If we are to continue paying for the children and parents of welfare recipients, why should they not be required to use birth control if they cannot take care of the ones they have?
The more pertinent questions are 'why are income inequalities so high?', 'why is social immobility so minor?' and 'why is the welfare state so ineffective at reducing poverty?'. Whining about welfare kids is but a tabloidism based on avoiding the important questions
I agree 100%, and any man who refuses to fulfill his child support obligation, and whose family is forced on welfare, should be imprisoned at a prison farm and there he should work off his "debt" to society.
There's a lot of hatred with you right wing fellows. Why don't you actually embrace economic analysis and think solutions based on celebration of individualism?
What is the next step thereafter? Castration of the 'unfit', 'race manipulation', 'doing away with anything undesirable'? Who are we to say who may, or may not, procreate? How does this "birth control for welfare recipients" sit with Christians? Doesn't it make hypocrites out of those who say YES? Think this through folks. First these, then those...who's next?
I don't think its necessarily a hatred or right wing issue, but more one of a failure to follow through with a conceived notion or idea?
Its clearly hatred and its clearly alien to the pursuit of individualism. These fellows are no different to those that gave us the terrors of the Victorian poorhouse
Insufficiently regulated capitalism. SS, Medicare/caid, and unemployment aren't really meant to reduce poverty, rather they are meant to lessen the effects of poverty, and prevent the young, old, sick, and unemployed from going into poverty. But safety-net type welfare can only do so much. For poverty to be reduced, there needs to be some way for people to advance. Jobs and job training programs would be my suggestion. -Meta
If people need welfare, then clearly they can not yet afford to have kids. But birth control should be up to them. Perhaps it can be made cheaper for those on welfare, but no one should be required to use it.
No, she shouldn't. She hasn't done anything wrong to warrant that - but I don't think she'll be having any more kids.
She collects welfare and while on welfare purposely got pregnant with 8 more kids. So if anyone should be sterilized she should.
It is not right to sterilise someone unless there is a good reason. Sterilising those who are mentally retarded is fine with me because those people cannot take care of themselves, let alone a child. But sterilising a grown woman...hmm...
A grown women who has proven that, like the retarded woman, she's incapable of taking care of herself by taking welfare.
Just because someone is on welfare, doesn't mean they cannot take care of themselves. Sometimes people need a little assistance.
Think back, who else was for sterilizing people? A bit more into the present, which country dictates the number of offsprings. Are we sure we want to go there?
The mentally retarded have rights too. Just as sterilizing octomom, sterilizing those whom some may consider lesser human beings has been done before, along with genocide and/or enslaving those who were declared subhuman. Where do we draw the line? What's next? Selective breeding of blond, blue eyed tall people?
"Victoria Poor Houses" or the poor farms in decades past, were, I believe, state of the art institutions of caring for the old, lazy and infirm that did not have means to support themselves. These are basic Christian or Western institutions that, at the time, were far better than what other cultures afforded the poor---fending for themselves or starving. Poor farms allowed local communities the control of caring for their own, far better than today's way with the federal system of handouts that encourages laziness. Making the lazy or infirm poor do hard work within their abilities for simple living conditions is much too hard of a concept for many in the liberal/socialist camp to understand, but to put it simply: No Work, No Eat.
Engels summed it up: "to force the poor into the Procrustean bed of their preconceived notions. To do this they treated the poor with incredible savagery" You show your innocence of capitalism. To ensure economic rent from employment is not threatened, a physically efficient unemployed 'reserve army' is vital. Without it, the pressure to increase pay in order to avoid shirking costs also increases
How does regulated capitalism assure a narrower wage range? Don't we have more regulation than last year, and the year before, etc.? Then we need to change welfare. Now, it locks people into "poverty" by paying the equivalent of $30K per year, over twice minimum wage. That trap could easily be eliminated by tapering off benefits at a rate slower than income increases, but it isn't, why? Unemployment doesn't allow going to school to learn a new trade, why? The safety net is more a trap than a temporary aid. "Lessening the effects of poverty". Isn't that like "too big to fail"? Failure is comfortable enough that working isn't worth the effort?
Of course the mentally retarded have rights - but should they have the right to have a baby when they cannot take care of it? And besides, why are the mentally retarded having sex anyway when they don't have any understanding of what it means? Only those people who are incapable of ever caring for a child should be sterilised. On that point, I agree.
