Should people on goverment disability be allowed to have children?

[Texashiker]

I got another idea.

I still think letting kids starve would be a much better/faster learning experiance for the stupid deadbeat moms and resolve this issue faster.

There is a term people in the child support circles like to use, and its called "deadbeat dads". Its a dad who does not want to help support his children.

I think we should start calling people "deadbeats" even if they live with the child. If someone has the ability to work, but refuses to, and they draw benefits from the state, then they should be called "deadbeats".

Take the lady in the opening post, in my opinion she is a deadbeat. She is a high school drop out, does not work, has no ability to take care of herself, but for some reason its "ok" for her to bring a child into the world?

We are not talking about someone who is physically or mentally disabled. If I felt the lady was really disabled, I would never posted this thread.

The government can not legislate morals or values, it is the job of the parents and society to teach the child said morals and values. But what happens when the parents teach the child how to bum off the system? Whos fault is it then?

When we have generation after generation of people living off the governments tit, how does society break that cycle?

 

[classy]

Absolutely. Then again, the government also has no business in giving money to people for having children, not having a job, being a single parent, et cetera.

Government has no business giving money to a lot of different things, but they do it anyway. At least these folks who you desire to look down on and paint with a broad brush actually need the money, most of them anyway. Unlike businesses who make millions in profits, still get government handouts.

Also some people on disability actually worked and paid into the system before some disabling event occured in their lives.

This is an ignorant and stupid notion to even put forth.

 

[waggy]

so a kid who joins the military. gets blown up and can't walk anymore and on disability shouldn't have kids? why are you so anti military? why do you hate the US?


lol lets take it another step. should people on unemployment keep there kids? they can't afford to take care of themselves so the government should take them right?

 

[Texashiker]

so a kid who joins the military. gets blown up and can't walk anymore and on disability shouldn't have kids? why are you so anti military? why do you hate the US?

Did you read the opening post?

This thread has NOTHING to do with people who are really disabled.

 

[feralkid]

The government can not legislate morals or values

Correct, but that seems to be what you are advocating.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Did you read the opening post?

This thread has NOTHING to do with people who are really disabled.

I partially agree with your OP, but I also have to state that bi-polar people seem normal a lot of times, my sister has it, and my sister does work. But she also has some pretty major issues and some people have conditions worse than others.

To get on disability, you need to have doctor diagnose you, as well as social security may have independent doctors verify your condition, etc.

Do I think it is abused? Certainly. Do I think some people need it? Certainly.

I think the system needs to be reformed.

 

[Texashiker]

Correct, but that seems to be what you are advocating.

I think the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink" applies to deadbeats. You can offer someone a job, but that does mean they are willing to work.

What happens to the people that do not want to work, they get on social security disability and draw a monthly check.

Surely there are better options then those two?

My wife and I know a local high school teacher. One day he was talking to the class about what the kids wanted to do after they left high school. One kid raised his hand and said he wanted to get his monthly government check like what his grandpaw and dad got. In other words, the kid wanted to be at least the third generation government moocher.

Parent A has 3 or 4 kids, teaches those kids to be deadbeats. Those kids grow up, have kids of their own, and now we are looking at 3 generation of deadbeats.

How can society break that cycle of mooching off the system?

Do I think some people need it? Certainly.

I think the system needs to be reformed.

I am not disputing that some people need those benefits.

But I also think people abuse the system. Its like the kid I mentioned, how can society get people to develop a good work ethic?

 

[SilthDraeth]

How can society break that cycle of mooching off the system?



I am not disputing that some people need those benefits.

But I also think people abuse the system. Its like the kid I mentioned, how can society get people to develop a good work ethic?

I don't know the answer to that question, except to throw out a few thoughts.
Working on the issue at the national level is just to large of a scale, and I am sure some people think of it like the criminal system, "better to let a few criminals go free in our justice system than to execute an innocent man".

Better to let a few people abuse the system than to deny benefits to a truly disabled person.

Now, for your initial OP, about this girl, and her disability, if a caveat was added for certain disabilities, genetic, inherited, etc, that by accepting the disability money for life, you had to get sterilized, I think your major issue would be solved.

IE person A born with bi-polar, or schizo, gets seizures constantly, epilepsy, etc, then they get "fixed" and get their money for life.

Person B was in a car accident and has a fucked up back, and or neck, or lost an arm, or any other number of accidents causing a disability, then that person shouldn't be denied the chance to find love/have kids. Since you can't force morality or personal responsibility on people, we just give them the benefit of the doubt that they will make the correct decision.

As for forcing good work ethic? Do away with credit on everything except houses/land/automobiles.

No big screen TV unless you got the $1k in cash to go buy it. No computers, no fancy couches, no fancy clothers, etc unless you have the money to buy it.

Change food benefits to be only usable on say 20 items or so. You can buy store brand hamburger/chicken/roasts/london broil/stew meat/milk/cheese/bread/vegetables no fancy cuts of steak/chips/soda/ and tons of other "snack/junk foods"

It wouldn't fix the problem completely, but it would curb a lot of it. Also, each program needs to be handled closer to the city, with responsibility being less, the further up government you get, with the Fed ultimately being the watch dog, stating, "hey, this county/city in this state seems to be abnormal, lets audit them"

*shoulder shrug*

 

[JTsyo]

Free HDTV with your sterilization if you're on welfare.

 

[Texashiker]

Free HDTV with your sterilization if you're on welfare.

Your post reminded me of an article I read last year.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html

A North Carolina charity was paying addicts $300 if they would get some kind of long term birth control, such as getting their tubes tied.

Sounds like a good idea, right? But for some reason the organization has received criticism.

One drug addict used her money to buy Easter presents for her 5 children that are in state protective custody.

 

[Macamus Prime]

I love this shit - its some new form of contradiction every damn day.

Conservatives scream and yell about respecting the gift of life - yet, here, the question is posed to squash and prevent people from bringing life into this world.

Keep it up scumbags.

 

[brandonb]

But then again, where do we draw the line? Who decides who can have children and who can not?

Government should have no say in who produces children. However, nobody has the right to get more money if they decide to have children. Her benefits should not increase. If she cannot afford her children, the state should have the ability to take those kids away.

You should not reward those who are on the system by any means, such as increase benefits because of their poor choices.

 

[Agfadoc]

Conservatives expect people to take responsibility for the choices that they make.

Your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be free from you.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Government should have no say in who produces children. However, nobody has the right to get more money if they decide to have children. Her benefits should not increase. If she cannot afford her children, the state should have the ability to take those kids away.

You should not reward those who are on the system by any means, such as increase benefits because of their poor choices.

Well, the person having the children decides if they will have children or not. If money is offered for giving up the ability to have children, the person still has made the choice.

I can get government assistance, and not have kids, or I can decline government assistance and then have kids. Of course some people might just have kids, then apply for government aid for themselves and their kids, and then give up the ability to have more kids.

You can't plan for every contingency. In my other example, someone might qualify under mental illness for aid, with sterilization, and decide they will risk an auto accident and get into the system under the alternate for of aid, just to bypass a limitation.

People will always try to bend/break rules/laws and cry about injustice no matter how fair things are. And there will always be some heart wrenching story to support their side.

 

[dank69]

I love this shit - its some new form of contradiction every damn day.

Conservatives scream and yell about respecting the gift of life - yet, here, the question is posed to squash and prevent people from bringing life into this world.

Keep it up scumbags.

Even better:
Don't allow abortion but let the child starve to death to 'teach the parents a lesson.' Good plan. People that think like that shouldn't be allowed to have children.

 

[actuarial]

What happens to the people that do not want to work, they get on social security disability and draw a monthly check.

Surely there are better options then those two?

If they are physically/mentally able to work, and refuse, then kick them off disability payments.

 

[Agfadoc]

I love this shit - its some new form of contradiction every damn day.

Conservatives scream and yell about respecting the gift of life - yet, here, the question is posed to squash and prevent people from bringing life into this world.

Keep it up scumbags.

You know, resulting to personal attacks is just another form of lack of intelligence and brings nothing to the argument.

 

[Texashiker]

You know, resulting to personal attacks is just another form of lack of intelligence and brings nothing to the argument.

Personal attacks is standard operating procedure in the politics and news (P&N) section.

When people reject the facts, they usually resort to attacks to deflect attention from their ignorance.

 

[bfdd]

Wait, so you're basically saying you want America to become more like some fucked up starving African country?

That's just great pal.

Do you understand that some of us feel it's important to advance our societys, and make things better for the poor and less fortunate?

It's not about being more like a fucked up starving African country, it's the not losing sight of the fact that life is hard. We cannot ever forget this or we'll never appreciate the progress we have made and will continue to make. The struggle is what makes the reward worthwhile and I'm pretty sure living is quite the struggle with worthwhile rewards.

 

[Macamus Prime]

You know, resulting to personal attacks is just another form of lack of intelligence and brings nothing to the argument.

I think you mean resorting, Mr. Intelligence.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Personal attacks is standard operating procedure in the politics and news (P&N) section.

When people reject the facts, they usually resort to attacks to deflect attention from their ignorance.

And, you are so ignorant that you can't even see what you are really talking about.

You do not like government control, yes? And, here you are proposing an entity of sorts that decides who is allowed to and who isn't allowed to have children.

You've done something like this before. Where you are a staunch critic against government control/rule, but seem to make some sort of exception when certain "types" of people "should" be controlled or influenced by the government.

Don't control or influence me, but be sure to control and influence "those" people over there. Are you so sick of "those" people that you don't want to be associated with even dealing with them, how YOU want to deal with them!

 

[Texashiker]

but seem to make some sort of exception when certain "types" of people "should" be controlled or influenced by the government.

If I could do only one thing to make the world a better place, it would be to control the off button to your computer.

 

[nobodyknows]

If I could do only one thing to make the world a better place, it would be to control the off button to your computer.

Should dumb people be allowed to have children? :biggrin:

 

[Macamus Prime]

Should dumb people be allowed to have children? :biggrin:

Prevent only the ones who don't know how to use the ignore button.

EDIT: clarification needed.

 

[Ausm]

I think there is a National scourge of disabled people out there breeding like rabbits and taking all my hard earned cash!!!