From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Sterilization, Welfare, and Choice
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:33:58 GMT

      Okay everybody.  Serious mode for me--a change--

I have noticed the diatribe (ot triatribe?) from the Sterility or Death
debate that has been going on.  I am trying to find, in the midst of the
personal attacks/insults that are bandying about, what the original poster
actually said that got everyone so enraged.  Further, I am trying to
discover if, in writing as he (or is it she?  I don't have the person's
name with me) did, perhaps did not state clearly enough, or tactfully enough
what he/she intended.

I think I understand the argument as follows:

The poster believes that a method of ending poverty is to withhold welfare
from those recipients who have not been sterilized.  Am I basically on target?

From this, I believe I can construct a more rational argument, by using less
inflamatory words.  So here goes.

Welfare is the govermnet support of those who cannot support themselves,
whether due to disability, economic circumstances, social injustice, or
whatever else.  (Jeez, did I just hack the word government to pieces or what?!)

Can we accept that definition of welfare?  Regardless--that is the definition
I am going to use for the rest of the argument.

Given that, I agree that the government should be able to attach conditions
to the assistance it gives.  I add this as my second premise:
Government is justified in attaching conditions to the assistance it provides.


I then will argue that any conditions which the goverment provides must be
of a nature that they encourage either the elimination of the need for further
government assistance, or that they at least require the non pursuit of
activities which further the need for continued government assistance.

So--here is the argument thus far:

P1:  Government is responsible for granting assistance/support to those who
     cannot support themselves.
P2:  Government is permitted to attach conditions to its assistance.
     R2,1:  Any conditions attached to assistance must be of one of two
            natures:  
            a.  conditions to encourage the cessation of the need for support
            b.  conditions to prevent the further need of additional support



I will now argue that it is logical, morally justifiable, and rational for the
government to require sterilization of welfare recipients.

Children in a capitalist society are a financial burden.  The care of children,
whether performed by a family member or an outside care giver, is a very
significant financial burden, either in the cost of outside care or the loss
of income from family member care.  As such, bearing children incurs costs.
(I wish to note that many of us do consider the costs of raising children to
be far more greatly justified by the joy and love children bring into a family.)
Because the goverment has a responsibility to support those who are incapable
of supporting themselves, it must consider all of the interests at stake--
those of the government, the taxpayer, the recipient.  The taxpayer has an 
interest in decreasing the costs of governing.  The government has an interest
in decreasing the cost of governing while increasing the income of government.
The recipient has an interest in maintaining life, maintaining spending ability,
and in fact, in increasing spending ability.  One method of increasing spending
ability is to keep costs down while wages go up.

If a welfare recipient tries to buy a car, he/she will be told that he/she
cannot.  The financial burden will be too great.  That recipient may argue that
without a car, he/she cannot find an adequate job.  Is the government supposed
to buy the car?  No.

If a welfare recipient wants to have a child, he/she is not currently told that
he/she cannot.  Why?  Because the act of having a child is not regulated. 
However, that recipient will be told that he/she cannot adopt a child. 
Therefore, we may conclude that raising children is regulatable.  In fact, our
child welfare laws reflect the belief that the raising of children is of
concern to the state/government.

The government should not be able to force abortions or sterilizations.  But it 
should be permitted to refuse to support unwise decisions on the part of its
citizens.  Having children while under financial assistance is unwise.  The 
government can refuse to continue payment of financial support to those
people who wish to further indebt themselves by having children.  One means
of doing this would be to offer free abortions to welfare recipients.  This
can get into very morally questionable grounds (to hell with all of the pro-
choice or pro-life fanatics...abortion is not a clear cut issue!) 

In order to eliminate the problem of government sponsored abortions, it can 
offer another alternative--free sterilization.  It does not take a life, it
is not forced.  The choice is still the recipient's:  Receive sterilization
or maintain your own subsistence without further government assistance.  It 
really is a tough choice.  And there are many that would choose to have
the sterilization.  There would also be many who would choose to revoke their
government assistance.

There is no need to question this policy on moral grounds.  There are many
countries that do not provide any assistance to the poor.  There are also
countries that attach requirements to assistance.  This policy merely recognizes
that the bearing of children is expensive.  It is not an act that should be
taken lightly.  Having a child entails many costs, both financial and emotional.
For welfare recipients, the government is the provider of financial support.
As such it should have an influence on decisions that affect its costs.

Flame away, but please do not include the entirety of this text if you flame.
It is long, wordy and repetitive.  Save all of us some bandwidth and respond
with only the relevent sections reprinted.

Karen


Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5751 talk.politics.misc:69511