• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Coerced birthcontrol shots for those on welfare legal?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Institute a benefit cut off then start taking the babies away and give them up for adoption. I might be wrong but I bet there is strong demand to US born babies since so many seem to have to get babies from Asia (China, Korea) to adopt.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
People werent more responsible back then? Accidents happened, yes, but nobody WANTED to fall pregnant without the resources to support themselves. Yet that is what people do today, because they know welfare will pick up the check.
Click to expand...

No, people used to drop their babies off at the orphanage.
 
JEDI said:
an effective way to stop the next generation of people on welfare is birthcontrol shots for any girl/woman of child bearing age. also applies to those on social security disability.

1 shot every 3months, paid for by Medicaid.

now the problem is how to get them to the clinic?

stick: threaten to reduced their welfare $?
carrot: give them an extra $25 that month for getting the shot?

and no repurcussions to the doc if the girl does get pregnant since the shots are only 97% effective.
Click to expand...

No one, under any circumstances, should be coercively rendered sterile. Saying that you can be on welfare but you can't have children is cruel.
 
I personally think BC should be much more readily available in this country, which would help correct a lot of the issues the OP's plan seeks to approve. But to get the pills, you have to go to GYN ($150-$200) then go to the pharmacy and pay between $15 and $100 a month for a pack of pills. Next year, back to the GYN. Not to mention, if you don't like the original pills, it often requires another GYN office visit.

Make it so women can just go buy the damn pills or shots over the counter, which would also drive down the costs. Subsidize implants and sterilization.

Mandate sterilization of people who have had to have their children removed by the state.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
People werent more responsible back then? Accidents happened, yes, but nobody WANTED to fall pregnant without the resources to support themselves. Yet that is what people do today, because they know welfare will pick up the check.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't more responsibile. Your argument is laughable. Someday, you might have a kid, and then you'll find out they cost a hell of a lot more than a puny welfare check.
 
soulcougher73 said:
And i find it cruel that they can take advantage of other peoples money to continue leading a unresponisble life.
Click to expand...

Then you should oppose the welfare side of it, not reproduction. Bring back the orphanages and work houses! Opposing basic biological functions has been tried before and it has literally never worked in all of human history; there's no reason to think it would be more successful now, barring massive intervention by the state, at which point I think you'd find yourself in the midst of a full-scale revolution. Granted, this idea is along the lines of "A Modest Proposal," less the satire as I think the OP actually believes it would be good policy. But realistically, there's a better chance of whales colonizing the moon than this becoming national policy.
 
The bigger problem is the philosophy of government assistance itself. Rather than being a simple handout it should be given with the direct expectation that the recipient will use the help to better themselves and get off of welfare. It should also be a temporary form of assistance.

My family is a product of government assistance that we used to better ourselves. My wife became pregnant when we were very young (22 and 18) and it was a wake up call to get our lives in order so we could support a family. After being laid off, I found a state program that gave me a grant to go back to college for a 2 year degree, and we used other programs like WIC, daycare assistance, and low income housing to help get by while my 19 year old wife worked full time as a bank teller and I worked part time and went to school full time.

10 years later we are both very successful and have paid back any assistance we received several times over through paying far, far higher taxes. In fact, I was able to put my wife through college debt free and now she, too, is earning more than she did before.

We made some bad choices and bettered ourselves thanks to the help we received. That's what government assistance should be: temporary help so citizens can improve themselves, not a lifestyle choice.
 
Vic said:
Lol! Those good ol days of yours never existed.
Click to expand...

The world does not exist for many of these people on either side.

I wrote a response which I spent far too much on expounding on basic principle and context then I was going into detail as to what I believe the rights and responsibilities are for citizens in a rational society, then laying a series of goals and steps for achieving them for the purpose of, in some small way, moving towards responsible progress. I spent the better part of an hour because it's an exercise in the personal disciplines of analysis and identification, a means to review my current way of thinking and checking internal consistency, and expanding my ability to grasp the ends of many threads to see the pattern of realities in question. It is an intellectual exercise, and a way of self examination for many reasons and in this case to provide what I hope are ideas and approaches which if not entirely perfect at least have some merit.

I'm not feeling all that well today so although I have it in my head I probably won't write it all down, but in any case I had thought to post it.

In the time I've spent thinking and writing I've just peeked at this this thread again and have come to the decision as I usually do to just archive or delete it once finished. It's served its purpose and frankly was a wall of text that would have intimidated Craig.

Ahh, there it goes... gone.

The exercise in internally beneficial to me, but pointless given what we see demonstrated here to share. I wonder how many other thoughts are eaten by the Wolf Dogma?
 
Last edited:
Once on uncle sam but only for 4 years. After that it is your problem.

Why should hard working people pay for your Love Child?
 
Last edited:
But having more kids gets you more financial support. According to a lady I overheard on the train, it's $400 per month per child. You'd need to increase the incentive to more than that.
 
Texashiker said:
It was called eugenics, and it has already been tried. The program was even upheld by the US supreme court.

Hitler modeled his eugenics program after the US.
Click to expand...

AMAZING THAT YOU READ A HISTORY BOOK!! Sterilization of the mentally ill and retarded was invented in the ol' U. S. of A. Radioactive drinks given to orphan children. Untreated syphilis in blacks mandated in a GOV medical experiment. Fatal diseases injected in prison inmates. LSD experiments on our military personal. Japanese incarceration.. The many cancer deaths resulting from our A-bomb tests.
 
nickbits said:
Institute a benefit cut off then start taking the babies away and give them up for adoption. I might be wrong but I bet there is strong demand to US born babies since so many seem to have to get babies from Asia (China, Korea) to adopt.
Click to expand...

The strong demand for exotic pets you mean. Status symbol see my Chinese daughter is pretty much equal to see my African cheetah.
 
child of wonder said:
The bigger problem is the philosophy of government assistance itself. Rather than being a simple handout it should be given with the direct expectation that the recipient will use the help to better themselves and get off of welfare. It should also be a temporary form of assistance.

My family is a product of government assistance that we used to better ourselves. My wife became pregnant when we were very young (22 and 18) and it was a wake up call to get our lives in order so we could support a family. After being laid off, I found a state program that gave me a grant to go back to college for a 2 year degree, and we used other programs like WIC, daycare assistance, and low income housing to help get by while my 19 year old wife worked full time as a bank teller and I worked part time and went to school full time.

10 years later we are both very successful and have paid back any assistance we received several times over through paying far, far higher taxes. In fact, I was able to put my wife through college debt free and now she, too, is earning more than she did before.

We made some bad choices and bettered ourselves thanks to the help we received. That's what government assistance should be: temporary help so citizens can improve themselves, not a lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, and yes. The assistance should be to allow you a better chance to earn a better life, and to repay society later on. In no way should it be relied upon long term. Deadbeats should not apply and can go to the nearest tent city instead.
 
Zodiark1593 said:
Yes, yes, and yes. The assistance should be to allow you a better chance to earn a better life, and to repay society later on. In no way should it be relied upon long term. Deadbeats should not apply and can go to the nearest tent city instead.
Click to expand...

And then they disappear never to be heard from again.
 
Why not? Producing kids as a "human right" is THE worst piece of illogical nonsense ever accepted by the mainstream society. Only people who can afford to provide a good life to kids should have them.

I'm not anti-welfare BTW.
 
JEDI said:
link?
Click to expand...


You could start here:

"Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
 
ivwshane said:
Lol! This combined with your anti abortion thread is hilarious!
Click to expand...

I think that was TH's attempt at sarcasm...although I wouldn't deign to speak for him.

In reality, what we should do is have the government be as involved in peoples' business as *I* want them to be, 'cause some things are clearly "yes", while others are obviously "no".

That's the only thing that really makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top