Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[general_kill]

This plan makes me want to kick a puppy.

 

[Mercenary82]

Great plan!

 

[plarq]

I have an alternative.

Instead of birth control, the state should override parents' right in this situation, and kids of welfare-draining people are state-sponsored and ready for adoption by prospective foster parents with good background of economy, social position and free of criminal records.

If their parents can't get a work to support the family when kid is older than [one year, age is debatable], they will lose the child. So, if they are caring about their parentship, they wouldn't have the child at the start, and buy birth control pills themselves. However, the state should offer discounted birth control pills, devices and the like at a discounted price.

I think my alternative could fare better since
1) Since many middle class citizens want a big family, but some of them lacked the ability (sexual and reproduction problems), and many low-income citizens keep making babies while not able to support them. By transferring the parentship, it makes the supply and demand meet, and WIN-WIN situation.
2) For many people who criticize the inhumanity of forced birth control (China), abortion and stem-cell research, this offer evade these problems.
3) For racist, nazi and Stormfront guys, this offer could save Aryan kids from "killed by conspiracies of Jews, blacks and Asians".
4) For people against (illegal) immigration, this plot will produce more home-grown labor, which will cut off immigration needs.

The problems it may encounters:

1)There may not be enough prospective foster parents for those kids.
2) it may bolster baby/kids trafficking if irresponsible parents decide to sell their kids to the black market.
3) it needs extra money for birth control pills discounts and baby/kids/orphanage center.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

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?

Why not go the whole hog and sterlise the poor? If they are poor now they are likely to be poor in the future. Better to save on costly injections every few months, just remove the womb and send them back to the ghetto.

I'm no fan of the current British Welfare system. In my view its intentions are good but it is far too easy to 'beat the system'. That said, I'm also not a fan on the Government restricting many things in a 'compulsorary' way.

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.

It seems quite clear from this statement who you blame for those who have children whilst on welfare. Can I ask, playing devil's advocate with a view I know others hold, why are you against families? In the case of single mothers isn't it better that they do stay at home to bring the child up rather than palm them off onto someone else to go to work?

 

[ShannonCT]

I have an alternative.

Instead of birth control, the state should override parents' right in this situation, and kids of welfare-draining people are state-sponsored and ready for adoption by prospective foster parents with good background of economy, social position and free of criminal records.

If their parents can't get a work to support the family when kid is older than [one year, age is debatable], they will lose the child. So, if they are caring about their parentship, they wouldn't have the child at the start, and buy birth control pills themselves. However, the state should offer discounted birth control pills, devices and the like at a discounted price.

I think my alternative could fare better since
1) Since many middle class citizens want a big family, but some of them lacked the ability (sexual and reproduction problems), and many low-income citizens keep making babies while not able to support them. By transferring the parentship, it makes the supply and demand meet, and WIN-WIN situation.
2) For many people who criticize the inhumanity of forced birth control (China), abortion and stem-cell research, this offer evade these problems.
3) For racist, nazi and Stormfront guys, this offer could save Aryan kids from "killed by conspiracies of Jews, blacks and Asians".
4) For people against (illegal) immigration, this plot will produce more home-grown labor, which will cut off immigration needs.

The problems it may encounters:

1)There may not be enough prospective foster parents for those kids.
2) it may bolster baby/kids trafficking if irresponsible parents decide to sell their kids to the black market.
3) it needs extra money for birth control pills discounts and baby/kids/orphanage center.

This sounds pretty unworkable.

1) You could have drawn-out legal battles for every case that the government tries to take away a child from a parent. You say the parent must have a job when the child reaches a certain age. What if the parent has a part-time job? What if the parent doesn't need a job because they have a lot of savings? What would stop the person's friends from claiming that they are employing him/her? It's much more inhumane to take away someone's child after the child has been born than to prevent them from conceiving.

2) You assume that people who can't care for kids won't have them. There are a lot of irresponsible people out there. The whole point of my plan was to relieve people of the chance to screw up their lives when their lives are already screwed up enough. You can't count on people to be looking one or two years down the road when they might lose their child.

Birth control is not a money issue. There are plenty of places where people can get birth control cheaply or for free.

3) Adoptive parents want newborns, not kids who have been taken from their mothers at age one or two, and who may have been mistreated or cared for poorly. Kids who are taken from their parents by the state usually end up shuffled around to government facilities and temporary foster homes because no one wants to adopt them. These kids would not be meeting the demand for adoptable babies.

Why not go the whole hog and sterlise the poor? If they are poor now they are likely to be poor in the future. Better to save on costly injections every few months, just remove the womb and send them back to the ghetto.

Or just round them up and put them out of their misery. Sorry, I believe in doing things to improve the lives of the poor. Hence, my plan.

 

[El_Machinae]

In the case of single mothers isn't it better that they do stay at home to bring the child up rather than palm them off onto someone else to go to work?

I don't think so, we lose efficiences. If we use one mother for one, two, or three children then we're not using her work ability very well. A daycare can raise a much higher ratio of children; freeing up more adults for the workforce.

This is why some governments choose to subsidise daycares for single moms, and force the moms to work. Even if she makes a bit less than the subsidy (it would actually be cheaper for her to be at home), we gain efficiencies as well as getting the women a line on her resume (and increasing her earning power).

We've seen time and again that 'housemother' is not respected job experience.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

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.

Children born to parents on welfare, especially single parents, have pretty poor prospects in life. And people in poverty face even greater obstacles in improving their lot in life when they have to raise an unexpected child. Forced birth control would be more humane and more effective than abortion, as abortion is morally objectionable (to some people) and is voluntary. The individual and social benefits of abortion that Levitt and Dubner discuss in Freakonomics would only be increased with a policy of forced birth control.

Is this plan humane? Is it eugenics? Is it racist? Vote!

Forced birth control... yuck! I object. Eugenics, bad!

Now putting personal objections aside, as to the mechanics of the plan... I don't get your plan. Your original post is obviously excluding all forms of welfare except the full subsidy to the poorest of the poor. The lifetime limit on welfare assistance for the poor is only three years... that's a small window of time.

Maybe you mean food assistance? Subsidized Rent? Neither of these programs is part of "welfare" in the US, but I can understand that it would be lumped into the same government program in Europe. There is corporate welfare for the rich? That's a bigger tax bite. Their prospects aren't bad at all and they are quite possibly the most likely to benefit from government assistance.

I get more from the government in cash for owning a section 8 property (properties for subsidized rent) than the poor person in my property sees in food assistance. I like the setup as it is... you help house and feed the poor and get paid for your efforts at a predictable, guaranteed, and profitable market rate.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Or just round them up and put them out of their misery. Sorry, I believe in doing things to improve the lives of the poor. Hence, my plan.

You believe in economics over personal freedom, hence your plan.

 

[JerichoHill]

No, this is a horrible idea, and arbitrarily takes away a great deal of what it means to be human.

And in addition, it incorrectly assumes that government assistanc equates to poverty, or that those who do not receive government assistance are in fact better mothers and fathers.

For shame.

(Note: This has NOTHING to do with economics, but warped conservatism...)

 

[Bad Player]

Would that apply to the board of directors of corporations getting public welfare?

YES! They shouldn't be on welfare - maybe those should get vasectomies too!

 

[Bad Player]

Should a pregnant woman have to abort or give up her child to adoption to get welfare? Since the baby, if born, would be on welfare, should the child be restricted from giving birth or fathering a child later in life since it is a proven welfare queen/king from birth?

No, the thread was about birth control (contraceptives) not abortion.

 

[Bad Player]

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.

I'd argue that the point of putting men and women on the contraceptive pill is for fairness to the taxpayer since it ends up other people having to pay for their babies. This is as opposed to the reason being a bad environment for the child.

 

[Bad Player]

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

Yep those CEO's trying to cheat taxpayers should be punished similarly. See my above post.

 

[ShannonCT]

Now putting personal objections aside, as to the mechanics of the plan... I don't get your plan. Your original post is obviously excluding all forms of welfare except the full subsidy to the poorest of the poor. The lifetime limit on welfare assistance for the poor is only three years... that's a small window of time.

Maybe you mean food assistance? Subsidized Rent?

Whether the plan should apply to those on full-blown welfare only, or to those on lesser forms of government assitance as well (food stamps, section 8, unemployment) is debateable. I would be inclined to apply the plan to the lesser forms as well.

I get more from the government in cash for owning a section 8 property (properties for subsidized rent) than the poor person in my property sees in food assistance. I like the setup as it is... you help house and feed the poor and get paid for your efforts at a predictable, guaranteed, and profitable market rate.

But you are being paid by the government to administer a social program. You aren't being supported by the government because you lack the means to earn an income. You aren't on government assistance any more than a police officer.

You believe in economics over personal freedom, hence your plan.

Wrong. I believe in giving people the chance to support themselves, even if it means temporarily reducing their personal freedoms. A person applying for government assistance is admiting that they need help. At that point, the government has to do what is best for the person, as per some societal consensus. Besides birth control, this might also include measures to improve the person's health (weight loss therapy, drug addiction treatment) and to improve their employment prospects (job training, adult education).

Paying people welfare for several years and then allowing them to continue the behavior that caused them to become dependent on the government is irresponsible. Its enabling people to be permanently poor.

No, this is a horrible idea, and arbitrarily takes away a great deal of what it means to be human.

And in addition, it incorrectly assumes that government assistanc equates to poverty, or that those who do not receive government assistance are in fact better mothers and fathers.

For shame.

(Note: This has NOTHING to do with economics, but warped conservatism...)

Forced birth control is not forced sterilization. It doesn't take away any human right for more than 3 months. There are much more drastic measures that we take for the good of the person and/or society, like incarceration or forced medical institutionalization.

Government assistance doesn't equal poverty, but there is a significant correlation. Someone who is on federal welfare is very likely in poverty. And growing up in poverty tends to result in all sorts of black marks on ones future prospects: lower educational attainment, higher incarceration rate, shorter life expectancy. Government policy has to take into account what is likely to happen to a person on average.

There are all sorts of economic questions to be answered by our current welfare policy, and by any other alternative policies. I assume that you mean that such a policy would not produce positive economic outcomes. Fair enough.

 

[Bad Player]

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.

No it's about fairness to the taxpayers who pay for other people's welfare benefits. I don't mind some welfare - I think that is important for society - but sometimes it is abused and this idea is meant to limit that abuse. For example there is a woman in a (mainly White) nearby town (which has a reputation for nearly everyone on welfare) who has 22 children (some twins and triplets). Let me repeat - twenty two children. 'Course the workers subsidise her and her family a lot.

 

[Bad Player]

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

Indeed I agree with you here StarWorms - however taking contraception would prevent the "poor widow" or whoever from making their situation any worse.

 

[Bad Player]

Instead of birth control, the state should override parents' right in this situation, and kids of welfare-draining people are state-sponsored and ready for adoption by prospective foster parents with good background of economy, social position and free of criminal records.

Having spoken to someone who is involved with child protection cases, I am informed that there is a lack of foster care parents and sometimes they stop wanting to have them and the child would have to go somewhere else. This plan just isn't feasible in the real world.

 

[IglooDame]

This sounds a lot like circumstances in a country where there is 100% socialized health care - one won't get treatment for a second heart attack if they haven't stayed on a strict diet/exercise plan after their first heart attack, they won't get treatment for broken bones and concussions if they don't stop risky behavior patterns, they'll stop getting diabetic treatments if they don't drop some obesity, etc.

 

[Bad Player]

Why not go the whole hog and sterlise the poor? If they are poor now they are likely to be poor in the future. Better to save on costly injections every few months, just remove the womb and send them back to the ghetto.

I disagree - I think there is a reasonable amount of economic mobility (at least in Australia I don't know about where you live) and so I really don't think this is warranted. Also noone is talking about surgery which is irreversible.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Wrong. I believe in giving people the chance to support themselves, even if it means temporarily reducing their personal freedoms.

That's exactly what I said, economics over freedom.

A person applying for government assistance is admiting that they need help. At that point, the government has to do what is best for the person, as per some societal consensus.

Agreed, "what is best for the person" is not necessarily best for the government. The fact is I agree with you. People on benefits shouldn't go and have more children, it's irresponsible. But I would rather make efforts to lower the cost of childcare and provide suitable employment than have the Government imposing Birth Control at will.

Besides birth control, this might also include measures to improve the person's health (weight loss therapy, drug addiction treatment) and to improve their employment prospects (job training, adult education).

I agree with the bolded part. I perhaps also agree with the drug addiction part too. I don't think the Government has the right to interfere with my health however. That said, if I'm too unfit to carry out a manual labour occupation, I shouldn't receive welfare if I refuse to retrain.

Paying people welfare for several years and then allowing them to continue the behavior that caused them to become dependent on the government is irresponsible. Its enabling people to be permanently poor.

It depends on what that behaviour is.