I don't like the current situation any more than you do. BUT, the problem (in this country, USA) is with government policy. The more kids you have the more 'free' benefits the government dishes out. Solution? Eliminate rewards for procreating like friggin rabbits. I would much prefer my tax $$ go to abortions and birth control than go to supporting another generation of free-loaders.

'Mandatory birth control' is not something I want the government in control of. Period. BUT, what I would like to see is an end to the government supporting those deadbeats with money better spent elsewhere. I think the reason a lot of people have more kids than they actually want is because our government makes it profitable to do so. Eliminate the perks and hand out free birth control  (not 'mandatory') and you will be well on your way to eliminating the problem. I really don't think we in the US have an over-population problem. The problem is that those who are having the majority of kids can't afford to keep them up. So, it's not the number of births that's the problem, it's a lack of money to raise them properly in a responsible way. The problem is 'the system'.

Um, do you have statistics proving that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids? Didn't think so. Wealthy parents are guilty of neglect, too and those raised in poverty have been known to rise above their birth status. Like I said before, the problem is that the government rewards irresponsibility and multiple pregnancies. Eliminate the rewards and you eliminate the problem.

I'll give you an example: Illegals coming here from Mexico. When our economy took a nose dive and jobs became scarce, the number of those crossing the border dropped, too. If you've got rats coming into your barn, it makes more sense to eliminate what's attracting them rather than kill them off one at a time and ignore what they are coming there for.

I'm talking about forced sterilization in this country. Though it was based on eugenics, your proposition isn't very far from the same thing:

1927

In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.     http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm

The idea popped up in 1849 and the last forced sterilization occurred in 1981. The organization is now known as Planned Parenthood.

As far as I can see, it served no beneficial purpose for our society as a whole.

I'm not saying, 'do nothing'. On the contrary, there is plenty that can be done but, anything 'mandatory' enforced by any government makes my skin crawl.

As a matter of fact, the worlds population rates have been declining since 1963...with the exception of China, India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

 

Sorry to hear that.

But a question. If the government said we'll give everyone guaranteed medical coverage, but in exchange people must abort if the child will have huge medical costs, would you prefer just to be on your own and then poor people would go without any expensive medical treatments?

Well since I've already had him, I can't say that I agree on aborting just because of huge medical issues and bills. I think if the chance of that child dying is very highly likely, I really don't see the point of bringing that child into a life of misery, constant pain and no life outside of the hospital.

In my sons case, he has suffered a great deal but at almost 7 he is doing much better and about to start public school. He will have more set backs and there is no gaurantee he will make it. It looks better than the grim story I was told 6 years ago " take him home, love him and take care of him then get ready to make funeral arrangements because there's nothing that can be done".

I actually have thousands of dollars in medical bills on my credit now because insurance didn't cover everything. It's just part of what comes with it. Of course most people don't know that their baby is going to hqve medical problems until they are born. I knew some but they were minor compared to what it actually was. But I also haven't had any more kids or gotten pregnant again either.

I wasn't really disagreeing with the fact that wealthy parents tend to have fewer kids but, rather with your're implying that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids. Obviously, the wealthy tend to be better educated than the poor and understand the consequences and responsibilities of raising kids better than the poor do - generally speaking.

Do you understand my concern about the government being in charge of mandatory birth control???

 

I believe in rolling rights.  The woman is a life-support system for the fetus.  The more developed it is, the more rights it has until the point where it could live outside the mom.  So, by 23 weeks, mom's rights are on equal footing with the fetus/baby.  I work in an NICU so I'm fairly comfortable with the 23 week mark.  Now, if the kid is anencephalic or hydranencephalic.....that's a whole different story, because in that case they will never have a functioning brain.

I don't like the argument that people make that the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex.  That sounds an awful lot like people are wanting to punish the woman by forcing her to raise this child and won't that teach her for being a slut.

Additionally, many women have a hard time giving up their babies - they go into the system for adoption after they've been neglected, abused and sometimes irreparably damaged and so much more difficult to adopt. 

It is so very complex and the easiest thing (IMO) is to base it upon survivability outside the womb. 

I recognize that avatar.  When I was a kid, I thought the show was really, really, creepy.