The Fed cracks down on one Man's mission to impregnate women in need

"Morally speaking, I'm okay with low-income families not being able to have kids they can't afford, so I'm kinda glad that the FDA stepped in."

Wheeeeee, eugenics.

For god's sake, how many times must I say it: they have officially widened the definition.

That's not eugenics: It's a matter of raising those children, not a matter of what's in their blood.

edited 16th Dec '11 5:43:11 AM by Medinoc

It's possible that semen could be considered a "hazardous substance", which would give the government the authority to regulate its transportation and ownership. That's the same rationale they use for not letting you ship human body parts through the mail.

@Kash: Come off it. It's about being responsible and living within your means. If you can't afford to save up for fertility treatments, then you can't afford the incredibly large sum that it takes to raise children.

@DG: when you say 'incredibly large sum that it takes to raise children' are you referring to the fact that as a child grows older they become more expensive to look after? Or are you saying that the overall cost of looking after children has increased?

@Joey: The overall cost of raising kids is going up.

Not sure how accurate it is, but for a family with an infant, that infant will cost them $9,580 in the first year alone.

So if fertility treatments are 10k like previously mentioned, then if they can't save that much in a year, then they can't afford a kid. Period.

edited 16th Dec '11 7:27:22 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

^^^ That's what welfare is for, because the country recognizes that barring poor people from reproducing on the basis of their ability to afford expensive medical treatments is a form of social eugenics, whatever euphemism you might like to use for it.

edited 16th Dec '11 7:29:00 AM by kashchei

So by that logic, poor people should be able to get a nose job.

I guess you're not in favor of socialized health care.

@DG people are constantly complaining that children cost more then they used to, but I have yet to see any numbers to back that claim up.

College has definitely become more expensive then it was 20 years ago but the US education system is beyond broken as it is.

edited 16th Dec '11 8:09:03 AM by joeyjojo

@Kash: But we don't have socialized health care. We barely have welfare. Which is the entire reason why this is irresponsible.

I have several girlfriends in the lower income bracket who are very responsible and loving parents, so I don't appreciate the pontification on how they don't deserve to procreate.

And I grew up in the lower income bracket and my family wound up digging food out of trash cans because we were denied financial assistance. Your point is?

This is getting off-topic, but maybe we could offer some sort of tax rebate for people who get vasectomies/have their tubes tied?

That under-earning does not automatically translate into an inability to provide for a child.

Except that it does, since under-earning means that you can barely provide for yourself, let alone kids.

I didn't want to weigh in on this, but... IMHO...

This is just another case of why the US needs to adopt Socialized healthcare/medicine. NOW - if only to keep people like this from ending up humiliated on the news.

edited 16th Dec '11 11:00:31 AM by LostAnarchist

Luckily, poor people aren't so stupid that the government cannot leave their reproductive choices to their own discretion. If you can't provide for yourself, you will hardly have the incentive to procreate.

Except when they do anyways. Hence the "irresponsible" bit.

Kasch; How about on topic.

You have pretty much ignored the points. Irresponsibility of the individuals puts a child into unfair and disadvantaged positions.

The person running around doing this is also putting other people at risk for a host of assorted issues and it is a good thing he was stopped the first time.

edited 16th Dec '11 7:16:38 PM by TuefelHundenIV

@Lost,

I don't think having fertility treatments as an option in a public healthcare system is a wise decision.

Too many kids in the foster care system for that.

@kasch: You'd think, but less successful people have kids anyways.

I mean, yeah, telling people to not have kids they can't afford to raise properly is not good, but so is putting more kids into a world that already has plenty of kids, many of whom have no parents.

edited 16th Dec '11 6:57:04 PM by RocketDude

But fertility has nothing to do with class bracket. Is infertility really such a widespread problem that providing fertility treatments would result in so many more children born into a low income class bracket?