Understood. Generic “you”.
Thanks. Reciprocated. There are few enough hereabouts who will apologise even when they’re clearly in the wrong… generally including me. Well wishes! 
As far as long-lasting birth control, there is Depo, but also Norplant and IUDs. They’re all sort of invasive and can have yucky side effects, but surely one of the three would be workable for a large number of people. I think pills, patches, etc. wouldn’t be worth it–I have a relative and a friend who both ended up on welfare precisely because they were too scatterbrained to take pills on time. One of them actually had a baby because she forgot to get her Norplant recharged (duh-uhh…)
Now. Let’s develop a shot that kills sperm over a long period of time.
I really do think it’s reasonable that anyone taking government assistance should be subject to mandatory birth control–and also as mentioned earlier in this thread, that what food stamps can buy should exclude some of the most egregious junk food. I mean… you’re benefitting from the nanny state, you’d better be ready for the nanny state to tell you to eat your vegetables and behave yourself on the playground.
Frankly, if I had to go on welfare, I’d welcome the free birth control.
Sure, but after your first kid you know how much one will cost (ie. more than you think).
If you can’t afford the first one, or aren’t finding it easy, anyway, is it suddenly going to be easier once you hit two, three, or six?
-Joe
So, is this just a rant or is anyone interested in doing some real GD-style analysis on this issue? Because I think if you dig into the numbers of people living on welfare, the percentages of taxes going towards supporting them, and the numbers for generational welfare families(kids born on welfare, rasiing kids on welfare) I think they’ll show this to be much ado about almost nothing. I guarantee we’ve spent more tax money on much less noble endeavors than we do on supporting the populations targeted by the OP(large welfare families).
Any interest?
Enjoy,
Steven
Not a doctor, nor any kind of medical specialist, but my understanding is that unless the guy is dead, them wrigglers keep getting made and won’t stop. It’s easier to deal with a single egg, or implanted blastocyst.
It doesn’t change the political and poetic reasons for wanting to be able to control male gamete production, but I understand why it’s so hard to do.
I’m not even sure about mandatory birth control - not as a general policy. I’d like to see incentives for it, but I’d be worried where forcing it as a general policy might lead. Does that mean, for example, that any student getting Federal or State aid for college should be taking birth control, too? I agree it’s smarter than going without, but does society have the right to insist on that, even if society is paying some of the person’s school bills? (No, I’m not saying that I believe educational assistance is welfare, really - just that it’s the sort of program creep I would worry about with that kind of policy.)
Mind you, if the courts can prove that they’ve found a man who has been fathering as many kids as he could, with niether intent nor ability to offer support, (I believe there has been a case of this, but my Google-fu isn’t up to bringing it up, now.) I’ve got no problem with ordering a vasectomy as being in the public interest.
As a woman, I do get irritated that the onus of birth control always falls on us. I guess it’s our duty. A controlled-release implant that killed sperm though? Over the course of a few months? Maybe? Please? Just temporarily damaging the man’s fertility would help…
I had thought about saying “welfare” instead of “government assistance” and decided not to because I thought it was more likely to anger the people who are already angry here. It’s unquestionably in everyone’s best interest that the institutionalized mentally ill not reproduce, but what about people on disability? I’m not comfortable with denying reproductive capacity to them. Sorry I made the wrong choice of words.
Third point, I do have an anecdote: my bum cousin’s long-term boyfriend, whose modus operandi is to move in with a woman and have as many children as possible, so that he can stay home and “take care” of them instead of getting a job. He had three kids with the first baby momma, three kids with my cousin, and has now moved on to another (when cousin kicked him out after finding crack for the second time). And there is also the scenario mentioned earlier, in which the culture makes lots of kids desirable, so people have no intention of using any birth control.
A humble suggestion, lets eat them!
A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
CMC fnord!
Swift wasn’t being serious, but I am.
The future we’re offering to these children sounds so bleak (orphanages, sterilization, starvation and homelessness) that it would be better, or at least more honest, to treat them as a commodity, then to continue to pretend that we actually care about their futures.
I’m sure all the mentally challenged need is some tough love to get them off their lazy asses.
Sattua, I wasn’t trying to accuse you of anything, nor am I angry with your suggestion. Just explaining while the idea seems to have merit, I’m really (and perhaps irrationally) afraid of what might happen if the government has the right, as a general practice, to decide who may and may not have children. I’m not sure if that came through clear, or not, to you.
As for the onus of birth control - I believe it’s the guy’s responsibility to make sure that it’s being used. If they can develop a pill for guys that will prevent the production of viable sprem, but only during use, I’d support it’s use extensively. (I’m not going to say I’d use it, myself. Since I last came close to having sex before the turn of the millenium, I have difficulty thinking it’s any kind of issue for me, personally.)
But I think it’s realistic, at least, to say that a woman has more incentive to be certain of birth control than a man does. I don’t want to make it sound like that I believe it’s only the woman’s responsibility - I don’t believe that. I do believe that two, independant methods are better than one.
No no, I read your post as being very calm. I hope you read mine that way, too.
The reason that I’m not very scared by the idea of the government controlling the fertility of people on welfare *while they are on welfare * is that the welfare system is equal-opportunity. Anyone can get into it, and anyone (theoretically) can get out of it.
Now someone will come along and explain to me that the system is racist/ageist/culturalist/classist and that people can’t get out of it.
I wasn’t aware that reproductive freedom was so unpopular.
Doesn’t anyone who receives any kind of anti-poverty assistance by definition have more kids than they can afford? Assuming, you know, that they have kids?
You don’t believe females have any responsibility at all to use birth control to prevent children they can’t afford?
Nnnnooo… that’s not how economics works. If a mutual transaction between two persons can cause disproportionate consequences to one of those persons should something go wrong, self-interest and common sense should tell the person with the most to lose that she herself should be the most vigilant in preventing the possible fallout. Adherence to any other expectation because it meshes better with your egalitarian sensibilities or ideology of chivalry will show you losing and falling hard (see large population of single mothers).
Not at all. All it would take would be for someone to lose their job or jobs for a while and they might end up needing assistance. Maybe they have a kid or three.
But maybe in that situation they should not have more kids until they’ve got things under control.
-Joe
BTW, the person who described a woman who’s got 3 or 4 kids by 3 or 4 different men and gets WIC, food stamps, and goes to work just long enough to requalify for welfare, I think you have met my friend’s sister.
She’s got three kids, three baby-daddies, WIC, food stamps, government subsidized housing, has held a job for six months (nonconsecutive), is a high school drop out, and this year will be 21.
Let me check the forum…
BBQ PIT…
rant.
Budget for TANF: $16.5 Billion (coincidentally the same as NASA’s budget)
2006 Food Stamps: $33 Billion
Medicaid (federal portion only) $180 Billion
So you’re at almost $230 billion just off the bat.
Now, the majority of the recipients are probably quite worthy. Let’s assume that only 10% are there for having kids they can’t support or similarly poor life choices or avoidable problems. That’s $23 billion in public money- far more than NASA receives, and that’s just assuming 10% is avoidable.
The greatest cost isn’t just tax outlay, though. With unsupportable children comes poverty comes crime comes poorer schools comes unsafe areas comes declining property values etc. etc. etc…
Are you saying you don’t like onal sex?
That’s just it…it’s not just about the taxpayer, it’s about the individuals who are on welfare. Living on welfare is crappy, and taking steps to help people get off of it, whether by limiting benefits for additional children, requiring job training, or whatever, is helping the individual first, which eventually helps society.
Sure, but you have to keep in mind that to some people (not me) the way to “help people get off of it” is to eliminate “it” and letting them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, work hard, and become billionaire industrialists.
-Joe
What’s the alternative? To let people stay on it and sit around, collecting checks while popping out baby after baby?
Of course not everyone can work hard, and I doubt any will become billionaires. However, if people do not have the option of sucking at the taxpayer teet, then perhaps they’ll have some incentive to try and better their situation.
I’m fine with public benefits existing, but it should be a rough existence that gives one an incentive to get off as quickly as possible. Forcing people to jump through a variety of hoops to get TANF, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc., and imposing uncomfortable conditions on them when they are on it will ensure that the programs are there for those who truly need it, but that they have an incentive to become self-sufficient quickly.
One short quote and one literary excerpt as an Intermission:
Discuss amongst yourselves.