To: strider44
This is a tough call. Permanent sterilization is pretty severe, but I can see the arguement. Thoughts?
2 posted on
01/09/2003 1:26:20 PM PST by
strider44
To: strider44
Darwin would love this one.
4 posted on
01/09/2003 1:29:41 PM PST by
AppyPappy
(If you can't beat 'em, beat 'em anyway)
To: strider44
I like it a lot.
Thanks for the post.
6 posted on
01/09/2003 1:31:46 PM PST by
lodwick
To: strider44
The city's Health and Hospitals Corp., which runs 11 municipal hospitals, said in a statement that it is "philosophically opposed to coercing women, economically or otherwise, to make reproductive choices."There is no such thing as 'economic coercion'; men and women who don't want to be sterilized can simply not take the money and be no worse off than before the offer was made.
7 posted on
01/09/2003 1:32:20 PM PST by
MrLeRoy
To: strider44
1322 abortions is pretty severe. Not to mention who knows how many crack babies left to die or stuck in a hospital suffering until they die.
They don?t mention the type of sterilization. Perhaps it is reversible with an operation (tubes tied? vasectomy?)
11 posted on
01/09/2003 1:35:40 PM PST by
Lichgod
To: strider44
It is completely voluntary, and does not involve abortion. What's not to like?
16 posted on
01/09/2003 1:44:51 PM PST by
eno_
To: strider44
--make it (permanent sterilization) a prerequisite for any kind of welfare or relief payment--
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson