The OP was not talking about sterilization but birth control, if someone can’t support themselves how is it not reasonable to think they can’t support themselves and someone else. Once they can support themselves if they want, try to add a person. Personally, I would be in favor of mandatory birth control until the age of 18 as well. I would not be in favor of someone with children who ends up on welfare losing their kids but at least once their on welfare they should be able to add to their problems, just to clarify a pregnant woman who ends up on welfare shouldn’t be required to get an abortion.
This wouldn’t eliminate the lower class there are low class people who are not on welfare and they would still be able to have kids. Allowing people to pull themselves off welfare faster is a good thing and one way to do that is to disallow them to add to their problems as a condition of the welfare. I also don’t think people should be allowed to by speed boats while on welfare.
I don’t remotely agree with the plan proposed by the OP.
However, I do sometimes consider forced sterilization for people who are congenitally unable to identify an argument, or who respond to a viscerally unpleasant debate topic with strawmen or a knee-jerk slippery-slope argument.
In that vein, unconventional says:
No, it’s not “inevitable.” This is not the proposal the OP made. Argue against it, not a new scenario you created.
Same response.
The issue is not a particular standard of living. The issue is the acceptance of government assistance.
Not per the OP. Remember, the plan doesn’t remove funding if you have kids, it removes funding if you don’t use birth control. I can’t see any plan like that going into effect if “I promise not to have sex with fertile people” was good enough (ok, I don’t see it going into effect under any circumstance).
[anecdote]I grew up on welfare and when my brothers were born we got a lot more money. I also knew neighbors who got excited they were pregnant because of the monetary gain.[/anecdote]
I support a much smaller increase in benefits and education and free access to birth control and abortion. In my view, a lot of poor people just think about how they can cook the system. I remember my mom being upset because one of her friends (with three kids) was shacking up with a guy who had a job in secret. They didn’t let their welfare worker know about the guy living there so they got a ton of money dishonestly. If they knew he was there they would cut her benefits.
Before the EBT cards they hand out now, people used to sell their foodstamps for cash. In my anecdotal experience people *do *have kids for the money it will garner them.
Which birth control method? I mean, the only way that birth control is going to be effective is if it’s used properly. Male condoms have around a 15% failure rate based on actual use. Oral contraceptives differ based on the formulation, with progestin-only pills having the highest failure rate (given that they have to be taken at the same time every day for maximal efficacy per my therapeutics textbook). The patch, with it’s higher risk of DVTs? The ring, which is itself expensive as hell (~$30 a month for an insurance carrier, even higher without insurance)? The implantable Mirena, or injectable Depo-Provera, which effectively leaves the woman unable to conceive for months to years (depending on the woman) after she has it removed/stopped?
Maybe what we really need to do, then, is create different motivations. If getting an increase in benefits motivates people to have more children, what would happen if having more children caused ALL benefits to be cut off? I’m guessing that this would create a sudden interest in being more careful with birth control.
I’m not sure this is an ethical thing to do, but I’ll bet it would be effective.
How do you define stable job? I imagine many of those affected by the layoffs in recent headlines thought they had stable jobs. especially those affected by the layoffs described as abrupt. What you think is a stable job can disappear in a moment, so can a spouse, so can you or your spouses good health.
I’m confused do you think that a good time to have another kid is after you’ve been laid off? Maybe it’s just me but I think that would be a terrible time and waiting until you had another job would be the responsible thing to do not only for you family but also for society.
I think requiring anyone to take birth control is a very bad idea, undignified and uncivilized. And while it may seem to me like a very bad idea to conceive while in what is a bad situation, I think there may well be situations that I can’t predict. I think that leaving people’s reproductive choices to them is the only moral choice.
I also think that people who smugly talk about how immoral it is for people to have children if they don’t know they can support them without assistance are being hypocritical if they have children themselves, because you never know when your own life will change enough that you no longer have the ability to support your family. You never know when you, your spouse, or your child might be diagnosed with a condition which will cost more than you have to treat.
I understand that there are situations that people can’t control and I have no problem helping people deal with those situations. That is the reason I can get behind welfare in general. What I have a problem with people who see their situation getting better due to that help making active choices to worsen their situation. I have no right to control adult’s reproductive choices unless they involve me in their situation. If someone is poor and wants to have fifty kids I think its sad but I have no say, once they turn to me and ask for my help to support them I am involved and deserve to be able to dictate certain things in exchange for my help. We already require that if able they look for work how is not having more kids any different? Now if we cut off support once they have more kids this hurts innocents. If we insure that they are, in general, unable to have more kids while being supported it meets the requirement and no one is hurt, as long as we insure that there is no damage due to the birth control. I am even willing to help support new kids if the birth control fails, again stuff happens.
Now to clarify I’m 25 and neither have kids nor am married. I understand that things change and you can’t predict the future and I have no problem with people looking at the current situation and making decisions based on that. But there is a fundamental difference between looking around and thinking things are alright, or close enough, and deciding to have kids and looking around and realizing you can’t support yourself and need help accomplishing that chore and then bringing someone else in to be taken care of.
If you are living hand to mouth but want to have kids and you think that you can spread you budget a little thinner to make it work more power to you. If you lose your job or you spouse dies, whatever, I have no problem helping to support you and you child while you’re getting back on your feet. However, adding another child at that point puts more of burden on me without giving me any choice. All I am saying is that taking away their ability to add to the burden is not bad; as long as once they are back to living hand to mouth, they can then have the choice again.
Unfortunately for your point, we were talking about people who are already on welfare, who are then having more children that they cannot support.
Sure, I might lose my job tomorrow. But that’s somewhat different than saying “I don’t have a job at all, and no savings either - let’s fuck like there’s no tomorrow and to hell with the condoms.” IYSWIM.
I work with women on welfare and in public housing. I have seen women get pregnant to keep their benefits. I have seen their daughters get pregnant instead of going to work. In one amazing case, a 14 year old gave birth, making her 29 year old mother a grandmother.
I think there should be a maximum time a person can be on welfare, regardless of how many children they have. I personally believe that raising a child on welfare is a form of child abuse. Note that I said RAISING, not being on welfare a year or two. Anybody can have to go on welfare, but there’s no excuse for living on it.
Well, OK, but if you try and weasel it out of article 16 (the right to marry and to found a family), The differential entitlement you impose starts to erode articles:
1 (All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights)
2 (Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status)
23.1 (Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.)
etc.
There really isn’t any way to do this without violating one or more of the rights set out in the UN declaration.
