Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[ShannonCT]

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!

 

[JollyRoger]

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

 

[ShannonCT]

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

If you can think of the corporate equivalent of having children.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you can think of the corporate equivalent of having children.

Most directors of the corporations I know have children. If your company is getting corporate welfare, you should be held to the same standards as individuals on welfare.

 

[skadistic]

Yes do it.

If you can't provide for your family as it is and need the state to take care of you, you should either stop having babies or stop taking hand outs. If you want the hand outs then you should abide conditions. One of those conditions should be if you are to lazy or stupid to do you own those who do for you should stop you from increasing the cost to tax payers. It should be chemical and reversable.

Since more whites are on wellfair its not racist. And it is humane to the people who pay and the kids who are not born that would have otherwise been born into a bad lot in life.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I voted for the fair and balanced option. Once you allow government to be your mother, expect to be mothered.

 

[JollyRoger]

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?

 

[ShannonCT]

Most directors of the corporations I know have children. If your company is getting corporate welfare, you should be held to the same standards as individuals on welfare.

But most CEOs would still be filthy rich even if their corporations weren't getting corporate welfare. Even if their corporation went belly up without the welfare, out of work CEOs tend to find other lucrative jobs. If you want to look at the corporation as an entity and propose rights that the corporation should lose when on corporate welfare, I'm all ears. But I think this discussion would belong in its own thread.

Since more whites are on wellfair its not racist. And it is humane to the people who pay and the kids who are not born that would have otherwise been born into a bad lot in life.

But a plan like this would affect a greater percentage of blacks than whites. Do you think Black leaders would decry this plan as racist? After all, it could decrease their constituency.

 

[JollyRoger]

But most CEOs would still be filthy rich even if their corporations weren't getting corporate welfare. Even if their corporation went belly up without the welfare, out of work CEOs tend to find other lucrative jobs. If you want to look at the corporation as an entity and propose rights that the corporation should lose when on corporate welfare, I'm all ears. But I think this discussion would belong in its own thread..

If they are that well off their coproartion doesn't need corporate welfare. If they want the corporate welfare bad enough, shouldn't they have to make the same choice you are proposing for those seeking individual welfare? Maybe if the personal stakes are high, fewer corporations would be welfare queens.

 

[skadistic]

But a plan like this would affect a greater percentage of blacks than whites. Do you think Black leaders would decry this plan as racist? After all, it could decrease their constituency.

% means nothing. More whites are on wellfair. I don't care what "black leaders" call racist. It never really is and they just use these things to stir the pot. Why is their constituents only blacks anyway? Why is it whites need to pander and beg for black votes but blacks automaticly expect to get it or they call race?

 

[ShannonCT]

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?

I would say that forced abortions are more inhumane than forced birth control. So there would be women who would get pregnant before they went on welfare and then would be eligible for welfare if they accepted the birth control. The plan wouldn't prevent the first child, but it would reduce the number of future children.

I know you don't really believe this predetermination argument you sarcastically put forth. But in general, I dont care how or why you're on welfare. If you need government assistance, you shouldn't be having a child. It's not in your best interest, or the potential child's, to have a child that you can't afford. Isn't that one of the main arguments in favor of abortion?

 

[StarWorms]

Disgusting...

Getting government assistance does not in any way mean that you cannot bring up a child.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know you don't really believe this predetermination argument you sarcastically put forth. But in general, I dont care how or why you're on welfare. If you need government assistance, you shouldn't be having a child. It's not in your best interest, or the potential child's, to have a child that you can't afford. Isn't that one of the main arguments in favor of abortion?

You do care how and why one goes on welfare. You refuse to hold corporate CEO's to the same standard as individuals, even though the typical Fortune 500 CEO secures more government welfare in a year than an individual could secure in many lifetimes.

 

[ShannonCT]

If they are that well off their coproartion doesn't need corporate welfare. If they want the corporate welfare bad enough, shouldn't they have to make the same choice you are proposing for those seeking individual welfare? Maybe if the personal stakes are high, fewer corporations would be welfare queens.

I don't think this is a good comparison. You speak of the corporation as if it were owned by one person. Most mega-corps receiveing corporate welfare are owned by millions of people, and the CEOs often own a small percentage. The profitability of the corporation may have little correlation with the CEOs personal wealth.

 

[StarWorms]

% means nothing. More whites are on wellfair. I don't care what "black leaders" call racist. It never really is and they just use these things to stir the pot. Why is their constituents only blacks anyway? Why is it whites need to pander and beg for black votes but blacks automaticly expect to get it or they call race?

I do not believe this is racist but percentage is everything. Let's say there's 9 white people for every 1 black person. Now let's say that country has a show on TV, supposed to represent the country. Would it be right to have 9 white people and 1 black person, or have 5 black people and 5 white people. The latter is more likely to be racist than the former.

 

[skadistic]

Disgusting...

Getting government assistance does not in any way mean that you cannot bring up a child.

No it means you can't bring up a child unless I pay for it. Last time I checked the only bird I'm humping isn't pregnant.

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

 

[ShannonCT]

You do care how and why one goes on welfare. You refuse to hold corporate CEO's to the same standard as individuals, even though the typical Fortune 500 CEO secures more government welfare in a year than an individual could secure in many lifetimes.

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.

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.

Fair enough.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't think this is a good comparison. You speak of the corporation as if it were owned by one person. Most mega-corps receiveing corporate welfare are owned by millions of people, and the CEOs often own a small percentage. The profitability of the corporation may have little correlation with the CEOs personal wealth.

Most corporations are governed by a relatively small Board of Directors and high level executives that are chosen, in part, by their ability to play the corporate werlfare game. If you just got a few corporations off of corporate welfare, you could afford to maintain thousands of individuals on welfare.

 

[StarWorms]

No it means you can't bring up a child unless I pay for it. Last time I checked the only bird I'm humping isn't pregnant.

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