If a couple -- or single mother -- with a lot of children (say at least four) were on welfare, would you be in favor of mandatory birth control as a condition?

Eh. Maaaaaaayyyyyybbbbbbeeeeeeeee......

Yes I would. If she had anymore kids after the fact then she has to support them not welfare.

Got really mixed feelings about it but people can't just keep popping them out & expecting people who are barely paying their own bills to support them either. Nothing permanent, but like NY said, "Eh. Maaaaaaayyyyyybbbbbbeeeeeeeee......" There's gotta be some kind of parameters. At least a cutoff point as far as how many can qualify or something. If people know they won't get an extra dime, some of them might be a little more careful.

CeCe wrote:

Got really mixed feelings about it but people can't just keep popping them out & expecting people who are barely paying their own bills to support them either. Nothing permanent, but like NY said, "Eh. Maaaaaaayyyyyybbbbbbeeeeeeeee......" There's gotta be some kind of parameters. At least a cutoff point as far as how many can qualify or something. If people know they won't get an extra dime, some of them might be a little more careful.

Thanx. I opened this earlier and left it because I have ambiguous feelings on it.

One part is my personal freedom and libertarian side but the practical side says society needs some control over what directly affects it. If the state is required to care for the kids, the state then should have a say in it.

Many ppl fault China for doing just this with everyone, but China was in population crisis mode and NEEDED to do something. Check out the history of world famine. You will notice that China, Africa and India lead with MILLIONS of ppl starving to death. Unchecked population is at the top of the planetary problems. Which is better preventing more ppl or getting rid of them with mass starvation.

It's a fine line. In a free and open society (i.e. not China), the government has no business telling it's citizens how many children they can have. IF they can provide for them on their own without public assistance. That doesn't mean people who fall on hard times should automatically have their children confiscated by the state but people shouldn't be allowed to make a living off the government tit by churning out offspring.

Theoretically, I can see the logic in it…but it's too slippery a slope to allow government to dictate people's reproductive rights.

No because it's one more interferrence by the government in dictating laws against women.

However, I do believe in limiting welfare benefits like no government handouts after two kids and requiring the mother to get enough training to be able to get a job that will enable her to support her kids.

Limit the rewards that come with popping out one kid after another with the intention of having other people's taxes support them.

Minerva wrote:

...However, I do believe in limiting welfare benefits like no government handouts after two kids ...Limit the rewards that come with popping out one kid after another with the intention of having other people's taxes support them.

The trouble with that approach, altho not encroaching on the woman's rights is that eventually it will impose hardship on the kids because of the parents' stupidity.

Of course that falls into the Darwin natural order of life, that only the most adapted survive. But we as social creatures feel obligated to support those less adapted (unless you are an industrialist, banker or repugnican)

I say cut their welfare funding off at any children they had prior to going on welfare. Have as many kids as you want, compete with the Duggars--but any kids you pop out after having gone on welfare are not getting paid for by the state. Maybe the welfare recipients will then figure out that gee, I'm not going to get paid to be a baby factory, so maybe I'd better think twice about reproducing further.

Additionally, I think welfare recipients should be required to show ongoing proof of searching for employment, and then instead of having birth control forced on them, they should have a job forced on them--there's plenty of them out there, people just don't want to do them. Go work at McDonalds until something better comes along--any money coming in is better than no money coming in, and the welfare money will be adjusted accordingly to their wages earned from whatever job they are required to do. Can't choose yourself where to work?? Let the state take care of that for you, and in return, the state will stay out of the birth control issue.

Honestly... taking the birth control does not guarantee anything... women still get pregnant on it. And an irresponsible woman who has more kids than she can afford is not going to be responsible enough to take the pill anyway. Then there is the issue that NOT every woman can take hormonal birth contol. I had such bad reactions to the pill/noraplant/depo shot.. I wound up getting an IUD. However, IUD's have risks such as tearing the uterus and increased number of infections. so there is a down side to everything, even when you put the social/civil rights aspects of it aside.

I do think that if a woman wants a tubal she should be able to get one. I went to high school with a girl who had a baby at 16, another at 18... and when she asked for a tubal at 21, they told her she had to be at least 25 with two kids. By 25 she was pregnant with her FOURTH... and all living on welfare. I understand that 21 might be young to get a tubal... but if you already have 2 kids, then you should be mature enough to be able to make the decision

What is a tubal?

tubal ligation - tying of the fallopian tubes--- sterilization

Except tying them isn't permanent, is it?

it usually is. there is the term "cut and burned" meaning that it is permanent. But i know a woman who had it reversed... and there have been cases where the tubes grew back! i would die!

I knew it could be reversed but I never heard of them growing back like tonsils.

H'mmm. How about snipping a guy who has a bunch of kids out of wedlock with a bunch of different women? Why is it the women who always have to be the subject of birth control?

Now I better duck and run for cover.

Minerva wrote:

H'mmm. How about snipping a guy who has a bunch of kids out of wedlock with a bunch of different women? Why is it the women who always have to be the subject of birth control?

Now I better duck and run for cover.

Hey I'm with you, if he's going to act like a dog let him get clipped like the one he is. They only look at the women because they're the ones that get stuck with the kids, people don't consider the fact that it took at least 2 people to make all the kids. One woman with 4 kids does not bother me, one man having 12 kids with 7 different women does.

yep... men should get snipped too... and the surgery is easier for men than women.

look at that guy who had like 30 kids or something and an $8 an hour job! crazy, irresponsible, and scary--- all these people running around without using condoms!

Vasectomy, vasectomy, snip snip snip!

Yes! Now we've all heard the joke about God gave man a head and a penis and only enough blood for one, but you seriously gotta wonder what BOTH people involved are thinking at that time.

I think people get in a state of denial.. and feel "close" to someone enough to think they know them.. and know they are disease free.... but that does not happen. I have seen this with military guys-- the military tests them regularly, so women feel comfortable with them. Well... i had a friend who then found out that her navy bf showed up HIV positive! was not cool. another friend wound up with trichonomisis... which the military does not test for. and the sucky thing is that some diseases have no symptoms at all in some people--- so a man could have trich for years and not know it until a woman gets a bad infection and tell him

Mandatory birth control for any reason is barbaric and not a door that should be opened.

Quote :

I say cut their welfare funding off at any children they had prior to going on welfare. Have as many kids as you want, compete with the Duggars--but any kids you pop out after having gone on welfare are not getting paid for by the state. Maybe the welfare recipients will then figure out that gee, I'm not going to get paid to be a baby factory, so maybe I'd better think twice about reproducing further.

I wish I knew how to feel about this, on the one hand I would agree with it.Perhaps the welfare could include birth control? I cringe however at the thought of children going hungry because there is no welfare for them.

Then there was my cousin Jackie, her mother was told when she was 12 that she had gone as far in school as she was capable of. When Jackie was in her 20's she actually found a man who married her. They separated and Jackie found a string of me who would bed her (some men will sleep with anything)she began having babies, eventually had 6 and was on welfare. I was told by someone who met the kids that all but one appeared to be retarded like Jackie and like the men who would bed her. I often wished that her mother had had her sterilized when Jackie was 12. It would have saved the state money and kept 5 more retarded people from making more retarded people.

Suzi wrote:

I wish I knew how to feel about this, on the one hand I would agree with it.Perhaps the welfare could include birth control? I cringe however at the thought of children going hungry because there is no welfare for them.

This was my concern as well.

Suzi wrote:

Then there was my cousin Jackie, her mother was told when she was 12 that she had gone as far in school as she was capable of. When Jackie was in her 20's she actually found a man who married her. They separated and Jackie found a string of me who would bed her (some men will sleep with anything)she began having babies, eventually had 6 and was on welfare. I was told by someone who met the kids that all but one appeared to be retarded like Jackie and like the men who would bed her. I often wished that her mother had had her sterilized when Jackie was 12. It would have saved the state money and kept 5 more retarded people from making more retarded people.

This is another quandary, similar to the original post. Back in the middle of the 20th Century, before any other effective birth control, sterilization of mentally retarded females was routinely done in institutions and privately by families. I do the medical charts where many of the older female clients had hysterectomies as teenagers or have some scar from the navel to the pubes with no medical record of the surgery. This was when MR ppl were treated as dependent children, before they were granted the rights that everyone else had. Personally, for the most part I see it as a sound preventive for the obvious reasons - MR ppl want to have sex and they will.

Now, we allow them to have sex and try to educate them as best we can to the dangers of disease and pregnancy, teaching condom use. Most residential facilities have ALL the fertile women on birth control and it is monitored by staff, quite often Nursing. Many get the Depo-Provera shots.