My husband's thoughts about people on Welfare

[IDrinkaRum]

My laid-back, people will do what they do husband looked at me and said the following:

People on welfare should:

1. have no more than 3 children.

2. if they have more than 3, say, 10, then 7 of the children should be taken away and put in foster care or to relatives who can take care of the children without being on welfare.

3. if you're on welfare, you need to either be on birth control or be snipped so you can't make any more babies ... ever.

I have no clue what brought this about. My husband laughs at me 'cos i'm more conservative than he is! This is a new side of my hubby.

[guywithashovel]

My laid-back, people will do what they do husband looked at me and said the following:

People on welfare should:
3. if you're on welfare, you need to either be on birth control or be snipped so you can't make any more babies ... ever.


This sounds ideal. However, I am not sure if there is a good way of enforcing it. I guess we could require that everyone on welfare be on birth control, but I'm not sure how anyone could make sure that they take it.

Believe me, I think that people who need government assistance to get by should take every effort possible to avoid having more children to further exacerbate their problems. But I am not sure if there is a good way of enforcing this. If anyone knows of a good way, then I'd love to hear it.

[anriana]

Because living in a group home for children is better than living with a poor parent? And because the government should have control over the bodies of poor people? That's an interesting form of conservatism.

[Greenday]

Neither way is right. It's a really really shitty situation.

On the one hand, we have the government who can't even run itself correctly half the time, but might actually be able to afford to give the kids a good chance to succeed.

On the other hand, we have the poor, who I'm sure the majority of parents give their kids all the love possible, but raising their kids themselves means their kids start in a much worse economic situation.

Yea, awesome choices.

[AFPheonix]

Being poor does not make one a bad parent. There are a lot of other conditions to make one a bad parent however.

And enforcing permanent birth control on the poor? Yay eugenics, except that instead of skin color or ethnicity, we're punishing people for their class status. Yeah, let's not.

Definitely ENCOURAGE people who aren't able to afford more kids on their own to take advantage of family planning, but don't enforce draconian, frankly evil policies just because they may end up pregnant anyways.

[powerboy]

I always thought that Welfare, should be for people that cannot get out and work. Not for the people that don't want too.

[IDrinkaRum]

That's what I think about Welfare too. But there have been stories here and on CS that seem to show that people use it and unemployment benes to stave off having to work.

I just think there should be a cap on how long you get welfare. Those getting it should show that they're going to some kind of schooling to improve their stations in life, have someone kinda like a counselor to report to once a week to show they're doing something to help themselves out.

As for the enforced birth control? If you're struggling with 2 or whatever number of children on your income why the heck are you going to go for baby #3? or baby # whatever? Think about the children you already have. The people do need to be more responsible. Doesn't Planned Parenthood have programs that help the low-income people with birth control?

[anriana]

I just think there should be a cap on how long you get welfare. Those getting it should show that they're going to some kind of schooling to improve their stations in life, have someone kinda like a counselor to report to once a week to show they're doing something to help themselves out.

I thought there was?

As for the enforced birth control? If you're struggling with 2 or whatever number of children on your income why the heck are you going to go for baby #3? or baby # whatever? Think about the children you already have. The people do need to be more responsible. Doesn't Planned Parenthood have programs that help the low-income people with birth control?

No, they only exist to killz the babiez. Seriously, all of their services are offered on a sliding income scale. I'm confused by this paragraph though. Are you in favor of government enforced birth control or not?

[Boozy]

What a horrifying thought. What if my parents, who had four children, had fallen on hard times?

"Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Boozy, but your fourth born now belongs to the state. Your bodies also belong to the state; we will either force invasive surgery on one or both of you, or force you to take medication against your will."

[AdminAssistant]

Not to mention those whose religion forbids them from taking birth control. I don't want them to keep me from getting an abortion if I need it, and I won't force them to take birth control. However, there does need to be more personal responsibility. Honestly, it's the whole culture of America - children are rewarded. You get money from the state, tax benefits, and benefits at work.

[Greenday]

Not to mention those whose religion forbids them from taking birth control. I don't want them to keep me from getting an abortion if I need it, and I won't force them to take birth control. However, there does need to be more personal responsibility. Honestly, it's the whole culture of America - children are rewarded. You get money from the state, tax benefits, and benefits at work.

Which religions?

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm not for enforced birth control. However, I do believe that birth control should be made available and in more quantities and easier (especially the pills for women because men, and not all men believe this but I've met quite a few who do, don't think birth control is "important") to get a hold of.

As I said. I have no clue where my husband's comments came from. They were really from left field.

And yes, under the current Welfare system, there are rules about how long you can get the welfare, and certain things you have to do before you can either get off of it completely or keep it for x amount of time to keep you afloat a little longer. But I don't believe they are enforced.

Welfare is a recent phenomenon. Created by the 1930's Democrats to help those in the Recession/Great Depression of the 20th century. Before that, the only way people could get help was by the generosity of strangers/people in their town/their families. Then Government stepped in.

[IDrinkaRum]

Which religions?

As a Roman Catholic, if I were only taking Birth Control to curb having children, I could be excommunicated from the church. My father can be excomunicated from the church because of his vasectomy.

[Greenday]

As a Roman Catholic, if I were only taking Birth Control to curb having children, I could be excommunicated from the church. My father can be excomunicated from the church because of his vasectomy.

You know, the Roman Catholic Church is against a lot of things. Except I don't the Bible saying anything about not doing them.

[IDrinkaRum]

You know, the Roman Catholic Church is against a lot of things. Except I don't the Bible saying anything about not doing them.

For the abortion thing, I think that falls under the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment which is what a lot of our (meaning the modern day world, not just America) laws are based on.

[Greenday]

For the abortion thing, I think that falls under the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment which is what a lot of our (meaning the modern day world, not just America) laws are based on.

I'm willing to go with that argument, as it makes sense, but where does contraception fall under that? Cause contraception isn't murder.

[IDrinkaRum]

No, but then it prevents life. Thereby disobeying God's command to Adam & Eve after they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden to "go forth and multiply".

[kiwi]

I find your husbands comments very sad, although I know they must come from frustration rather than ignorance.

The problem is there are so many reasons people live on welfare, if you live in a plant town and the plan/ mine/ mill etc closes there could be thousands of people out of work... that doesnt mean they all have the money to move for work. Does that make them bad or lazy, not to me.

There are parents (like mine) who had children with very bad illnesses as children, my brother and I have had over 30 operations combined and were in and out of hospital every few months, and at the doctors office at least once a week. No one in the world is going to allow my mother that kind of time off and let her keep a job. Does that mean my mother was lazy or a drain on the system, no in my opinion.

What about a woman or man with an abusive spouse, it will take them a while to get on their feet and thats what welfare is there for.
There are many reasons that are genuine cases of needing help.

Yes there are thousands who do rip off the system, but that is a failing of the system, not a failing of the many people who genuinely NEED a helping hand. Obviously there is something that doesnt allow for proper checking of who really needs help and who doesnt. That needs to change, but decent people who are in a bad situation shouldnt be treated as sub-human because of a number of selfish jerks.

The government has no right to dictate what you do with your body and thats what I believe your husbands thoughts do.
I do agree with a law that was proposed in Aussie a few years ago, if you become pregnant while already on welfare, they wont increase the amount you recieve. But I do believe that in Aussie just like NZ you can get free contraception from a family planning clinic. I dont know how well that will work in real life however.

Its like how a few bad retail workers have given the many of us who try very hard to give good service a bad name. We are all viewed as lazy, no hopers who simply cant get a "better" job. Thats simply not true.

[anriana]

You know, the Roman Catholic Church is against a lot of things. Except I don't the Bible saying anything about not doing them.

Their doctrines don't have to be in the Bible because the Popes are God's mouthpieces on Earth and get to make up whatever rules they want.


Christian Scientists are also opposed to contraception.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I think about Welfare too. But there have been stories here and on CS that seem to show that people use it and unemployment benes to stave off having to work.

I just think there should be a cap on how long you get welfare. Those getting it should show that they're going to some kind of schooling to improve their stations in life, have someone kinda like a counselor to report to once a week to show they're doing something to help themselves out.

As for the enforced birth control? If you're struggling with 2 or whatever number of children on your income why the heck are you going to go for baby #3? or baby # whatever? Think about the children you already have. The people do need to be more responsible. Doesn't Planned Parenthood have programs that help the low-income people with birth control?

We're staring down double digit unemployment in several areas of the country, and the national average is heading that way too. Honestly, there are a lot of people who want to work and just flat out can't find a job.

As for the baby #3 thing, have you never heard of an oops baby? Even with women who take birth control? Guess what, I was one of those, and I was baby #6.
Not to mention that there is a percentage of low income women who come from an abuse history who attract more abusers, end up getting raped, and decide to keep the baby instead of aborting.

[Evandril]

The system I'd have no problem with would be to make taking birth control a requirement to GET welfare. You don't want to take it? No problem, that's your choice...but you're not getting the money you want. Have a child while on welfare? No extra money for it, with that being made VERY clear from the start. Unfortunatly, the way the system is at present, having more kids *makes* you money, and puts even more pressure on an already abused situation. If a person is currently on welfare, and honestly trying to get off of it, I do not see them deciding it would be a good time to have more kids...If they are, I would have questions about their intelligence ;)

[Sylvia727]

Any forced or coerced birth control is a violation of human rights. The right to choose what we do with our own bodies is at the core of freedom and independence. Most people on welfare or who are eligible for welfare are not lazy bums sitting around unemployed watching their 50" plasma tvs. They geniunely cannot work, cannot find work, or cannot make ends meet on the work they can do. Many of those on welfare have large medical bills, are disabled, or are recently widowed or divorced single parents. I can't understand why people would support splitting up families over a certain size based on the stereotype of the teenaged pregnant mother who's going nowhere in life. Now, saying that those on welfare should be more closely watched by Social Services, that I could get behind. There's no need to paint all welfare families with the same tar brush.

[anriana]

How would taking birth control be enforced? As far as I know, it couldn't even be enforced on half of the potential applicants as male contraception isn't market-ready. How would you prove women are on birth control? Mandated monthly hormone checks? Use Depo (long-term shot) as the form of birth control? Or an IUD? What exactly would be the logistics?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Would be far better to make it so that in order to qualify for benefits, people have to get off their bums and do something like get education, do voluntary work etc. There are actually people around who are perfectly happy to vegetate on benefits and not bother to even try and get work cuz they think, "Well, the government will give me money to look after my children".

For the record, I'm on tax credits so I'm hardly going to be knocking anyone who gets government assistance and really needs it. But any system is going to have its abusers and leaches who need to be weeded out.

In England, you can get free birth control anyway; I'm on the pill which I get for free, and you can get free condoms from Family Planning clinics. But some people choose not to use it, and say things like, "I wasn't taking birth control, and I ended up pregnant to my surprise" which makes you wonder if anyone actually taught these people about the birds and the bees. O_o

Read this for an example of the above remark: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1140912/Benefits-mother-living-unemployed-boyfriend-pregnant-17--triplets.html

[Evandril]

Any forced or coerced birth control is a violation of human rights. The right to choose what we do with our own bodies is at the core of freedom and independence. Most people on welfare or who are eligible for welfare are not lazy bums sitting around unemployed watching their 50" plasma tvs. They geniunely cannot work, cannot find work, or cannot make ends meet on the work they can do. Many of those on welfare have large medical bills, are disabled, or are recently widowed or divorced single parents. I can't understand why people would support splitting up families over a certain size based on the stereotype of the teenaged pregnant mother who's going nowhere in life. Now, saying that those on welfare should be more closely watched by Social Services, that I could get behind. There's no need to paint all welfare families with the same tar brush.

If you cannot work, cannot find work, or cannot make ends meet on the work you can do...*WHY* do you want to have kids? All the situations where the people are blameless are *not* ones I feel would benifit from having an additional mouth to feed. How it would be administered would be more interesting, and part of why I stipulated if you *do* have a child after that point, you're not getting any benifits for it...So the people who lie or cheat on it will reap the appropriate rewards.

[anriana]

Because of this thread I'm going to go on welfare and pop out a kid a year for as long as I can. XD

[Greenday]

Because of this thread I'm going to go on welfare and pop out a kid a year for as long as I can. XD

Do it. You won't.

[AFPheonix]

The system I'd have no problem with would be to make taking birth control a requirement to GET welfare. You don't want to take it? No problem, that's your choice...but you're not getting the money you want. Have a child while on welfare? No extra money for it, with that being made VERY clear from the start. Unfortunatly, the way the system is at present, having more kids *makes* you money, and puts even more pressure on an already abused situation. If a person is currently on welfare, and honestly trying to get off of it, I do not see them deciding it would be a good time to have more kids...If they are, I would have questions about their intelligence ;)

Sucks to be the girl who gets migraines from the hormones, eh? Too bad, you're poor, therefore you get to have your reproductive choices dictated to you.
And again, not everyone PLANS PREGNANCY. Sometimes, even despite the best intentions and care, they happen. I have 3 level headed women in my life, 2 of whom work alongside me in pharmacy who know how to take birth control correctly who are now unexpectedly pregnant.

Honestly, I cannot understand this kind of viewpoint, especially from people like us who work in retail, therefore don't really make that much money and realistically are a store-closing away from having to get some kind of help. Ideology is a terrible thing sometimes.

[Lady_Foxfire]

Ok, I have to throw my two cents in on this topic.

First, I am 100%, completely and totally against forcing birth control or sterilization on anyone, or taking children away from their parents just because they're poor. It's a violation of human rights, plain and simple.

Second, even if they know they can't afford another kid, people are still going to have sex. Some of them might not understand contraception well enough (thank you, abstinence-only education!), some of them might not have access to contraception, and some of them might just get unlucky. Every kind of birth control has a failure rate, and sooner or later the odds are going to catch up with you. What is the government supposed to do, force them to have an abortion? See my above point for the answer to that question. (on a related note, this is why I don't like the idea of refusing to increase welfare payments for people who get pregnant while on assistance. Yeah, it discourages the true "welfare queens", but it's not fair to well-meaning people who find themselves with another mouth to feed)

My only real suggestion for solving this conundrum is making sure that everybody who is on welfare has access to family planning services. It won't be 100% effective, but it will help reduce the number of accidental pregnancies.

[Sylvia727]

If you cannot work, cannot find work, or cannot make ends meet on the work you can do...*WHY* do you want to have kids?

Maybe you had the kids before you lost your job, your spouse left you, or your relative got sick. Maybe your religion prohibits birth control. Maybe, as Lady Foxfire pointed out, you were using birth control but the condom broke or the pills didn't work right. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe you're just a naive kid who still believes in your own invincibility, and you're about to get a really big wake up call. Maybe you can just barely make ends meet, and welfare would help you get yourself and your kids ahead in life.

Where are people coming from on this topic? I initially assumed that the supporters of this proposal had the hypothetical children's best interests at heart, but after reading more, it seems as if some people are more worried about the state shouldering the financial burden. To protect the children while still balancing human rights, we should ensure that families on welfare have access to family planning. With the number of free clinics that are out there, it shouldn't be too hard for welfare families to have free, reliable birth control. Ordinarily I would also say that Social Services should pay attention to welfare families, but Social Services over here in the Midwest USA is so screwed up that this isn't a good solution here. In places where Social Services has enough budget, manpower, training, and competance to do their jobs properly, perhaps welfare status could be (or is, for all I know) one of their red flags.

[Puckishone]

To say that the "poor" or the "unemployed" should have their gonads regulated implies that Someone Somewhere has crafted such an airtight definition of both of those things that it could only be in the best interests of everyone concerned to implement it. Where, exactly, would that line be drawn? Minimum-wage earners? Anyone making less than the median income in their metro area? People with fewer than 2 cars and 1 mortgage? Someone who got laid off the job 2 weeks after finding out his wife was pregnant? Does this mean when I get laid off next month (losing my medical benefits) I have to either find a way to pay for sterilization (the only foolproof form of birth control, after all) or stop having sex until I get a new job?

And let's just say we did have solid, non-discriminatory definitions and lines drawn. So instead of concerning ourselves with things like education, economic reform or public health to solve problems, we'll have the Ob/Gyn Police scanning through income records and demanding monthly Pap smears from every woman on the list. And what to do about those "illegal" pregnancies? On the bright side, we invalidate both the pro-choice AND the pro-life arguments in one fell swoop!! Choice be damned, for it's no longer your life!

Sarcasm aside, it's really worth considering the ramifications of "solutions" like this. They might sound or feel good to say - and I know I've discussed them positively myself before - but when we're talking about actual lives here, it behooves us all to remember that public policy effects ALL of the public, one way or another. Stereotypes are one thing, real human beings quite another.

[Evandril]

To say that the "poor" or the "unemployed" should have their gonads regulated implies that Someone Somewhere has crafted such an airtight definition of both of those things that it could only be in the best interests of everyone concerned to implement it. Where, exactly, would that line be drawn? Minimum-wage earners? Anyone making less than the median income in their metro area? People with fewer than 2 cars and 1 mortgage? Someone who got laid off the job 2 weeks after finding out his wife was pregnant? Does this mean when I get laid off next month (losing my medical benefits) I have to either find a way to pay for sterilization (the only foolproof form of birth control, after all) or stop having sex until I get a new job?

The 'line' is easy...Do they want money from the government? Heck, by that standard, make the banks we have to bail out do the same thing, they obviously can't take care of themselves ;) If it is part of a manditory program for recieving aid, the BC would be provided by the government. Personally, I'd say to use the longer term methods, and inject/insert them at the time they get their money...with a full medical checkup being done *beforehand* to minimize any complications, and alternate methods being used for those with real problems.

[Puckishone]

The 'line' is easy...Do they want money from the government?
So if an earthquake knocks my city down, and I lose my job and house, I'd best not be getting pregnant until I relocate or rebuild for fear of losing my FEMA money? What about if I'm on SSI? Food stamps/WIC to feed my existing children? Do tax refunds count? Again, where is the line drawn...and who draws it?

As I said, it sounds soothing and righteous to talk about dealing with those terrible welfare-sucking trashy poor people, but the reality is that many of us are a paycheck away from being there ourselves. And if/when that happens I'll wager all this enthusiasm for regulating sexual activity in exchange for "government money" goes right out the window.

On a more practical legal note, there have been several federal and SCOTUS cases, over several decades (I think the earliest one was from the 1940s), dealing with forced sterilization of criminals - all of which were adjudicated in favor of NOT allowing that to happen. If the highest courts in the land can't find Constitutional leeway to sterilize criminals, I think there's no choice but to accept that something like this severely compromises the fabric of that document.

[blas87]

Ya know, all I ever really wanted to be done about welfare checks was to have it become kind of like a foodstamp card. A debit card, if you will.

It cannot be used for cigarettes, alcohol, or lotto tickets. It cannot be used for getting your nails done or hair extensions.

It cannot be used for car modifications (such as lowering or raising vehicle so it's a monster truck or Fast and Furious car, body kits, putting in a manual transmission in place of an automatic, putting in a fartcan exhaust or making their engine a dual cam) or stereo systems or enormous HiDef LCD TVs. It cannot be used for expensive jewelery.

It could be used for clothing, shampoo, conditioner, soap, razors, shaving cream, towels, shoes, etc etc etc. All the kinds of toiletries and necessities that the costs add up quickly but you really do need. You'd have your foodstamp card for your groceries and your welfare card for everything that isn't food.

Edited because I'm stupid.

[Sylvia727]

In this neck of the woods we have EBT Food and EBT Cash, on the same Electronic Benefits Transfer card. People in Walmart, for example, will swipe the card once and hit "Food", and it deducts the total of all food items. Then they swipe the card again and hit "Cash", and it pays the rest. I don't know if there are exceptions to Cash, but I assume that alcohol and cigarettes are excluded from it as there are from Food. I also know that it's easier to get Food than Cash, and that usually Food money outweighs Cash money by 3 to 1. I've never seen a welfare check. I have no idea how that works, or if welfare is EBT Cash. Could be.

Although lottery tickets are a better investment than the current system....

[AFPheonix]

Something our system in the pharmacy does is keep track of Flexible Spending Account items. When someone uses their FSA card, the system automatically only bills prescriptions, otc drugs, and other FSA items to that card and leaves the rest to be paid by another form of tender.
Our registers are old as hell, and if that can be accomplished, I'm sure a FSA type card for welfare recipients can be made and instituted as well. It would cost some money and would be harder to make work for little stores that still just take card imprints, but that would be a better solution for long-term waste management than trying to do what this thread has been proposing so far.

[Seshat]

Quick side note here:

If the state takes the children away, then the state has to pay the housing and care costs of the child AND employ the guardians for the child. (Or kill the kids - and I'm not going to assume that this is anyone's motive.)

So taking the kids away is actually costing the state extra money. So the motive for this can't be to save money! At least not in the short term.


As for the medium term: the kids that get taken away will be traumatised by their forced removal. So in the medium term, there's health care costs - or if health care isn't provided, there's the costs of people who have been traumatised and not treated for it.


So the only way this can possibly SAVE the government money is by inducing a cultural change. And quite frankly, there are better ways to do that.


It is well documented (from the developing world) that when a society educates women and provides families with access to safe, reliable, affordable birth control, the birth rate goes down.
Add improved medical and health conditions, such that infant and child mortality rates drop, and the birth rate goes down even further.

Add a social change that allows women to control their own fertility, and mix in either a society or a social change that decouples men's status from the number of kids their wife has, and the birth rate drops even further.

With all those social changes, the birth rate approaches the point where all children can be raised with good health care, good nutrition, and good education.


So it looks like the best way to reduce the number of welfare kids, might be:
* to ensure that the social attitudes of the social underclass mesh with 'women can control their own fertility',
* to try to remove the 'Me Tarzan, me have eight kids, me wang works, me big guy' attitude,
* to provide good health care to the welfare recipients of society,
* to educate the women (and men!) of the social underclass,
* to ensure that safe, affordable, effective birth control is readily available with no shame attached to using it.


I added that last rider ('no shame attached to using it') because there are places in the world where the affordable birth control is in clinics like family planning and planned parenthood - yet those clinics are, for whatever reason, treated as shameful places to go.
In the cases where those places have abortion protestors outside the clinic, you may as well consider them unavailable to anyone who's not REALLY brave and self-reliant.

[Evandril]

So if an earthquake knocks my city down, and I lose my job and house, I'd best not be getting pregnant until I relocate or rebuild for fear of losing my FEMA money? What about if I'm on SSI? Food stamps/WIC to feed my existing children? Do tax refunds count? Again, where is the line drawn...and who draws it?

As I said, it sounds soothing and righteous to talk about dealing with those terrible welfare-sucking trashy poor people, but the reality is that many of us are a paycheck away from being there ourselves. And if/when that happens I'll wager all this enthusiasm for regulating sexual activity in exchange for "government money" goes right out the window.

I do not believe I have ever talked about 'terrible welfare-sucking trashy poor people', and have been forced to choose what bills I'd pay a few times in my life...and in *NONE* of those times did I even think to myself 'Hey, I can't support myself, lets have a kid!'.

Lets go through your examples one by one...Earthquake knocks down my city...GREAT time to tax an already overburdened medical community with a pregnancy, to say nothing for the increased health risks the mother and baby would have due to the earthquake

You're unemployed and homeless...and you feel this would be an acceptable situation to raise a child in? Personally, I'd prefer my kids to have a roof over their heads, myself.

Any time you cannot support yourself, I do not feel you should be trying to bring a child into the equation, no. As far as tax refunds and the like, the discussion was about welfare, as in, money you are telling the government you *NEED* to survive. If you can show me an example of how it is a good or even a responsible idea to add another mouth to feed to a situation already incabable of supporting itself, please do...I cannot think of one. Heck, I'd not take in a stray animal if I couldn't feed my family first...and I'd care a heck of a lot less for an animal than a baby.

[Boozy]

An accidental pregnancy shouldn't really be compared to taking in a stray animal. Choosing to abort or give a child up for adoption can be a gut-wrenching decision. This isn't as easy as choosing not to put out a bowl of milk for some stray cat.

[Evandril]

An accidental pregnancy shouldn't really be compared to taking in a stray animal. Choosing to abort or give a child up for adoption can be a gut-wrenching decision. This isn't as easy as choosing not to put out a bowl of milk for some stray cat.

I wasn't talking accidental pregnancies, I was talking about people *wanting* to have a child in those situations. Issues with not wanting to take birth control would be a different situation, but saying that people should have the right to have kids if they want, when they cannot support themselves, strikes me as irresponsible, to say the least.

[Greenday]

I wasn't talking accidental pregnancies, I was talking about people *wanting* to have a child in those situations. Issues with not wanting to take birth control would be a different situation, but saying that people should have the right to have kids if they want, when they cannot support themselves, strikes me as irresponsible, to say the least.

Irresponsible doesn't cover it. Not even close.

[IDrinkaRum]

That's what I believe too. If you've got 2 kids, with a husband and yourself, and then you decide to have another kid, no sympathy from me if you can't provide for your family. You knew you couldn't afford 2 kids, why have a third? For more welfare payments? Yeah, right.

[Seshat]

My parents would have loved a third kid, and tried fostering kids for a while (since fostering is financially supported where we are).

But they couldn't afford one financially, other than by fostering, so they didn't. I think that was the right decision. (They loved fostering, though!)

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - that is responsible. And here in the state of Virginia, fostering gives you money to help out. (Actually, in the local paper, under "Help Wanted" section, Foster Parents wanted was listed).

[Lady_Foxfire]

I wasn't talking accidental pregnancies, I was talking about people *wanting* to have a child in those situations. Issues with not wanting to take birth control would be a different situation, but saying that people should have the right to have kids if they want, when they cannot support themselves, strikes me as irresponsible, to say the least.

Nobody is arguing that it's a good idea to deliberately have a kid when you're on government assistance. It goes without saying. So I don't understand why you're bringing it up.. The question in this thread is how to deal with well-meaning people who find themselves unexpectadly pregnant.

It's not fair to call them irresponsible or stupid, because once you're pregnant you don't have a lot of options. Some people might get abortions or give the kids up for adoption, but you can't force people to do that just because it'll save the government a few bucks. A

As I said in my previous post, you can't force reproductive choices on people, because it's a human rights violation. You can only make all the options available, and let them choose for themselves.

[Evandril]

Nobody is arguing that it's a good idea to deliberately have a kid when you're on government assistance. It goes without saying. So I don't understand why you're bringing it up.. The question in this thread is how to deal with well-meaning people who find themselves unexpectadly pregnant.

It's not fair to call them irresponsible or stupid, because once you're pregnant you don't have a lot of options. Some people might get abortions or give the kids up for adoption, but you can't force people to do that just because it'll save the government a few bucks. A

As I said in my previous post, you can't force reproductive choices on people, because it's a human rights violation. You can only make all the options available, and let them choose for themselves.

My posts have always been talking about options *before* pregnancy, and the fact that responsible people who are having a hard time at the moment would welcome free reproductive control...and the ones who felt the need to NOT be 'limited' to not having children did not deserve the money. If someone has taken one of the 'protective' measures and still ended up pregnant, then, yes, they still would qualify for additional support. If they had not, they would still get the same amount they *had* been getting, with no additional money. I'd not said anything about abortions, adoption, ect. In my opinion, it is not forcing them to take one of the options any more than I'm forcing them to fill out the paperwork...If they don't find it acceptable, that's fine, they don't get the money.

[Boozy]

In my opinion, it is not forcing them to take one of the options any more than I'm forcing them to fill out the paperwork...If they don't find it acceptable, that's fine, they don't get the money.

It's extortion. People don't go on assistance because they want to, they do it because they have no other options. They and their familes will become homeless and starve to death without it.

[Evandril]

Again, so? The ones that deserve it would not *want* to get pregnant when they still need help to survive, and the others I don't have a lot of sympathy for. There will be exceptions to that, but there are people who refuse medical care as well, because it's not something they believe in.

[blas87]

My mom was taking the Pill so that she couldn't get pregnant because she and my father were both a newly married dirt poor couple, going to college and working all the time to try to pay for school and to make ends meet....and I happened anyway. The Pill (especially the Pill!) is known to fail, and I happened anyway.

You always gotta be prepared for the worst. As much as I claim a lot of people are leeches and just pop out babies for money, there are people out there who I am sure every day hope and pray that they do NOT get pregnant and nothing else monetarily detrimental comes their way.

I am pretty dirt poor as it is, living alone, supporting myself....I'm on the Depo shot because by some miracle, it's 100% covered by my insurance. I feel pretty confident about it, but I still make sure my boyfriend wears condoms. I do NOT want to have a baby. I cannot afford it. If I did get pregnant, I'd put it up for adoption, but I can't even afford checkups and sonograms and everything else that goes with it! You go to the doctor A LOT when pregnant. All of those sessions are EXPENSIVE...I have to pay 20-50% of those...I would rather not have to deal with that.

[Evandril]

Again, that's why I was talking birth control options... If a pregnancy happens in *spite* of percautions, then additional money would be given. There *are* quite a few people who have children simply because it earns them more money...I'm proposing a way to limit their reasons for doing so, with some 'wiggle room' for accidents and the like. Both of my sons were medically 'impossible', from what I'd been told...and they are teenagers now (Which makes them impossible for different reasons ;) )

[bigred]

I think there are two different things we are talking about. People receiving single parent assistance, and people receiving assistance because they can't get a job for various reasons.

With people receiving assistance because they are single parents there are so many variations. I know of a woman, the mother of a person who went to school with me, who was on parenting. She had 7 kids. Her husband was in a mental institution overseas. At least two of her kids (the ones my direct age) who got post-graduate degrees and high paying jobs. She herself got a PhD when the kids grew up.

Other people I know of saw their lives as housewives and, post the divorce, are almost offended by the idea of getting a job.

Then there are the people my sister, who works in child protection, tells me about. A lot of these people couldn't get a job in almost any circumstances. No skills at all.

People who choose to be on the dole are just plain stupid. I was on the dole for a short while coming out of uni. The dole paid more than $20 a week more than student assistance, from $71 a week to $96 a week, which was a huge amount at that time. I thought I was in heaven. But, you can't really do a lot on the dole and you grow out of it. Again, people who remain on the dole don't have many skills I would want as a boss.

Then there is disability. For some people working with a disability would be impossible, while others with the same do work. I can't comment. I don't have that disability.

[Peppergirl]

People don't go on assistance because they want to, .

Unfortunately, there are many that do.


But in the majority of these cases, I blame the program itself for making it easier to be on assistance rather than out looking for a job.

There are scammers and EW's everywhere. Unfortunately, many welfare programs are flawed and and allow them to flourish.

[Slytovhand]

Anyone seen the movie (or series) Logan's Run?

The world was so over-populated, and therefore under-survivable for all concerned, that come 30 years of age, you enter a 'cage' type thing, and out of a large number of you, only a couple come out to live another year.

While this may come across as incredibly irrelevant to the topic at hand, the way things are going, the various governments are, at some stage, going to have to implement various laws and the like that will impose themselves on our 'human rights'. China has recognised this, and implemented various laws regarding the number of children you are allowed - for the future benefit of the country (remember, it's taken only a couple of centuries for our human population to go from less than 1 billion, to over 6 billion... and it won't take long to get to 10 billion... etc etc).

If we recognise this possibility, then where do we stand on this discussion? Do we only bother with such draconian laws when it's basically too late? Or, do we bite a bullet and do something, anything, now? Even if it seems inhumane (for what that's supposed to mean!)

[AdminAssistant]

Well, we can stop giving tax benefits to people based on the number of dependents. I can't tell you how frustrated I am that I won't qualify for EIC - because the income level for a single person with no dependents is so ridiculously low. Yet, if I got married or popped out a baby or two, I'd be getting all kinds of help. Our current system (and culture) rewards and encourages children.

[AFPheonix]

That would be because the current system recognizes that as countries move into a certain level of prosperity, reproduction rates drop to less than tenable levels. If the US didn't have such a huge influx of immigrants, we would have negative population growth like Japan is now.

So no, we don't need to enact any laws that infringe on people's reproductive rights. We just need to make sure that everyone gets an equal shot at prosperity and people will start having fewer kids automatically.

[anriana]

That would be because the current system recognizes that as countries move into a certain level of prosperity, reproduction rates drop to less than tenable levels. If the US didn't have such a huge influx of immigrants, we would have negative population growth like Japan is now.

So no, we don't need to enact any laws that infringe on people's reproductive rights. We just need to make sure that everyone gets an equal shot at prosperity and people will start having fewer kids automatically.

And to be more specific than "prosperity," that everyone who wants access to contraception is allowed to have it.

[Seshat]

Also, aged and disability pensions. (One cultural reason for having children is so that there will be someone to care for you when you're old/if you're disabled.)

[AFPheonix]

And to be more specific than "prosperity," that everyone who wants access to contraception is allowed to have it.

Very true. I was lumping in a level of education for ALL members of society, a certain monetary level, ability to get and retain work, not having to rely on subsistence lifestyles and many other factors into that one word.
Women here get to choose to not have kids because we don't need them to better our own lives. We get to have the opportunity to choose whether or not to have them for the sake of having one. We're pretty lucky compared to women who didn't get to be in this situation, past and present.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

3. if you're on welfare, you need to either be on birth control or be snipped so you can't make any more babies ... ever.

I have a friend who was on welfare once. She made a mistake and had a child out of wedlock. Not a problem since she did have a job. That job dried up and she found herself out of work and unemployable with her skill set (either under qualified, or in many cases so over qualified that the employers wouldn't hire her for fear of her jumping ship as soon as something better comes along) and with no means of support.

She found herself on Welfare for a while. She used the resources available to her and managed to get retrained and rehired. She has now since doubled her income through promotions within the company, married and has two more children.

I can understand that the sentiment above comes from frustration of all the people who abuse the system by having more and more children to have more and more welfare income, but what advantage would have come forth from sterilizing my friend? Did she abuse the system? Or did she use it the way it was intended and moved on with her life?

M