Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[JollyRoger]

Could the CEO survive and thrive economically as an individual without the corporate welfare? Yes. Could the unemployed single mom without government assistance? Probably not.

Exactly my point. The CEO needs a personal disincentive to take corporate welfare since he doesn't even need it in the first place.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I think that citizens that get a government license to carry a concealed handgun shopuld also be on forced birth control. After all, if they really need a gun to defend themselves, they are hanging around in a atmosphere that is too dangerous for a child.

Except that getting a concealed weapons permit doesn't make the government and society in general responsible for you.

 

[JollyRoger]

Except that getting a concealed weapons permit doesn't make the government and society in general responsible for you.

This is about protecting the children. If you choose to live such a dangerous lifestyle to need a gun, you have no business having children.

If you want children, you should be able to afford to live in a safe enough neighborhood to not need a gun.

 

[ShannonCT]

Exactly my point. The CEO needs a personal disincentive to take corporate welfare since he doesn't even need it in the first place.

The CEO is not receiving the corporate welfare. The corporation is. Legally, they are different entities. If you want to discourage corporate welfare, you need to take away rights from the corporate entity. Most CEOs are old farts anyway. Banning them from having children would not achieve your aim.

 

[skadistic]

No it does not. Government assistance is given for a variety of reasons.

If you need a hand out from the feds you are not very good at providing for yourself and so you can not properly provide for a child. If you could you wouldn't need the hand out. A hand out that I as a tax payer pay for. That kid is not my responsibility it is yours. And clearly one you can't handle. It doesn't mater why you need the hand out. At some point you failed by no ones fault but your own. Now if you need me to take of you because you are incapable of doing your self you should be made inable to screw up some one elses life that I would in turn have to pay for.

Why should I be forced to pay for your kids when you can't do it your self and keep your legs closed so you don't have more kids that I have to pay for? Thats not very fair to me is it? I don't have kids because I can't afford them.

 

[JollyRoger]

The CEO is not receiving the corporate welfare. The corporation is. Legally, they are different entities. If you want to discourage corporate welfare, you need to take away rights from the corporate entity. Most CEOs are old farts anyway. Banning them from having children would not achieve your aim.

Fine, make their children get mandatory birth control. Make the decison made on behalf of the corporation personal. The CEO's livelihood is dependent on the success of the corporation. They should be disincentived from putting their corporation on the government dole. I think you are showing a real bias against the most needy while giving the not so needy a license to raid the government coffers without consequence.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

While I like this idea better than our current system, the ideal scenario would be no welfare or entitlement payments at all.

 

[Shadylookin]

no because i dont think the government should get involved in reproduction rights, however i wouldn't cry big crocodile tears either.

 

[ShannonCT]

Fine, make their children get mandatory birth control. Make the decison made on behalf of the corporation personal. The CEO's livelihood is dependent on the success of the corporation. They should be disincentived from putting their corporation on the government dole. I think you are showing a real bias against the most needy while giving the not so needy a license to raid the government coffers without consequence.

Nice debating tactics! But I will play your game anyway.

I have no problem with trying to get corporations off the dole. I am a free-market capitalist. If a corporation needs government assistance, they don't belong in the market. But your plan wouldn't achieve your goal.

So I ask you: would my plan achieve anything?

 

[downtown]

Well, this would prohibit catholics from getting welfare.

 

[StarWorms]

If you need a hand out from the feds you are not very good at providing for yourself and so you can not properly provide for a child.

So someone whose spouse has just died should be forced to give the child away? What if someone has just been made redundant? Getting government assistance doesn't necessarily mean that

If you could you wouldn't need the hand out. A hand out that I as a tax payer pay for. That kid is not my responsibility it is yours. And clearly one you can't handle. It doesn't mater why you need the hand out.

It does matter why the hand out is needed, many are genuine reasons.

At some point you failed by no ones fault but your own. Now if you need me to take of you because you are incapable of doing your self you should be made inable to screw up some one elses life that I would in turn have to pay for.

Poor widow. Will you tell her to her face that her husband's death was all her fault and she's failed at life and ruined her childrens' lives?

Why should I be forced to pay for your kids when you can't do it your self and keep your legs closed so you don't have more kids that I have to pay for? Thats not very fair to me is it? I don't have kids because I can't afford them.

I wish you'd stop using this "you" all the time. I'm male and talking about me having my legs open and having babies is strange.

Did it ever occur to you that people can have children and later on end up in financial difficulty.

I don't see how using birth control will help those that do have children when they can't afford them either. First of all, I think it's completely wrong to force people to take drugs that they don't want to. How will you force it upon them? Tie them into a chair? Threaten them to cut their pay? Do the latter and they'll go without pay, have a child and then be back on payment after the child. If you choose to completely cut their payment then the children shrivel up and die - that's going to look great as a statistic isn't it?

 

[ShannonCT]

Well, this would prohibit catholics from getting welfare.

I don't know how many American Catholics actually agree with the Pope on birth control, but for those who do, they will have to make a choice if they want to put themselves in the care of the government. It's not much different from Catholic parents sending their kids to public school where they might be forced to learn things that the Catholic church opposes (evolution, sex ed). The Catholic church can step in if they want to be an alternative safety net for those that object to birth control.

Did it ever occur to you that people can have children and later on end up in financial difficulty.

I don't see how using birth control will help those that do have children when they can't afford them either. First of all, I think it's completely wrong to force people to take drugs that they don't want to. How will you force it upon them? Tie them into a chair? Threaten them to cut their pay? Do the latter and they'll go without pay, have a child and then be back on payment after the child. If you choose to completely cut their payment then the children shrivel up and die - that's going to look great as a statistic isn't it?

I agree with you that there are many reasons that people could end up on welfare. They might be victims of economic forces beyond their control, or be victims of illness by no fault of their own. And of course some people will have children and later go on welfare. But preventing people who are unable to provide for themselves from bringing more dependents into the world is good for everyone. Everyone loses when a child is born into poverty.

 

[downtown]

I don't know how many American Catholics actually agree with the Pope on birth control, but for those who do, they will have to make a choice if they want to put themselves in the care of the government. It's not much different from Catholic parents sending their kids to public school where they might be forced to learn things that the Catholic church opposes (evolution, sex ed). The Catholic church can step in if they want to be an alternative safety net for those that object to birth control.
.

I don't know how many American Catholics do either....likely less than half...but since there are so many Catholics (and, lets not forget, Catholics in important political posistions) that even a somewhat small percentage would be statistically significant. Its also worth noting that areas where there is negative job growth, (Like rust belt states) also sport a rather high Catholic population.

I dunno. I think the idea is one of those cute "sounds good on paper" internet ideas, that wouldn't translate well into real life policy. How do you police it? If one gets pregnant, they lose their welfare? Abortion is still legal after all...so there goes that. If they miscarry, do they get the money back?

Plus, it isn't just catholics who oppose birth control. Many women develop are allergic (or have negative side effects) to the pill, and men can have latex allergies as well.

The idea that we don't want those who are addicted to welfare to have more children is a good one, but I dont see this making a big dent in poverty. Its more likely to just create a mess.

 

[skadistic]

Did it ever occur to you that people can have children and later on end up in financial difficulty.

Since your little senarios are cute but meaningless I'll just answer this.

I don't care why you didn't plan the fact is you didn't plan. Again thats not my fault and I don't believe its my problem. If you want me to take care of you you had better not increase the undo burden on me by having another kid.



edit to add that I mean the all encompasing 'you' not you in particular.

 

[ShannonCT]

I dunno. I think the idea is one of those cute "sounds good on paper" internet ideas, that wouldn't translate well into real life policy. How do you police it? If one gets pregnant, they lose their welfare? Abortion is still legal after all...so there goes that. If they miscarry, do they get the money back?

Plus, it isn't just catholics who oppose birth control. Many women develop are allergic (or have negative side effects) to the pill, and men can have latex allergies as well.

I think you missed the part of the plan where the birth control would take the form of injections. I was thinking of something like Depo Provera, the female birth control injection. (If there is some form of temporary male sterilization method, I would include men as well). Policing would be straightforward; You get your injection every three months, and then you become eligible to receive assistance. Depo has a very low failure rate, and even for the cases where it did fail, the woman still would qualify for welfare by virtue of having had the injection.

 

[CaptainF]

I think that citizens that get a government license to carry a concealed handgun should also be on forced birth control. After all, if they really need a gun to defend themselves, they are hanging around in a atmosphere that is too dangerous for a child.

Me personally, I'd like to get a concealed permit just for the hell of it.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

How do people feel about a hypothetical policy requiring women (and possibly men) who receive government assistance to receive birth control implants/injections as a condition of that assistance?

I am of the opinion that a person who is unable or unwilling to provide for themselves is unfit to raise a child. In general, the state shouldn't have the power to restrict who can bear children, but when a person makes themselves a dependent of the state, they should relinquish the right to bear children. The loss of this right would only be temporary. Birth control injections are only effective for 3 months. People who are able to find work and leave the welfare rolls would be free to get pregnant.

Sounds good to me. I don't even think it's illegal. There's no Constitutional right to public assistance for bearing children, so if people want a priviledge, they should abide by rules to obtain such priviledge.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm rather uneasy with the idea. I do think that procreation is a human right, however I think that when you accept government money, you accept certain restrictions on your rights by doing so. I'm not wildly in favor of it, but I think it would be better than abortion.

I think that citizens that get a government license to carry a concealed handgun should also be on forced birth control. After all, if they really need a gun to defend themselves, they are hanging around in a atmosphere that is too dangerous for a child.

You can't prove that they all, or even most are. You can make the argument that all, or at least most of the people on welfare can't provide for their children, since they can't provide for themselves. That's a terrible argument.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I had to think about this one for a while, and while I dislike the idea of state dependency, I find it wrong for a government entity to restrict procreation. I just think it's an overstepping of power.

Really, it's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Neomega]

I wish, but sounds sketchy.