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

[SNC]

Every argument or debate of any sort starts with some assumptions. Good arguments have reasonable assumptions that don't require large leaps of logic to come to. I feel mine are small and reasonable. I will explain them.

"Even if you specifically would not make that argument someone with your basic attitude definitely would."
This is not really an assumption, this is a argument. The assumption behind this argument is you attitude, which I feel you have well enough laid out for me to make a reasonable assumption about. My argument I feel is sound because the statement 'I don't want to pay for your children' and 'I don't want to pay for your X' is similar. I agree that my assumption behind this could be wrong, it might be, just as an example, 'children' you take offence to and not 'paying for other people's things'. If that assumption is wrong them my conclusions would be equally invalid.

"allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity?"
Also not much of a assumption. You stated, in the very post I quoted and was replying to, that you have instilled the knowledge in your children that you "will not provide funding for a child they are not ready either emotionally or financially to support." If they are not ready to financially support the child, and you are arguing that society should not do so, then starvation is the outcome. I am doing nothing here but pointing out the logical consequences of your own position.

"Somehow I doubt you are being genuine with that."
This is not really an assumption. This is more of an opinion.

So, I hope you can see why I was confused. You are using the term 'assumption' wrong.




I'm not really sure anyone could follow this colloquy. You have not really engaged. You ask rhetorical questions, made smug remarks, and tossed around insults but have avoided answering questions or supporting your arguments in any way. The best anyone has received from you is that you know better than them because you have anecdotal evidence, which you didn't even present.

You assume that when you say someone with your basic attitude definitely would, you would be wrong.

allow you own grandchildren to starve in order to maintain you ideological purity?

Perhaps worded wrong, I provide my kids with a home of their own and cars to drive and insurance. They are responsible for the day to day provisions. If they opt to have a child before they are ready to take over those payments, then they have made a decision that they are capable of providing for themselves and no longer need my support. Not sure why that line of thinking is so negative. Should I not pay for a home and car and prefer they father children instead that I can provide for?

You guys have funny values, fighting for the rights of others to do whatever they like regardless of their ability to afford it. So can I get you guys to fight as hard for my 3 new Teslas I want but really can't afford?

 

[SMOGZINN]

If they opt to have a child before they are ready to take over those payments, then they have made a decision that they are capable of providing for themselves and no longer need my support. Not sure why that line of thinking is so negative. Should I not pay for a home and car and prefer they father children instead that I can provide for?

I'm not sure if you are simply not thinking this through, or if you are intentionally dodging the consequences of your statement.
If your kids have a child, you are not willing to pay to feed it, and you kid is not able to pay to feed it, and you want society not to pay to feed it, what do you think happens to that child?

 

[SMOGZINN]

You assume that when you say someone with your basic attitude definitely would, you would be wrong.

Are you suggesting that the attitude 'I don't want to pay for you X' can't have birth control substituted for X. Because I think you will find that the owners of Hobby Lobby disagrees with you.

I should have included this in my last reply, but accidentally deleted this part of the quote, and don't want to ninja edit.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Practice KISS/KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID, provide free contraception in the welfare benefits and abortion in their medical coverage. The urge to reproduce is a species survival instinct, the intelligence not to have sex turn into a child should be seen as a plus.

 

[Younigue]

I have zero time to worry about you\your\you're I can go back through your posts and find similar issues, but I dont really give a fuck. Its telling though that you would rather nit pick a word then address your obvious hatred of men.

Yet you have the time to continuously go at @SMOGZINN . I find your statement that you don't have the time, suspect.

I don't hate men. I have no patience for stupid people.

 

[Younigue]

I have zero time to worry about you\your\you're I can go back through your posts and find similar issues, but I dont really give a fuck. Its telling though that you would rather nit pick a word then address your obvious hatred of men.

To be clear, I wouldn't support forced mandatory birth control on men either. Not sure how you missed that. My point was/is that if something like this were put in place that it should also be put in place for all men. The reason it would have to be for all men is because "welfare moms" are all on welfare, the men having sex with them may not be on welfare but they ARE equally responsible for a pregnancy.

You know what would be for the best? Don't pass anything that would step on a human right that would allow forced birth control.

If you don't understand what I'm saying I'm going to go ahead and make the huge assumption that it's intentional.

 

[soulcougher73]

You know what would be for the best? Don't pass anything that would step on a human right that would allow forced birth control.

Is their ever a line drawn on one persons right to breed vs. another persons right to not have to pay for that person to breed?

I love freedom. Hence my libertarian views on allowing almost anything that doesnt harm or step on another persons rights. So this would include your right to breed and my right to not have to pay for it? I mean i have my own life to pay for and i work hard for it

 

[BurnItDwn]

Is their ever a line drawn on one persons right to breed vs. another persons right to not have to pay for that person to breed?

I love freedom. Hence my libertarian views on allowing almost anything that doesnt harm or step on another persons rights. So this would include your right to breed and my right to not have to pay for it? I mean i have my own life to pay for and i work hard for it

I dont want to pay for the army to go and attack another country, I dont want to pay for the police to go after speeders, I dont want to pay for the ambulance to come and pick up idiots who do dangerous things. I dont want to pay for for any republican salaries.

Nobody gets exactly what they want, everybody gets more or less the same shit sandwich and eats it together.

 

[soulcougher73]

I dont want to pay for the army to go and attack another country, I dont want to pay for the police to go after speeders, I dont want to pay for the ambulance to come and pick up idiots who do dangerous things. I dont want to pay for for any republican salaries.

Nobody gets exactly what they want, everybody gets more or less the same shit sandwich and eats it together.

That's why I like my Gofundme.gov idea I posted the other day

 

[interchange]

Is their ever a line drawn on one persons right to breed vs. another persons right to not have to pay for that person to breed?

I love freedom. Hence my libertarian views on allowing almost anything that doesnt harm or step on another persons rights. So this would include your right to breed and my right to not have to pay for it? I mean i have my own life to pay for and i work hard for it

There's no obligation to support social welfare of any kind. You could even say you don't support EMTALA, thus eliminating healthcare for those that can't afford it completely. Although, likely the consequence would be more vagrants hanging out in places you'd like to be and committing crimes, so some taxpayer contributions to the poor in a pure libertarian society are inevitable.

Now, I do think that forced medical care and restriction of freedom to reproduce are completely incompatible with a pure libertarian society.

 

[Younigue]

Is their ever a line drawn on one persons right to breed vs. another persons right to not have to pay for that person to breed?

I love freedom. Hence my libertarian views on allowing almost anything that doesnt harm or step on another persons rights. So this would include your right to breed and my right to not have to pay for it? I mean i have my own life to pay for and i work hard for it

You'd still be paying for it. You don't think monthly birth control costs money? Use that money to educate.

Do you seriously believe an oppressed group of people thrives? No, they rebel.

Even if they wasted the time and money to try and implement this there is no real way to police/enforce it. Welfare works with a skeleton crew and their funding is laughable. It would fail, possibly even have the opposite desired results. The system is fu*ked, sure but forced birth control is laughably not the answer. I swear, the outrage and the outcry would be loud enough to make you want to throw your saved taxes (LOL) at it just to make the idea and implementation of it go away.

 

[ivwshane]

Is their ever a line drawn on one persons right to breed vs. another persons right to not have to pay for that person to breed?

I love freedom. Hence my libertarian views on allowing almost anything that doesnt harm or step on another persons rights. So this would include your right to breed and my right to not have to pay for it? I mean i have my own life to pay for and i work hard for it

Yeah, its called removing yourself from society. You can take your stink to the mountains and live like hermit and you won't have to pay a dime in taxes.

When will you be leaving?

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah, its called removing yourself from society. You can take your stink to the mountains and live like hermit and you won't have to pay a dime in taxes.

When will you be leaving?

You pay for it and I'd be glad to, and You may continue to breed and have others pay your lot in life.

 

[werepossum]

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?

I 100% agree that it's irresponsible to have children one cannot support. I'm just saying that the government having that kind of power is worse.

 

[Vic]

You pay for it and I'd be glad to, and You may continue to breed and have others pay your lot in life.

I consider myself libertarian, but I also joke that Ted Kaczynski was the perfect libertarian right up to the time he started using the postal service.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps pessimism was the wrong word due to a misguided idea of your feelings on the matter.

If someone concludes that financial interests are of more value here than humanistic ones, it does not mean that all they care about is financial interest. In fact, all that is needed for many people to change stances is for someone to alert them to the presence of an alternative consideration they had not previously given due attention.

Those who have decided more affirmatively are likely those who will be most vocal. That phenomenon leads to a lot of false dichotomies being drawn.

Their argument is not based solely on financial interests. Say a woman with no support other than welfare has children. Assuming she even cares about those kids' future (i.e. sees them as something more than a herd of cattle to be increased for her own profit), each additional child she has reduces the time and resources she has to spend on each child. It's pretty obvious that a woman with seventeen kids isn't doing much for any of them. By setting down conditions where this woman's sole perceived method of improving her lot in life is to have more children and thus get larger welfare payments, of which some portion is consumed by the child but some becomes her own discretionary income, we have helped ensure that her children form part of the next generation of perennially poor people, those bereft of marketable skills and work ethic, and without much concept of having such. There is thus an ethical argument that such temporary birth control measures as may be practical actually help improve the lives of those children already born, and would certainly make easier the task of keeping them out of poverty.

I think there are many ethical and practical arguments on the other side, of course. Even if we prevent the welfare queen from having seventeen kids, the two or three or four kids she does have aren't likely to get much love, parental support, or material assistance from her; she's still the same completely selfish person. We might prevent a small addition to the next generation's numbers of institutionally poor people - I say small increase because most women on welfare have one to three kids and would be little affected by such a policy - but we've done little for those who do get born. We've made life harder for those women who oppose birth control and/or abortion for religious or otherwise ethical reasons, and thus, harder for their children. We've dehumanized ALL women of childbearing years who qualify for such a program (which could be all or just those who are serial offenders.) And perhaps worst of all, we've established that government has the moral authority to control reproduction. That puts us all at the level of chattel, which is why even though I recognize valid ethical arguments on both sides, for me the issue isn't even close.

 

[Vic]

Their argument is not based solely on financial interests. Say a woman with no support other than welfare has children. Assuming she even cares about those kids' future (i.e. sees them as something more than a herd of cattle to be increased for her own profit), each additional child she has reduces the time and resources she has to spend on each child. It's pretty obvious that a woman with seventeen kids isn't doing much for any of them. By setting down conditions where this woman's sole perceived method of improving her lot in life is to have more children and thus get larger welfare payments, of which some portion is consumed by the child but some becomes her own discretionary income, we have helped ensure that her children form part of the next generation of perennially poor people, those bereft of marketable skills and work ethic, and without much concept of having such. There is thus an ethical argument that such temporary birth control measures as may be practical actually help improve the lives of those children already born, and would certainly make easier the task of keeping them out of poverty.

I think there are many ethical and practical arguments on the other side, of course. Even if we prevent the welfare queen from having seventeen kids, the two or three or four kids she does have aren't likely to get much love, parental support, or material assistance from her; she's still the same completely selfish person. We might prevent a small addition to the next generation's numbers of institutionally poor people - I say small increase because most women on welfare have one to three kids and would be little affected by such a policy - but we've done little for those who do get born. We've made life harder for those women who oppose birth control and/or abortion for religious or otherwise ethical reasons, and thus, harder for their children. We've dehumanized ALL women of childbearing years who qualify for such a program (which could be all or just those who are serial offenders.) And perhaps worst of all, we've established that government has the moral authority to control reproduction. That puts us all at the level of chattel, which is why even though I recognize valid ethical arguments on both sides, for me the issue isn't even close.

How fucking nuts do you need to be to envy a woman with 17 kids and nothing but welfare? And even moreso to believe that punishing the children for their parents' mistakes will somehow break the cycle of poverty?

 

[Younigue]

Their argument is not based solely on financial interests. Say a woman with no support other than welfare has children. Assuming she even cares about those kids' future (i.e. sees them as something more than a herd of cattle to be increased for her own profit), each additional child she has reduces the time and resources she has to spend on each child. It's pretty obvious that a woman with seventeen kids isn't doing much for any of them. By setting down conditions where this woman's sole perceived method of improving her lot in life is to have more children and thus get larger welfare payments, of which some portion is consumed by the child but some becomes her own discretionary income, we have helped ensure that her children form part of the next generation of perennially poor people, those bereft of marketable skills and work ethic, and without much concept of having such. There is thus an ethical argument that such temporary birth control measures as may be practical actually help improve the lives of those children already born, and would certainly make easier the task of keeping them out of poverty.

I think there are many ethical and practical arguments on the other side, of course. Even if we prevent the welfare queen from having seventeen kids, the two or three or four kids she does have aren't likely to get much love, parental support, or material assistance from her; she's still the same completely selfish person. We might prevent a small addition to the next generation's numbers of institutionally poor people - I say small increase because most women on welfare have one to three kids and would be little affected by such a policy - but we've done little for those who do get born. We've made life harder for those women who oppose birth control and/or abortion for religious or otherwise ethical reasons, and thus, harder for their children. We've dehumanized ALL women of childbearing years who qualify for such a program (which could be all or just those who are serial offenders.) And perhaps worst of all, we've established that government has the moral authority to control reproduction. That puts us all at the level of chattel, which is why even though I recognize valid ethical arguments on both sides, for me the issue isn't even close.

One of the many things that could be done with the money they are willing to allocate for birth control is to set up programs for these welfare children to learn about self-esteem (that they sadly may not be getting at home) and to learn about living off the system and what that would take.

I can not understand the mind set of any one who would rather take away a right (that has a price tag) rather than provide opportunities that can lead to self-worth (that has a price tag). Throwing good money after bad is counterproductive. Tax payer's tax money will always go to things they wish it wouldn't. In this, they can choose decency or cruelty. I'd much rather these children be taught to not make the mistakes/choices of their parents.

My brother had a child with a "welfare queen", her mother and her grandmother passed those life skills on to her. I was heartbroken that my brother fell in to line in whatever way she needed him to in order to bilk the system using their son and another child from a previous relationship. That's all changed now thank goodness! My brother has custody and he's an upstanding, hardworking man (always has been a hardworking man even when he was with her. We weren't raised to use the system, even if we need it so I was more than a little disappointed in him.). My nephew is out of the system and he has grown to be a hardworking young man. His mother went on to have another child and as far as I know she still abuses the system. By the way, these people who abuse the system, they should be utilizing their mad skills toward getting legal or financial degrees. The amount they have to know to understand the system to the degree that they do in order to abuse it is mind boggling. Her monthly take was more than my husband's monthly take 16 years ago. I am disgusted by it but I still would never support mandatory birth control.

 

[werepossum]

How fucking nuts do you need to be to envy a woman with 17 kids and nothing but welfare? And even moreso to believe that punishing the children for their parents' mistakes will somehow break the cycle of poverty?

Well, obviously not nearly as nuts as one would need to be to believe that anyone on the other side of this argument envies that woman, or that this is about "punishing the children for their parents' mistakes".

 

[Vic]

Well, obviously not nearly as nuts as one would need to be to believe that anyone on the other side of this argument envies that woman, or that this is about "punishing the children for their parents' mistakes".

Then what are you claiming the welfare queen's motive is?

 

[werepossum]

One of the many things that could be done with the money they are willing to allocate for birth control is to set up programs for these welfare children to learn about self-esteem (that they sadly may not be getting at home) and to learn about living off the system and what that would take.

I can not understand the mind set of any one who would rather take away a right (that has a price tag) rather than provide opportunities that can lead to self-worth (that has a price tag). Throwing good money after bad is counterproductive. Tax payer's tax money will always go to things they wish it wouldn't. In this, they can choose decency or cruelty. I'd much rather these children be taught to not make the mistakes/choices of their parents.

My brother had a child with a "welfare queen", her mother and her grandmother passed those life skills on to her. I was heartbroken that my brother fell in to line in whatever way she needed him to in order to bilk the system using their son and another child from a previous relationship. That's all changed now thank goodness! My brother has custody and he's an upstanding, hardworking man (always has been a hardworking man even when he was with her. We weren't raised to use the system, even if we need it so I was more than a little disappointed in him.). My nephew is out of the system and he has grown to be a hardworking young man. His mother went on to have another child and as far as I know she still abuses the system. By the way, these people who abuse the system, they should be utilizing their mad skills toward getting legal or financial degrees. The amount they have to know to understand the system to the degree that they do in order to abuse it is mind boggling. Her monthly take was more than my husband's monthly take 16 years ago. I am disgusted by it but I still would never support mandatory birth control.

I'm all for spending that money on welfare children, but NOT on building self-esteem. In my opinion our education system's main failing is its focus on building self-esteem. Self-esteem absent reason for self-esteem is simply corrosive; it leads people to believe that their failures cannot be their own fault and thus society must be racist, anti-woman, anti-white male, whatever fits. Teach those children how to learn, then teach them useful, marketable skills and they'll have self-esteem as well as good lives.

I'm glad your brother and nephew are out of the system. It is built to encourage failure, and the longer in, the harder it becomes to escape.

EDIT: I should clarify that I'm all for providing and encouraging birth control for women on welfare. I'm just opposed to mandating it. But with each child, it becomes more difficult for the woman to climb out of poverty, or see her kids do so. We also need to stop ostracizing men. Children raised within the welfare system need as much of a familial support system as possible, and denying welfare to couples with children is deeply counterproductive.

 

[werepossum]

Then what are you claiming the welfare queen's motive is?

The welfare queen's motive (assuming she is sane) is obviously to make herself a better life. The only way she can see to do this is to have more children and thus get a bigger check.

 

[Younigue]

Well, obviously not nearly as nuts as one would need to be to believe that anyone on the other side of this argument envies that woman, or that this is about "punishing the children for their parents' mistakes".

I don't think it's about punishing the children or even to punish the mother's but it is about taking a right away from a human being. I don't like that some people (not just women) abuse the system but the systems are broken and not easily fixed. Taking rights away isn't even a real option toward fixing the problem. After all, that's not what this country does. There are definitely some rights I would take away if that were even a possibility.

I don't think I understand the "envies that woman" part of your post.

 

[Vic]

The welfare queen's motive (assuming she is sane) is obviously to make herself a better life. The only way she can see to do this is to have more children and thus get a bigger check.

And you believe there's a better life in being a welfare queen?
I think the problem here is that you're arguing something that was already settled 20 years ago. No one wants welfare queens. Or government control of reproductive rights either. Nor children disadvantaged by their parent's transgressions. Or maybe that's just a "my side" thing.

 

[Younigue]

I'm all for spending that money on welfare children, but NOT on building self-esteem. In my opinion our education system's main failing is its focus on building self-esteem. Self-esteem absent reason for self-esteem is simply corrosive; it leads people to believe that their failures cannot be their own fault and thus society must be racist, anti-woman, anti-white male, whatever fits. Teach those children how to learn, then teach them useful, marketable skills and they'll have self-esteem as well as good lives.

I'm glad your brother and nephew are out of the system. It is built to encourage failure, and the longer in, the harder it becomes to escape.

EDIT: I should clarify that I'm all for providing and encouraging birth control for women on welfare. I'm just opposed to mandating it. But with each child, it becomes more difficult for the woman to climb out of poverty, or see her kids do so. We also need to stop ostracizing men. Children raised within the welfare system need as much of a familial support system as possible, and denying welfare to couples with children is deeply counterproductive.

**Sorry, I responded to your post to Vic thinking you were responding to me. I have him on ignore so I didn't see that you were responding to him.**

I agree with pretty much every thing you said here. I must clarify, I think self-esteem comes from those very suggestions you made. I'm not a participation trophy kind of chick. Self-esteem is a rollercoaster ride not a super fun, flawless day at the beach. It is also earned so honing the skills necessary to maintain it is pretty crucial.