# Having Babies on the Taxpayer Dime: What, if anything, to do? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722 "2014-03-27T23:12:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/81 "2014-04-01T21:53:41Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Is that going to apply to white, middle and upper class women abusing barbituates and alcohol just as much as to poor, colored women or will the usual historical exemptions apply? > > When the wives, sisters, and daughters of billionaires start serving real jail time for sucking down drugs, booze, and cigarettes while pregnant maybe I can get behind that. That doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for opposing a law that (hopefully) spares future addicted babies from being born. For example, some du Pont scion supposedly got no jail time [for rapping his daughter](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2014/03/31/du-pont-heir-received-no-jail-time-after-rape-conviction/) but we still think the law a valid one, no? I can’t do much about the difference in the ways the laws are handled between rich and poor (I’m willing to listen to ideas, though!) but I do see a process that might limit the number of children born with drug problems. I understand the reservations people have about forced sterilization and I’m willing to compromise but I firmly believe something should be done. ---
**Author:** ![AdmiralQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@AdmiralQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdmiralQ)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/82 "2014-04-01T21:54:04Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > So… just sucks to be them if they use the birth control faithfully and they’re just one of the unlucky ones where it doesn’t work, or they get pregnant via rape, or whatever, right? Yeah, like many things in life, sometimes you draw the short straw and have to deal with it. There is no constitutional right to have sex either. Don’t want to take the chance of losing your freebies? Then don’t have sex. Cases of rape can easily be dealt with by a simple exemption written into the law. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/83 "2014-04-01T22:46:46Z")
> [@AdmiralQ](#): > > Yeah, like many things in life, sometimes you draw the short straw and have to deal with it. There is no constitutional right to have sex either. Don’t want to take the chance of losing your freebies? Then don’t have sex. Cases of rape can easily be dealt with by a simple exemption written into the law. It’s kinda weird that you are willing to allow the mom and baby to die, but did not suggest the obvious answer to keeping a baby from being born, while allowing the mom to still received benefits. And don’t kid yourself. That’s the short straw. The mom doesn’t receive any benefits anymore. Welfare exists to keep people from dying. The baby is only going to increase what she needs to survive. Even if you take the kid away from the mother, you can only do so after the baby is born, and now the mother will be worse off during the pregnancy. Right when she needs the most help, you want to take it away. So you can’t even say your are pro-life. The baby will likely die before birth, but your way, the mother will too. Is that what it’s about for you? Punishing the mother? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/84 "2014-04-01T23:50:54Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > That doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for opposing a law that (hopefully) spares future addicted babies from being born. As I covered in a prior post, pre-natal drug addiction is not as damaging as usually assumed. It is the dysfunctional family environment that does the most damage. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/85 "2014-04-02T00:11:13Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Regrettably, no only is effective contraception expensive enough to be beyond the means of the most needy. . . This would be the strongest possible argument against the Affordable Care Act. All this supposedly beneficial change and people can’t even afford birth control pills? Except that: The old story line you are repeating is no longer accurate. Even in the minority of states that have foolishly turned down medicaid expansion, like mine, family planning services are among the most common kind of care available to the indigent. Example: > **[Home - GPHA Inc.](https://gphainc.org/)** > > \[vc\_row full\_width=”stretch\_row” el\_class=”slider-row”\]\[vc\_column\]\[rev\_slider\_vc alias=”home-slider”\]\[/vc\_column\]\[/vc\_row\]\[vc\_row el\_class=”services-row”\]\[vc\_column width=”1/4″\]\[vc\_single\_image image=”63″ img\_size=”full” alignment=”center”... US Government search tool that can be used by needy individuals reading this: [http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search\_HCC.aspx](http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC.aspx) I think you are making your claim about availability of birth control to argue against the assaults on basic freedoms some here propose. I agree that eugenics is morally disastrous and bad all around, but we should be accurate in our criticisms. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/86 "2014-04-02T02:38:31Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Ah, you are ignorant. Broomstick, hey, you’re cool. You’re clearly passionate about this and I believe in your sincerity. But I also believe you need to calm down a bit. Throttle is back and avoid the insults. This is not the place for them. If you feel you must do so, take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/87 "2014-04-02T02:55:05Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > As children and single women are disproportionately poor in the US it would be more than 2%. OK, then 3% or 4%, it doesn’t matter. If HALF the women in this country couldn’t afford to raise another child without government assistance then half the women in this country shouldn’t be having children. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. It’s financial assistance that comes from the government. If people want a mortgage they can either damn well pay for it entirely on their own or, if they can’t, be subject to the exact same requirement we impose for food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid. Yes, it is. We have mortgage interest deductions because (rightly or wrongly) we want to encourage people to own homes. We do not have welfare to encourage people to have kids they cannot afford. Moreoever, having more kids you can’t afford directly increases the cost of welfare in this country; having more kids (whether you can afford them or not (and if you are taking a mortgage interest deductions instead of the standard deduction, you can probably afford your kids)) does not increase the cost of the mortgage interest deduction. > [@](#): > > If someone puts a gun to your head and says “either give me your wallet or I put a bullet in your brain” that’s not being forced to do anything against your will because, after all, he’s giving you a choice, right? And if you want over your wallet, well, you chose to do that, right? This is not an entitlement anymore. We are not taking away something that belongs to them at the point of a gun. Maybe you should calm down a little bit. > [@](#): > > Ah, you are ignorant. Why do you say that? > [@](#): > > No, I wasn’t talking about China. I was talking about the US, and yes, Germany in the first half of the 20th Century. More specifically, the eugenics movement, which originated in the US, forcibly sterilized thousands of people, sometimes without even the knowledge, much less the consent, of either the people sterilized or their families. So first I don’t know about the welfare reform act; then i don’t know about depo provera (or as it norplant); then contraception is the same thing as sterilization; then 1/6 of the US population would have to be given this contraception; and finally I’m like the Nazis.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Seeing as how China is going on right now and is MUCH closer to what i am proposing (I think its been pretty clear that I’m proposing contraception after one child and not sterilization and I think it shows the weakness of your argument that you have to pretend that i am talking about sterilization). > [@](#): > > And yes, it _really did_ start a ball rolling that wound up with not just the Jews but about 12 million people being killed under the Nazis. OMFG:smack: Seriously? China has been doing this for generations without throwing anyone in concentration camps or killing any Jews, what makes you think we would be worse than the Chinese? > [@](#): > > Seriously, look up the history of the eugenics movement. 64,000 sterilized in the US alone. The Nazis looked at the California program and though it was such a good idea they decided to implement their own program. The Rockefeller Foundation not only helped developed Nazi programs, it helped fund them, too, including Dr. Josef Mengele prior to his move to Auschwitz. Then the freakin’ Nazis - inspired by _American_ programs - thought the whole “limit the inferior” crap was so wonderful they starting killing off the mentally disabled, the insane, then the crippled, then moved on to entire ethnic groups. Where do I say anything about eugenics or permanent sterilization? > [@](#): > > So roll your eyes all you want - eugenics, which is what you’re talking about, did in fact lead to the Nazi death camps. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: No, I’m not talking about eugenics, you just find it easier to argue against eugenics. I don’t think eugenics is what led to the nazi death camps. I’m pretty sure it was something else. > [@](#): > > 12 million dead in Europe by 1945 > 64,000 sterilized against their will, and a significant number _without their knowledge_ in the US. > 62,000 sterilized in Sweden - yes, Sweden, considerably smaller than the US, sterilized nearly as many individuals, and was second only to Nazi Germany in Europe. > Tens of thousands sterilized in Canada, disproportionately Native/First Nations and new immigrants. > 100,000 Australian children removed from their parents for no damn good reason > A government campaign in Brazil to consciously reduce the numbers of full-blood Afro-Brazilians in favor of lighter skin color. > The genocide against the Herero people in African carried out by German colonial officials in an effort to eliminate a “race” they viewed as “inferior” (one of those officials was named Goring, by the way - his son wound up in charge of the Third Reich’s aviation) > In Europe Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland also had compulsory sterilization programs in the name of eugenics although I don’t have numbers for those nations. And what does that have to do with my proposal? > [@](#): > > So, you want to control peoples’ reproductive habits? Fine. But consider the company you keep when you do so. Learn some actual history. Legislatures do a shit job when given that power. You are replying to a tangent about abortion. Once again, I am not talking about eugenics or sterilization. BTW eugenics was supported by people like Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger,Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. > **[Eugenics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics)** > > Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown') is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups they considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior. > The contemporary history of eugenics began in ... > [@AdmiralQ](#): > > Yeah, like many things in life, sometimes you draw the short straw and have to deal with it. There is no constitutional right to have sex either. Don’t want to take the chance of losing your freebies? Then don’t have sex. Cases of rape can easily be dealt with by a simple exemption written into the law. I’ll tell you why I find that problematic. Its one thing to try to control the behaviour of adults (or at least the outcomes of their beheviour). Its another thing to punish children ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/88 "2014-04-02T03:02:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [yes](http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/12/31/3846281/judge-nixes-flas-welfare-drug.html) I don’t think contraception is search and seizure. I might be wrong. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This would be the strongest possible argument against the Affordable Care Act. All this supposedly beneficial change and people can’t even afford birth control pills? Except that: The old story line you are repeating is no longer accurate. > > Even in the minority of states that have foolishly turned down medicaid expansion, like mine, family planning services are among the most common kind of care available to the indigent. > > Example: > > [http://www.gphainc.org/](http://www.gphainc.org/) > > US Government search tool that can be used by needy individuals reading this: > > [http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search\_HCC.aspx](http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC.aspx) > > I think you are making your claim about availability of birth control to argue against the assaults on basic freedoms some here propose. I agree that eugenics is morally disastrous and bad all around, but we should be accurate in our criticisms. I understand procreative rights are a sacred cow especially among the religious folks but I don’t see why it is morally disastrous and bad all around to require contraception while on the dole. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/89 "2014-04-02T03:10:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK, then 3% or 4%, it doesn’t matter. If HALF the women in this country couldn’t afford to raise another child without government assistance then half the women in this country shouldn’t be having children. None of those children are the result of immaculate conceptions. Why aren’t the fathers also being held responsible? Screw the birth control - mandatory paternity tests and DNA records of every man in America. Make the fathers take responsibility for their wild oats instead of, once again, punishing the women and children. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/90 "2014-04-02T03:22:36Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yes, it is. We have mortgage interest deductions because (rightly or wrongly) we want to encourage people to own homes. Yes, that housing bubble was so beneficial to the nation. > [@](#): > > We do not have welfare to encourage people to have kids they cannot afford. No, _we don’t have welfare at all anymore_ in the sense you mean it. NO ONE in the US is paying anyone to have kids. The purpose of TANF is assist people in raising the kids _they already have_. The purpose of food stamps isn’t to encourage people to pop out more babies, it’s to enable people to eat who have insufficient income to buy adequate food - _including people who don’t have children at all_. Seriously, the portion of your, personal taxes that go to supporting poor people is pennies at most - and you’re too selfish to grant them that without invading their bodies and subjecting them to involuntary medical treatments. > [@](#): > > Moreoever, having more kids you can’t afford directly increases the cost of welfare in this country; having more kids (whether you can afford them or not (and if you are taking a mortgage interest deductions instead of the standard deduction, you can probably afford your kids)) does not increase the cost of the mortgage interest deduction. No, but buying more house than you can afford sure as hell increases the costs of the mortgage deduction on society. We should not be encouraging people to buy more house than they can afford, the result is the housing bubble and a rash of foreclosures doing damage to both the finances and the neighborhoods of America. People should buy what they can afford. The government shouldn’t be encouraging them, even indirectly, to buy more than that. Why are we spending money on people who have sufficient money for housing anyway? That money should be going to homeless shelters and rehabilitation services, not to increase the size of middle class and upper class housing. > [@](#): > > OMFG:smack: Seriously? China has been doing this for generations without throwing anyone in concentration camps or killing any Jews, what makes you think we would be worse than the Chinese? Because the Chinese seem able to stop themselves before it gets to the point of genocide but people of European descent, based on the historical records, can’t. Also, China’s one-child policy applies to EVERYBODY. It not one rule for the elite and one for the masses. Unlike what you propose, which is to prevent those nasty poor people from reproducing but the rich and elite can produce as many brats as they desires. What you’re saying is that poor people aren’t as worthy, and that’s what starts the slip on the slope to the sort of mess we saw in WWII. > [@](#): > > BTW eugenics was supported by people like Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger,Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. And they were wrong for doing so even if they otherwise did great things with their lives. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/91 "2014-04-02T04:37:40Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > As I covered in a prior post, pre-natal drug addiction is not as damaging as usually assumed. It is the dysfunctional family environment that does the most damage. I disagree some about the damage but even so, if a mother (and father, if he’s around) are so dysfunctional that their child is born addicted to some drug then they have shown themselves incapable of raising children. If a parent has already had numerous children removed from their care then they have shown themselves incapable of raising children. I want to avoid the future 10 years from now when some underpaid social worker has to decide if the children can survive in the home and must contemplate taking the children from their parents. I believe sterilization to be the best solution but I’ll listen to other ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/92 "2014-04-02T13:28:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think contraception is search and seizure. I might be wrong. Sounds strange to me too, but I have no idea. However, that was not the question being asked or the one I answered. I was responding to an exchange about whether [mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17245370&postcount=61%5B/url) might be unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/93 "2014-04-02T13:34:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > None of those children are the result of immaculate conceptions. Why aren’t the fathers also being held responsible? Screw the birth control - mandatory paternity tests and DNA records of every man in America. Make the fathers take responsibility for their wild oats instead of, once again, punishing the women and children. This is ridiculous, IMO. The main reason fathers can’t be “held responsible” in the manner being discussed here is that fathers are not generally eligible for these various welfare programs to begin with. So there’s nothing to make them ineligible for - they’re already ineligible. They are “held responsible” in other ways, notably some pretty severe child support enforcement rules, enforced by - among others - the welfare agencies. But cutting off non-existent welfare benefits is not an option. To the extent that fathers are eligible for welfare programs, then I haven’t seen anyone in this thread make a distinction between men and women, other than yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/94 "2014-04-02T13:41:24Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I disagree some about the damage but even so, if a mother (and father, if he’s around) are so dysfunctional that their child is born addicted to some drug then they have shown themselves incapable of raising children. Then we should remove every child ever born to an alcoholic parent, every child ever born to a woman on a laundry list of prescription drugs treating everything from depression to epilepsy to acne, and so on - who, pray tell, is going to take these children in? The proposals here are draconian and if applied _consistently_ would result in massive societal disruption far more damaging than what they are purporting to cure. What this is really about is one set of rules for the poor and another for everyone else based on the assumption that the poor are inferior and should be punished more severely than anyone else for the same sin. > [@](#): > > I want to avoid the future 10 years from now when some underpaid social worker has to decide if the children can survive in the home and must contemplate taking the children from their parents. I have actually been in the position of being one of the people to draft a letter to a judge saying “please take these kids away from their mother before she kills any more of them”, which most of the people in these threads have not. Situations that dire are the minority. The biggest problem is the need for effective treatment of the problem of drug addiction. Our current methodologies have only limited effectiveness and are not well funded. Why are we surprised at the results when there is more emphasis on punishing people than actually trying to help them? > [@](#): > > I believe sterilization to be the best solution but I’ll listen to other ideas. Easy to say when it is YOU who face forcible sterilization. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/95 "2014-04-02T13:43:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is ridiculous, IMO. > > The main reason fathers can’t be “held responsible” in the manner being discussed here is that fathers are not generally eligible for these various welfare programs to begin with. So there’s nothing to make them ineligible for - they’re already ineligible. > > They are “held responsible” in other ways, notably some pretty severe child support enforcement rules, enforced by - among others - the welfare agencies. But cutting off non-existent welfare benefits is not an option. > > To the extent that fathers are eligible for welfare programs, then I haven’t seen anyone in this thread make a distinction between men and women, other than yourself. Why do you assume ALL the fathers are also unemployed bums? Do you think there are no men with jobs fathering children with women who are unemployed or working poor? Find the fathers. If they’re working for them to pay child support as they should. Why the assumption none of them are employed? The fact that the current system is set up to favor single women over married ones is quite likely a factor in why so many of these women aren’t officially married even in they’re in a multi-year relationship with the baby daddy. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/96 "2014-04-02T13:53:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Why do you assume ALL the fathers are also unemployed bums? > > Do you think there are no men with jobs fathering children with women who are unemployed or working poor? > > Find the fathers. If they’re working for them to pay child support as they should. Why the assumption none of them are employed? The fact that the current system is set up to favor single women over married ones is quite likely a factor in why so many of these women aren’t officially married even in they’re in a multi-year relationship with the baby daddy. You’re not addressing my post. If the fathers are working then (and need to be “found”) then as single men they won’t be eligible for any programs so there’s nothing to make them ineligible for. If they’re still married, then their benefits would be as a family and they would be included in the proposals being discussed here. If you’re talking about enforcing child support - which is not the proposal being discussed - there’s already an enormous amount of effort being put into this. Mandatory naming of fathers in welfare applications so that the government can go after the deadbeats, wage garnishments, debtors prisons, drivers license suspensions etc. etc. What exactly do you feel is a failure to hold fathers responsible, such that you’re objecting to any sort of responsibility for mothers? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/97 "2014-04-02T14:42:31Z")
What I am saying is that BEFORE we decide to start sterilizing people simply for being poor (which is what is really being proposed here) we should get a DNA sample from _every single man in this country_ so when a baby is born and the mom says “I don’t know who the daddy is” he can be located anyway and, if he does have some form of income, it can be garnished so he is supporting his child rather than the state. As another side effect, it will make solving a lot of other crimes easier, too. If we’re going to hold the mothers responsible then we should use whatever technology we have available to hold the fathers equally responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/98 "2014-04-02T14:54:39Z")
Well that seems like an extreme position to take, IMO. But you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m not inclined to argue it. I would just observe that failure to take DNA samples from every single man in the country is not remotely the same thing as not holding fathers responsible, in light of the other measures being taken, as described, and you shouldn’t use this misleading lingo. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/99 "2014-04-02T23:01:43Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Then we should remove every child ever born to an alcoholic parent, every child ever born to a woman on a laundry list of prescription drugs treating everything from depression to epilepsy to acne, and so on - who, pray tell, is going to take these children in? > > The proposals here are draconian and if applied _consistently_ would result in massive societal disruption far more damaging than what they are purporting to cure. What this is really about is one set of rules for the poor and another for everyone else based on the assumption that the poor are inferior and should be punished more severely than anyone else for the same sin. Now you’re going overboard. Children are not born addicted to acne medicine (and if they were, why is the doctor prescribing it?) > [@Broomstick](#): > > I have actually been in the position of being one of the people to draft a letter to a judge saying “please take these kids away from their mother before she kills any more of them”, which most of the people in these threads have not. Situations that dire are the minority. And I’ve seen the end when children are pulled out of the homes and given to foster care. I’ve heard the abuse that they went through and yet the parents are still having more kids, putting even more through that abuse. I want it to stop. > [@Broomstick](#): > > The biggest problem is the need for effective treatment of the problem of drug addiction. Our current methodologies have only limited effectiveness and are not well funded. Why are we surprised at the results when there is more emphasis on punishing people than actually trying to help them? I will gladly support effective treatment programs. If a treatment program is ever devised that is even 25% effective I’ll reconsider my position. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Easy to say when it is YOU who face forcible sterilization. What does this even mean? It’s easy for me to say when it’s not me facing life in jail, or a $50k fine, or any other punishment our government hands out. If you (third-person “you”) don’t want to face sterilization then don’t fuck over your kids. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722/100 "2014-04-02T23:33:02Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Now you’re going overboard. Children are not born addicted to acne medicine (and if they were, why is the doctor prescribing it?) Common acne medications based on retinoic acid are teratogenic, producing some pretty profound birth defects. Some of them require that any woman taking them be on at least one, sometimes two, forms of birth control. Accidents still happen. Thalidomide has legitimate uses for some cancers and for leporsy, it’s a known problem for a woman to take the drug while pregnant, birth control again required… but it still happens. Why do doctors prescribe such drugs? Because a woman has a condition where that drug is a valid treatment. Sometimes the woman doesn’t take her birth control. Sometimes the woman isn’t known to be pregnant when she starts treatment (pregnancy tests are not 100% reliable). _Sometimes birth control fails_. There are a LOT of drugs that can do Bad Things to Baby - should we just tell women of child-bearing age screw you, you don’t get cancer treatment/your leprosy treated/your seizures stopped/whatever? I don’t find that acceptable. Should we prosecute women when accidents happen, things don’t work as anticipated? > [@](#): > > And I’ve seen the end when children are pulled out of the homes and given to foster care. I’ve heard the abuse that they went through and yet the parents are still having more kids, putting even more through that abuse. I want it to stop. I’ve seen a lot of instances where parents, _with treatment_, get their shit together and take care of their kids properly. Heck I’ve seen instances where parents _don’t_ get their shit together but nonetheless keep the kids fed, dressed, the house clean, the kids in school, and manage to parent _despite_ a drug or alcohol problem. Is it ideal? Hell no, but addicted parents are not _inherently_ worse than foster care which is why in the real world there is some attempt to make decisions based on individual families and not by treating everyone exactly alike. > [@](#): > > I will gladly support effective treatment programs. If a treatment program is ever devised that is even 25% effective I’ll reconsider my position. There is no treatment that effective for _any_ addiction, so I guess we’ll just have to take away the kids not only of anyone on street drugs or alcohol but also anyone taking prescription drugs long-term or who smoke (either tobacco or weed, doesn’t matter). Yes, smoking too - nicotine is just as much an addiction as anything else and exposing kids to that shit second hand can fuck up their immune systems and lungs for life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-babies-on-the-taxpayer-dime-what-if-anything-to-do/684722.md?page=6)