Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    My gut reactions are a) I _like_ it and b) it's a terrible
    invasion of privacy.

    But there is CHOICE. The choice is whether or not to receive public
    assistance. With public assistance, birth control is required. Without
    public assistance, birth control is not required.
    
    Why should anyone be able to extend their hand and ask for assistance
    without paying ANY price? What price is "no more children until you no
    longer need assistance"?

    well, little alex.  how far shall the govt go in determining the course
    of the lives of its citizens?  Are forced abortions in the cards for
    those instances where Norplant fails?  or as a condition for continued
    afdc?
    
    perhaps we ought to mandate the use of Norplant for all teenaged girls,
    say from age 12 til 21, to eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancy
    in children.
    
    it's a horrific problem, don't get me wrong.  But imo, being pro-choice
    is just that, and not limited in scope.  I oppose the imposition of
    rules by the government that remove the right of citizens to decide
    their own paths.
    
    Sara

    It's the hidden cost that bothers me. The benefits are fairly 
    obvious - lower welfare/aid costs, less children in poverty.
    Some costs are obvious too - reproductive freedom for assistance
    or vice versa. 
    
    What really worries me is the long-term cost, which is not as apparent.
    That cost is letting the government get their foot in the door, so
    to speak, on the issues of reproduction and privacy. Once you make
    a link between BC and assistance, where do you draw limits ? If
    a person receiving aid turns up pregnant, in spite of the program,
    do you cut their aid ? Force them to have an abortion ? Jail them
    for fraud ?

    re .0, what about the children conceived by a woman whose financial aid
    has been cut-off due to her pregnancy?  Do these innocent children, who
    never asked to be born, deserve to live in poverty without public aid,
    maybe starving to death and homeless, because of the mother's
    negligence?  I don't think so.
    
    Also, is Norplant 100% effective?  What about women who become pregnant
    due to failure?
    
    I don't think society has the right to tell people how to live their
    personal lives.  
    
    I do think society has the responsibility to help those who have
    screwed up their lives, for one reason or another, and can't take care
    of themselves (like it or not).
    
    Lorna
    

    well put, Sara and Dana.
    
    I agree its a problem to have people on welfare continually
    expanding their families, but the thought of dictating the
    use of bc such as norplant makes my skin crawl.  Why not 
    just sterilize them, too?  It just to me feels like too high
    of a price for folks to pay.  By the same token, how about
    insisting upon vasectomies for men on welfare?  I don't like
    the thought of either one.  I personally think that our 
    welfare departments are run deplorably and the problems lie
    more with the beaurocracy than with the people who really 
    need the assistance.  There must be a better way of solving
    such a problem, starting with the system, not those who need
    it.
    
    Christine

    you too, Lorna!  I agree-I missed your reply in a notes
    collision ;-)

    And what about the women -- and of course, once again, it's women who
    would be effected -- who for medical reasons can't use Norplant?  Do we
    make them get sterilized?  And then, do we do as the Chinese do and
    monitor (afterall Social Workers don't have neought to do) these
    women's menstural cycles to make sure that they aren't pregnant and, if
    they are, that they have abortions?
    
    And if we cut-off AFDC to women who refuse to have the implants, who
    feeds, houses, clothes and takes care of the medical needs of the
    already the existing children?
    
    I'm sorry but I find this whole concept ver, very frightening!

>Is there anything wrong with this picture?

    Yes, oh yes yes.  Like any contraceptive, Norplant is not risk-free.
    There will be some women for whom the side effects will be unbearable,
    or for whom the contraceptive will cause other medical problems.  There
    will undoubtedly be some who are allergic to the materials it uses.
    Shall we make them ineligible for federal aid?  Shall we mandate that
    they bear the side effects, taking away their right to make their own
    medical decisions?  What happens if 15 years down the road it is
    discovered that there's a serious long-term effect from the use of
    Norplant?  Then where does the government stand, legally?

    I see this as the moral equivalent to taking away a women's right to
    choose to abort a pregnancy (under any conditions whatsoever, including
    life-threatening cases such as ectopic pregnancies), not as the equivalent
    of draft registration.  For one thing, draft registration in and of itself
    is non-invasive and, medically, risk-free (the risks come later, if one 
    is called up).  Besides, this is a requirement made of all [male] 
    citizens [at age 18], not only of low-income citizens.  While I think a 
    choice of contraceptives (and abortions) should be made available free of 
    charge to low income women for the reasons you cite, I cannot in good 
    conscience support a mandate that they use *a certain type* of birth 
    control, or indeed that they use contraceptives at all.

    This proposition is especially ridiculous for lesbians or women whose
    partners are sterile, since their risk of (unplanned) pregnancy is minimal.
    In effect the government would be saying to these women, "We don't trust 
    you.  To Uncle Sam, you're all just babymakers leeching off society, so 
    take this drug no matter what the risks or side effects."  Or, more
    cynically, "We can't control the rape problem, but we don't want to pay
    for the side effects".

	Seeing red,
        Sharon

    
    Lessee, following from the basenote...
    
    Why not then require every woman who has had her quota of
    two children to get this then?
    
    I mean, the world population explosion is really a bigger
    problem than just some welfare bucks (IMO), in the longer
    term.  We've already got 5 billion and we acquired the last
    billion in just 20 years.
    
    <--
    Just in case you can't tell, I disagree with the basenote's
    conclusion.
    

    Risks, desires, good intentions all aside, if the US gov't. or any
    state or local gov't. dictated this requirement for receiving aid from
    them, I would try to challenge it in court. ie. Donate to a fund to
    challenge it or support anyone I knew trying to challenge it. Under the
    US constitution this is a blatant privacy violation. NO, NO, NO, NEVER!
    Not under my form of government. I'd either leave or attempt to change
    it through the political processor, failing that, promote outright
    revolution. Slavery is outlawed here and that's just what this would
    be.
    
    Phil

    
    
    Just curious, but why "would you love to see implanted birth control
    a requirement for continued.......".
    
    I agree what any woman who cannot financially support a child should
    not be the primary caretaker of that child.  However, I do not think
    a woman should not have the choice whether or not to continue a
    pregancy.  
    
    When my dad died my mom went on welfare because she could not afford
    to feed her four children and herself at the same time keeping a roof
    over our heads.  By your idea, she would have had to had a birth
    control device implanted in her just to recieve the aid to help us
    survive??  I see absolutely no sense in that.
    
    I get the impression that you seem to think that the majority of
    folks on welfare or public aid are women who are not responsible.
    Sure there are alot there, but public aid also is for senior citizens,
    veterans, diabled folks, homeless people, etc..    
    Look at the medicare/medicaid thing for instance.  Every senior citizen
    I know is on this medical plan.  In fact, I do  not know anyone on this
    plan who is not a senior citizen.  Does this exist for folks who arent
    of a certain age?
    
    
    I agree with you that most government aid agencies are a mess.  They
    are needed, but not run efficiently.  In this day of massive human
    services budget cuts, they will be harder and harder to maintain. 
    Maybe that alone will force a revamp, but I doubt it.
    
    There should be a deterant for the woman who use the system as a total
    support system.  I do not believe they should be allowed to abuse it
    at other folks expense.  But I do not believe your idea is the way to
    do it.  
    
    Michele

    Maybe have subsidized birth control or something.......make it easier
    for the woman to prevent further pregnancy...or maybe provide economic
    incentive to discourage too many kids.....
    
    We can't force a woman to bear or not bear children against her
    will.....
    
    But I do remember watching one of those half-hour commercials for some
    Feed the Kids organization, they were showing this woman who lived in a
    hovel in Applachia and couldn't afford to feed her kids.....her EIGHT
    kids......my blood pressure rose.....
    
    Lisa

    I don't know how many other people here have ever been on AFDC, but I
    have.  MOst people don't know the first thing about the program, the
    people who are on it, and how they get there and get off the program. 
    I found myself there when the father of my child refused to acknowledge
    her, he lived in another state, and I would have spent more money in
    court trying to get support than I would have received from him as
    support payments.
    
    People find themselves in circumstances that, believe me, they wish
    they weren't in.  I managed to get out by going back to college while I
    was on welfare and now I'm here supporting myself and my daughter.  I
    went to a community college, lied and said that I was paying for
    college myself (out of a grand total of $283 per month before paying my
    mom rent of $150 per month).  My grandmother was good enough to give
    me the money to go to school.  Welfare didn't know about it or they
    would have cut my money.  In the grand year of 1981, Reagan decided
    that people on AFDC who lived with relatives in houses that didn't have
    separate entrances and kitchen facilities would have to have the
    relatives income counted as theirs.  My mom chose not to have the
    government snooping in her records (she's straight arrow all the way)
    so I lost $100 per month in food stamps.  That man took food out of my
    babies mouth.  It didn't matter that I paid rent every month $283 - 150
    =133 for clothes, food, and any other baby necessities.
    
    I am so angry at the basenote proposal that I can't really reply
    objectively.  If the basenoter wants some personal info, s/he can write
    to me.
    
    Enough government intrusion!!!!!! 
    
    sue

    
    i do not believe there should be any such 'requirements' for aid.
    we should assist those who need it because they are fellow
    citizens.
    

    After spending the last 20 years fighting to keep the Government out of
    my body regarding reproductive choice, I am not about to ask them to
    get involved in fertility issues on the other side of the spectrum
    either.  This is as much a constiutional issue as freedom of speech,
    religion, choice of defense weapons, or privacy in one's home to me.  
    
    I realize that once a person puts their welfare in the hands of another
    being, whether government, human etc, that they give up a certain
    amount of personal freedom.  However, we are talking personal bodies
    and lives here! 
    
    Set mode medium hot:
    
     Why not say that every man who fathers a child who's
    mother winds up on welfare must not only support that child 100%, the
    mother 100% and have a vasectomy to ensure that he has no risk of
    fathering another child for the guvmint to care for?  I mean, after all
    paternity tests are getting to be 98% accurate.
    
    Set mode slightly chilled.
    
    The welfare issue is a powerful hot button for alot of us, and I feel
    that a person should not have more children she/he can't support, but
    inflicting the government's reproductive choice on a person because
    they are in a bad situation is not the answer.
    
    Meg

    The more I think about this the more it seems like giving poor people
    more access to birth control and family planning resources might be the
    best way to go about this.
    
    Maybe something like all persons on welfare or government assistance
    who have four or more dependents should have to attend a family
    planning workshop every so often, or givethem a discount on birth
    control like a few free condoms or something.......
    
    Lisa

    .re 0
    
    a lot
    

    
    re .13, Lisa:
    
>    But I do remember watching one of those half-hour commercials for some
>    Feed the Kids organization, they were showing this woman who lived in a
>    hovel in Applachia and couldn't afford to feed her kids.....her EIGHT
>    kids......my blood pressure rose.....
    
    Now I didn't see the program, so I don't know the woman's
    circumstances, but I don't understand why your blood pressure rose.
    How do you know that this woman's husband didn't die or up and
    leave.
    
    Flame mode for you, Lisa:
    
    My Mom would have had a hard time supporting HER EIGHT kids
    too if my Dad had died or left.
    
    P.S. I assume that 'Feed the Kids' some non-profit organization,
    i.e., not a government handout.  If so, then I *really* don't
    understand why your blood pressure rose.
    

    Ellen,
    
    If I may, I think the commercial Lisa was referring to 
    is of the genre dealing with problems in *really poor*
    third world countries where people don't seem to know
    anything about birth control.  I could be wrong.  For
    myself, when such commercials come on, I feel outrage
    that children are brought into circumstances such as 
    that.  I don't feel it toward the parents in these 
    cases.  It seems to be a matter of a lack of education
    in areas of birth control.  Again, it should not be
    force upon these people, but with organizations like
    Care, Feed the Children, etc,, I think some family
    planning and birth control education should be provided.
    
    
    Of course all circumstances are different and I don't
    believe in dictating birth control for anybody.  Educating,
    yes, having programs to make it more affordable, yes, but
    not forcing it on one.
    
    Christine

    RE: .0
    
    I have read many lucid notes from the author in this and other
    conferences.  I still can't believe what I am reading.  It seems like
    either the account has been hijacked or the author has succeeded in
    writing the best piece of sarcasm in this conference.
    
    - Vikas

    I put this statement in three different files. Blacknotes ignored it,
    Soapbox laughed at it, Womannotes is outraged. One person has asked me
    why I would think of such a thing, and it is because I don't look at
    things the same way many others do.
    
    I am not a big defender of "freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms,
    freedom of religion etc." in fact, I think it goes a bit too far, often
    enough. So, I am not a big defender of "reproductive rights" either.
    I have spent a lot of my life staunchly pro-abortion. I have let others
    persuade me to use the term pro-choice, but I'm not really. I do not
    believe that any woman who is not in a position to provide for herself
    and a family should bring another child into the world.
    
    You can go on and on about men, and why are they allowed to scatter
    sperm, etc. But they do not get pregnant, we do, and that fact is
    unalterable. If the only unwanted pregnancies occured due to rape, it
    would STILL be a woman's problem. I think that women who try to put
    the weight on men are probably tired of shouldering the burden... but I
    really don't think its their problem if they don't want it to be. Some
    women don't even know who has fathered their children. Why pretend that
    they really do more than donate sperm, after all, they don't HAVE to do
    anything else in the process.
    
    So, as I said, I see this as a woman's issue, a woman's problem.
    Pregnancy and child-rearing. AND, I do not believe that a woman who is
    in need of public assistance should have additional children until she
    no longer needs that assistance. That's why I do NOT believe in
    sterilization. If she can get off of public assistance, she can go out
    and have all the children she wants.
    
    Now maybe Norplant is not the answer because its harmful. But I am not
    interested in defending someone's right to privacy when that right to
    privacy lets them get pregnant and end up needing more money. 
    
    And for all of the "it smacks of Communism" type statements I'm
    hearing, I'm not hearing any admission that AFDC itself is a form of
    socialism. Government-subsidy was not the American way until
    after the Depression. Now we have it, lets face what it is. If we don't
    believe in socialism, then abolish it, for whatever good it does. If we
    feel that people should be able to receive government aid, then *I*
    think we should also be able to tell them that they can't have
    additional children while they're receiving it.  
    
    Maybe its as simple as signing a waiver: I will not have children while
    receiving federal aid; I understand that my aid is forfeited if I
    conceive and bring to term any off-spring. If I attempt to defraud the
    government by continuing to receive aid after bearing additional
    children, I understand that I can be arrested, and my off-spring will
    be placed under government custody.
    
    Frankly, considering the religious and social taboos already in place
    around having children out of wedlock, I don't think that waiver will
    work. And I support something stronger.
    
    All of the arguments I've heard have talked about the invasion of
    privacy, the possibility of setting precedent for further invasion, the
    risk of Norplant, the unfairness of enforcing such a law on the
    celibate, or on Lesbians.  Noone seems to be addressing the inherent
    unfairness/irresponsibility/financial liability of a person receiving
    aid who places an additional burden on the system by having more
    children.
    
    I want that unfairness to END. If my solution is wrong, I'd like to
    hear of another, equally effective one.
    
    
    
     

    Re.22 Sorry, my reply was within the context of the current state
    of government. I'd much rather see a much smaller, more limited 
    government myself. However, the political reality is that we
    have what we asked for.** Given that most of the populace seems not
    too uncomfortable with the status quo, the task seems to be 
    keeping the government from expanding its intrusion into our
    privacy still further.
    
    Dana
    
    ** Old proverb :"Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
    

    
    re .21
    
    No, I have not let another person use my account. And I accept the fact
    that my viewpoint is not going to be shared by most people. Within the
    black community, teenage pregnancy is a HORRIBLE problem, fed by
    ignorance, religious superstition, severe hormone overdrive, and more
    ignorance. I truly believe that a responsible person would do
    everything possible not to bear a child that could not be cared for.
    An irresponsible person may differ.
    
    If we did not have this problem in our country, I would not begin to
    suggest the solution in the basenote. But the problem exists. And I
    would give up my right to privacy to see a solution.

    re .24 Yes, there is a lot of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, there
    is a world of difference between convincing people to take
    responsibility and forcing people to _act_ responsibly. Your 
    solution in .0 is an example of the latter.

    
    
    
    RE: .22
    
    >Soapbox laughed at it,
    
    I'm sick and tired of seeing stereotypes like this perpetuated.
    
    11 out of the current 16 responses in the Soapbox topic 621.* that was
    started on this subject are directly related to the basenote and are
    expressions of opinion on the basenote's suggestion.
    
    Those expressions range from near-agreement to finding it to be an
    absurd suggestion.  Never the less, they are responses of opinions,
    whether they agree with you are not.
    
    
    Some people in Soapbox might have found your suggestion LAUGHABLE, but
    Soapbox, as a whole, didn't LAUGH at it.  Laughing at something and/or
    someone is callous and rude.  Finding a suggestion to be laughable is
    merely an expression of opinion (ie, finding something to be laughable
    doesn't mean they are laughing at it).
    
    I can't adequately explain what the difference is, but you have to
    understand the Soapbox environment to understand an expression of
    opinion.  No one there looked down on you because you held a different
    opinion.  
    
    that's not something I can say about some of the discussions in this
    conference, unfortunately.  (At least that's my impression).
    
    If I were to rate the two conferences, I would definitely rate =wn= as
    being more cutthroat.....especially given the current situation.
    
    <sigh>
    
    kath

    For ms foster,
    
    The phrase "Until you walk in my shoes" comes to mind.  I think that
    you hold a very naive view of the welfare system et al and I suggest
    you do some research on this issue to get educated.  Like I replied
    before, I'd be glad to help you on this one.
    
    still angry
    sue
    

    
    I am well aware of the difference, but actually, I don't think my
    basenote is an example of forcing people to act responsibly. I think
    it is an example of removing both a right and a responsibility
    simultaneously.
    
    Seat-belt laws, found in most other states, are a better example of
    what you describe. They are leglislated in an attempt to FORCE people
    to act responsibly.
    
    Driving-under-influence laws are another example. It is illegal to
    drive while intoxicated. To do so is to risk a jail term for
    endangering the lives of others, whether or not something goes wrong.
    
    The corrective lens law for licensing is being argued in Soapbox. Its
    another good example. People with poor eyesight who must wear
    corrective lenses to pass an exam must also wear them when driving.
    
    Our country/state has many laws which legislate responsibility in
    exchange for a right. Such as the right to drive.
    
    Are these laws so wrong? Are they completely unacceptable because they
    remove our right to be irresponsible?
    
    I'm beginning to think that the main reason why my suggestion brings
    such criticism is because only one sex can get pregnant, and thus only
    one sex is affected.
    
    Everyone has a right to privacy, as long it does not place any demand
    on others, or infringe upon their rights. Bearing children involves a
    cost. And I do not believe that it is proper to inflict that cost on
    me, rather than to prevent it. 
    
    In case anyone wonders where my compassion is, ask yourself how
    compassionate it is to let someone drive drunk. Or bear children with
    no means of support.

    
    Kathy, at the time I looked at Soapbox, most of the answers did not
    delve into the matter with any great seriousness.
    
    I apologize if you take personal offense at my simplistic summary.

    
    	I like the spirit of the idea.  I realize that most of the people
    on welfare are women who stay on for two-years while they're in school,
    and then get a job that can support them and their families.  Most of 
    THESE women probably take responsibility for their lives, and like me,
    carefully use the birth control method of their choice.  Asking them to
    use "the method of their choice" would be like asking them to eat -
    they do it anyway.
    	What I, like the basenoter, find so upsetting, is those people who
    do not take responsibility for their own lives.  Perhaps requiring
    people who concieve children while on public assistance to use birth
    control is going too far.  But the system should be changed to DIScourage 
    this practice, rather than ENcourage it.
    	Like one comedian said, it's silly to send food to the starving
    people in the desert.  Send them trailers so they can move out of the
    desert!  In other words, try to solve the source of the problem, not
    the symptoms.  If there were a way to MAKE people be responsible, we
    wouldn't need ANY laws.
    
    Elaine, who's "politically INcorrect" for a change
      

    re .30, well, in this spirit, why penalize only poor people since, as
    someone else said, the world population is too big anyway.  For
    example, I've thought for a long time that income tax deductions for
    children should be eliminated.  Why should people be able to claim a
    deduction on their taxes for having a child?  It was presumably
    their choice to have a child anyway.
    
    I just wonder how most Americans would like to have starving street
    children swarming all over the place, begging for money, and stealing
    their wallets.  It might turn out to be more annoying than well-fare
    after awhile.  It can be dangerous to have a class of people who have
    nothing to lose.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    A possible answer may be that when a person goes on welfare, they are
    paid benefits for themselves and the number of dependents they are
    responsible for.  If the welfare recipient, through whatever means,
    increases the number of dependents, that person gets no additional 
    benefits.  This would remove any perceived incentive to have any
    additional babies.
    
    Mike

    
    Lorna, the following is something that I'm still investigating: why is
    there such an assumption that government facilities only raise amoral
    children?
    
    Why assume that a child who is not in the custody of his/her parents
    is going to pick pockets and beg? Such children, I would think, would
    be cared for, fed, clothed, housed, educated. They would not get the
    abundance of love that would come from a fully functional family... but
    then, that's not reality for LOTS of children now.

    Yes, something needs to be done. That something is education, free
    condoms, free women's birth control methods. Whatever it takes to help
    those people who find themselves in what is an extremely difficult
    situation with no easy exit. We do not need to penalize these people,
    we need to hunt up the other responsible party and force hir to pay up
    or have their check attached. I f the other party is not working, then
    give them a makework program and garnish a portion of the wages to
    support the children. I think that we would then see a drop in AFDC
    receipiants or at least a drop in the amount of money shelled out by
    gov't. I'm trying not to state that the recipient is female, because
    there is a very small fractional amount that are male. No, I don't have
    the percentage. I'm sure it's less then 1/100 of 1%, but it's there.
    
    Phil

    
    re:.22
    
>	I do not
>    believe that any woman who is not in a position to provide for herself
>    and a family should bring another child into the world.
    
	i agree with this. however, who determines 'position to provide'?
        
>   I do not believe that a woman who is
>    in need of public assistance should have additional children until she
>    no longer needs that assistance. 
    
    i understand this to be your basic proposition, and i agree that
    that is the 'correct' thing for a woman to do. i disagree, however,
    that that should be made law. i believe that we should give public 
    assistance to those that need it, no strings attached.
    
>But I am not
>    interested in defending someone's right to privacy when that right to
>    privacy lets them get pregnant and end up needing more money. 
 
    why not? do people only have a right to privacy when they don't
    need money?
    
    either people have a right to privacy or they don't. if it's
    conditional on their financial position, it's not a right.
       
>    And for all of the "it smacks of Communism" type statements I'm
>    hearing, I'm not hearing any admission that AFDC itself is a form of
>    socialism. 
    
    of course afdc is socialism. i think socialism in general is good.
    i think we should have more of it in the u.s.
    
>   Noone seems to be addressing the inherent
>    unfairness/irresponsibility/financial liability of a person receiving
>    aid who places an additional burden on the system by having more
>    children.
 
    we *all* place burdens on the system. the system is there to help 
    *all* of us. things like afdc are little, tiny ways of addressing
    the unfairness/irresponsibility/financial liability that runs
    rampant throughout our society. 
    
    people that grow up without jobs or education or food or family
    or hope of any kind: *that's* the unfairness i want to end.
    simply taking away one more human dignity- the ability to 
    choose when and how to procreate- from these women who are 
    already at the bottom of the barrel is cruel and no solution.
    
       

    re .33, I was thinking more of children who weren't in anybody's
    custody but only left to fend for themselves on the streets.  If "we"
    (the government, whatever) doesn't have the money to support wellfare
    programs then how will "we" have the money to raise these children in a
    different manner?  And, in what manner would they be raised?  In
    orphanages?  (Horror stories come to mind.)  Would you want to be
    raised in an institution without a family or would you rather be raised
    by poor parents?  I don't want to generalize but sometimes the type of
    people who take jobs running state institutions aren't particularly
    known for their compassion for their charges.... 
    
    Lorna
    

  I'm uncomfortable with the idea of government mandating something as
personal as birth control because of the slippery slope possibilities.
Now birth control, tomorrow sterilization after two kids, the day after
forced euthanasia.  Its for the "good of society" afterall.  I have to
admit to understanding China's dilemma of trying to encourage/force families
to have no more than one or two children.

  In the grand scheme of things, the above might even be seen as contributing
to the overall good (quality of life, cost effective etc.) but that doesn't
mean most people would find it acceptable.

  Making these (and other) options much more widely available so that you got
most of the benefits without the possible resultant problems would be a
more reasonable approach, I think.  But that requires an intelligent, reasoned
approach in matters of reproductive control which the federal government has
proven it is incapable of doing.  And if they can't get that right, then I
doubt that forced BC would work either.

Jim

    RE: the question about the program I was watching.....
    
    It was set in Kentucky, where the coalmines are (like Coal Miner's
    Daughter type), in Applachia.....
    
    the woman in question had 8 kids, the oldest of which was 10.  I
    believe her husband had died.  There were some other stories of
    families in trouble, but they didn't irk me the way that this one did.
    The other families had two or three kids.  To me there's a difference
    between three kids and eight.  Even with her husband alive it must have
    been difficult to raise a lot of kids with a coalminer's salary. 
    Things are bad there, they have been bad for a long time.  If you're
    really worried about your kids futures, if things could go bad at
    anytime, if you're not prepared to support a family yourself, why would
    you have EIGHT kids????
    
    Maybe lack of birth control.  So provide access for the poor to better
    birth control.  If someone can't afford to feed the kids they've got,
    they shouldn't go on having more kids.  I understand and feel for those
    people who have been responsible, but need some assistance to get
    through a hard time.  I don't see a problem with providing assistance
    to a mother of three whose husband has gone away for some reason, who
    needs welfare or food stamps to get by until she can find a way to
    support her kids herself.  What irks me is when a woman needs
    assistance for whatever reason, and then keeps getting pregnant with
    more kids.  How can she better her position when she's already got
    three kids, and then gets pregnant again.  (tangent-->go after the
    father if he's not cooperative.  Where's she going to get the money for
    a lawyer. )  If you're in trouble already DON'T have more kids.
    Get birth control.
    
    Maybe keep track of the number of dependents being claimed by the
    person on assistance.  If it goes up by more than two without the
    person going off assistance, freeze the benefits at the current level
    and don't let them go up for further dependents.
    
    The majority of the people who are on welfare go off within six months.
    But there are those who remain on the rolls for years.  The system does
    need an overhaul.  It should encourage people to become responsible and
    support themselves.  One of those respoosiblities should be to keep the
    family to a number where the parents can support the kids.
    
    Lisa

    Count me in on the no-way line, but that's hardly surprising and in
    fact not even relevant in the sense that I live in a different country,
    but let me put it this way:
    
    How big is the group of mothers-with-children who need welfare? What
    percentage do they make of the total number of people on welfare? What
    percentage do they consume of the total cost of welfare, and how would
    this percentage be affected by a measure like this? I think the savings
    would be much less than they would seem. 
    
    On the other hand mandating Norplant involves an involuntary operation,
    which would mean an invasion of bodily integrity, and I wonder whether
    it wouldn't be a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    which forbids forced medical treatment... and then I haven't even
    talked about reproductive rights yet. 
    
    Ad

    re .28
    	Driving is a priviledge, not a right.  This gives the government
    	greater freedom to regulate it.
    
    re .0 (the topic in general)
    	I agree that something should be done to discourage families on
    	AFDC from growing, what that something is I don't know.
    
    Rich

    RE: .42
    
       Extremely radical idea.  Will certainly cause much grief in here.
    
       I also completely agree with you.
    
    
    
                               L.J.

I think far bigger ripoffs of taxpayer money are going on than
the welfare mothers who have additional children while receiving
welfare. Far more than those welfare mothers, I resent the rich people
who pay less in taxes than middle income people; I resent one arm of
the government paying subsidies to tobacco growers while another arm
of the government claims tobacco is harmful to our health; I resent the
savings and loans fiasco; ....and the big businesses that are
polluting our environment at humungous costs to our future.... 

Kathy

    
    re: .42
    
    I second that emotion.
    
    Carla
    

        re .39,
        
>>    On the other hand mandating Norplant involves an involuntary operation,
>>    which would mean an invasion of bodily integrity, and I wonder whether
>>    it wouldn't be a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>>    which forbids forced medical treatment... and then I haven't even
>>    talked about reproductive rights yet. 
        
        Huh?  In my reading of .0 there was nothing forced or
        involuntary.  It was something one could choose to do in
        order to qualify for government aid.
        
        Dan

    Do I think we're overpopulating the planet? Yep. 
    
    Do I think it would be great if every family stopped at 2 kids? Yep.
    
    The *upper-class* family of 8 may actually use more resources in this world
    than the poor family of 8, public assistance or not. It's actually 
    the "Haves" who are laying waste to the planet, not the "Have-nots".
    
    But in no way do I advocate the sterilization of the rich. Or the poor.
    
    For the government to legislate this would be....I can't even find the
    words...horrendous...outrageous....splutter....growl....
    
    I agree completely with those who said that supporting reproductive
    rights means supporting reproductive rights. Period. 
    
    You cannnot legislate responsibility. Never have been able to , never
    *will* be able to. And if you aren't going to make the rich
    responsible, don't pick on the poor.
    
    And while we're at it, why aren't we talking about vasectomies for poor
    *men*, rather than putting the onus on the women. (again)
    
    I believe this is a problem. I don't think people who can't afford to
    raise kids *ought* to be having kids. But then, I don't think people
    who can afford kids, but don't take the time to raise 'em right oughta
    be having kids, either. But I don't see that sterilizing all the jerks 
    in the world is a solution. 
    
    Who the hell is to *judge* this? Maybe the basenoter feels qualified
    to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't. *I* certainly
    don't; and it gives me the *willies* to think about government
    bureaucrats making those decisions <shudder>.
    
    --DE
    

    Flame on.
    The proposal in the basenote is as daft as yesterdays ruling of the
    Dutch supreme court that daytime childcare is tax deductable.
    
    Flame off.
    
    Charles

    Re. 46
    
>    It was something one could choose to do in order to qualify for
>    government aid.
    
    Mmmmh, in the sense of choose to do it or face starvation... Sorry Dan,
    that sounds to me like a robber who points a gun at my head and gives
    me the choice to voluntarily give my money to qualify for further
    extension of my life...
    
    This sort of discussion is a bit hairy for me to engage in. I'm used to
    the Dutch situation where everybody basically can apply for government
    aid, the only qualification necessary is that one can not provide for
    themselves by other means. There is no restriction whatsoever on other
    things, and there is definitely not a problem with the growth of
    (single parent) families dependant on government aid. Mind you I pay
    40ish % tax and premiums but I've known that situation all my life. And
    I can see the benefits of a high level of social security - I wouldn't
    want to risk such an amount of social-economical dropouts in a
    population density like we have here.
    
    Ad

>    yesterdays ruling of the Dutch supreme court that daytime childcare is
>    tax deductable.  
    
    Well so far that sure beats keeping it all in the black money circuit
    as suggested by our esteemed mister CDA-chairman Brinkman <snicker
    snicker :-)>. Care to write that in EF90? :-)
    
    Sorry for the rathole, folks...
    
    Ad

    Nowt to do with the black money circuit, Addo.
    It's ofcourse only tax deductable if you can show bills of official day
    care centers.
    And as far as mister Brinkman is concerned......
    
    Charles

    re .44, .47, exactly, I agree completely with both of you.
    
    The rich are doing far more to waste the resources of this planet than
    the poor.
    
    re .42, and who gets to make the decision about who is qualified to
    have kids and who isn't?  God, or just some random human who thinks
    he's God because he has more money than a lot of other people?
    
    re .49, $60. in exchange for the ability to bring a new life into the
    world?  Maybe everything has a price but that's a bit low.  I might
    consider $100,000., and that's only because I don't really want anymore
    kids anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .38, Lisa:
    
    (Sorry, but I'm going to keep on picking on you for a moment.)
    
    Perhaps the man and woman who had the eight kids had religious
    beliefs that either prevented them from using birth control or
    encouraged large families.  Did you ever think of that?
    
    And you did say that the woman's husband died, so I assume she
    wasn't having any more kids after he died?
    
    And as for your comment about not being able to provide for eight
    on a coalminer's salary, well, not everyone aspires to your
    standard of living, Lisa.  My father provided for EIGHT kids for
    20 years on - get this - a public SCHOOLTEACHER'S salary!
    And we DIDN'T live in poverty, Lisa!
    
    And as far as your little story goes, I *still* don't see the problem.
    This woman was appealing through a non-profit, charitable agency, not
    public assistance.  What *is* the problem?
    

    When this country was founded, it was on the principle of a lot of
    freedoms: religion, speech, bearing arms, etc.
    
    But the onus and responsibility for survival was on the persons
    desiring all those freedoms. And they knew it. And LOTS of people died.
    NH's state slogan is live free or die. They must not have Welfare, its
    contrary to the slogan.
    
    There is nothing in the US Bill of Rights that says that people have a
    right to: financial government support, assistance in time of need,
    etc. Along with that stream of rights came the responsibility to keep
    yourself and your family alive.
    
    This has CHANGED. We now expect not only the rights in the Bill of
    Rights, but also the "right" to be cared for if we cannot care for
    ourselves. I think this is bogus. 
    
    As an aside, for anyone who has mentioned sterilization, please
    remember, I am NOT advocating it in any way. Arguing against
    sterilization is fine, but irrelevant.
    
    For anyone who has mentioned the cost of Norplant vs the cost of
    raising children, if you think my issue is cost, you are wrong. My
    issue is that MANY children who are unexpectedly born of parents who
    cannot provide for them are going to suffer for it. I don't think those
    children should be born. I don't think those children should be
    conceived. The financial drain is a side issue. I want those women to
    have more choices than they would if they were saddled with extra
    children. I want children born into the world of parents who can afford
    them, i.e. (someone asked how it could be defined) put a roof over
    their heads, put clothing on their backs, put food in their mouths, get
    them to school, and not resent them for the financial strain to the
    point of violence or abuse.
    
    I am waiting to hear a Woman, with sensitivity to other women, and to
    children, come up with a solution that works, since so many people are
    opposed to this one. Shooting down proposals does not help the problem,
    and if anyone thinks that this isn't a problem, they aren't up on
    what's going on.

        re .51,
        
>>     Re. 46
>>    
>> >    It was something one could choose to do in order to qualify for
>> >    government aid.
>>    
>>     Mmmmh, in the sense of choose to do it or face starvation... Sorry Dan,
>>     that sounds to me like a robber who points a gun at my head and gives
>>     me the choice to voluntarily give my money to qualify for further
>>     extension of my life...
        
        The only guns involved are in the hands of the IRS and
        are aimed at the heads of the taxpayers.  See reply .56. 
        When you ask people for help, they can answer "yes", they
        can answer "no", or they can answer "only if you do
        this".  Then you are free to accept their terms or go
        elsewhere.
        
        Dan

    re .56, I look at it this way, Lauren.  You do not have the right to
    force other people to live the way you think is best.
    
    On the other hand, when other people don't manage to provide the basic
    necessities for themselves and their children, we all have two choices. 
    We can either let them suffer or we can help them.  I think since we're
    all humans, we're all in this together, and we are obligated to help. 
    (for whom the bell tolls, etc....)
    
    I agree that people who cannot provide for more children, should not
    have more children.  But, I do not agree that it is my right, or your
    right, to stop them.
    
    Lorna
    

    Here is one issue you could fight on.  The Federal and many state
    governments will not provide medicaid or other funds for abortions,
    unless a pregnancy results from rape, incest, or will fataly ingure the
    mother.  This is a serious infringement of reproductive rights for the
    very people you wish to stop having unplanned children.
    
    Next,  how about extending the safety net so that people can work
    themselves off of the dole.  This could include job training, remedial
    education, better childcare, and parental leave, so people can come
    back to a job after birth, recovery, and bonding.  
    
    Finally, there are very few women who get pregnant on their own.  How
    about enforcing the child support laws already on the books and running
    down the male parents of these kids.  (In Colorado, one of the
    requirements for afdc is that if one is not receiving child support
    from the father, that the father be named and that name be turned over
    to the DA's child support enforcement unit.)  Then if you still wish to
    be draconian, and the father is unable/unwilling to support those
    kids, find a semi-permanent effective way to sterilize HIM to avoid his
    causing other unplanned, unwanted pregnancies until he can support the
    child(ren) he already has on this planet.  Get him the training,
    education and a job where he can contribute to support of the family he
    deserted.
    
    Meg  

	Please try to read through this reply with the understanding that
I am trying to respond both to your needs for some "suggested solutions" 
and to my needs to express some opinions.

>    For anyone who has mentioned the cost of Norplant vs the cost of
>    raising children, if you think my issue is cost, you are wrong. My
>    issue is that MANY children who are unexpectedly born of parents who
>    cannot provide for them are going to suffer for it. I don't think those
>    children should be born. I don't think those children should be
>    conceived. The financial drain is a side issue. I want those women to
>    have more choices than they would if they were saddled with extra
>    children. I want children born into the world of parents who can afford
>    them, i.e. (someone asked how it could be defined) put a roof over
>    their heads, put clothing on their backs, put food in their mouths, get
>    them to school, and not resent them for the financial strain to the
>    point of violence or abuse.
 
	The issue of choices is not necessarily an issue of how many 
children one has.  I have to come from the complete opposite pole from you 
and say that it is more frequently an issue of cost.  As in cost = time, 
and time = availability for training/education.  
	   
>    I am waiting to hear a Woman, with sensitivity to other women, and to
>    children, come up with a solution that works, since so many people are
>    opposed to this one. Shooting down proposals does not help the problem,
>    and if anyone thinks that this isn't a problem, they aren't up on
>    what's going on.

	First of all, your assessment here completely negates the opinions 
of others.  Many have opionions without necessarily having solutions - why 
is that such a problem?  Second, where do you come by your absolute 
conviction that the majority of mothers on Welfare/AFDC/etc. are folks who 
dip into the system and have more babies to get more monies?  I do assume 
this to be your conviction since your solution is aimed at all on 
assitance.  Lastly, I do have a suggestion.  There have been many programs 
started and run successfully that allow mothers on public assistance to 
get proper job training/education while remaining on assistance, receiving 
child care, receiving family counseling/planning, and gradually easing  
from assitance to full employment.  Unfortunately, these programs cost quite
a bit, and are the first to be retrenched during times of economic downturn.
If you really think that cost is not the issue, then I suggest you start a
lobby to bring back these "working welfare" programs.  They actually work.

Barb

    re .60
    
    I don't know how to start a lobby. Please tell me how to start a
    lobby.

As soon as I can remember the name of the people's lobby (that's how I think of
it) Wait! Wait! It's Common Ground.  O.K., I would be happy to send for some
info from them on how they got started - was very "grass roots" type of org,
can't speak for it now.

Basically, it would be better to take advantage of their experience than to 
start from scratch.  However, if you do want to do that...

	o  Find out all the members of the house/sentate (state) that
           budget/allocate funds to Welfare/AFDC

	o  Find as many others as you can with similar interests - lobbyists
	   must register, so get the list from the house/senate

	o  Start writing and start talking - constantly and consistently

	o  If you get enough of a spearhead mounted, register as a lobbyist,
	   form a non-prof, and gather in as many members as humanly
	   possible.  A large constiuency or being able to convince 
	   legislators that you REPRESENT a large constiuency is what makes
	   "lobbying for your cause" a success/failure.

If you want to lobby to bring back some of the work/education programs, count 
me in.

Barb

    If there's an existing lobby, I'm better off going that way. Whatever
    you find, and send me, I'll try to type in here.
    
    To any and all who have been offended by the radicalness of my
    proposal, I can only say that my perspective is different, and possibly
    very narrow in focus. Those of you who know me personally may
    understand. You may not. From my point of view, there is a drastic
    problem that needs a drastic solution. But I do admit, it does not
    apply to the majority of people temporarily on Welfare. And I *did*
    know that when I wrote it.
    
    I do apologize to those of you who are pro-life, anti-birth control, or
    those who may have taken offense for religious reasons around the
    "inherent right to procreate". Because I do not have such beliefs,
    that is an aspect that I forgot about.

    I didn't see any proposals to prevent people from procreating.  What I
    saw was a proposal or two that would prevent potential welfare
    beneficiaries from forcing the rest of us to subsidize their
    procreation rights.  
    
    Mike

        re .59,
        
>>    Here is one issue you could fight on.  The Federal and many state
>>    governments will not provide medicaid or other funds for abortions,
>>    unless a pregnancy results from rape, incest, or will fataly ingure the
>>    mother.  This is a serious infringement of reproductive rights for the
>>    very people you wish to stop having unplanned children.
        
        Not giving a person who hasn't earned it other people's
        money does not infringe on any of that person's rights.
        
        Dan

    One way or another, the middle class and rich have their procreation
    rights subsidized. Once again, the "sin" is in being poor. The Great
    American Work Ethic by which we are judged. The standard is the Gold
    Standard. (Brings to mind the Golden Rule: "Them what has the gold
    makes the rules.")
    
    The streets of our cities are filled with people who have either
    fallen through, or completely missed, the "safety net" (such as it is)
    that provides for people in this society who cannot (for whatever
    reasons) provide for themselves. I personally believe this is a shame
    and a blot on our escutcheon, as it were. We are a rich country. We can
    afford to help the less fortunate. 
    
    Choosing to put more people on the street and then say "Hey! They
    brought it on themselves." is incredibly tacky, I think. An investment
    of funds in other areas - areas that are actually *helpful* to the
    poor seems to me a better solution than "Keep your legs together,
    Honey, or no more dough."
    
    If a country has a soul, ours is in trouble already. If this proposal
    or one very like it were to be implemented, the large cities could be
    three-deep in street people.  Heck, the way the economy is going, they
    may be *anyway*. It's frightening how close most of us are to being
    homeless - at any given moment. 
    
    --DE
    

    Yes, but why should we help those less fortunate than ourselves when we
    can use that money to subsidize an unecessary and bloody war in Iraq
    instead?  Come on, where are your priorities?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re: .68 (Mike)
    
    Oh, you poliical types are all alike!
    
    Mike

    maybe this is a rathole, but I'm middle class and I don't
    *see* how my procreation rights are being subsidized.  If
    somebody could show me that they are, I'd really appreciate
    it.
    
    (no sarcasm intended, just confusion)
    
    Christine

    Re. 67
    
    I agree with you totally. I pay my taxes happily, even more so since I
    was unfortunately without a job - no longer than a couple of weeks, but
    still.  It's at that time that one realises that sort of benefits are
    there for all. Over here we've seen a lot of people being layed off in
    several industries, a large percentage of them over 50 years old. These
    people had worked all their lives, sometimes started as young as 12
    years old and they had no chance whatsoever to get back to work, on a
    labour market that featured 500,000 unemployed and yelling for
    university-educated people. Most of the time you can't say people
    "brought it on themselves" - actually that's never true. I don't want
    to bring up any more ideas, but actually the cheapest solution for
    people on welfare is to shoot them...
    
    Ad

    re .67, very well said and I agree completely.
    
    re Christine, do you *really* think that you're middle class?
    (well, I don't know anything about your situation as far as inherited
    money, support by SO's, etc., goes but it's difficult for me to imagine
    that any non-professional type worker really thinks they are part of
    the American middle-class, as far as dependence on a weekly pay check
    goes....IMO secretaries, computer operators, security guards, etc.,
    simply do not make enough money to seriously be considered
    middle-class)
    
    I wonder how many skipped paychecks away from being homeless a lot of
    Dec employees are?
    
    I think it comes down to this.  Some people care what happens to other
    people and some people don't.  Hopefully those who don't will never
    need the compassion of others themselves.
    
    Lorna
    

    How are the rich subsidized? Tax deductions, for one thing. 
    For another, insurance on dependents.
    
    

        re .73,
        
        I'm beginning to understand now.  Those who don't work
        get "entitlements", and those who do work, whatever they
        are allowed to keep is a "subsidy".  Thank you for
        clearing that up.
        
        Dan

    re: .70
    
    >>maybe this is a rathole, but I'm middle class and I don't
    >>*see* how my procreation rights are being subsidized.  If
    >>somebody could show me that they are, I'd really appreciate
    >>it.
    
    Well, I'll see your rathole and raise you one more rathole! ;-)
    
    Seriously, though, I agree with Lauren that procreation is not a right. 
    As to your question, how can a middle class person's procreation rights
    be subsidized?
    
    It is already happening.  Can you spell higher costs for insurance
    premiums because insurance companies now have to pay for high risk,
    experimental infertility treatments such as in-vitro, donor insemination 
    and G.I.F.T.
    
    All these nifty forms of treating infertility cost big bucks, and the
    cost is being shouldered by everyone who pays premiums for health
    insurance.  I don't appreciate it.  I don't think that pregnancy and
    birthing a child is a deity-given/constitutionally given right.  But
    this is my particular hot button.  In a country such as ours where
    infants and children don't have access to adequate health/medical
    assistance, I think that it is nearly criminal that insurance companies
    are legislated to pay $5,000+ per procedure so the rich and middle
    class can further their gene pool.  Infertility is not a
    life-threatening condition, it does not diminish the quality of life in
    the ways that disease and illness do.  I am not trying to minimize the
    desire to have a child and parent that child, or the psychological pain
    that infertility can cause, but I still don't feel that parenting is
    a right and that the rest of society has to subsidize the quest for a 
    child.
    

    
    How about working toward, and putting some money into teaching
    young women the following:
    
    	1. The be-all and end-all of your life is not in Having A Man.
    
    	2. The be-all and end-all of your life in not in Having His Babies.
    
    	3. You do not have to help him "prove" his masculinity by how many 
    		times he can impregnate you.
    
    	4. You have abilities and skills to bring to the world regardless
    		of, and possibly independent of, being A Wife & A Mother.
    
    	5. There is education, training, and a job with a good salary for
    		you. Here are the directions on how to accomplish that.
    
        6. You will make a salary on an even par with any man, of any color
    		and social status. You will be promoted and receive raises
    		on the same even par.
    
    
    

    Personally, I love 607.76.
    
    I wish I believed it was a lesson we could teach, so many of us haven't
    learned it yet. And it even harder to teach it to people who believe
    the exact opposite.
    
    How many people are putting their money on "education as the key"?
    

    I'm betting on "education is the key" for this and many other things. 
    And not just "lecturing" or preaching, but INSTRUCTING, TRAINING,
    INVESTING in both children and adults, showing them their options,
    opening their minds, helping them to grow and develop to become the
    best and most rewarding person they can be, but most of all teaching
    them about the interactions between people in our world, people and our
    world.  
    
    I think this will be our only hope - to convey, with caring, with
    understanding, with listening and learning on the part of all involved,
    that there are options, that information and learning are there for the
    taking, that what we do, each of us, affects all of us.
    
    -Jody
    

    Lisa
    
    Most of the poor can't afford contraceptives, or there is no available
    clinic they can go to to get free or low cost contraceptives. When
    it is all you can do to feed x number of children on food stamps,
    they can't afford the cash to buy pill or what ever.
    
    Bonnie

    re .76, where were you when I was growing up? :-)  (I know, not
    grown-up yet yourself!)  I wish somebody had told me that stuff when I
    was a little kid, though.
    
    Lorna
    

    I took the liberty of removing .78 since it was obviously written so
    poorly that no one could understand what I was trying to get across.
    
    I will try again without any elegance.
    
    1.  My reproductive rights are not subsidized by anyone except myself.
    My health insurance does not pay for any birth control.
    
    2.  The more kids you have the bigger risk you take.  If you have 362
    kids, it would be difficult to support them should something happen to
    your finances.
    
    3.  I'M PUTTING THIS PART IN CAPITALS BECAUSE I'VE WRITTEN THIS IN
    ABOUT EVERY NOTE I'VE PUT IN AND IT NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD.  
    
    
    I'M NOT AGAINST HELPING OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING HARD TIMES.
    
    I'M NOT AGAINST HELPING OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING HARD TIMES.
    
    I'M NOT AGAINST HELPING OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING HARD TIMES.
    
    I'M NOT AGAINST HELPING OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING HARD TIMES.
    
    I'M AGAINST HAVING TO HELP OUT PEOPLE, AND THEN HAVING THOSE PEOPLE DO
    SOMETHING THAT CAUSES THEM TO REQUIRE MORE HELP, INSTEAD OF DOING
    SOMETHING THAT WILL HELP THEM SUPPORT THEMSELVES.  HAVING 85486594 KIDS
    DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE YOUR LOT IN LIFE.  YOU HAVE A LOT OF KIDS A LOT
    OF MOUTHS TO FEED AND CARE FOR.  THREE OR FOUR KIDS ARE DIFFICULT
    ENOUGH TO CARE FOR IN THESE TIMES, 574892507489057219 KIDS ARE JUST
    NEAR IMPOSSIBLE AND THERE'S NO REASON, OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS REASONS
    WHICH I SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE.
    
    IF YOU HAVE FAMILY OF 54859284902473892574329 THAT IS HUNGRY AND IN
    DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS, OK GET THEM SOME FOOD, BUT ALSO THROW IN SOME
    BIRTH CONTROL SO THAT THEY DON'T COME BACK NEXT YEAR WITH FAMILY OF
    54859284902473892574330 AND ASK FOR FOOD AGAIN.
    
    YOU HAVE SINGLE MOTHER OF 5478529734508 KIDS BEGGING FOR FOOD AND
    CLOTHES AND ON WELFARE, WELL HOW IS SHE GOING TO GET OFF WELFARE?
    ONLY BY GETTING A JOB OR SOME TRAINING AND GOING OUT TO WORK AND
    GETTING MONEY FOR THE FUTURE, BUT SHE CAN'T DO THAT WITH 5457842396077
    KIDS IN TOW, SHE'S GOT TO PUT THEM SOMEWHERE.  AND IF SHE KEEPS GETTING
    PREGNANT THAT'S MORE KIDS TO PUT IN CARE AND MORE MONEY IN HEALTH CARE
    COSTS FOR HAVING THE BABY AND LESS CHANCE THAT SHE'S GOING TO GET OFF
    WELFARE.
    
    IF YOU'VE GOT A CASE LIKE THIS, THEN I'D BE MUCH MORE WILLING TO HELP
    IF I KNEW THAT THE MONEY I WAS GIVING WAS GOING SOMEPLACE THAT WOULD
    HELP THIS WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET THEM OFF
    THE WELFARE ROLLS.  WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO CONTINUE DONATING YEAR AFTER
    YEAR TO HELP THIS WOMAN FEED HER 74689576859420 KIDS?
    
    TAKE MY MONEY BUT USE IT TO TRAIN THE MOTHER OR PROVIDE CHEAP DAY CARE
    OR GO AFTER A DELINQUENT FATHER OR PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL.
     
    WHAT GOOD IS IT TO JUST GIVE SOMEONE IN TROUBLE MONEY IF IT CAN'T BE
    USED TO HELP THEM OUT OF THEIR SITUATION?  WE CAN'T LET PEOPLE JUST GO
    HUNGRY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT'S NOT FAIR TO ASK ME TO PAY FOR FOOD
    FOR SOMEONE MONTH AFTER MONTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR WHEN THEY ARE NOT DOING
    ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION?
    
    WELL WHAT IF THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION AT ALL?
    THEN WHY IF THIS PERSON HAVING MORE KIDS???????????????
    
    GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...........
    
    LISA

    Re 76
    
    Why did you completely ignore the male in your statements?
    
    How about working toward and putting some money into teaching
    young men the following:
    
    you are responsible for all lives you are a part in creating!!!
    
    This , I feel, is part of the problem with women on welfare who
    use the system as a total support system.  If the fathers of these
    children were forced to support them, the women would not need
    to stay on welfare.  
    
    In many states, it is no longer a requirement to find a lawyer to
    go after a father to get child support.  In many states all one has
    to do it simply provide the name of that father to the Child support
    enforcement department.  Surely the majority of these fathers are
    working.  I find it very hard to believe they are not in some manner
    or another.
    
    Young men know they can just walk away and get away with the problem
    they were equally responsible for creating.  This is bull.
    
    
    In response to your ideas, you are talking about changing years of
    social conditioning overnight.  Sorry, it just does not happen that
    fast.  Some of us are lucky to come from situations where we were
    taught that we can be whatever we work to achieve.  Some of us were
    taught that we need a man to survive.  I agree with your ideas, but
    it is very difficult to change a way of thinking and living which 
    one has been brought up with.

    I've stayed out of this for a while, trying to get my thoughts in
    order.  I think I'm ready to try now :-)
    
    AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) is one type of welfare
    program in the US.  The requirements to participate in the program
    *discourage* the fathers from being present in the household, or
    contributing to support of their family.  Unemployment rates among
    young, urban black males are in excess of 30% and rising as we undergo
    recession in the general economy.  These problems are mutually
    entwined, and attacking one of them will have ripple effects into
    the others, for both good and ill.  AFDC is the welfare program
    most people have in mind when they rail against the "welfare system",
    and it is typically envisioned as a support system for indigent
    black women.  The stereotypes aren't true, but must be considered
    when developing resolutions to the problems.
    
    Current welfare and medical programs for the poor do not include
    making available low-cost or free contraceptives, nor abortion
    services, nor sex education.  I strongly advocate that *all* of
    these services should be provided to that community on a regular
    basis.
    
    I also advocate that anyone receiving government funds for support
    should be required to be either working or getting training to become
    a productive member of society.  That work may be sweeping streets
    by hand, or providing child or elder care services, or being an
    orderly in a hospital or rest home.  It may not be full time - and
    in fact probably should *not* be full time so that the recipient
    has available hours for looking for work outside of the government
    funding support.  Child care needs to be available while job hunting
    is done, as well as while work is being done.  Those receiving 
    government funds because of medical or psychiatric disability should 
    be encouraged to do what they can.
    
    Those who find work outside of government funded support should
    *not* have all benefits rescinded the moment they start working. 
    Child care services and health benefits, in particular, need to
    be phased out gradually as the individual/family's ability to provide
    them improve.  (This is one of the current *disincentives* to getting
    out of the AFDC system, btw, as few of the entry-level jobs these
    folks initially get provide medical benefits.  Another case of
    inter-locking problems between our health care and welfare systems.)
    
    I strongly disagree with the notion that the government should say
    "use the implant or don't get welfare".  I do believe, however,
    that there should be diminishing returns to having additional children
    while in the welfare system.  I'm just not sure how to accomplish
    that without making all of the existing problems worse.
    
    Alison

    My own, personal idea about giving incentives to AFDC mothers to
    *not* have more children is to increase the per child allotment
    for every {year|n months|whatever} without another child.  The
    allotment would return to the base level upon the birth of another
    child.
    
    <Pause>
    
    That's probably still too harse for those poor, frightened children.
    
    							Ann B.

    Gee, Ann, I *like* it! 
    
    RE: years of brainwashing
    
    Granted. But we've been working at this kind of thing for over
    100 years. And we're still having to Make The Point that women must
    be able to <fill in the blanks of: make par salary, get par education,
    fill the same jobs, have reproductive freedom, etc etc etc> for a
    h*ll of a long time. 
    
    Even in this very file, we cover ground again and again that we 
    covered 5 years ago. How long do we have to *DO* this?
    
    RE: Involving poor men too
    
    Fine with me. The basenote was about birth control for *women*,
    however. *I* brought up the question of men in this equation
    many notes ago, and didn't puruse it, because we were talking about
    women after all - and rightly so, as that is what the basenote
    discussed.
    
    Bottom line: women are going to have to control their destinies
    anyway, and I'd rather see a woman be able to support her kids alone
    than have to have the courts chase a guy all over Hell and Creation.
    (Not that that absolves the guy from responsibility. But as I said
    before, you can't hardly ever *make* someone be responsible.)
    
    
    --DE
    
    

    I think there are two default presumptions here....
    
    One that there are enough AFDC parents receiving aid and producing
    children that solving the problem would have an impact on our lives.
    
    Secondly there is a supposition that those parents would understand and
    respond to new legislation that discouraged additional pregnancies.
    
    In reality the AFDC benefits have been reduced to such a point that the
    people who choose to remain in the program are the ones that are
    cheating in some way or are totally incapable of independent living.
    
    There have been several highly successful programs that have been cut
    for 1991...one of which was a program for young male parents which
    encouraged participation in their childrens growth, development and
    financial responsibility.
    
    The answers to the problems addressed in this note are very complex
    and resolution is slow and requires far more than what appears to be a
    simple solution.
    
    I like what has happened in this note though, the author of the base
    note has decided to go off and do more than explore the issue in the
    limited experience of this readershi 

    I read an article in Business Week (about a year ago) which said that
    our system encouraged young single teenage mothers, because our welfare
    system offers them a means of achieving independance if they have children.
    The article was very convincing, and I agree that our system should
    not encourage young women to have babies as a means of easily achieving
    financial independance.

    re .89, I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that having babies
    allows women a means of easily achieving financial independance.
    
    I've been working full time for Digital for the past 15 years and *I*
    don't have financial independance, but you're trying to tell me that if
    I have a bunch of kids and went on wellfare I would?  
    
    I don't believe that women wind-up single, with kids, and on
    wellfare because they *planned* it.  I believe it happens because, for
    one reason or another, they screwed up their lives.
    
    Everyone's life does *not* go smoothly and according to plan, though
    this may be difficult for some DEC professionals to understand.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Lorna, unfortunately, it's all too true.
    
    My mother spends many hours each week at a home for unwed teenagers,
    called Crosswalks.  The young women there are age 13 to age 16, all 
    pregnant, none for the first time.  One woman first got pregnant at 
    age 12 and didn't believe that my mother had a husband, and that she 
    had a daughter (me) who was 27 and had never been pregnant.  Said she 
    had no idea such women existed.  Similar sentiments were expressed by 
    all the teenagers there.
    
    In their world, having a baby was their way out of an abusive home,
    where they'd be guaranteed a check every month, and there would be
    someone to love, someone who would love them.  It was "cool" to be
    pregnant, an affirmation that they were more adultlike than child-
    like.
    
    Carla
    

    re .91, but Carla, to me, these women's lives have been messed up
    because they didn't know any better.  They deserve compassion and
    education not the condemnation I saw in .89's reply.
    
    The point is these women are not out to maliciously screw the
    middle-class by getting something for nothing, they just don't know any
    better.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    
    FWIW, I was glancing thru the newspaper on Sunday and came upon the
    following stats (I could be slightly off, this is from memory).
    
    
    94% of 19 yr old females surveyed said that they have had premarital 
    sex at least once.
    
    51% of 15 yr old females surveyed said that they have had premarital 
    sex at least once.
    
    
    
    I wish the survey had mentioned how many of those females used safe
    birth control methods.  8-( 
    
    For anyone that thinks the children of today are not having sex, think
    again.  Anyone have stats on birth control for those under 20 yrs old?
    
    kathy  

    
    I agree that these women are following a pattern, that they are not 
    to blame, that they aren't out to maliciously screw anyone (neither
    figuratively nor literally).
    
    Too bad they all can't visit the haven described in Jody's 617.0
    before succumbing to sexual and emotional pressures.
    
    Carla
    

    I have removed the basenote.
    
    Not because I have completely changed my mind, but because I realize
    that I wrote it in a hurry, and it doesn't reflect all that I feel on
    the matter. However, I sense that many women were startled by my
    basenote and may never remember me for anything else... Well, at least
    posterity won't see it.
    
    Besides, the title still conveys my intent.
    
    Ciao,
    
    'ren - radical birth-control-at-the-price-of-civil-liberties
            advocate...

    reply to .93 , I was NOT condemning the women who get pregnant in order 
    to be financially indepent! I was condemning the system which
    encourages this. Of course this is a problem of the Environment in
    which these women are in.  I think that Our govt. should have a
    better system (more motivating system) for offering these women (and men)
    better opportunities. There should be more classes, training, help to
    show these women that they can have a better life, and help prepare
    them to find and keep a good job.   

Article 336 of clari.news.sex:
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!pa.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!lll-winken!uunet!decwrl!looking!clarinews
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (CHARLES S. TAYLOR)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.health,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.sex,clari.news.top
Subject: More young women having premarital sex, study finds
Keywords: usa federal, government, cardiovascular, health, women,
	special interest, sex, human interest
Message-ID: <Usex_1f9@clarinet.com>
Date: 4 Jan 91 22:04:57 GMT
Lines: 64
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com clari.news.gov.usa:4590 clari.tw.health:845 clari.news.group.women:567 clari.news.sex:336 clari.news.top:3671
ACategory: usa
Slugword: sex
Priority: major
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 570; Id: a0975; Sel: na--a; Adate: 1-4-245pes; Ver: sked
Codes: yngwrxx., ynkhrxx., ynjwrxx., ynhxrxx.
Note: (adv 5 p.m. est)


	ATLANTA (UPI) -- More than half of American women ages 15 through 19
have had premarital sex, and nearly three-quarters of sexually active
young women have had more than one partner, a federal survey said
Thursday.
	The study also found that the proportion of young women who reported
having had premarital sexual intercourse increased steadily, from 28.6
percent in 1970 to 51.5 percent in 1988.
	The Centers for Disease Control, which conducted the survey, also
warned the evidence of increased sexual intercourse among young women
poses serious health consequences for the nation.
	Not only are teenagers more active sexually before marriage, but the
sexual activity is starting at an earlier age, the CDC said.
	``Early initiation of sexual activity certainly is increasing rather
than declining among adolescents,'' said Sevgi Aral, chief of the
behavorial studies section of CDC.
	``What we are finding out is that the sexual revolution is slowing
down in some respects, but in some dimensions that certainly is not the
case,'' Aral said.
	The CDC survey covered the years 1970-1988 and was based on
interviews with 8,450 women ages 15-44 from a nationally representative
sample of households.
	Of the young women who initiated sexual intercourse before age 18, 75
percent reported having had two or more partners, and 45 percent
reported having had four or more partners, the survey revealed.
	The study also found that the older a woman was when she started
having sex, the fewer sexual partners she had. ``Among those who became
sexually active after age 19, 20 percent reported having had more than
one partner, and 1 percent four or more partners,'' researchers said.
	The proportion of black adolescents having premarital sex ``was
consistently higher'' than that of whites but the difference narrowed
over time, the CDC said.
	For black women 15-19, 46 percent reported having had premarital sex
in 1970, compared with 26.7 percent for white women in that age group.
By 1988, the difference had narrowed to 58.8 percent for black women and
50.6 percent for whites.
	``For white adolescents, this represents an increase in the number of
sexually experienced females from 2.2 million in 1970 to 3.7 million in
1988 and for black adolescents, from 0.6 million to 0.8 million,'' the
study said.
	The CDC noted that increased sexual activity among young women has
several health consequences and that adolescents are at higher risk for
sexually transmitted infection than older females. Adolescents have
higher rates of gonorrhea and chlamydial infections, it said, and by
their late teens about 4 percent of whites and 17 percent of blacks have
been infected with herpes virus type 2.
	If untreated such infections can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease,
which increases the risk for infertility and tubal pregnancy. The risk
of cervical cancer for women under 25 is also increased following
infection by the human papillomavirus. There also is the risk of
unwanted pregnancy, the CDC said.
	Society appears to be partially responsible for the increased sexual
activity of adolescents, Aral said. ``We are trying to tell them there
is a need to prevent sexually transmitted infections, but on the other
hand through all the mass media we really are glamorizing sex,'' he
said.
--
This, and all articles in this news hierarchy are Copyright 1991 by the wire 
service or information provider and licenced to Clarinet Communications 
Corp.  for distribution.  Except for free samples, only paid subscribers 
may access these articles.  Any unauthorized access, reproduction or 
transmission is strictly prohibited.  We will reward the first provider of 
information that helps us stop violators of this copyright.  Send reports 
to reward@clarinet.com.  

>    reply to .93 , I was NOT condemning the women who get pregnant in order 
>    to be financially indepent! I was condemning the system which
>    encourages this. Of course this is a problem of the Environment in
>    which these women are in. 


	It is only your opinion that it is the system that encourages this.


	Heather

	Is it possible to remove the page and a half of heading-type info
	so we can concentrate on the text please?

	Heather

	This is for you, Ad

    It's fairly common to find that women with children can receive more
    financial reward/support/<whatever> on public assistance than they
    can working at unskilled-labor type jobs. The problem isn't always in
    the bottom-line dollars, which tend often to be equal. The problem
    occurs because the mother has to leave the offspring to go to work,
    which means paying for child care. This is often enough to tip the
    balance in favor of staying home on "the dole". And seems to me to be
    a good argument for dependable community/business child care.
    
    RE: teenage sex
    
    One of the largest growing groups of HIV-positive individuals is
    teenagers. If they aren't practicing safe sex, it seems to me the
    chances of their practicing birth control are Not Good.
    
    Besides, all we have to do is tell 'em "Just say no." and they 
    won't do it, right?  :-\
    
    --DE
    

	Okay, looks like we'll have to live with it, thanks for looking into it.


	Heather

    Take header crap, cut, append to bottom.  Whole article still there, 
    copyright requirements arguably satisfied.
    
    J

Article 336 of clari.news.sex:
    
    [remainder of header appended to bottom]
    
	ATLANTA (UPI) -- More than half of American women ages 15 through 19
have had premarital sex, and nearly three-quarters of sexually active
young women have had more than one partner, a federal survey said
Thursday.
	The study also found that the proportion of young women who reported
having had premarital sexual intercourse increased steadily, from 28.6
percent in 1970 to 51.5 percent in 1988.
	The Centers for Disease Control, which conducted the survey, also
warned the evidence of increased sexual intercourse among young women
poses serious health consequences for the nation.
	Not only are teenagers more active sexually before marriage, but the
sexual activity is starting at an earlier age, the CDC said.
	``Early initiation of sexual activity certainly is increasing rather
than declining among adolescents,'' said Sevgi Aral, chief of the
behavorial studies section of CDC.
	``What we are finding out is that the sexual revolution is slowing
down in some respects, but in some dimensions that certainly is not the
case,'' Aral said.
	The CDC survey covered the years 1970-1988 and was based on
interviews with 8,450 women ages 15-44 from a nationally representative
sample of households.
	Of the young women who initiated sexual intercourse before age 18, 75
percent reported having had two or more partners, and 45 percent
reported having had four or more partners, the survey revealed.
	The study also found that the older a woman was when she started
having sex, the fewer sexual partners she had. ``Among those who became
sexually active after age 19, 20 percent reported having had more than
one partner, and 1 percent four or more partners,'' researchers said.
	The proportion of black adolescents having premarital sex ``was
consistently higher'' than that of whites but the difference narrowed
over time, the CDC said.
	For black women 15-19, 46 percent reported having had premarital sex
in 1970, compared with 26.7 percent for white women in that age group.
By 1988, the difference had narrowed to 58.8 percent for black women and
50.6 percent for whites.
	``For white adolescents, this represents an increase in the number of
sexually experienced females from 2.2 million in 1970 to 3.7 million in
1988 and for black adolescents, from 0.6 million to 0.8 million,'' the
study said.
	The CDC noted that increased sexual activity among young women has
several health consequences and that adolescents are at higher risk for
sexually transmitted infection than older females. Adolescents have
higher rates of gonorrhea and chlamydial infections, it said, and by
their late teens about 4 percent of whites and 17 percent of blacks have
been infected with herpes virus type 2.
	If untreated such infections can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease,
which increases the risk for infertility and tubal pregnancy. The risk
of cervical cancer for women under 25 is also increased following
infection by the human papillomavirus. There also is the risk of
unwanted pregnancy, the CDC said.
	Society appears to be partially responsible for the increased sexual
activity of adolescents, Aral said. ``We are trying to tell them there
is a need to prevent sexually transmitted infections, but on the other
hand through all the mass media we really are glamorizing sex,'' he
said.
--
This, and all articles in this news hierarchy are Copyright 1991 by the wire 
service or information provider and licenced to Clarinet Communications 
Corp.  for distribution.  Except for free samples, only paid subscribers 
may access these articles.  Any unauthorized access, reproduction or 
transmission is strictly prohibited.  We will reward the first provider of 
information that helps us stop violators of this copyright.  Send reports 
to reward@clarinet.com.  

Article 336 of clari.news.sex:
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!pa.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!lll-winken!uunet!decwrl!looking!clarinews
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (CHARLES S. TAYLOR)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.health,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.sex,clari.news.top
Subject: More young women having premarital sex, study finds
Keywords: usa federal, government, cardiovascular, health, women,
	special interest, sex, human interest
Message-ID: <Usex_1f9@clarinet.com>
Date: 4 Jan 91 22:04:57 GMT
Lines: 64
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com clari.news.gov.usa:4590 clari.tw.health:845 clari.news.group.women:567 clari.news.sex:336 clari.news.top:3671
ACategory: usa
Slugword: sex
Priority: major
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 570; Id: a0975; Sel: na--a; Adate: 1-4-245pes; Ver: sked
Codes: yngwrxx., ynkhrxx., ynjwrxx., ynhxrxx.
Note: (adv 5 p.m. est)

On NPR this morning I heard a story about a Kansas legislator that has proposed
a bill that would give a woman on welfare $500 (additional) if she agreed to
have Norplant implanted.  The cost of the implant would be paid by the state, as
would the yearly checkup.  If the implant was still in place at the time of the
checkup, then the woman would receive another $50.  The woman is allowed to have
the implant removed (at state cost) at any time, but will have to return a
pro-rated amount of the $500.  Part of the supporting argument was that 90% of
women who have a second child while on welfare never stop receiving some form
of public assistance.  The story said that it was doubtful that the bill would
pass.

    Ellen Goodman  had  an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe in the last
    week  or  two on this. It seems that the developer of Norplant was
    afraid  of  this  sort of mis-use, but was suprised at how fast it
    turned  up.  There  were  calls for its mandatory use before there
    were any volutary patients.

    I get  very  confused in these arguments. I don't want children to
    suffer  because their parents had poor judgement, but that happens
    anyway.  Some  countries  reward  people who have children (France
    used  to  give  a  fairly  large  sum  to  parents, Canada gives a
    relatively   small  monthly  sum  to  the  mother.),  while  other
    countries  penalize  them (China is the most obvious example.) The
    US  offers some tax advantages to having children, and more aid to
    mothers on welfare than childless women. (Also, having a child can
    get  you  support  outside  of  your  parent's  home.)  All  these
    encouragements  to have children were started by trying to provide
    for  all children, but have become an inducement to have children.
    This  may have contributed to what seems to be an almost permanent
    underclass in the ghettos. 

    A midwife  I  know in New Haven says that the average age of first
    pregnancy  in  her  practice was 14. The girls didn't particularly
    care  if  they  had  kids  and  the  boys  considered it a rite of
    passage, so there was a lot of pressure to have kids.

    I can't   condone   required   contraceptives,   but  I  certainly
    understand  the  temptation.  Is  it better to say that women with
    children  get  no more money than those without? Is that different
    from  offering  a  woman  $500 to use Norplant (or for that matter
    offering an Indian man a transistor radio if he gets a vasectomy)?
    For  some  families  we  don't  give  them  more  money for having
    children  (DEC won't raise my pay if we have a child), for some we
    do. I see how a financial inducement can become coercive, but also
    realize  that  there  are  financial inducements for everything in
    this society (including joining the Army, that's one reason that a
    lot of poor people joined.  Was that coercive?)

    I also  see  the  temptation  to  require contraceptives for child
    abusers  (This  has  happened.  A  woman who abused or killed? her
    child  was  required  to  use  Norplant as a condition of her plea
    bargain.) but can't condone it.

    There is  something  sacred about the decision to have or not have
    children,  which I am unwilling to forceably violate. I am willing
    to  provide  some  financial  incentives  about  having  children,
    partially  because  I understand that it's impossible to eliminate
    them,  but  I  simply  don't  know  how  to  make those incentives
    reasonable,   reflecting   a   reasonable   public   policy,   and
    non-coercive.  I'm not sure it can be done.

    It's easy (and necessary) to condem the forceable use of Norplant,
    but  there  are  lots  of  other  coercive  effects which are more
    subtle,  but  perhaps  no  weaker.  We must consider them too, and
    probably change them because what we have now is not working well,
    but  I don't see how to effect this sort of change even if I saw a
    proposal which I thought would work.

--David

    > There is  something  sacred about the decision to have or not have
    > children,  which I am unwilling to forceably violate.
    
    David, I don't understand "sacred" in this context.  Actually, as a
    non-believer, I probably don't understand it in any context, and if I
    tried to get across the meaning it conveys to me I'd probably end up by
    insulting people, which is not why I'm asking the question.  But could
    you expand this a little bit for me, so I can understand what aspects
    are most important and how?  I would state that there is something
    fundamentally personal and private and privilege-reserved-to-the-individual
    about this decision, but I think you mean more than that.  But what?
    
    DougO

Well, I guess I'll stick my arm in the fire. I think the idea of rewarding a
welfare woman who *chooses* to use Norplant is a good idea. All this is is an
incentive. It doesn't sterilize her or prevent her from having children in the
future. It does not cut off her welfare payments. And if she changes her mind
before the time's up she just pays back a pro-rated amount. What is this so
awful? Is it better to bring more undernourished, undercared for and unwanted
children into the world? 

As for the decison to have children being scared, I'd say many are concieved by
accident and through lack of caring rather than a scared ideal. Many of these
women don't have the option of making their lovers use condoms and birth control
pills are a hassle and require a monthly outlay of money. 

I say we would be giving many of these woman a certain level of freedom they
didn't have before. With all the debate over the side effects of the pill how
many women in America would give theirs up? Perhaps they feel that what it buys
them is worth the risk. Maybe poor women would like the same opportunity. liesl

P.S. I saw many young welfare mothers in my time in the ER. Many of them had
rotten teeth and other effects of poor nutrition. This hurts both them and the
baby. They aged dramatically with each pregnancy. This would free them.

DougO,

    I do  mean  more  than  fundamentally personal and private because
    there  are  other  fundamental  rights  which  I'm  willing to see
    abridged  for  cause  (Freedom  to  come  and go as one chooses is
    fundamental,  but  I consider prison to be a reasonable punishment
    in  some cases.), but I'm not willing to see people forced to have
    (or not have) children as punishment for a crime, even a crime like 
    infanticide where it would seem to be appropriate in some sense. I
    don't mean sacred in a religous way, as I'm not much of a believer
    myself.

    The fourth  definition  for  sacred  in  my  Funk and Wagnalls is:
    "Entitled to reverence or respect; not to be profaned; inviolable"
    which pretty much captures the meaning I was looking for.

    Does that  clarify  it a bit? I was looking for something stronger
    than fundamental, and sacred seemed about right.

--David

Re: .109 (Lisel)

    I'm absolutely  in  favor  of providing Norplant free to women who
    want  it  and can't afford it. I'm sure many will want it, and may
    well  live  better  lives as a result. (Though we do have a system
    that  rewards  some  poor women, particularly very young ones, for
    having children, so they may not want it.)

    The problem  with  a  reward for using Norplant is that the reward
    could be so large as to be coercive, and a requirement to return a
    pro-rated amount to remove it might be impossible to meet. I think
    I  might  have less trouble with the reward if it were given after
    the  period it covered, so the woman would never have to have cash
    money  to  get  it removed. (This reminds me of people who owed so
    much  money to the company store that they could never leave. Once
    the  money is spent the women are in that sort of position, and it
    bothers  me  more when the issue is control over reproduction than
    almost  any  other  issue.)  Even  so, $500 is a lot of money, and
    could be very difficult to refuse.

    When I  say  that  the right to make a decision is sacred, I don't
    imply that the right will always be excercised wisely. If everyone
    would use it wisely we wouldn't have to deal with the moral issues
    of what we should do about people who behave unwisely. (This holds
    for other rights as well. Free speech includes the right to make a
    damn fool of yourself.)

--David

    Thank you, David.  I am more comfortable with the thought you were
    expressing when you state it like that.
    
    DougO

    I forgot one thing in my write-up - the bill wouldn't discriminate
    against men.  If there were a birth-control implant that men could use
    and the man was on public assistance, then he could get the incentives
    if he decided to use it.
    
    Rich