Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Welfare & Mandatory Birth Control

  1. #1

    Default Welfare & Mandatory Birth Control

    On another site (non-AB/DL) the topic was brought up in the Debate and Politics forum.
    Should birth control be a prerequisite for welfare?

    I am curious to what the members of the community here feel about it?

    Me personally, I am unsure. My sister in High School dated a boy who's mom had several kids so she could have her Welfare checks increased, and to stay on welfare. I've heard in the news of families doing the same thing. However no birth control is perfect, and what about those couples who want a child, and not for the money.

    From how I understand it, welfare was created to give people that extra help they need, to turn their life around. And yet, like any government program the abusers benefit more from it than those who actually need it.

    I will say that Mandatory Monthly Drug tests for any person or family on Welfare should be given, and if failed, children removed until the said persons are clean for a given time frame. That, and only access to broadcast TV. None of this Satellite or cable #@!%$#@% that is coming from their welfare checks.

  2. #2

    Default

    I've thought about it once or twice, but in practise, I don't see how it could be effectively enforced. There's no way that any form of long-lasting contraception would get past either the US Constitution or the UN Convention on Human Rights. And once a child is born, you can't cut off benefits, unless you take the child into care. However, if you're willing and legally able to take a child into care so readily, contraception isn't really necessary as a deterrent.

  3. #3

    Default

    Welfare does not cover the costs of raising a child. Anyone living on Welfare having kids to get more money in their check is punishing themselves.

    As for what that means for "child limits" or anything like that...

    Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps you should only receive coverage for the children you currently have or were pregnant with at the time you went on welfare...but that would also unfairly punish kids in families born despite that. I'm not too sure there is a good answer...but then again, I'm not sure people are having kids in drastic numbers that make this a real issue.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    Welfare does not cover the costs of raising a child. Anyone living on Welfare having kids to get more money in their check is punishing themselves.
    Oh reeeeallly now?


    Octomom Nadya Suleman Going On Welfare, Facing Foreclosure, Offered $500K PORN DEAL

    Giving up reality TV in favor of state walfare. I think what she's doing/has done shoul;ld be counted as a crime against the state. Plus her overall actions a crime against humanity in general.

  5. #5

    Default

    I think giving any government the power to decide who breeds is a poor idea.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by timby View Post
    I think giving any government the power to decide who breeds is a poor idea.
    Agreed. I have a list of social ideas I wouldn't mind seeing enforced, but I shudder at giving the state the power to enforce them.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Karibw View Post
    On another site (non-AB/DL) the topic was brought up in the Debate and Politics forum.
    Should birth control be a prerequisite for welfare?

    I am curious to what the members of the community here feel about it?

    Me personally, I am unsure. My sister in High School dated a boy who's mom had several kids so she could have her Welfare checks increased, and to stay on welfare. I've heard in the news of families doing the same thing. However no birth control is perfect, and what about those couples who want a child, and not for the money.

    From how I understand it, welfare was created to give people that extra help they need, to turn their life around. And yet, like any government program the abusers benefit more from it than those who actually need it.

    I will say that Mandatory Monthly Drug tests for any person or family on Welfare should be given, and if failed, children removed until the said persons are clean for a given time frame. That, and only access to broadcast TV. None of this Satellite or cable #@!%$#@% that is coming from their welfare checks.
    There are problems on both sides of the fence here.

    Effectively, what we're choosing between are the following:
    • People's right to have children as they will as a condition of public support;
    • Society supporting irresponsible people who are rewarded for being so, and with each child comes additional support.


    I now have a fairly close view of this very topic. While I actually like the mother involved--which makes it really difficult--I dislike the fact that there are: (a) no drug checks; (b) no house-checks; (c) no enforcement of HOW the money is really spent; (d) no real strings attached to the use of the money. By these things, I mean that, from what I can see, she favors herself over her children and has been rewarded by the State with each subsequent child.

    She has made decisions that were bad for the children, and these decisions still shape their lives to this day. She hates herself for it, but there is no way out of it at this point.

    Would I see her in every public aid recipient? Unfortunately, yes.

    I think we should have a vast public safety net. Vast, but not deep. I think that anyone should be able to dip into it from time to time--unemployment? Sure. Under-employment? Perhaps. Divorce? Maybe.--but that there should be very strict rules surrounding the use of the money received, and the duration for which it may be drawn.

    Should we have a system that actively encourages people to have more kids and reward them for it? No. Should we have one that sees the recipient once a month, hands them their money, and turns them loose? No. We should instead, as some people may well require long-term support, have a self-supporting system wherein these folks are working as drones.

  8. #8

    Default

    I support mandatory birth control for women on welfare. There are now long-term birth control implants that can be put in by a doctor. The procedure is safe and painless and the device ensures you don't get pregnant (I have one).

    Octomom is an extreme example, but there are plenty of people in certain demographics who have 2, 3, 4 kids while on welfare, and don't use the money to support those children at all.

    It works like this.

    "Baby Daddy" has a job and sells drugs or steals things on the side to bring in cash to squander on things like clothes and shoes, big wheels on the car, a really loud stereo, etc. "Baby Momma" is on welfare and gets the government check every month. The two remain unmarried so she looks like a "single mother" struggling to raise a family, which means even more government money. She also gets subsidized housing for free or very little rent from the government (where Baby Daddy and a couple of his friends stay too). So yeah, they have plenty of money to go around doing whatever they want.

    It's a heck of a scheme and it runs rampant in a lot of cities. If you take away the woman's ability to be a baby factory, you effectively nip the trend in the bud. It won't solve the problem completely b/c they'll find ways to get pregnant while off welfare and then get back on it, but it would at least make things require some effort.

  9. #9

    Default

    bit off-topic, but one I've never understood, if you go to college you (supposedly) cannot get any unemployment. Why is that? It would seem like it would make sense, at the very least people would learn new skills and have a better chance to get off unemployment (I guess the argument is if they can afford college, they don't need unemployment).

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Coyote_Howl View Post
    bit off-topic, but one I've never understood, if you go to college you (supposedly) cannot get any unemployment. Why is that? It would seem like it would make sense, at the very least people would learn new skills and have a better chance to get off unemployment (I guess the argument is if they can afford college, they don't need unemployment).
    Worse yet, try being a grad student.

    Me to Financial Aid folks: "Hey, I'm flat broke and surely qualify for a government grant."
    Financial Aid folks: "Get bent."
    Me: "Er ... they don't care if I finish or not?"
    Financial Aid: "Not really. Good luck or something."

    I mirror your frustration. I can only imagine getting employment where you are without being in the IT sector. It's all food-service and hotels up there... at least it was when I was there. Luckily, I had a job through a center on campus that needed IT folks, and then I got a job at a lab that needed an IT administrator.

Similar Threads

  1. Mandatory-introduction.
    By Adel in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-Dec-2009, 14:36
  2. I need people who know about: sex, and Birth Control
    By Ryan_d in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-Aug-2009, 03:01

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.