If possible: Forced birth control for those on welfare to stop the next generation of poor

[dainthomas]

Well we don't know what the costs would be, we can only speculate. So breeding is priority one with you, costs be dammed or who has to pay for it? Why should I have to pay taxes so others can breed?

A better question is why are your taxes going to pay back money given to corporations so they can enrich themselves with stock buybacks? Why don't you attack them?

Oh wait, it's easier to attack the powerless and others you consider lower than yourself.

 

[soulcougher73]

A better question is why are your taxes going to pay back money given to corporations so they can enrich themselves with stock buybacks? Why don't you attack them?

Oh wait, it's easier to attack the powerless and others you consider lower than yourself.

I attack the rich much more than the poor. But that is not the topic of discussion here. This isn't really a poor issue in my mind, but what is best for society and its people and fairness.

 

[cytg111]

..Why should I have to pay taxes so others can breed?

Why should you do anything for the benefit of others?

If you cant answer that one by yourself then you should probably not reproduce yourself . Save the gene pool.

 

[Commodus]

Well we don't know what the costs would be, we can only speculate. So breeding is priority one with you, costs be dammed or who has to pay for it? Why should I have to pay taxes so others can breed?

That's lousy logic -- it's the same excuse Republicans use to justify gutting any social program. "Why should I have to pay for others' health care/food/you name it?" It's because, in most democratic governments, people believe that certain aspects of human life are too important to simply trust to the whims of fortune and the free market.

Reproduction is a basic function of... well, every living being. Saying that it's off-limits based on your ability to find work is just wrong. Many people on welfare didn't choose to be there, and can't magically obtain a job; and unless you can guarantee easily accessible contraception for all welfare recipients, you're forcing them to abstain from all sex as well. Yes, there will likely be people who reproduce irresponsibly, but I don't think it's worth the dehumanization just to save the government a bit of cash.

 

[interchange]

Those of you saying that people who are receiving government assistance that have children aren't being punished for it don't have kids. Deterrence is not a solution. Plus I'm not sure that people appreciate much what government assistance entails and how someone gets to receiving it. I know I really didn't until my career put me in direct contact with people receiving it. Aside from that, people also have poor understanding of the consequences of poor social support for the impoverished. It costs a lot to do indigent care in hospitals, incarcerations, etc.

 

[JSt0rm]

Isn’t the op Jewish?

 

[VirtualLarry]

So how far are we taking this plan? Just targeting the poorest among us or all recipients of government assistance? More money is spent on corporate welfare, farm subsidies etc... so what are we offering to do there?

Sterilization? Really? How is this even a topic of discussion?

Howabout forced sterilization of all CEOs and upper-managers at corporations that receive corporate welfare.

Maybe we don't need to eliminate the poors, maybe we need to reduce the number of those 1%'ers, so that more money actually "trickles down"? Therefore, less poors automagically, as Joe Blow can finally earn a real, sustainable middle-class living, once the CEOs stop screwing the actual laborers that keep the company running?


Remember, companies like Walmart and Amazon, shift the burden of living expenses for their workers onto social safety nets, and thus everyone else, rather than pay a "living wage". Poors are not always the cause of more poors; quite often they are the "victim" of corporate capitalism.

Edit: This is /s. Well, at least, semi. I'm not in favor of forced sterilizations for anyone.

 

[paperfist]

Gentlemen lets consider that under the USDA's EBT program it doesn't allow the cardholder to purchase anything they wish at the grocery store limiting them to specific items in authorized categories. How would temporarily prohibiting them from increasing their family size that is being supported by taxpayer funds be detrimental to them? Where is the accountability in all of this? Do you not consider it to be irresponsible to add to your family when you cannot take of what you have on your own?

That program just causes them to persue illegal activities to get what they want, drugs and alcohol.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'd rather see forced birth-control for the rich, who consume far more of the world's resources.

But only if they are receiving corporate welfare (and thus consuming, effectively, your and my resources too, unfairly).

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Well we don't know what the costs would be, we can only speculate. So breeding is priority one with you, costs be dammed or who has to pay for it? Why should I have to pay taxes so others can breed?

Here's the problem: burden of proof is on the one promoting the assertion. Admitting you have nothing to argue it would save any money pretty well pulls the rug out from under any economical argument. What's left? Moral arguments about it are on extremely shaky grounds.

Honestly, this whole proposal is inherently contradictory. You're arguing people on welfare shouldn't have kids because it's irresponsible to have kids when you're financially irresponsible. But this leads to the government stepping in and providing birth control to keep them from having kids, and therefore spending money to save them from being irresponsible. That's a whole lot of government overreach, especially for something based on what sounds like spite. Really, if this doesn't save money, how does it benefit the country?

 

[alcoholbob]

Awful, awful idea. You want the government to run a eugenics program?

With the advent of CRISPR CAS9 in 2012 and the continuous increase of IVF births and how much potential it has to reduce the cost of medical care for single payer systems, anyone who can do basic math can see it's only a matter of time when the majority of world governments will be running de facto eugenics programs.

 

[WHAMPOM]

for women, there's a birth control shot that lasts at least a month.
let's say there's a birth control shot for men that make them sterile for a month at a time?

would making those on public assistance (welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc) receive these shots greatly reduce the next generation of poor?

less poor = better for society overall?
ie: less resources to prop them up and less crime

It has been a known for years that free contraception and Government funded abortion would be the cheapest way to pave a road out of poverty. But can we blame Conservatives for this as they only want the poor to know their place and to suffer.

 

[Sunburn74]

I see no harm in giving people better control over stuff they don't really want to experience. It should be voluntary though: just heavily incentivized. I'd prefer to see incentives in the form of taxes as opposed to other things mentioned on this thread to date. Something like a nice rebate for being a woman of childbearing age on birth-control would be nice.

 

[WackyDan]

Awful, awful idea. You want the government to run a eugenics program?

Many states already pay for tubal ligation for women welfare recipients that already have 2+ children. I know one here in NC that the state finally offered to tie her tubes after the fourth kid. Yeah - it is voluntary, but seriously it is something to consider worth while. We watched this woman who is the daughter of my wife's best friend have four children by three different men. We watched as her and her latest boyfriend became opiate and meth heads. We watched time after time as the state did nothing to take the children from them. This is all too common. Should have tied her tubes sooner.

 

[WackyDan]

Howabout forced sterilization of all CEOs and upper-managers at corporations that receive corporate welfare.

Maybe we don't need to eliminate the poors, maybe we need to reduce the number of those 1%'ers, so that more money actually "trickles down"? Therefore, less poors automagically, as Joe Blow can finally earn a real, sustainable middle-class living, once the CEOs stop screwing the actual laborers that keep the company running?


Remember, companies like Walmart and Amazon, shift the burden of living expenses for their workers onto social safety nets, and thus everyone else, rather than pay a "living wage". Poors are not always the cause of more poors; quite often they are the "victim" of corporate capitalism.

Edit: This is /s. Well, at least, semi. I'm not in favor of forced sterilizations for anyone.

Yeah I get the /s, but we've spent trillions on fighting poverty for 50 years... and all we've done is create a constant.

 

[Meghan54]

And since no birth control short of surgery is guaranteed to work,

Just me being pedatic, but the "typical" surgeries for sterilization....tubal ligation and vasectomy....are nowhere guaranteed to work.

In fact, I do believe the only way anyone could guarantee sterilization is by either removing a woman's ovaries and uterus or a man's testes....completely.

Otherwise......it ain't guaranteed at all. Stuff happens. Seen it before.

 

[sandorski]

A very small few abusers leading to such draconian treatment to millions is just a failure in proper response. OP should be sterilized for suggesting it....

 

[soulcougher73]

Really, if this doesn't save money, how does it benefit the country?

Not everything is about money. It is better for those people that are on welfare and the child. I mean they cant even make it on their own at the moment so why would they want to add another mouth to feed and why would we let them when we are the ones paying for these mouths? It doesnt help the person one bit to get out of their predicament by adding another responsibility like a child to their plate. It almost sounds like some of you want perpetual welfare poor for generations to come.

 

[cytg111]

Not everything is about money. It is better for those people that are on welfare and the child. I mean they cant even make it on their own at the moment so why would they want to add another mouth to feed and why would we let them when we are the ones paying for these mouths? It doesnt help the person one bit to get out of their predicament by adding another responsibility like a child to their plate. It almost sounds like some of you want perpetual welfare poor for generations to come.

How about an agenda that demands equal oppertunity for everyone? School, higher education etc. In such a scenario those children would be potential assets not guranteed lifetime welfare receipients.
Solve the real problem instead of using a hammer to fix everything..

 

[Commodus]

Not everything is about money. It is better for those people that are on welfare and the child. I mean they cant even make it on their own at the moment so why would they want to add another mouth to feed and why would we let them when we are the ones paying for these mouths? It doesnt help the person one bit to get out of their predicament by adding another responsibility like a child to their plate. It almost sounds like some of you want perpetual welfare poor for generations to come.

Consider it this way:

Are you pro-choice? If so, it's probably because you believe a woman should have control over her body. Well, that belief swings both ways: it also means that the government shouldn't ban people from having kids or punish them for it. We don't want perpetual welfare poor; we want the poor to be treated like human beings who are allowed to have families and, importantly, have a clear path out of poverty.

And yes, as cytg111 said, the US could always do something radical like create healthy economic and educational opportunities in poor neighborhoods so they don't have to choose between welfare and working a minimum wage job (or in some cases, multiple jobs) that might be no better. That's going to be especially important with increased automation, since many of the jobs open to those with little education could soon go away.

 

[soulcougher73]

How about an agenda that demands equal oppertunity for everyone? School, higher education etc. In such a scenario those children would be potential assets not guranteed lifetime welfare receipients.
Solve the real problem instead of using a hammer to fix everything..

I'm all for equal opportunity for everyone. Didn't know that was part of the discussion. I dont see why you cannot do both.

If you cannot take care of yourself and need gov. assistance then you should be expected to not exacerbate your situation by making it harder on yourself and the person trying to help you. It does nobody any good by allowing this behavior and saying its okay.

Ill leave the thread at this. Its pointless debating with people who have already made up their minds and cannot see how this is bad behavior to endorse.

 

[soulcougher73]

Consider it this way:

Are you pro-choice? If so, it's probably because you believe a woman should have control over her body. Well, that belief swings both ways: it also means that the government shouldn't ban people from having kids or punish them for it. We don't want perpetual welfare poor; we want the poor to be treated like human beings who are allowed to have families and, importantly, have a clear path out of poverty.

And yes, as cytg111 said, the US could always do something radical like create healthy economic and educational opportunities in poor neighborhoods so they don't have to choose between welfare and working a minimum wage job (or in some cases, multiple jobs) that might be no better. That's going to be especially important with increased automation, since many of the jobs open to those with little education could soon go away.

I am pro-choice, when you are responsible for your own finances. Your body, your money, do what you want.

That clear path out of poverty and education sure would be easier for them if they didnt have children while doing so.

 

[dank69]

I'm all for equal opportunity for everyone. Didn't know that was part of the discussion. I dont see why you cannot do both.

If you cannot take care of yourself and need gov. assistance then you should be expected to not exacerbate your situation by making it harder on yourself and the person trying to help you. It does nobody any good by allowing this behavior and saying its okay.

Ill leave the thread at this. Its pointless debating with people who have already made up their minds and cannot see how this is bad behavior to endorse.

It's not that we want to endorse the behavior. It's that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they are trying to solve. As a libertarian, I would not expect you to be so flippant about giving the government the power to decide who can reproduce and when just because you found a case where you think that power might be justified.

However, this does raise a significant question now that I think about it and I'd like @Jaskalas to weigh in on it while I am thinking about it. As a proponent of universal income myself, I wonder how many people would choose to just sit home and reproduce as much as possible. I can imagine that being a pretty popular mindset. How would this issue be addressed?

 

[Puffnstuff]

It's not that we want to endorse the behavior. It's that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they are trying to solve.

While I agree that forced birth control is extreme not doing anything except providing more benefits only encourages the problem to continue. We do not have infinite resources for this so a solution must be enacted that provides help while discouraging the practice. I posted those videos about Angel Adams earlier because she is the epitome of this issue.

 

[dank69]

While I agree that forced birth control is extreme not doing anything except providing more benefits only encourages the problem to continue. We do not have infinite resources for this so a solution must be enacted that provides help while discouraging the practice. I posted those videos about Angel Adams earlier because she is the epitome of this issue.

First you need to demonstrate that the problem is so dire that a solution must be enacted.