‘Pops out’ is a fascinating insight.
Good women, with money, procreate. Bad women, without money, spawn.
I don’t have much of a problem with that, but that’s not what Bearcats is advocating.
Bearcats does, though, say this:
So, would no longer cutting her a government check if she doesn’t stop be sufficiently like unto cutting her a check if she does stop?
You know who else thought the world had too many “flawed people” in it that needed to be removed from society?
I’m not being facetious, there. The idea that you’re putting forward as a non-Hitlerish approach to eugenics is precisely the attitude towards the subject that makes Nazis moral monsters. The world would not be a better place if all the people who had, say, cystic fibrosis were gone. The world would be a better place if all the people who had cystic fibrosis didn’t have cystic fibrosis anymore, but that’s not what you’re proposing. The worth of a human being is not determined by how sick they are. A sick person is not a flaw that needs to be cut out of the human species. A human’s rights should not be circumscribed by an accident of their genome.
I will grant, however, that what you’re proposing it both rational and humane in comparison to what the OP is advocating. So you’ve got that going for you, I guess.
“Welfare queen”? Have you been in a cave on Mars since 1993 or something? Actually, scratch that; since the rover missions, even caves on Mars have more access to up-to-date information about modern-day government than your question indicates.
Welfare recipients don’t just “keep getting their government check” indefinitely for having more babies. There are lifetime benefit limits on TANF of five years total, and you don’t necessarily get more money for having more kids even in that very short window.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok?
[/quote]
She does? Who are these hypothetical women who are bound and determined to have 8 kids even though they have no money, no partner and only a tiny temporary hit of government assistance? What percentage of the population of poor people do they actually make up?
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
The guy who doesn’t like rubbers and can’t pull out quickly enough should keep procreating even though the check from Burger King gets split 5 ways to cover support.
[/quote]
What guy? Again, who and where are these hypothetical fast-food workers who voluntarily, deliberately choose to make more kids to help support on a min-wage paycheck just because they don’t like condoms?
AFAICT, people determined to have very large numbers of children who nonetheless can’t support or take care of them are an insignificant minority of parents. Most poor parents don’t intend to have more kids than they can afford and would have fewer kids if they had better access to reproductive control. So why are we fuming about hypothetical super-breeders who can only be kept in check by forcing surgery on them? You’re ignoring a genuine problem to obsess about a myth.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
There is a point when enough is enough.
[/quote]
Well, to make policy, we have to be prepared to say exactly where that point is. Exactly which circumstances are you proposing would make people liable to forced sterilization? If they receive any kind of government assistance and have more than four children? More than three? More than two? How about if they’re very poor but get no government assistance? Are you proposing to sterilize poor teens before they have kids just to be on the safe side? Show us exactly what you’re advocating here.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
We have other laws in place to protect people from themself.
[/quote]
Not by forcing nonconsensual surgery on them. Heck, we can’t even force patients to accept surgical treatment to literally save their life if they don’t want it, never mind for less important reasons. The government is rightly very hesitant to insist that citizens be sliced and diced by surgeons without their consent, for any reason.
Even convicted rapists can’t be sentenced to surgical castration. And most states don’t even allow sentencing them to (theoretically reversible) chemical castration. The idea that the law should be allowed to force surgery on non-criminals strictly for social-engineering reasons is so unconstitutional that it would be stomped into the courtroom floor by the first judge that laid eyes on it.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
The data on abuse and the cost to society is staggering. There is a strong correlation between poverty and abuse.
[/quote]
So punish and monitor abusers, while helping and counseling the poor who are not abusive. But the notion of pre-emptively punishing poor parents who haven’t committed any crime because you suspect they might become abusers is right up there with the worst excesses of totalitarian states.
If you want to save society money on unwanted and ill-cared-for children, support Planned Parenthood and proper sex education in schools. Making people go under the surgeon’s knife just because you think parenting might not go well for them is a sadistic fantasy.
The current economic landscape is laid out in a way that punishes people for being poor. Employers steal from their employees, banks gouge their marginal customers, retail products get more expensive when you cannot afford the little bit extra for the mormon-size packages. People with hand-to-mouth syndrome get squeezed for every dime and are shoved, far too easily, toward/into the abyss. Poor/stupid should not be punished in this way. Education helps, but it is often not sufficient to keep some people out of the slums.
I understand that the idea of regulation to reduce the poverty penalty is obviously unforgivably marxist, but there is a big picture. A great deal of crime percolates down from the top, through abuse and through example. Establishing a standard of fairness to reduce the pressure downward on the poor (and middle class, who are often skating the edge) would probably restore (or create) important balance and stability in our society.
Of course, since such notions have the aroma of marxism, actually moving toward those goals seems like a pipe dream. I would like to see fairness in our socioeconomic system, but am not losing sleep over it not happening.
Not a thing.
If you’d like, we could pause the discussion to give you a chance to catch up.
Quote from a woman in this article about it is her right time have additional kids on welfare. The article is in favor of removing the welfare caps that don’t incentivize having additional kids. It happens.
You forgot to put in the quote. What “Quote from a woman” are you talking about? I read through article, and I saw nothing in it that makes any sort of statement like you are claiming.
cannot get aid because the State wants to punish me and them—me for choosing to be a mom again while on welfare, and them for being born into poverty,” Ortiz said in her testimony to the California State Assembly.
I do not understand how you get from that quote to it being the right time to have additional kids on welfare.
Not right time, but her right to. She is freely chosing to have another kid while on welfare and feels punished by the system for doing so.
Ah, I completely misunderstood what you said there. I take it the “right time” was a typo for “right to”.
This is a particular person who wants the system changed to benefit her. Not sure how that in any way refutes the fact that welfare does not work the way you seem to think it does. In fact, it should show you that it doesn’t work the way you think it does, because you quoted a woman complaining that it doesn’t work the way you think it does.
It is the overall mindset of a person that is already on welfare with children that thinks she should have the right to irresponsibly bring another kid in the world. Her existing kids are already working with limited resources. This further puts them at a disadvantage and increases the likelihood of them doing poorly in school and being poor as grown-ups.
More great quotes from Ortiz in a different article. The article talks about Eugenics.
Another winner having multiple kids while on welfare and being surprised that she doesn’t more to cover them.
This time the East Coast.
24 states have over 50% of their births paid by Medicaid.
I agree we need UHC.
That would certainly help to reduce poverty and middle-class marginalization.