well-respected President, "Trust, but wear a diaphragm (or, for males, a condom)."

Again spoken like a true "man" (again I use the term sarcastically).

So, nica, apart from not liking that practical solution, what's yours? To just continue idealistically hoping that the next guy you jump into bed with will have the decency to wear a condom? Good luck with that.

Better than your solution... NOT taking responsibility at all & simply saying - HEY women IT IS on YOU. Grow up & take responsibility for your sex life & stop blaming women. I take responsibility - SO SHOULD YOU & stop leaving it up to the women you sleep with.

That's the benefit of you keeping your legs together. Yes, it's a two-way street. But, on a two-way street, if one lane is blocked, guess who has control? Not the guy coming the other direction. . .

Ah, I see. Women just need to keep their legs together. I wish I'd thought of that!

And, if the "one lane blocked" is women "keeping their legs together", it's NOT the women who have control. It certainly hasn't been the case throughout history.

It's futile to try and keep people from having sex, or to try and dictate how and when they do it. Wouldn't it be convenient if you could? It's just better to provide them with resources to prevent pregnancy.

Uh, trollista, I didn't say that. At all. Anywhere. At any time. Learn to read and then join the discussion.

They actually HAVE figured out a 100% foolproof birth control method for men. Unfortunately, apparently even women are willing to accept the excuse that "it's impossible for people to not have sex." So, ultimately, ladies, it's up to you to be, well, ladies. You want control over your bodies, right? Then take control. Don't expect some dude to look out for your well-being!

2.11 RIGHT from you keyboard

Uh, trollista, I didn't say that. At all. Anywhere. At any time.

That's the benefit of you keeping your legs together.

teaching girls to preserve their "virtue" has a very practical, real-world benefit

ultimately, ladies, it's up to you to be, well, ladies.

Hmm, since I lack reading comprehension, perhaps you could explain what you meant by these statements, if you weren't implying that ladies need to stop having so much sex?

One more time for the functionally illiterate:

GUYS WILL NOT LOOK OUT FOR YOUR WELL-BEING. THEY DON'T REALLY CARE IN MOST CASES WHETHER YOU GET PREGNANT. SO, IF YOU'RE NOT A COMPLETE IDIOT, KNOWING THAT THIS IS THE CASE, YOU WILL TAKE STEPS YOURSELF TO AVOID GETTING PREGNANT. THESE STEPS MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO NOT SLEEPING AROUND.

How is this not clear? Oh - yeah - here's how it's not clear. You know full well that men are dogs and will sleep around. But, you want to do this without any risk of getting pregnant.

Sorry. That's biologically impossible. Unfair? Who's to say. The simple fact of the matter is that men can sleep around all they want and take no precautions and they will NEVER end up pregnant. If you are a woman and want to have sex but you don't want to end up pregnant, you should probably not count on the guys you sleep with to take the steps necessary to protect YOU.

Whoa there, Caps Lock! No need to shout, just because I pointed out your contradictions doesn't mean you need to call me names, here.

GUYS WILL NOT LOOK OUT FOR YOUR WELL-BEING. THEY DON'T REALLY CARE IN MOST CASES WHETHER YOU GET PREGNANT.

That is simply not true. Even if it was, don't you think it's men who should be exerting a little more self control, ('keeping their legs together') rather than women?

You know full well that men are dogs and will sleep around.

Some men are, yes. So are a lot of women! Most of the men I know, however, are not this way. Why are you so severe on males? And again, if men are dogs, why should women have to be the ones to stop having sex?

you should probably not count on the guys you sleep with to take the steps necessary to protect YOU.

Who says anyone is counting on them? The problem I have with your statements is that they are grossly over-generalized stereotypes that don't translate to the real world. Throwing out the expectation that women "keeping their legs together", because "men are dogs" simply isn't going to solve the unwanted pregnancy dilemma. It hasn't been the case throughout history, from the time women were expected to "protect their virtues", until now, when abstinence-only education reigned in high schools across the nation and unwanted teen-pregnancies skyrocketed.

How about rape? How is a woman supposed to "keep her legs closed" if she is being raped?

Flagged Miker...

@Miami: Come on. Don't throw off-the-wall exceptions into the mix. You're just confusing the issue. That's not even in this discussion and you know it.

@PBN: First of all, you haven't even found, let alone pointed out, any "contraditions" on my part. I'm very consistent on this issue. Regardless of gender, don't have sex if you can't deal with the potential outcome.

Second, what's your proposed solution, then? All you're doing is saying that I'm putting it all on the woman, which is 100% false. All I'm suggesting is that knowing you're the one who's going to bear the brunt of an unplanned pregnancy it's simply in your own best interest to make sure you take care of protecting yourself regardless of what the guy does. On one hand you say I'm being overly harsh on guys but then practically in the same breath you say that I'm putting it all on the woman? Make up your mind.

In fact, you know what?, I'm done even discussing this with you until you come up with an actual counter-argument or even a reasonable refutation of mine.

No condoms?

Coitus Interruptus, dawg.

Your contradictions were pointed out above, many times Miker. You claim you didn't believe in controlling anyone's behavior, yet you insist and insist and insist, in numerous posts (quoted above, I don't think I need to re-quote) that women need to "keep their legs shut". When this contradiction was pointed out, you retaliated childishly by calling ME illiterate, in all-caps. I don't see how that is, as you say, a "reasonable refutation" .

My solution is the one that has proven to be most effective, so far: providing birth control and education to the masses.

Your solution so far is just to tell women to stop having sex. While in theory, yes, that is the best solution, experience shows that it doesn't work when you try to implement it into real life.

Please tell me where I'm being unreasonable... because I do believe it's you doing the insulting here.

PBN: Actually, I'm not nearly as frustrated with you as with nica, but that's neither here nor there when in actual fact I totally agree that providing birth control and education to the masses (your words) is an excellent solution.

Now, how do you get people who have shown little propensity to exercise responsibility for their personal conduct to actually USE birth control? And, are you suggesting that birth control be available to everybody or especially women?

Hm. Seems to me this discussion takes us right back 'round to women making sure they take their pills because even if the guy wraps it up there's no guarantee that a condom is going to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. And, we both know which gender gets pregnant, right?

You appear to equate my suggestion with blaming women for unplanned pregnancies. Not so. While I do believe that some women do carefully orchestrate an "unplanned" pregnancy for one reason or another, my suggestion that women look out for themselves is not the same as saying they are at fault if they end up pregnant.

So, let's throw a new spin on this discussion, shall we? GUYS! Women might tell you they're on the pill when they aren't. If you don't want to end up paying child support, wear a condom or keep it in your pants!

Happy now?

@nica: Right back at ya, sweetheart. No value.

Miker, do you or any of the others out there that agree with you, realize at all, that by taking away public assistance, the ONLY ones punished are the children??

You are missing the big picture. It's not the woman or the man who's going to be put out if food stamps or WIC are taken away, it's the babies.

Pointing fingers and assigning blame is hardly the solution and preaching abstinence is obviously a complete waste of time. There will always be uneducated and poor people, people who make bad choices, etc. who have more children than they can afford to raise with high standards. However, how we treat our weakest citizens should be our primary concern.

It's not about punishment. It's about dis-incentivizing foolish behavior and bad decisions.

Certainly I don't advocate punishing children for their parents' stupidity. But, I also don't advocate rewarding their stupid parents for being stupid and irresponsible. Sadly, too many have figured out how to turn "protecting vulnerable kids" into a career for themselves. And, I - and probably those who generally agree with me (again, I will not presume to speak for others) - simply do not tolerate programs which are so fraught with fraud and misuse.

What's the solution? Clearly there are many who agree with you that they "just can't help themselves" when it comes to having sex - even when they KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in no position to deal with a pregnancy. But, I have not advocated the "abstinence only" line of thought. I advocate that as an affordable (free, even) option which is readily available to EVERYONE regardless of race, color, creed, economic status, etc.

Free condoms and birth control pills for everyone? Well, if you aren't responsible enough and don't have enough self-control to avoid having sex, what good is it to have birth control available? You probably wouldn't use it.

Abortion? Not something I can support as a means of "correcting" a personal mistake. Some people can accept it. I'm not one of them.

Pointing fingers and assigning blame actually IS productive; it's a means of identifying needs and those who need. In this case, what they seem to need is education, and neither I nor anyone else I've read on here (except possibly the UAW guy) is opposed to that.

Whether our education system is up to providing any of the required education is a huge and separate question. . .

Miker-----I hope you have had a vasectomy.

My solution would bee to have many irresponsible men get a vasectomy. There is a little gold on / off switch OR if a man 's financial situation (good job) changes it can be more easily reversed.

The other solution being that Daddies actually acknowledge and support their children.

As for coitus interruptus ... are you aware that a percentage of men have "pre-intercourse" emissions of a small amount of semen containing SPERM? So, coitus interruptus DOES NOT WORK. Most men who experience this actually call it "pre-come" or "natural lube".

As for the rhythm method ... I come from a family that has twins and multiple ovulations on both sides. My sister has the ultrasound showing THREE individual embryos and I have one that shows my son and an EMPTY amniotic sac. When a woman experiences multiple ovulations and releases more than one egg it usually means that she has one ovulation about 14 days after the FDLMP and another at some point after that. This is how my grandmother had my youngest aunt on the rhythm method. Some multiple ovum releases happen the same day and some happen up to ten days apart. These multiple ovulations are not predictable ... it's not like a woman does this every month ... so they are very tricky to chart and plan around.

Yes, there should be personal responsibility for all the parties involved. But birth control and other basic health services should be available for all socio-economic backgrounds. The social conservatives are intent on sticking government in the doctor's office and in the IRS (read the original draft of the changes the Republicans wanted to make to the Hyde amendment which prohibits the use of Federal Funds for abortions ... they wanted the IRS to be involved in monitoring if a woman had an abortion) in the doctor's office with a woman who is making choices regarding her reproductive health and her reproductive life.

I am 42 and started using birth control at the age of 16. I have had two failures of birth control (one miscarriage and one termination due to my life circumstances - it involved a VERY abusive marriage I was fleeing). I have one 4 year old son. He was planned, even if we got pregnant a bit earlier than the original plan. I was back on birth control as soon as I could be after his birth and my husband has since had a vasectomy. I went through Planned Parenthood when I could afford to to get birth control when I was younger and living under the poverty line with my first husband. I also used a free clinic when I couldn't afford Planned Parenthood (and thus had a birth control failure when they didn't have my usual pills and substituted something else without telling me that it could lead to a break in the protection). Don't presume to tell others what they should do when you have never walked even a single step in their shoes.

My personal hope is that someday medical science will find a way to transplant an embryo from one body to another so that women who are infertile and men who want a baby can gestate a baby and there will be no need for abortion. Until we reach that point, abortion remains a necessary evil and birth control is and will continue to be a very necessary right for all people who engage in sex.

Geez, woman, take a joke.

People generally don't end serious sentences with "dawg."

Sex is not an indulgence for the rich, it's a basic part of being human. Sex is something positive and good, not a dirty habit to be avoided. If all you can think about while having sex is all the possible bad things that could happen because of it, you are seriously cheating yourself out of one of the best experiences in the world.

And if you let "feeling good" determine what you do or don't do, or refuse to exercise any restraint over your bodily urges, you're in for a very rough life, probably ending in prison or an early death.

The argument that "sex is a basic part of being human" is ridiculous. So is taking a crap, but civilized humans are expected to control when and where they do that. Are you a dog that just breeds every time you're "in season?"

The primary biological purpose of having sex is to reproduce. If you engage in sex, you undertake the risk that reproduction will occur. If you cannot afford that risk, it's up to you to take the necessary steps to avoid or abate that risk. Otherwise, you pay the price.

YOU pay the price. Not me. Not society. And, most certainly, not the child you create.

I've never had children because I am unable, and I've always considered that a blessing.

The hostile tone of your post and the fact that you are comparing sexual intercourse to defecation leads me to believe that sex and/or women have a negative connocation for you. Perhaps you should investigate your hostility and misogyny before you take on the mantle of counseling others regarding their reproductive restrictions.

Sorry you've misinterpreted my point. I was only responding to your "tone." Misogynist? Really? You're calling ME hostile? I'd say you not only missed the point but deliberately skipped over it so that you could get on with the name-calling.

And, no, I don't associate defecation with sexual intercourse in any way, shape or form. That wasn't the point at all. The point is that civilized humans are expected to control their physical urges - not to act on them without restraint.

But, since you didn't like that comparison, how do you feel about vegetarians? OK? Normal? Or, impossible? Human beings are designed to eat meat, yet surely you wouldn't argue that humans are incapable of resisting meat. In fact, you know that thousands of humans avoid meat for a number of reasons - one of which is undoubtedly that meat is very expensive. I submit to you that so is sex. And, if you can't afford it, you need to learn to refrain from it.

I suppose when two people are just lying around the house all day because now the woman is unemployed, an increase in unplanned births is to be expected.

Really, why arent you working!? Isnt the old saying, the man is supposed to take care of the woman!? Arent you the bread winner in your relationship or are you dead beat who sits on the couch all day expecting your woman to work, clean and wait on you!?

The subtle unspoken message there was that the kind of guys we're talking about - the ones who get some poor, uneducated girl pregnant and then leave her to deal with it - ARE the deat beats who sit on the couch all day. Sorry you were unable to pull that meaning out, but that was sort of the point. The guys we're talking about in these situations were relying on the woman to work and support them, but in this economy the women are probably now out of work and home all the time with their deadbeat men. Get it now?

And, if you can't afford it, you need to learn to refrain from it.

Miker, I've been reading your posts, I tend to agree with Sarah's asessment. Though I might go a step further, I don't think its a matter of women that you don't like, it seems it more poor people you don't like. I imagine there are tons of things they SHOULD/COULD learn to live without. Sex, Food, Shelter, gosh the list could go on and on. And just think if they start training them when they are little just think how disciplined they could learned to be. /sarc

@klm: The fact that you rate sex in the same category of necessities as food and shelter tells me all I need to know about your point of view.

What are you doing this weekend?

I see it all the time here in Bolingbrook IL at the Walmart. These people are buying better than me. We need to limit their choices to Milk, water, eggs, bread, oatmeal, bananas, apples, canned vegs, chicken breast you have to cook instead of microwave.

Bolingbrook? Wasnt that place nice not too long ago or am I not remembering correctly?

I was just there at the IKEA.

Actually I have WIC coupons in my purse right now......let's see the big week you can get 2 gallons or skim or 1% milk, one container of juice, 1 loaf of whole wheat bread or box of cereal, one jar of peanut butter and one dozen eggs....also one coupon for up to $10.00 in fresh or frozen vegetables, all other weeks are 1 - 2 gallons of milk and one juice......

Not sure an adult could live off that for a month, certainly seems less than a pregnant mother to be can live on.......I think I calculated it out to about $65.00 for the month.....

The WIC program is intended to feed Women and children....children need MOMMIES. Isn't that wierd how that works? Nursing mothers need nutrition, strange huh?

Christian nation? yeah sure, the more I read the hateful, selfish, holier than thou posts the more I am convinced we have some of the crappiest "Christians" in the world in this country.

Seriously people would you say this stuff in front of Jesus?

You know, I think I could actually get on-board with that! I'm sure there will be a shtstorm of liberal thinkers and "rights" minded folks who will absolutely stroke out over the mere suggestion, but it's actually a damn fine idea. On top of that, I could have enjoyed high school and college a lot more with fewer worries! (Which, incidentally is exactly why some people are against handing out birth control pills and condoms to teens. . . )

It sounds like a good idea to me I have no problem paying some taxes towards our local school district, key word being some. However, when my household has no kids and never will and we still have to pay over $5,000 a year towards the school district I have a big problem with it while my neighbors with the kids pay less because their home or property may be smaller. Its time those who have the kids pay for them, my household should not be forced to cover the cost to feed and educate half a child a year when we have none. Its also bothersome to think that over the course of our 30 year mortgage we will have paid over $150,000 towards the local school district, yes, its time we hold the people who have kids more accountable for their own actions.

What is it with you and the school district? Don't you think everyone else pays plenty in taxes of other stuff not used? It's part of being in a community and society where everyone benefits. If you're paying $5000 a year in taxes and the entire amount is going towards education, I say you should take another look at your tax paper or move out of your district.

I never call the cops, or the fire department. I have no use for any municipal government except for trash collection. And since I live on seven acres I could probably build my own landfill.

I don't use that stuff, so I don't want to have to pay the taxes that support them.

@uaw - you sure have some serious problems. Maybe you should move to a nice large house somewhere less populous, where your tax rates will be lower. Like out in the desert somewhere. I happen to pay a good bit in property taxes as well. I don't begrudge any of that going to the local school system, as I think it's in everyone's best interests to have an educated population. But I pay again - I scrimp and save to send my kids to Catholic school. But you won't hear me crying for vouchers to get my tax dollars back since I'm paying twice - it's part of being a responsible citizen to ensure a decent education is available to all. I also pay for roads I probably don't drive on - but I'm not asking for a rebate on that either. Haven't (thankfully) had need for the fire department - but I gladly pay their salary. Never called animal control. Haven't used an ambulance. Should I demand a rebate and require that only people who get sick pay for the ambulance? This article is about unplanned pregnancies - but you sound like you're against ANY pregnancies and children entirely! Bah Humbug!

Princess, unfortunately, that IS what he wants. It's all part of the teabagger manifesto in which every man, woman and child is on their own. People like this don't seem to understand or appreciate the fact that we don't live on an island unto ourselves. By choosing to be an American, we accept that we live in a large and diverse society, and by giving a little, we all benefit.

UAW -- here are a Top 10 list of why you should NOT mind paying school taxes even if you don't have children.

1. Someday you will need a doctor. They must be educated.

2. Someday you might need a lawyer. They must be educated.

3. Someday you might need an electrician. They must be educated.

4. Someday you might need an auto mechanic. They must be educated.

5. Someday you might need a policeman. They must be educated.

6. Someday you might need a fireman. They must be educated.

7. Someday you might need an appliance repairmen. They must be educated.

8. Someday you might need a computer geek for that machine you're typing on. Thy must be educated.

9. Someday you might want to retire with a slim HOPE of Social Security ... those people needing jobs that will pay into Social Security MUST BE EDUCATED.

10. And FINALLY, years ago, many people paid to educate YOU! It's now your turn.

UAW makes me sick

Instead of whining about your taxes, move out of town! Everyone pays taxes, get over it. Its what we do as a society to better the population, would you rather there be no school and everyone is poor and uneducated!? I bet your parents paid taxes so you could have an education, right!? So now you can sit here and whine about what you pay in taxes. I am also glad you dont want children, I do hope you have followed what you believe and steralized yourself long ago. Id hate to have to encounter a mini you on here complaining about the same thing!

Last time I checked I LIVE in the USA and I have freedom to do what I like when I like! Who are you to tell me I need steralized or to pass a criteria or when and how many children I can have based on the dollar amount I make or how educated I am!

This is about unplanned pregnacy! Let me guess your parents got married and planned your birth to the exact day!? Arent you special!

Its about educating the people as a whole, not just the poor. And to offer free contraceptives and birth control to BOTH sexes! It takes two to make a baby! Why should the woman bear all the burden, when clearly it also took a man not wanting to close his legs or not thinking that he could "have" a baby!?

Everyone who agreed with this post should run out immediately and get themselves sterilized! Practice what you preach! :)

Singlemom, I have actually done so. Circumstances arranged themselves in such a way that I had a uterine ablation and can't have children, but I would have done it anyway. I chose not to have children for three reasons:

1. I have genetic issues which I do not wish to continue in humanity's gene pool.

2. The world is overpopulated.

3. Children should be had by people who love them. I do not love children.

I have put my money where my mouth is. Have you?

A woman that doesn't love children? Weird...

A woman that doesn't love children? Weird...

Why is that weird? Children are much better grown up!

I have ovaries and I hate children, read my screen name.

What part of this country being broke do you not understand? Can we not just start holding these folks accountable for their own actions or just get the democrats and others like you to donate your free time and money towards righting the problems these folks overburden the rest of the country with.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Nazi Germany had a specific agenda to purify their race by eliminating very specific parties from their gene pool. That has nothing to do with making sure that people who cannot afford to raise children - and who have demonstrated that they are unable to raise children - don't have them.

How about the back asswards repubs paying for all those kids that are born because they want to screw with women's rights and make affordable birth control and abortion unavailable?

The republicans would rather see the poor with 8 kids and starving than allow a woman to choose what to do with her own body.

Give me a break.

So, you're saying a woman does NOT have the choice, in the absence of free birth control, to NOT have sex? Hm. Sounds like the "freedom of choice" you're offering is just as limited as the one you're condemning.

There are other ways to satify each other, its time we hold those accountable for their own actions Harry. No need to provide their people with anything because they are no in situations where they should have any kids so they should not be having intercourse. It really is that simple but you folks choose to make it difficult and seem like we need Gov intervention when all we need to do is hold these folks accountable for their own actions. Or like I stated above, let those who want to help these people such as the Democrats and HarryNutly donate their time and money towards helping them.

Forced sterilization, a program Germany instituted in 1934, is recognized as a crime against humanity, and yet you still try to justify the institution of the same practice in this great country.

In addition, I don't hear a peep about the continued funding of the unjustified war in Iraq that you and the republican party ginned up (WMDs) so George the Lesser could avenge his father.

Miker, it is a good comparison, this "solution" aims to rid the country of undesirables as well - just a different kind.

Nope. They're not aiming to "get rid of undesirables." That's the whole point (that you're missing). It's not about eliminating a particular segment of society. It's about preventing the birth of children into lives of poverty and neglect. Quite a different goal. And, a totally different means of achieving it.

Forced sterilization also occurred in our country. Look at the hearings taking place in NC. Funny how the people who were determined in need of forced sterilization ended up being mentally handicapped, poor, or even victims of rape! Many of these people went on to lead better lives, but could not have children of their own when they got in a position where they could take care of them, because the state had deemed them unfit when they were only young adults.

I think you're the one missing the point. Quite a few of you seem harbor a lot of resentment and disgust for the poor and uneducated women that this article is about. It seems that the suggestion of steriilzing them so that they can't multiply and get in the way of some misguided idyllic American lifestyle, is the objective. Isn't that the point? That they're in your way and trampling on your "rights".

I find the suggestion of forced sterilization horrifying and anyone who would cheer it on is not only uneducated, but narcissistic and dangerous.

What part of this country being broke do you not understand? Can we not just start holding these folks accountable for their own actions or just get the democrats and others like you to donate your free time and money towards righting the problems these folks overburden the rest of the country with.

And Republicans had NO PART of this problem? This is a problem we have ALL gotten ourselves into. Not just Democrats, not just Republicans. But until you can get past your politically biased blinders, I don't suspect you'll be able to grasp that concept. Try reading and understanding a little ... and watching something besides Fox "News".

The sterilization program in the US was not strictly speaking "forced." I know many would argue that it was forced, but that was not true in all or even most cases. And, it was NOT racist. Many blacks actively supported the program - and many whites were sterilized under it.

@goodforgoodness: Many people DO harbor resentment for poor and uneducated people - because so many poor and uneducated people today end up poor and uneducated through their own bad choices. I don't think very many of us harbor any hatred toward the people, but there are many, many of us who resent being asked to not only help out people who have made mistakes but to enable them to continue making the same mistake over and over and over.

Well, I guess you're right then. By eliminating the possibility that these poor, uneducated people can reproduce and make more poor, uneducated babies, then the world WILL be a better place. Glad someone like you, who's never made a mistake and was lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth and educated parents that steered you in the right direction in life could clear that up for the rest of us.

People with lower IQs: off to surgery you go!

Oooops, who's going to pay for that? Certainly not you or Mr.UAW. hmmmm what a dilema

Actually, I'd be happy to pay for it.

But, with regard to your own self-righteous "I'm-more-human-than-you-because-I'm-a-liberal" tone, nobody is saying that people should be punished for making a mistake. What I am saying - I won't presume to speak for others who may agree - is that we shouldn't enable people who have made a mistake to repeat that mistake again and again.

Silver spoon in MY mouth? That's freaking hilarious! I was born to an enlisted Air Force man and his young wife who lived in a garage converted into a studio apartment! My grandfather worked until the day he died - as a mechanic. Perhaps that's why I was determined to make sure that I didn't knock up any of my high school girlfriends. I sure as hell didn't want to be enlisted in the military and living in a garage when I got out on my own, or working in a garage until I dropped over dead. All it took to avoid all that was a little self-control and discipline on my part.

@mike - sterilization could be performed without the consent of the individual. At least in NC, if the individual refused, then a next of kin, spouse, or legal guardian (who could be the state) could provide consent. If a person did not consent, then they could appeal to the Eugenics board, where they had 10-15 minutes to plead for their future fertility. The board could overrule the appeal.

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/315/entry

Never said the program was racist - at least in NC more whites than blacks were sterilized. Evidently it was mostly only women who needed to keep from procreating though - women were 6 out of 7 sterilizations. You might want to watch video from some of the people who were sterilized by the state for the public good. I think they would disagree with you that these were not forced sterilizations. Children as young as 10 were sterilized. "Sickness" and "feeblemindedness" were valid justification, as was the risk of "social misbehavior". Illnesses such as epilepsy could make you a candidate for the state to perform permanent sterilization surgery.

Many people have suggested that the program was "racist." Which as you point out is ridiculous in NC's case.

My take on that program and the sterilization of children or other dependents is that parents all make decisions affecting their children for their entire lives. When that decision is intended to ensure that a child doesn't end up with children of their own that they are unable to raise for any of a multitude of reasons I don't consider that such a bad thing. The "State" didn't hunt people down and drag them into clinics for this program. It was almost always the parents or caretakers of the sterilized persons making this decision.

From the NC History website:

The sterilization process was initiated when designated institutional or county officers filed petitions for sterilization

And from a Yale University publication:

Forced sterilization was legal in 18 U.S. states, and most states with eugenics laws allowed people to be sterilized without their consent by leaving the decision to a third party.

Eugenics sprang from the philosophy of social Darwinism, which envisioned human society in terms of natural selection and suggested that science could engineer progress by attacking supposedly hereditary problems including moral decadence, crime, venereal disease, tuberculosis and alcoholism.

I find the second sentence especially interesting. My paternal grandparents were both alcoholics, and both died of tuberculosis. Their children went on to have successful lives, several of them serving in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. I am a highly educated professional. And yet I might not be here if my grandparents had lived in a state that more actively enforced eugenics policies.

@P'bride: Agreed, but that gets into some pretty nebulous stuff. Like, how many times people don't have sex and so we never know who might not have been born. Etc. I don't think the state has any business getting involved in these decisions, but where parents made the call for children they determined to be "risky" in terms of procreation, I really just don't have a problem with it.

Not quite sure how religion came into this. . . Unless you're referring to the Catholic ban on birth control, which I believe even Catholics pretty much ignore for the most part today. (Hint: If birth control - which most certainly could include practicing abstinence - is used, the market for abortions nearly evaporates.)

Hi Mike

I'm talking about the religious people in this country that picket outside of Planned Parenthood and do everything in their power to limit availability to birth control (and abortion if need be) to women because they don't approve.

I agree... the more PREVENTION we can give women and men, the less likely abortions or unwanted births will occur. Then we all win!

Stop rewarding underachievers to crap out kids!

This is the big one, IMHO, more so than access to birth control. Think about how cheap a pack of condoms are or even buying one of those 'day after' pill kits. It's not that people can't afford protection; they're simply not using it in the vast majority of cases b/c they're simply irresponsible.

Personally, I'm all for voluntary sterilization if a couple or individual needs government assistance to take care of kids they can't afford. That way, the child is at least able to be cared for and the couple or individual isn't able to continue exacerbating the problem by having more children.

If you don't believe in Birth Control and Abortion, then don't use it! Just don't expect tax payers to shower you with food stamps and discounted housing! Personal responsibility!

That's the problem with the religious nuts you see outside of Abortion clinics, if they're not cramming their beliefs down everyone's throat, they're not doing their job. All of the people protesting abortion and birth control should be the first ones lining up to adopt the children who are either unwanted, 'accidents' or simply unable to be cared for by the parents or woman in question.

Hint: If birth control - which most certainly could include practicing abstinence - is used, the market for abortions nearly evaporates.

Except that roughly half of the abortions are for people using birth control.

No one is going to stop having sex because they can't afford birth control or don't have money.

If they refuse to avoid having sex when they can't afford to accept the risks, then they should pay the price. Not us.

People are people - not rutting dogs. It is most certainly possible for civilized, educated people to avoid having sex when they can't afford the risks associated with it.

My kids frequently tell me that they "didn't mean to" break something. I respond by telling them that they clearly didn't mean NOT to break it. Avoiding an "accident" is usually much more than simply hoping it doesn't happen. You usually have to actively avoid it. That may include avoiding a risky activity altogether.

Yes, you are your brother's keeper.

Sex is about having children. It's unaviodable. It's a force that can't be squashed.

Nope. Not buying it. Sex IS perfectly avoidable. The desire CAN be quashed (that's the word you were looking for - NOT "squashed"). They even have separate words for men who can't keep it in their pants and women who can't keep their legs together.

But, if you're truly unable to avoid sex, post your phone number. I'm sure a few of us would love to look you up this weekend.

You can't turn everything into an entitlement and deny others to make yourself feel superior.

If you don't know or understand that sex is the most potent biological force on the planet than you don't about life and secuality.

Miker, that's crossing the line. I find your comment to Carmen offensive to all women. Whassa matter, can't keep it in your pants?

Thank you.

He's projecting.

Projecting? I think it's Carmen who is "projecting." She's the one who seems to be unable to avoid having sex at every opportunity. I'm sitting right here telling her that I can choose to have sex or not have sex. She's saying it's impossible. Which makes it sound like she has no control over her own body. . . like the kind of girl we all tried to hook up with after the football games in high school. If the shoe doesn't fit. . . don't wear it.

No offense intended, but the point is that sex is very much within a human being's capacity for self-control. It's a matter of WILL. Not biology.

Mike is a typical American, brought up in a Christianized society where sex is a constant source of shame. It's much easier to control people when they're not empowered to freely explore their own sexuality.

What worries me is the misogyny (hating women). It's like Mike seeks to "quash" his lustful impulses while at the same hating the women whom he lusts after. A very serial killer/Freudian sort of thing.

You can't turn everything into an entitlement and deny others to make yourself feel superior.

I think you're missing the point entirely as it has nothing to do with entitlement or some kind desire to experience a feeling of superiority. You do realize that the money to pay for these children, who are unable to be cared for by their biological parents, has to come from somewhere, right?

Sex is certainly a potent biological force, but this is a biological area that separates humans from animals b/c humans are supposed to have the mental capacity to assess and understand the repercussions of their actions whereas animals (for the most part) rely on nothing but nature to guide their actions.

Sex is about having children. It's unaviodable. It's a force that can't be squashed.

This seems like an incredibly outdated way of looking at sex. Speaking for a younger generation, sex is all about pleasure, a desire for intimacy between couples and ideally it won't result in a pregnancy until you're actually trying to have kids. It's not hard to wrap it up and have all the sex you want, people are just lazy, irresponsible and coddled by government handouts that the rest of us have to pay for via taxes.

Thank you, sono! Finally - somebody gets it. I was getting pretty tired of the name-calling and stale but hilarious psych 101 diagnoses from Sarah & Co.

Who wants to control people? I just want to control where my money goes. Because I don't choose to spend it on "poor, uneducated" women doesn't make me a misogynist (and, BTW, SARAH, if anyone on this comments board has a problem with misogyny, it's YOU). It makes me a careful steward of my resources.

Sex is great. It's just not something you should engage in if you aren't prepared to deal with the possible - and biologically intended - outcome.

How am I being misogynistic? If it's a misogynistic idea for women to be empowered about their sexuality instead of making them feel like shameful guttertrash, then then call me guilty. I refuse to let women martyr themselves on the altar of sexual inhibition and shame just so you can save a buck.

What is so frightening to you about a sexually empowered woman, Mike?

I'm the one - you may remember from several posts - who has repeatedly said that women have total control over whether they have sex or not. How is my position not sexually empowering? For that matter, how is it really any different than yours? I truly, truly wish you would answer that question for me because I think it is patently unfair for you or nica or anyone else to accuse me of being a misogynist for asserting that YOU are free to choose whether you have sex or not. And, frankly, I'm so tired of it that if you cannot answer that question with some degree of honesty and logic, I'm done with this conversation.

I just want to control where my money goes.

I'm sorry, since when do we get to pick and choose, as individuals, where our tax dollars go? I don't want to pay for 2+ wars, but here we are.

Your posts actually have, repeatedly, implied that you want to control people's behavior. You just did, actually:

Sex is great. It's just not something you should engage in if you aren't prepared to deal with the possible - and biologically intended - outcome.

That IS the epitome of abstinence-only education, and it doesn't work.

Actually, I DON'T have any interest in controlling anyone's behavior. I'd much prefer, as I've indicated repeatedly, that people control their own behavior. And, before you assert that I just want people to do what I want them to do (or not do what I don't want them to do), may I remind you that an unplanned pregnancy is hardly in anyone's best interest. I won't argue that I actually have people's best interests in mind. I could. But, I won't.

Your argument about individual control over tax dollars is absurd. Of course we don't get to direct the expenditure of our taxes directly. That statement hardly even deserves a response. But, if you have a problem with paying for two wars, I'll assert that you have a responsibility to make your opinion known. That's how this government works. Problems arise when too many people just sit back, as you apparently suggest that we all do, and say, "Well, they're just going to spend our tax dollars where ever they want, so I'm not going to speak up." I'm willing to speak up. And, I have. And, I continue to do so in every election.

Responsibilty to the responsible.

I'm glad there's a man who believes in this.

I think it's Carmen who is "projecting." She's the one who seems to be unable to avoid having sex at every opportunity. I'm sitting right here telling her that I can choose to have sex or not have sex. She's saying it's impossible. Which makes it sound like she has no control over her own body. . . like the kind of girl we all tried to hook up with after the football games in high school. If the shoe doesn't fit. . . don't wear it.

Again, a classic example of the Madonna/whore dichotomy (and if anyone thinks the Madonna I'm referring to is the singer, their credibility is in question). A woman is a desired object to be lusted after, but the moment she gives in and has sex, she becomes worthless trash.

Female sexuality has been feared for ages, and it's not about to stop anytime soon. When it comes to unplanned pregnancy in poor women, it's much easier to call them whores and condemn them as sexually insatiable animals instead of putting forth actual effort to solve the problem of why our society has a caste of poor women to begin with.

Again, Sarah, if the shoe fits. Wear it. If it doesn't apply to you, let it go. Carmen's comments and my responses to them are not the central issue here. Try to stay on topic. Respond to #13.12, which was a question directed right at you, instead of trying to change the subject by responding to comments which have nothing to do with you.

Miker, sure women have control over whether or not they have sex. Anything that does not involve their choice to do so is termed rape.

But what about women who are perhaps poor, who feel like they have to depend on some man (no matter how unsavory a character) to get along or have a place to live or have food on the table for her and her kids. It is fairly common for women of little means to find some man to help her out. And she has to "help him out", as well. Pregnancy in these situations is fairly common.

Over all, I agree with your position. But, with this issue, as with many, there are some fuzzy areas around the edges. And at the same time, Medicaid provides for medical services for the woman and the kids and ups the ante every time she has another. Basically, the kids are hostages, sometimes.

@Grump: (Hi, by the way.) Agreed. And, excellent points. But, would you agree that the practice you describe basically amounts to prostitution? Seems like that branch of the argument supports legalizing that activity in the name of bringing a bit more professionalism to the profession. . .

Miker, Hi.

A woman living with a man to help support herself as prostitution? I don't know that I would go that far with the idea but, yes, there is something unsavory about it. Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Is that what all marriages are or just a few?

Depends on the marriage, I guess. . .

Wait just a minute, for hours you've been happily defending sterilization as an effective method to stop un planned pregnancies and now you're going to say you're not trying to control anyone's behavior?

This should not have even come up in conversation as a plausible solution. And you're going to state that you don't want to have your share of taxes go to welfare programs but you WOULD pay for sterilizations? Give me a break already.

On top of this, you accuse me of being self-righteous? Does this sound familiar?

I won't argue that I actually have people's best interests in mind. I could. But, I won't.

I gave up trying to argue w/ Miker. He keeps switching sides and back-pedaling as soon as you point out his inconsistencies, then he'll turn around and blame you for being the "illiterate" one, claiming that he made his point clear all along, the rest of us are just too stupid to keep up with his wisdom.

One of my favorite examples:

People are people - not rutting dogs. It is most certainly possible for civilized, educated people to avoid having sex when they can't afford the risks associated with it. (#13.1)

You know full well that men are dogs and will sleep around. (#7.14)

Don't rely on guys because most guys are like dogs. They want to get laid. (#2.14)

Oooohh. Good catch. Let me clarify for you.

"People should be able to act like civilized humans - not rutting dogs." SHOULD be able to. In reality, they don't. And, according to you and your ilk, that means we're expecting way too much when we ask that they show a little self-control. NOT our control over them. SELF-CONTROL.

That's not "switching sides" or "back-pedaling." You haven't caught ME in an inconsistency. Bad wording, maybe. You've caught yourself and - apparently, according to many judgments on this board - the human race in an inconsistency. They claim that they're not dogs, but they act like dogs, apparently with your blessing. But, not mine.

Given the number of other people on here who actually DO get it, I don't see much point in carrying this discussion any further with you, either.

Nice try at the rationalization, Mikey, but unfortunately, no one on here is going to believe you. Do you even believe the tripe you're spewing? God, I hope not.

Uh, goodforgoodness? Asserting that sterilization is a viable option for preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies has nothing to do with control. Get your emotions in check before you try to have a discussion please.

If a woman in certain circumstances wanted a tubal ligation but could not afford it, I'd gladly put up the money. That's not "controlling" people. That's helping people exercise good judgment. But, I fear that you, like a few others here, have too much emotional baggage to make it worthwhile to carry this discussion any further.

passive aggressive nonsense

But, I fear that you, like a few others here, have too much emotional baggage to make it worthwhile to carry this discussion any further.

Given the number of other people on here who actually DO get it, I don't see much point in carrying this discussion any further with you, either.

And, frankly, I'm so tired of it that if you cannot answer that question with some degree of honesty and logic, I'm done with this conversation.

In fact, you know what?, I'm done even discussing this with you until you come up with an actual counter-argument or even a reasonable refutation of mine.

Ooh, do you just abruptly end a conversation every time someone calls you out on your BS, Mikey? Methinks you'll be back for more. You've provided me with more than enough ridiculous contradictory statements to keep this up all night!

I could, too, but you're simply not worth it.

You haven't actually caught me in any inconsistencies. I think you're just a tad bitter that you've been unable to present anything more than an emotional diatribe in response. And, yes, when it becomes painfully obvious that a discussion is going nowhere slowly, it's a waste of my time and yours to continue.

Miker, I am thinking that I agree with you.

Full stop here. No use to go on that I can see. The only thing that really stands out is the frustration on both sides with this predicament.

I can only hope.

you've been unable to present anything more than an emotional diatribe in response

Where have I been emotional? The only emotion I feel in response to your comments is amusement over your need to scramble to defend yourself. I also believe, when I reasonably questioned your comment about women "keeping their legs closed", you called me a trollista, claimed you'd never said it, then called me "functionally illiterate" and continued a rant in all caps-lock.

In a more recent post, about your dog comments, I didn't even have to add any of my own words for you to launch into a tirade of self-defense, anger, and denial.

It's okay though, I don't take it personally. In fact, I'd probably be angry too if I'd been forced to eat my words as often as you have in this discussion.

But wait, I thought you were leaving?

I heartily agree. Telling people to not have sex isn't a viable option. Education and availability of birth control is the only way to go. Eliminating the incentives to get pregnant would be helpful as well. [Not paying people to get pregnant]

Exactly. I just feel like now people don't worry at all about the consequences of having children. Especially in poor communities where the norm is young, single mothers with more than one child.

There are ways to have sex and NOT get pregnant! This is where personal responsibility comes in.

don't blame me I just wanted a BJ

I was thinking more along the lines of contraception, but that works too

Lol.

Don't you dare lay all this on the "baby-mommas!"

Take a walk thru the park in my town where several of the young healthy men slap each other on the back on the third of the month and talk about how they have to go run the "circuit" and collect the stable dough.

Three and four babies by different women. Each woman collecting welfare, living in public housing for free, food cards, utility checks, child support from the state, free cell phone, and loser guy (did I call HIM the loser) drifting from one girl to the next whenever he got bored, living off the free food in the rent free apartments, no responsibilities.

Any of you ever wonder why the male-dominated scientific world hasn't ever come up with a pill to sterilize the male of the population?

Hi scremin.

You and/or others might be surprised that I totally agree with you. However, I still put part of the situation you describe on the women who fall for these guys. Most certainly, these guys are complete losers - although they've definitely got a game that works for them. So, why do these women let them keep coming around for their nightly bootie call and monthly hand-out? Don't you agree that at some point it's sort of up to the woman to say (with gun in hand as necessary), "Get the hell out of my apartment, and don't come back?"

Miker -

I think you underestimate the amount of fear that women, especially low-income women, live with every day. There is something Stockholm-ish about how women stay in bad relationships. Combine that with the fact that women are not as large as men, not as strong as men, and a culture where low-income men are actually encouraged to be dangerous, (I refer to the gang banger lifestyle) and you're going to have a woman who's afraid to kick her "man" out.

Jilted and jealous men stalk and kill their former lovers at a far greater rate than women do. This fact is in the back brain most of the time, but if you're raised in that kind of environment, that is something you will never forget.

hwilson: I don't underestimate it - I am absolutely, totally clueless about this aspect of the argument, and I admit it. But, I would argue that many of these women are not in that situation. Excellent point. I can't disagree, but I will maintain that a significant percentage of women do not fall into that category. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were totally off-base.

I agree with the first point completely. My husband and I spent 2 years trying to get pregnant. I have filled my body with so many different hormones and drugs that the idea of voluntarily using hormonal birth control seems absurd. Now that we are pregnant, I know that we will not use birth control after this one is born. It just does not seem necessary. However we know that due to our diagnosis (unexplained infertility) there is a very good chance we will get pregnant fairly easily next time. So its very possible, maybe even probable, that we will have an "oops" baby. And we will be so happy and grateful to welcome that child into our home and our lives. So I agree, unplanned and unwanted are two very different things.

Sometimes not wanting to end up in a certain position is not enough. Sometimes you have to actually take steps to avoid the situation. When you continue having unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, you have virtually ensured yourself a lifetime of poverty. So, while certainly no one chooses to be poor, people often make the choices that result in that very condition.

It's a little hard to believe that these women don't understand how they get pregnant or how getting pregnant will impact the rest of their lives. The question is can they avoid it and how?

Tundra,

Well said but if you cannot afford to raise the child (see headline..."poor Women") then you should be extra safe even if it means abstinence. I am not really sure why people below middle class would even want to bring kids into this world except to increase their government check.

Your idea seems to punish the children more than the mother. It's not their fault; they didn't ask to be born to someone poor.

Then make it a law that if you want welfare you must be sterilized.

Definitely don't want to punish the children, but taxpayers cannot afford to pay for all births and 18 years of childhood expenses of those who breed them but cannot support them. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, to make people accountable for their choices.

It sucks that I have to get up and go to work everyday to pay for people who do not work, sit around mooching welfare and benefits, while spitting out more babies that can't afford. Where is the fairness of that? Its the parents who often put their kids in poor positions to succeed in life. Common sense says that if you cannot even feed or take care of yourself, you definitely can't take care of babies also. Don't make 'em if you can't afford 'em. It is not up to everyone else to pay for your babies.

Welfare has been limited...I read it in a book, granted, it was written in 1997 I believe, but it stated that a person could be on welfare for no more than four years of their adult life. In total. Not four years here, four years there. It could have been changed since then however.

Music girl is correct. Welfare was reformed under the Clinton administration...I am not sure if that is when they put lifetime limits on benefits or if they had already been in place...but they are there now.

If what Smarty and Musicgirl say is true (not arguing their points), then why do we have career welfare families? Generations of people that have never worked a day in their life, and have never contributed anything positive into the system yet reap many forms of welfare benefits.

I heard of a women who's children were turning 18 so she would lose benefits on them, so she went and got pregnant again so she could continue to collect? That is my argument. Sometimes people are just getting pregnant to get the benefits.

Those aren't people on welfare...those are people on social security disability. It is not possible to stay on welfare for a lifetime-the limit is 4 or 5 years and depending on the state it can be less. I heard there was one state that had set it at 2 years.

People are mistaken and buy into the rhetoric...there is no such thing as generational welfare anymore because it is not possible. The people that don't want to work get social security disability because not only is there no limit on how long you can recieve that, the "conditions" that qualify one have broadened to even ridiculous things like ADHD.

The other year there was a controversy in a nearby town over a highschool that intended to give birth control to teenage girls without parental consent. Parents threw such a fit that they're daughter's could access birth control that the school just gave the issue up.

The poor keep having children because the more they have the more welfare they get.

I'm sorry, do you really think that this is true? You clearly are above the rest of us, aren't you? And by "above", I mean "out of touch with reality".

As a teacher I have met several parents like the ones you mentioned, Arizona. I had one mother tell me that she makes more money just staying home and having children because of the amount she gets for each kid. She was pregnant with the 7th at the time. Different fathers. I also know a lady (con artist-had been arrested for robbery/false documents/you name it) who had 2 kids and then tried to pressure the school into saying they were mentally challenged so she could get financial aide for each. Well, they weren't challenged, but were certainly "chips off the old blocks". I'm not saying this is the norm, because these cases are pretty bizarre. However, to say it doesn't happen is just plain false.

Preceded, I've been a special education teacher for 29 years in 7 different states many in inner city areas. You wouldn't believe what's out there. I wouldn't have if I hadn't experienced it myself.

I liked that as well....I am so tired of people complaining about paying taxes!

I see some ethical issues with that similar to the "sterilization" argument.