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

[Younigue]

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.

Is that Vic person just purposely misunderstanding you?

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed, it's taking away a right from a human being. It could possibly be argued that it's protecting the welfare queen, and it could definitely be argued that it's protecting the children she already has and the other poor children, but it's without a doubt infringing on basic human freedom. It's saying that if we have to support her children, then in effect, we own her and have the right to manage her life even down to reproduction. There have been times (i.e. the Dark Ages) when owning someone might legitimately be to their advantage; we are thankfully nowhere near those times.

The "envies that woman" part of my post is in response to Vic's assumption that anyone who advocates for forced birth control is doing so because he or she envies the woman getting something for nothing. Unfortunately we as a species are not good at recognizing that people on the other side of an issue have valid points; we tend to be all or nothing. Heck, many times we have difficulty recognizing that people on the other side of an issue are people, much less of good character. I can understand this - I fall victim to it myself at times - but it's important to give the other side its due.

There are some good, reasonable and thoughtful people arguing for forced birth control and while I don't find those arguments even remotely persuasive, I can see their merits and understand the visceral appeal of doing something. With the exception of gay marriage rights, I can't recall any real political issue discussed here that did not have valid points on both sides, including those on which I am virulently opinionated. This time I see human freedom as much more precious than the huge amount of money we spend on welfare programs AND the huge amount of damage we do with those well-meaning programs. Infringing on that without absolute need would in my opinion do even more damage in the long run.

 

[werepossum]

Is that Vic person just purposely misunderstanding you?

Nah, Vic's okay. He's actually a pretty smart guy capable of making valid, thoughtful points when he so chooses. It's just that he sees the world in stark black and white, with every issue divided up into a purely correct side and a purely incorrect side. The three of us are actually in agreement on this issue, it's just that he seldom puts in the thought required to move beyond 100% right/100% wrong. I blame the Internet. Wicked, wicked Al Gore!

That new 'ignore' function has confused the heck out of me a time or two. I wish they had kept the line showing that a comment existed. That also allowed me to periodically (and sadly more importantly, easily) look at a person's comments and judge whether I was wrong to ignore them. Sometimes I've been terribly wrong about someone's ability to contribute something I'll find useful or thought provoking.

 

[Vic]

Nah, Vic's okay. He's actually a pretty smart guy capable of making valid, thoughtful points when he so chooses. It's just that he sees the world in stark black and white, with every issue divided up into a purely correct side and a purely incorrect side. The three of us are actually in agreement on this issue, it's just that he seldom puts in the thought required to move beyond 100% right/100% wrong. I blame the Internet. Wicked, wicked Al Gore!

That new 'ignore' function has confused the heck out of me a time or two. I wish they had kept the line showing that a comment existed. That also allowed me to periodically (and sadly more importantly, easily) look at a person's comments and judge whether I was wrong to ignore them. Sometimes I've been terribly wrong about someone's ability to contribute something I'll find useful or thought provoking.

Oh bullshit. You were the one who injected the idea of binary sides into the discussion in the first place.
The specific problem here is that you're appealing to a false premise, which is that some people knowingly choose slavery as a better life.
And yes, we're mostly in agreement, except for that point. I don't see anything wrong with that, but apparently you do.

Oh BTW, you invited someone to ignore me.. that I already have on ignore.

 

[Younigue]

Nah, Vic's okay. He's actually a pretty smart guy capable of making valid, thoughtful points when he so chooses. It's just that he sees the world in stark black and white, with every issue divided up into a purely correct side and a purely incorrect side. The three of us are actually in agreement on this issue, it's just that he seldom puts in the thought required to move beyond 100% right/100% wrong. I blame the Internet. Wicked, wicked Al Gore!

That new 'ignore' function has confused the heck out of me a time or two. I wish they had kept the line showing that a comment existed. That also allowed me to periodically (and sadly more importantly, easily) look at a person's comments and judge whether I was wrong to ignore them. Sometimes I've been terribly wrong about someone's ability to contribute something I'll find useful or thought provoking.

I definitely (in this Trump Era specifically) am struggling to see another side when it comes to people agreeing with or supporting Trump in any way. As you said, even to see them as human at times.

The ignore feature... I check on the people I have on ignore to see if they're saying something interesting, I regularly feel baited (LOL, by my own weak will) to engage them but I use the ignore feature to take a break from people. Yes, they likely need one from me too.

 

[werepossum]

Oh bullshit. You were the one who injected the idea of binary sides into the discussion in the first place.
The specific problem here is that you're appealing to a false premise, which is that some people knowingly choose slavery as a better life.
And yes, we're mostly in agreement, except for that point. I don't see anything wrong with that, but apparently you do.

Oh BTW, you invited someone to ignore me.. that I already have on ignore.

Um, three issues here. First, many and perhaps most arguments are inherently binary. In this case, is coerced birth control for welfare recipients a good policy, or not. That doesn't mean there are or are not valid arguments on either side, it simply means that adopting coerced birth control for welfare recipients as policy is mutually exclusive from not adopting coerced birth control for welfare recipients as policy.

Second, no one here is choosing slavery; there IS no legal slavery in the USA. We have some people who embrace welfare as a better life, true, but they are not in any way slaves; they remain free to end their time on welfare, or move to another jurisdiction, as they wish. They can weigh 100 pounds, or 1,000 pounds. They can have no children, or seventeen. Some women on welfare choose to have additional children as a means to a better life, but that isn't slavery. Of course I see many things wrong with that decision, but again. slavery isn't one of them.

And third, I didn't invite anyone to ignore you. I even defended you.

 

[Bratina8]

A temporary arrangement for the duration of their benefits shouldn't be a problem and when they get back on their feet they still retain the ability to grow their families as they see fit.

I agree completely! I am so tired of working extremely hard to feed the multiple children of irresponsible people who keep procreating to get more benefits from our government! I went on the pill until it was a responsible time to have children so if people aren't going to take responsibility for their actions then I don't mind stepping in instead of paying for more offspring! It's not permanent just responsible!

 

[Bratina8]

Um, three issues here. First, many and perhaps most arguments are inherently binary. In this case, is coerced birth control for welfare recipients a good policy, or not. That doesn't mean there are or are not valid arguments on either side, it simply means that adopting coerced birth control for welfare recipients as policy is mutually exclusive from not adopting coerced birth control for welfare recipients as policy.

Second, no one here is choosing slavery; there IS no legal slavery in the USA. We have some people who embrace welfare as a better life, true, but they are not in any way slaves; they remain free to end their time on welfare, or move to another jurisdiction, as they wish. They can weigh 100 pounds, or 1,000 pounds. They can have no children, or seventeen. Some women on welfare choose to have additional children as a means to a better life, but that isn't slavery. Of course I see many things wrong with that decision, but again. slavery isn't one of them.

And third, I didn't invite anyone to ignore you. I even defended you.

Slavery? I can see the very far reach the person is trying to convey but my goodness get over yourself. In no way shape or form is anything even remotely being compared to slavery! I love how people so easily love to throw words such as that into the mix. Come on if you can not afford to have children then simply don't. We definitely have to put a stop or at least slow down the abuse of government subsidies! I'm really tired of my money going to people who sit on their ass all day and collect welfare or social security for an illness that isn't one that should render them unable to be employed.

 

[werepossum]

I agree completely! I am so tired of working extremely hard to feed the multiple children of irresponsible people who keep procreating to get more benefits from our government! I went on the pill until it was a responsible time to have children so if people aren't going to take responsibility for their actions then I don't mind stepping in instead of paying for more offspring! It's not permanent just responsible!

Congrats on living your life responsibly. Now, are you willing to establish the government's right to control your own reproduction? If we establish that our government has the moral authority to control some Americans' reproduction for our collective benefit, then our government has the moral authority to control every Americans' reproduction for our collective benefit.

Collectively we are only as free as our least free law abiding individual. If you don't have a problem with removing someone else's freedom for your own benefit, at least be cognizant that the power you grant government today may be used in a completely different fashion tomorrow.

 

[Bratina8]

Congrats on living your life responsibly. Now, are you willing to establish the government's right to control your own reproduction? If we establish that our government has the moral authority to control some Americans' reproduction for our collective benefit, then our government has the moral authority to control every Americans' reproduction for our collective benefit.

Collectively we are only as free as our least free law abiding individual. If you don't have a problem with removing someone else's freedom for your own benefit, at least be cognizant that the power you grant government today may be used in a completely different fashion tomorrow.

It's not permanent and quite honestly I hate the idea of any new laws. My point is only the fact that we need to do something to control how much we're spending on government aid. If you can think of a better way to make sure people quit popping out puppies when they can't afford them then by all means I'm listening! People have kids and get rewarded in this country by more money per child.

 

[urvile]

It's not permanent and quite honestly I hate the idea of any new laws. My point is only the fact that we need to do something to control how much we're spending on government aid. If you can think of a better way to make sure people quit popping out puppies when they can't afford them then by all means I'm listening! People have kids and get rewarded in this country by more money per child.

It is permanent. When does someone become classified as non poor? Nor is it really that far removed from eugenics. It's the same theory. How much is it going to cost? How is it going to enforced? Are poor people going to be sent to prison for having children?

You are an intellectual giant on par with tajbot. Do you have any idea how much of a bizarre fringe idea this is?

Also remember this. When all else fails. Mr sockpuppet loves you.

 

[werepossum]

It's not permanent and quite honestly I hate the idea of any new laws. My point is only the fact that we need to do something to control how much we're spending on government aid. If you can think of a better way to make sure people quit popping out puppies when they can't afford them then by all means I'm listening! People have kids and get rewarded in this country by more money per child.

I think it's difficult to come up with a worse way to discourage people on welfare from having children. I'm all for providing access to free birth control to those women on welfare who want it, or restructuring our "entitlements" so that having additional children becomes increasingly less profitable. I'm fine with declaring women who really are welfare queens to be unfit mothers, putting their children into foster homes, and kicking these women off assistance if they refuse to get their tubes tied. Note that all of these cost more, not less. Forced birth control will also likely cost more, unless we have some way of predetermining which women on welfare will get pregnant.

I think there are broadly three categories of women who get pregnant on welfare. The most visible, most reviled, and least common are those who have multiple children narrowly separated. Obviously these women aren't coming off welfare. But we also have those who want to keep themselves on welfare, but do so by having a child every five to ten years, and those who don't want to stay on welfare but get pregnant accidentally. I see no practical way to separate these last two groups, and treating a woman who is actually trying to get herself off welfare as a welfare queen is a pretty horrible thing. Worse, we'd have to treat all women of childbearing age on welfare the same, since we don't have any good way of knowing who will get pregnant.

And I don't think there is any reliable birth control for men coerced outside of custody. Well, I'd bet my last dollar that there's a hell of a lot more men with seventeen children being raised on welfare than there are women with seventeen children being raised on welfare. Since single men typically don't qualify for welfare, how are we going to handle them? There simply is no practical, moral way to do this thing.

 

[Younigue]

Oh bullshit. You were the one who injected the idea of binary sides into the discussion in the first place.
The specific problem here is that you're appealing to a false premise, which is that some people knowingly choose slavery as a better life.
And yes, we're mostly in agreement, except for that point. I don't see anything wrong with that, but apparently you do.

Oh BTW, you invited someone to ignore me.. that I already have on ignore.

I'm going to take a guess here and suggest that we, meaning you and I put each other on ignore right around the same time. I don't remember and neither am I willing to look in to it but my best guess is my reasoning for putting you on ignore was all you. I'm convinced as well that your reason for putting me on ignore was influenced by none other than my bright and sun shiny disposition a.k.a. all my fault. What that means it's, we have only ourselves to blame darlin'.

As an added point, I wouldn't be inclined to put someone on ignore based on the recommendation of anyone.

 

[BoomerD]

Under NORMAL circumstances, I wouldn't think there'd be a snowball's chance in hell of something like that passing...under today's political climate? Who the fuck knows?

I think...if the sole goal was reducing welfare costs, these folks would have a better chance trying to get a limit on the number of children the government would support..."The mother/grandmother/legal guardian and 2 (or 3) children, and NONE born while on welfare would be covered, financially or medically...including childbirth costs. Want to keep popping out babies...the cost is on you."
The reality is, all that would REALLY do is to hurt the children by forcing the mother to try to make do on even less...while doing nothing about the cause of the problem that put her on welfare in the first place. Welfare, in the short term, can be a big help for some people...but it was never meant to be a multi-generational "career."

 

[Puffnstuff]

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.

The government having the right to permanently alter your body would be extreme, however, I don't believe that a temporary stay of certain behaviors in order to qualify for benefits is unreasonable. While I was a soldier on active duty I had to forgo certain liberties and agree to certain terms like maintaining my physical fitness level to their standards, job skills, weight/body fat and retention of soldiering skills in order to remain in their employ.

Having recipients abstain from producing more children while receiving benefits should be part of the solution which helps to mitigate their problem in the first place. Perhaps a graduated scale starting with a signed agreement to not have more children and a mandatory visit with planned parenthood before you can start receiving benefits would be a start. People who file for bankruptcy have to go through a money management course before they can receive a discharge so why not have similar relative requirements for receiving public welfare?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Come on if you can not afford to have children then simply don't. We definitely have to put a stop or at least slow down the abuse of government subsidies!

I used to have a coworker who owned several retail food stores around town that also accepted EBT cards. He would tell me about the balances that would show on their cards at the time of purchase and how many of the recipients would buy the most expensive meats using that form of payment.

Then he told me about a lady who tried to get a job there under the table who was getting benefits and refused to get a regular on the record job because she got so much for free. She was quite proud of her accomplishment leaving her kids with her mom to be raised while running around town living the way she wanted to plus each time she had another kid her benefits went up. She was clearing more from the taxpayers this way than we were at the paper mill working 50hrs each week and this is the type of behavior we need to stop enabling!

 

[ivwshane]

I used to have a coworker who owned several retail food stores around town that also accepted EBT cards. He would tell me about the balances that would show on their cards at the time of purchase and how many of the recipients would buy the most expensive meats using that form of payment.

Then he told me about a lady who tried to get a job there under the table who was getting benefits and refused to get a regular on the record job because she got so much for free. She was quite proud of her accomplishment leaving her kids with her mom to be raised while running around town living the way she wanted to plus each time she had another kid her benefits went up. She was clearing more from the taxpayers this way than we were at the paper mill working 50hrs each week and this is the type of behavior we need to stop enabling!

Quantify how much of this behavior is happening.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Quantify how much of this behavior is happening.

I don't know how many people are getting away with it but we have a responsibility to not be enablers of it.

 

[interchange]

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.

For the sake of clarification, I was only pitting financial interests against humanistic ones because that's what Yonigue provided. I had more ideas on my mind, but the principle of my response still applied so I kept it simple.

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.

This last point is very important. One of the most common sources of income is SSI for mental health disability. Those with severe mental illness have serious challenges with insight, consistent housing, ability to trust (e.g. an attorney), transportation, keeping appointments, keeping things organized, persistence, etc. All of these things are necessary to get the disability awarded. Some are lucky to have a dedicated family member, others a high quality case manager. Most have only themselves. In such a case, being able to navigate the hoops to actually earn disability is pretty solid evidence that you have plenty of mental capacity to work a job. That's a bit cynical, but we do end up at least where the people most needing disability income are least likely to receive it.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know how many people are getting away with it but we have a responsibility to not be enablers of it.

So you want to tackle a problem you have no idea how big the problem is? Does that seem logical to you? Are you also for voter ID laws to combat the non existent voter fraud? Does the consequences of potentially negatively impacting people not raise concerns with you?

Not a single one of you can site a single fact to support your concerns but your gut tells you its true. That doesn't seem like the basis for supporting a policy.

 

[Puffnstuff]

So you want to tackle a problem you have no idea how big the problem is? Does that seem logical to you? Are you also for voter ID laws to combat the non existent voter fraud? Does the consequences of potentially negatively impacting people not raise concerns with you?

If you mean do I favor having to show some form of valid ID to prove that you are who you say you are then yes and I do it all the time when I conduct business pertaining to my voter registration. Being proactive about this is not partisan in any way. My state requires proof when you get your drivers license renewed which I think is a good thing too. If you are not legal then you should not be able to get any of these credentials.

 

[ivwshane]

If you mean do I favor having to show some form of valid ID to prove that you are who you say you are then yes and I do it all the time when I conduct business pertaining to my voter registration. Being proactive about this is not partisan in any way. My state requires proof when you get your drivers license renewed which I think is a good thing too. If you are not legal then you should not be able to get any of these credentials.

Nice dodge.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Nice dodge.

It's not a dodge buddy, its called the law. You know, the very same thing we're trying to apply to Trump and friends in DC.

Haranguing voters in line is a completely different matter which I am completely opposed to.

 

[ivwshane]

It's not a dodge buddy, its called the law. You know, the very same thing we're trying to apply to Trump and friends in DC.

Haranguing voters in line is a completely different matter which I am completely opposed to.

You'll have to explain how deporting those that have legally taken advantage of social safety net programs is the law.


You and others continue to try and change the topic of the thread, I wonder why.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You'll have to explain how deporting those that have legally taken advantage of social safety net programs is the law.

Stop trying to spin the conversation around. You got mad because I stated that having to show voter ID which is a lawful after you brought it up in post #395.