It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legislator Proposes Sterilization For Women

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

State Representative John LaBruzzo of Metairie said many of his constituents are tired of paying for children from poor families and that is why he is considering proposing legislation that would pay women on government assistance $1,000 if they choose to be sterilized. “You have these people who are just fed up with working their buns off to try to provide for their own family and being forced by the government o provide for others’ families who just want to have unlimited kids,” he said. LaBruzzo said he is studying voluntary sterilization for women whose sole financial support comes from the government in the form of welfare or other public assistance. His idea would be to give the women $1,000 if they had their tubes tied. His proposal has come under harsh criticism by some civil rights groups.
www.blacklistednews.com...

now i do understand and agree women should either abstain or take precautions but this sounds like China. when Roosevelt started social programs of which i've paid fed tax on since i was a kid and have never benefited from i get really pissed. but forced rather than given the option...........................NO




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I admit I haven't clicked the link and looked at the entire article, but I still have to ask-- so he's proposing sterilization for women only, not men? He does know how pregnancy happens, right? (Not to mention how this would affect women who may not be in a position to afford kids now but may want them later when they can afford to raise them, or how he could take the money and put it toward birth control instead...).



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
as long as its 100% voluntary , it seems like a good idea

my wife wants to get her tubes tied, but we cannot afford any healthcare at all lol

i invest any $ i have into my 2 Children's healthcare

im an old fart now anyway ive lived my life, i dont need any healthcare


im gonna die anyways lol dont we all?

point being, that if they instituted this program, my wife would prolly gladly get her tubes tied *AND* get paid 1000$ ?? talk about a steal


i really think they should up the payoff tho, to something more enticing
1000$ can be gone in 1 month of bills lol

how bout lets offer like 5000$ , now were talking



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

' considering proposing legislation that would pay women on government assistance $1,000 if they choose to be sterilized


The proposed legislation does appear to be offering a choice.

Thousands of working mothers who're married to fully employed men choose to be sterilised in order they may support and educate their existing children and not be a burden on society. Why should these women and their spouses (not to mention their children when they begin working) have to support welfare mothers who continue to produce further children for the taxpayer to support ?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
paid to be sterilized. how about $1000 to take the pill or current contraceptive not sterilization. the money would be tempting to a young poor female; however, will regret it later because it is in our nature to want children just like it is in a man's nature to procreate the species like dogs in heat. men.......two heads and not enough blood to operate both at the same time.

let the government pay for the pill but sterilization no. why should women be offered a choice why not men. let the government offer men $1000 to have their balls cut off.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by musselwhite
 


Sterlisation is being offered to welfare mothers who already have children. They already have children. They're not supporting those children, nor are their sperm-donors --- the taxpayer is. They have children. That will have to satisfy them. If they want more .. too bad. They already have children.

As to the men ... they're the fathers OF those children. And they're not supporting them either. The taxpayer is. The taxpayers .. who may well have children of their own to support by their OWN labour.

Many people pay a high level of tax. They do not have children. Instead, they're supporting the offspring of welfare mothers and non-supportive 'fathers'.

Yes, it would be great if more louts elected to have a vasectomy. But do you imagine the average dead-beat would choose to do that ? Gee, it involves a little nick in their scrotum. Faint ! Besides, they're ignorant about vasectomy and imagine it would take away their 'manhood' .. you know, that stuff they produce which in turn produces children they have no intention of supporting or even spending five minutes with.

So if the women with whom they copulate are able to copulate without producing further welfare children .... that's a good thing, right ? Because it's the sex they're interested in. Two minutes of grunting. Not putting another life on the planet in the form of a child which will need a few hundred thousand dollars to raise and educate it to age 16 or 18.

But I agree with you in that money should be offered to both males and females. Maybe State Representative John LaBruzzo, being male, didn't even think of that option ? Or maybe he suspected and/or already knew that there would be vocal backlash from outraged males if he suggested they curtail their private baby-producing programmes ? Whatever the case, perhaps it should be brought to his attention that by offering financial incentives to both males and females, he could kill two birds with one stone. Any curtailment of the irresponsible breeding that's taking place would be applauded.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
you don't have a response to offering a man a $1000 to be steralized or have your tube tied then maybe all the violent crimes against women would come to a halt and prostitution for sex and substantial reduction in std and maybe the family unit will remain in tact.

what say you?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by musselwhite]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by musselwhite
 



Not sure to whom your post is directed



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 
i originally posted this:

paid to be sterilized. how about $1000 to take the pill or current contraceptive not sterilization. the money would be tempting to a young poor female; however, will regret it later because it is in our nature to want children just like it is in a man's nature to procreate the species like dogs in heat. men.......two heads and not enough blood to operate both at the same time. let the government pay for the pill but sterilization no. why should women be offered a choice why not men. let the government offer men $1000 to have their balls cut off.
in response to muzzleflash but you will do.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
i thought maybe just maybe i could get the women to agree men should at least be a part of this legislation and be offered the same amount and i would vote to pay a man more money.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
We are supposed to be thinking animals, capable of deciding things for ourselves. I just do not understand why people do not do this more, the world is an absolute mess, and i do not agree that we all have a right to breed.

Yep it should in theory be down to personal choice, but heck who would want to bring children into this world?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 
knowing what i know now, i would never have had children. why are not men added to this legislation as well? why are not men offered the same. as stated above: there would definitely be less violence toward women, std would dramatically drop, the fight against prostitution wouldn't be a fight at all and more importantly the family unit would be in tact and since our economy is based on the family unit this would be reasonable if the men were paid at least $5000 to have their balls cut off..........i mean snipped, cut, or their tube tied.

i agree............................children born today are as good as aborted just like our constitution.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by musselwhite
 


Sorry, can you explain why you think this would reduce the rate of STD infection? I would think that if someone has been sterilized, they would have less of an incentive to use condoms (which aren't exactly cheap, nor do people always have them on hand)... intercourse without a condom between a woman who has been sterilized and a man infected with STD's is still unprotected sex.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ounces
 

ha ha ha you missed the point all together. so i might be wrong on the std issue. big deal. what are your thoughts on the sterilization of men? quite nit picking and move on please. thanks for your answer on the 'itty bitty' but insignificant issue.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by musselwhite
 


wait, this just sounds like abortion. why not encourage the women to get lots of abortions?

why does voluntary sterilization raise civil rights groups hackles, but not voluntary abortion?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 
most importantly why are not men included in this? this is lunancy. our government is mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!




top topics



 
0

log in

join