Compulsory Birth Control for Welfare Recipients? Hell No!

How is it that usually decent, thoughtful people can come up with the most atrocious notions and then defend them as though they were holy writ?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Several days ago a Facebook "friend" proved for me once again that there is a clearly and solidy marked line separating "friends" from "acquaintances" and why I choose so few to call friend.

I had observed this person's posts in the past and found her to be moderately liberal in her views, a cat and dog lover, and a self-described Catholic and Yellow-Dog Democrat. She seems to have a wide-circle of loyal "friends" and hardly a person you would suspect of harboring the outrageous and despicable thoughts she put forth a couple of days ago.

Here, in her words, " Why of (sic)why do people that are already on public assistance continue to have more babies that they cannot afford?????? Norplant should be a requirement for public assistance. Take it out when they are no longer on the public tit!!!!!!!!

"What?", I replied, "Are we to deny welfare recipients the basic humanity and comfort of family and children?" and thus stirred the hornet's nest as she and her friends set out to put me in my place. And, because I suggested that there was always a sub-text of race in such talk, I was quickly castigated as introducing race issues where none were intended.

I was then told that those children were a "burden on society" and if I felt so strongly about it, "Why don't you adopt a mixed-race, mongoloid, crack-baby or shut up!" So much for the racial neutrality of the original remark. And so much for reasoned debate about a serious issue of concern. One respondent told me she was "offended" by my pointing out that since humankind originated in Africa and dispersed throughout the world, in effect, we are all "mixed race".

I was, by this time, thinking about check-book liberals and "blue-eyed soul" wherein the "do-gooders" enjoy a sense of superiority to those they claim to support or assist and continued my argument that compulsory, state-mandated contraception was only slightly removed from state-sponsored sterilization of targeted demographics.

When I wrote out that Norplant required a surgical procedure (implantation) with close medical supervision which would carry with it an additional cost to tax-payers and that Norplant carries some very serious serious side-effects and hideous health risks, I was told, "So does my blood pressure medicine".

And strangely...or maybe not, I got no answer to my query about why only women were being targeted, surely men carry an equal responsibility.

By this point, I bailed out of the exchange seeing that whatever reason and good sense this woman had was being overwhelmed by the emotion of the moment and the need to be right despite the outrageously horrible depths which, if carried out, her notion would take society.

Do we want the sort of society in which the state can dictate who can and cannot have children based on their economic status? Do we want to live in a society in which the children of the poor are regarded as "burdens on society"? Do we want a society in which the state can compel a woman to undergo medical procedures to prevent having children?

For me the answer is a very loud and very decided HELL NO!

At the same time, you would find me the heartiest proponent of education, family planning, and counseling and guidance as to the consequences of having children which one has no way of supporting, except though state stipends or charity. You would also find me a supporter of strong unions, jobs creation, educational assistance, and other programs to rebuild the middle-class and to give working families the assistance they need to advance themselves and their children into safe, comfortable and rewarding lives.

Compulsory contraception would provide none of that.