Welfare and B-Control

[SkydiveStMarys 0]

Ok, I heard this yesterday and was wondering what y'all thought.

When someone signs up for welfare assistance they SHOULD be handed, the paper work, along with an agreement that they have to sign as to NOT getting or having any more kids while on assistance and given birth control of their choice. They get preggers they loose their assistance.

Can we as a society/governing body, be able/allowed, to do this? This is something that as far as I know is not being done in any state, though I could be wrong.

Bobbi

A miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude.

[misskriss 0]

And what happens when the birth control fails which can happen. Are you going to take away their assistance or force abortion.

[rehmwa 2]

I bet you like hitting hornet nests with a stick too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ReBirth 0]

Ahhh...I see...punish the unborn child by removing any ability for the mother to feed, clothe or shelter herself.

Brilliant plan!!

How about we get old people to stop leeching off social security first?

[JoeyRamone 0]

In the 60ies, in NYC, the first kid on welfare was a warning the second they tied your tubes, why not go back to that?

[rasmack 0]

Me not understandink the difference between options 2 and 3...

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[mailin 0]

oh ya - pregnancy while on birth control NEVER happens



Jen

Arianna Frances

[EricTheRed 0]

I don't agree entirely but I feel strongly that birth control should be 100% subsidized (all types) for folks on any type of govm't assistance.

If provided access and information, by for most will take advantage of it and unplanned births will decrease.

Right now there are many laws that restrict access to and payment for birth control for poor people. This is just wrong on many levels.

BTW: I also like to poke sticks at hornet nests

illegible usually

[Nightingale 0]

No, under the current court rulings, they can't do that, because pregnancy and family planning fall under the right to privacy. Limiting government services because someone is exercising a constitutional right would probably be shot down really fast by a court.

However, I don't think welfare should exist in the first place. Private charities manage to assist people much more efficiently. It'd be nice to see a cut in taxes, and some good tax breaks for charitable contributions to encourage giving.

[SkydiveStMarys 0]

Weeeeell kinda.

I have mixed feelings about the whole situation. I understand BOTH sides of the coin. I love this section of the forum and I just thought that this would be a great place to hang a hornets nest!

A part of me thinks that it is not anyones right to dictate what one can and can't do, BUT on the other hand if you can't afford to put a meal on the table, how can you afford to pay Dr's visits and the hospital bill when it comes time to deliver. Adding a child to an already stressful situation would make it even harder to get out from under. BUT, like I said I see both sides of the coin.

Bobbi

A miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude.

[SkydiveStMarys 0]

I also would hope/think that if you/me/he/she/it were on any kind of assistance, having a child would be the absolute LAST thing on your mind. I do understand accidents happen, though.

Bobbi

A miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude.

[ladyskydiver 0]

I'm 50/50 split on this.

On the one hand, no...I don't think we have a right to dictate to someone whether or not they can have more children (although there are a few....).

On the other hand, yes...if they are on welfare and just popping out kids to stay on welfare, heck yeah...they should be stuck on B.C.

However...B.C. brings into an issue in and of itself. I know of a few people that have gotten pregnant taking the pill...so the next time they tried the shot and still got pregnant. So then what?

I guess I'd be more apt to say - you want welfare? Then here's a job - even if it ends up being supplemented by some kind of assistance. But they have to work and maybe receive on-the-job training so that they can work themselves off welfare.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[ReBirth 0]

You post a lot of threads wanting to punish people that you perceive of as taking advantage of welfare. Seems to be a pet topic of yours. They are an EXTREME MINORITY of the people that receive welfare.

And, even if you assumed every person on welfare didn't deserve it, that's LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR TAXES going to them. If you want to be pissed about people ripping off your tax money, there are much more worthy causes.

[billvon 3,070]

First part, about making birth control readily available, yes.

Second part, about losing benefits when they become pregnant, no.

[Wopelao 0]

As far as I know, welfare laws in spirit is only "transitional", please anyone with experience in this field add to this, I understand that there are circumstances that mitigate or factors in such as IE: Death of a parent, living a widow in economical distress, but on the other hand we have plenty of irresponsible people who just are baby factories.

I will refer to the latter ones, and it is usually lack of education combined with a sistemic abuse of the system that worries some in here.

Are you saying that if you are having 2 or more kids and are not able to feed a single one of them, is ok for the rest of society, (and most importantly the life condition to the kid's right to have a good home) to pay for the excesses of few?

Perhaps a license to be parent should be issued, just like a drivers license, after attending courses.

[wmw999 2,534]

I totally agree with making birth control (more than one kind) and education free for anyone on welfare. And yes, the probably of abuse is way too great to make it mandatory.

You might save some more money by making it mandatory, but then you'd have to spend even more than that monitoring the compliance, defending from invasion-of-privacy lawsuits, and in checking on eligibility in the first place.

And if people take the birth control and give it away -- HELLOOOOOO -- who are they likely to give it to? Maybe other possible welfare recipients????

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tigra 0]

There should be a lot of things that go along with welfare. Birth control subsidized and readily available (but not mandatory) is one, basic health care, vocational training, child care while one seeks employment or works, assistance with transportation to get to and from work and some kind of requirement to give back to the system once you are on your feet ALL come to mind. The largest flaw in the current system is that it isn't designed to help people get back on their feet and become productive members of society. In fact, it often encourages people NOT to work because if you make a certain amount of money (even if its not enough to provide for your family or cover transportation and daycare) it may be too much to qualify for public assistance.

[SkydiveStMarys 0]

You know..........not sure what your deal is.
I have STATED and RE- STATED about this topic that have I mixed feelings for BOTH sides of the coin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have many opinions about varied topics. Why not PM me and ask me about some of them!

Step back, you have not clue what I am about!

Bobbi

A miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude.

[Zenister 0]

up to 2 kids? no problem.. but if you already have 2 kids or become pregnant with your second, the welfare should cease unless you have yourself sterilized..

i've got no issues with anyone's desire to have children, or the need for social support at time.. HOWEVER... i dont believe society should continue to pay for those who create excessive burdens they cannot support themselves

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Treejumps 0]

We had this dicussion a while back, and I say yes. If you are on the dole (man or woman) you should be Nor-Planted, or otherwise prevented from creating babies that you cannot take care of. I know that many will dissagree, but if you are on welfare you can't take care of yourself, and that means you can't take care of your offspring.

The idea that everyone should have the right to live how they want to (including having children) extends to the point where the indivdual can manage and pay his or her own way.

Look at the situation we have in the US, primarily in the inner cities. 80 percent illegitimacy rates that will never go down. Thats 8 of of 10 children born out of wed-lock, and in most cases without a father in the picture. This is what subsidizing the creation of life gets you.

Until we get this problem under control this country will never rebound. The crushing expense of welfare and the jailing of the criminals that are continually milled out in this fashion are a burden that we cannot afford to keep making more of.

[EricTheRed 0]

The real issue here is that these people are not given access to pregnancy prevention in the first place. Schools are prevented from teaching about birth control. States prohibit paying for birth control. Condom use is stigmatized.

It's all a result of the christian fear of sex IMO.

But that brings up a question. Why are christians so afraid of sex?

It's been proven time and time again, sex ed and access to BC works to eliminate poverty. So many of the religious right are apparently uneasy with facts though...

illegible usually

[billvon 3,070]

>Why are christians so afraid of sex?

Because it's a sin. Christians (catholics especially) are big about defining a lot of things as sins and then making people feel guilty about them; the church then fills the manufactured need to repent.

I once saw a survey of several religions in the US to see how their spending patterns, family sizes, income levels, activities etc varied from religion to religion. All those parameters were remarkably consistent across religions, with the exception of sex - catholics had it a lot less.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The real issue here is that these people are not given access to pregnancy prevention in the first place. Schools are prevented from teaching about birth control. States prohibit paying for birth control. Condom use is stigmatized.

It's all a result of the christian fear of sex IMO.

But that brings up a question. Why are christians so afraid of sex?

It's been proven time and time again, sex ed and access to BC works to eliminate poverty. So many of the religious right are apparently uneasy with facts though...

There are a heck of a lot of them around suggesting that they don't actually fear sex.

The real issue for them is pretty obvious when you set aside anti-christian bigotry. Many parents, not just christians, want to control their kids exposure to sexual materials both in terms of content and the age at which they are exposed, and many object to some of the moral guidance passed off as sex education.

IMHO the political polarization in this country, exemplified by your biased post engenders a distrust, the unholy alliance of the left with unbridled liberalism and right with christian zealotry causes this distrust.

Why the hell should you care if a christian kid in the south is taught about condoms at a young age, oh wait, you just made it a political issue and claim it's about fighting poverty. You paint with a broad brush and wonder why parents don't want you in their classrooms teaching their kids about sex.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Why the hell should you care if a christian kid in the south is taught about condoms at a young age, oh wait, you just made it a political issue and claim it's about fighting poverty. You paint with a broad brush and wonder why parents don't want you in their classrooms teaching their kids about sex

I'll tell you why the hell I should care. I care because unwanted babies born to poor parents are statistically not good for society. I care because unwanted and unplanned children don't generally get a fair start. They are more likely to be poor, more likely to be abused, more likely to abuse drugs and more likely to become criminals.

Life would be grand indeed if everyone lived up to your christian ideals. The fact is they don't.

Are you afraid of facts? You seem to be.

Telling your children that if they have sex, they could create children, get diseases and in general ruin their lives is IMO a good thing. Just like telling them that if they walk into traffic they could be hit by a car.
I also think it's a good idea to tell them that IF they do decide to have sex, that there are ways to limit their risk is a good and sensible way to save lives and prevent abortions.

I also think that it's good to tell kids to cross the street at marked intersections and to wait for the light.

No matter what you tell kids, some of them will want to have sex. Deal with it.

illegible usually

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

up to 2 kids? no problem.. but if you already have 2 kids or become pregnant with your second, the welfare should cease unless you have yourself sterilized..

So, the children should starve because the mother is a fuck up? I don't get the upside to this kind of thinking.