What if we decided that welfare mothers have to get norplant

[Elfdart]

I'd like to see disabled veterans put on norplant or forced to practice other forms of birth control as a condition of getting benefits. Maybe next time when the enemy shoots at them, they'll duck.


Better yet, let's demand birth control for anyone who gets government benefits. Check out a book from a public library? Norplant. Government-subsidized student loan? More Norplant! A publicly funded road in your neighborhood? A double dose of Norplant! I mean, why should I have to foot the bill for you to read, go to college or drive on a paved road? Buy your own fucking books, pay for your own fucking tuition and drive in the fucking weeds.

[Tanasinn]

I don't see it as unfair to frown upon those who have children when they cannot even support themselves: it's not only a shit position for the child to be born into, but it increases the financial burden of the taxpayers.

That said, the idea of disallowing poor women from becoming pregnant makes me distinctly uncomfortable: giving the state say in consentual sex in any way seems like a bad idea to me.

[weemadando]

Almost everybody has a story like that. More than once I've been in the supermarket checkout line, and seen the family ahead of me pay for their food items with stamps, peel a couple of twenties off a fat roll to buy their beer and cigarettes, then drive off in a car nicer than mine.

Now, there's thinking with your gut and deciding that this problem which you observed must be a serious issue and a Real Problem for America, and then there's thinking with your brain and realizing that this is statistically insignificant.

Take it from me. Abuse of the welfare system to further personal gain beyond your reasonable entitlement is not statistically insignificant.

Usually when people claim that something is "not statistically insignificant", they back up that claim with, you know, some statistics.

I'd love to but we have all these damn non-disclosure laws where I work.

[Faqa]

That said, the idea of disallowing poor women from becoming pregnant makes me distinctly uncomfortable: giving the state say in consentual sex in any way seems like a bad idea to me.

It's not poor women, it's those on welfare. Have all the kids you want, just not on the goverment's tab. Not now, when you need assistance to make ends meet. It's a situation that breeds parental irresponsibilty and therefore directly against society's interests. It is HARDLY unreasonable in such a situation to veto a pregnancy. Or at least not support one.

If you want to have that kid? Your choice. Feed it with your own cash, because the checks just got yanked. Harsh? Of course. It'll probably create a lot of tragedies. But they'll be tragedies of stupidity. The welfare crowd was warned, they were given the option of birth control. If they still insist on defiance, I hardly see what fault the goverment has. This why the term "unfit parent" exists.

Forcing birth control per se is unethical. But saying you don't want people whom you are supporting to have kids, and letting them decide how? Entirely reasonable.

Better yet, let's demand birth control for anyone who gets government benefits. Check out a book from a public library? Norplant. Government-subsidized student loan? More Norplant! A publicly funded road in your neighborhood? A double dose of Norplant! I mean, why should I have to foot the bill for you to read, go to college or drive on a paved road? Buy your own fucking books, pay for your own fucking tuition and drive in the fucking weeds.

It is in society's collective interest to have libraries, college students and roads. It is in NOBODY'S interest to continue the existance of the welfare class. Certainly not to give it incentives to grow. Quite the opposite.

[weemadando]

I'll detail it some more for you in general terms. Here's a very basic overview from the website. To quote one line of the summary, for the financial year 04/05 "Almost $43.2 million a week was saved and debts totalling $390.6 million were raised as a result of this review activity."

For a more detailed breakdown I'll explain some additional problems that arise:
Fraud, misuse or allegations thereof relating to welfare generate work.

Work in this case can be done by CSA (customer service advisors) who may encounter information that looks suspicious or receive directly a report of fraudulent activity from a third party.

From there, you have fraud teams who investigate the case and where appropriate send notice that a debt can be incurred.

Here we have debt recovery groups come into play, from internal debt raising staff who double-check raised debts to external debt recovery agencies in situations where there are issues in recovering the funds overpaid.

Of course, at any time the customer can appeal the decision, taking to to the ODM (original decision maker) meaning that they have to go through the original processes again to check for oversights and mistakes. If that appeal is unsuccessful, then they can appeal that decision to an ARO (authorised review officer) who will look at the decision again. If that is still unsuccessful they can go to SSAT (social security appeals tribunal) and from there to other tribunals and courts all the way to the Federal Court. This, is not as uncommon as you would think.

Imagine, for a moment, the costs involved in all this, as until it actually goes to court, the entire process is free to the customer, with Centrelink footing the bill for the investigation, the tribunal staff, venue and everything else.

All this rework is of course, lost time and means that more staff are required and more time is required to catch up with the work that they should have been doing. That's big costs there. This is without going into the issues involved the fact that by "recovering" money we mean that we are simply with-holding their future payments (well, parts thereof) from them.

And, this is without mentioning the fact that for each new child that is born, we have to go through new claim procedures for them, have regular reviews to check their circumstances, and of course, pay out more money. Again, this leads to an increased cost in both money paid and staffing needs. You're looking at multiple payments per person across multiple agencies and with many different oversight groups involved. Costs mount remarkably quickly.

[Zixinus]

How about this? Only give norplant or whatever else, AFTER two children.

That's more then enough for a single mother, and making them temporarily sterile won't breach their right that much. Although, I hope that there is somehow a better solution, because of the side-effects.

[Lord Zentei]

That said, the idea of disallowing poor women from becoming pregnant makes me distinctly uncomfortable: giving the state say in consentual sex in any way seems like a bad idea to me.

It's not poor women, it's those on welfare. Have all the kids you want, just not on the goverment's tab. Not now, when you need assistance to make ends meet. It's a situation that breeds parental irresponsibilty and therefore directly against society's interests. It is HARDLY unreasonable in such a situation to veto a pregnancy. Or at least not support one.

Except that poor people are the ones reliant on welfare. And as has been repeadedly stated, there are already mechanisms in place that deal with parental neglect.

And as I hinted at earlier, this idea would very easily turn into a de-facto eugenics programme. Fun fact: while 12% of the US population is under the poverty line, about 24% of the black population is under the poverty line. So, which ethnic group gets force-fed with norplant most, eh? What a fucked-up situation that would be.

[brianeyci]

Is it just me or is the idea of raising a child on the state's tab not offensive at all? In fact, forcing single mothers to work instead of taking care of their children is detrimental to parenting.

The issue of parental neglect is separate from the issue of raising children on welfare. The two may often be in tandem, because poverty sometimes means stupidity, but not always. I wonder if people realize that government healthcare, rent subsidies, tax rebates, hell even basic tax exemptions are a form of welfare.

The problem with irresponsible = raising a child in poverty is raising a child is not mainly about money, but about good parenting. There are libraries, national parks, free public schools, bulk food. Why do you think immigrant children are the hardest working of all in school? They are born into poverty, but still they work the hardest. Children born rich can be spoiled.

This reminds me of the thread where someone suggested it was irresponsible, indeed unethical, to raise a child now because of Peak Oil. I snorted then and I'll snort now.

I would also like to know what women think of this idea. Methinks women are not so enthralled with the idea of men deciding they don't want to pay taxes to take care of society's most vulnerable.

[Faqa]

Except that poor people are the ones reliant on welfare. And as has been repeadedly stated, there are already mechanisms in place that deal with parental neglect.

And as I hinted at earlier, this idea would very easily turn into a de-facto eugenics programme. Fun fact: while 12% of the US population is under the poverty line, about 24% of the black population is under the poverty line. So, which ethnic group gets force-fed with norplant most, eh? What a fucked-up situation that would be.

I'm not arguing in favor of norplant. I'd rather leave the decision in the hands of the welfare recepients. But one way or another, no more goddamned kids for you if you want the goverment's help to buy your daily bread. Reproducing in such a situation is madness anyway.

[Lord Zentei]

Is it just me or is the idea of raising a child on the state's tab not offensive at all? In fact, forcing single mothers to work instead of taking care of their children is detrimental to parenting.

It's not just you.

This reminds me of the thread where someone suggested it was irresponsible, indeed unethical, to raise a child now because of Peak Oil. I snorted then and I'll snort now.

I would also like to know what women think of this idea. Methinks women are not so enthralled with the idea of men deciding they don't want to pay taxes to take care of society's most vulnerable.

Especially since vascetomies are far easier treatments to undertake for men than women.

[SirNitram]

How about this? Only give norplant or whatever else, AFTER two children.

That's more then enough for a single mother, and making them temporarily sterile won't breach their right that much. Although, I hope that there is somehow a better solution, because of the side-effects.

How about you explain why it's ethical.

[Howedar]

Usually when people claim that something is "not statistically insignificant", they back up that claim with, you know, some statistics.

I'd love to but we have all these damn non-disclosure laws where I work.

Okay. I'll grumble and give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

[Tahlan]

....This daughter is 26...and just crapped out her 6th kid. She's been living with a guy, but won't marry him because if she does...no more welfare. That's right, we, as {a} society, get to fund her ability to have and raise a litter of kids....Anyway, I got to thinking; what would be wrong with requiring mothers on welfare to get norplant or some other form of birth control? Would having that as a condition of government aid be unreasonable...I'd really like to see what others have to say about this.

Superman presented a problem: a woman with six kids on welfare with apparently intention of getting off of it. I think that most of us responding on this thread agree that this is an abuse of the system and we find it galling that tax dollars are being used this way. We don't mind lending a helping hand, but something visceral happens when we think about six kids and collecting money for such irresponsibility.

Then, Superman posed a question: "what would be wrong with requiring mothers on welfare to get norplant or some other form of birth control..."

In his question, he included all mothers (even those not abusing the system, which includes mothers with fewer children) when his example was of a mother with six kids. His error was to first use a specific example and then to make a general statement that was all-inclusive of all mothers on welfare.

So, do we put all mothers who are on welfare on birth control? Answer: no, for many of the reasons listed--the state interfering with the right (which I personally believe should be a responsibility) to reproduce and religious grounds to name a couple.

Do we take away their entitlements? (Yes, what began as a helping hand has now risen to the level of an entitlement from the state.) Answer: no, because we don't want to penalize the children.

But what do we do about the woman with six kids and no compunction against having six more?

There has got to be a point where we say "no more."

I personally know two doctors who, thirty and forty years ago, (when society was far less litigious) performed hysterectomies on welfare mothers who already had three and four children. In today's society, they would lose their medical licenses, but back then, it was an unstated solution to a perceived problem, handled on a case-by-case basis.

But what to do in today's society? Is there a point where we say "no more." Who makes the decision? Society? The legislature? The courts?

In reality, probably no one. Not until a societal consensus arises that is great enough to compel the legislature into action will there be action.

So the mom with six kids gets to pump out six more and society pays for it, in more ways than one.

Me, the next time she has a kid, I say it's time for that hysterectomy.

[Lord Zentei]

But what to do in today's society? Is there a point where we say "no more." Who makes the decision? Society? The legislature? The courts?

In reality, probably no one. Not until a societal consensus arises that is great enough to compel the legislature into action will there be action.

So the mom with six kids gets to pump out six more and society pays for it, in more ways than one.

Me, the next time she has a kid, I say it's time for that hysterectomy.

I reiterate the point I raised above: the male version of such an operation is far simpler and easier to perform, therefore more logical, if any operation is to be performed at all. Why are people here concentrating on the mothers?

[Tahlan]

But what to do in today's society? Is there a point where we say "no more." Who makes the decision? Society? The legislature? The courts?

In reality, probably no one. Not until a societal consensus arises that is great enough to compel the legislature into action will there be action.

So the mom with six kids gets to pump out six more and society pays for it, in more ways than one.

Me, the next time she has a kid, I say it's time for that hysterectomy.

I reiterate the point I raised above: the male version of such an operation is far simpler and easier to perform, therefore more logical, if any operation is to be performed at all. Why are people here concentrating on the mothers?

You are correct, Zentei; I did focus on the mother in this extreme situation. There are no doubt situations where a man can have six kids with six different women, and he's just as guilty as the woman with six kids of her own. But when she's had six kids from different fathers, do we cut on six men or on one mother? And remember, it's not the men who are seeking welfare, in this example it's one mother, and it's abuse of the welfare system that is so galling.

[weemadando]

Usually when people claim that something is "not statistically insignificant", they back up that claim with, you know, some statistics.

I'd love to but we have all these damn non-disclosure laws where I work.

Okay. I'll grumble and give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

You can find on the Centrelink website a lot of the information relating to the amount of welfare paid out each year and I quoted the details on incorrect/fraudulent payments.

Essentially the main issue is that Parenting and Family payments account for a large proportion of the payments made by the government. I have no problems with supporting single parents (I'm a child of one), but there are a lot of cases where parents refuse to fulfil their obligations as part of the social security agreements.

Its not just single parents who are the problem, its people who are 100% reliant on welfare to support them AND their existing child/children and choose to bring another into the world, thus further stretching their abilities to financially support their families and maintain quality of life for themselves and their children.

[Zixinus]

How about you explain why it's ethical.

I didn't say it was.

I just said that by only requiring the implant after there are two children and the mother is still unemployed, and has no one that she can claim that would help support her and her children. The massage then turns from "you are too much of a failure to have children" to "you have two children whom you cannot support by yourself but only trough us, we will help you but only if you don't burden taxpayer money for more future children".

Whoever, it would be hell to determine whether a women should receive the implant or not. I personally don't think that it would help that much, and norplant does have side effects. But it still cannot be ruled out as plan D, when it must come to that. I just hope that it doesn't.

[Lord Zentei]

You are correct, Zentei; I did focus on the mother in this extreme situation. There are no doubt situations where a man can have six kids with six different women, and he's just as guilty as the woman with six kids of her own. But when she's had six kids from different fathers, do we cut on six men or on one mother? And remember, it's not the men who are seeking welfare, in this example it's one mother, and it's abuse of the welfare system that is so galling.

There are other ways to deal with such abuse than compulsory drug treatments. For instance, simply place the children in foster care and disallow further payments. And while it is not the men who are seeking the benefits, they are just as much to blame for the situation as the mother, yes?

[Astarial]

How about this? Only give norplant or whatever else, AFTER two children.

That's more then enough for a single mother, and making them temporarily sterile won't breach their right that much. Although, I hope that there is somehow a better solution, because of the side-effects.

How about you explain why it's ethical.

It doesn't cause harm (if it does, a doctor's say-so should be sufficient to waive the requirement). It's hormone-based, so it will simulate a pregnancy. If the woman would have gotten pregnant had she not been on it, she would have the same symptoms. It prevents harm, because it prevents another child being brought into the world whose parents can't support it.

[Astarial]

The issue is, that people will refuse to spend money on it, but then claim that they have a reason not to just so they get those few extra dollars.

Religion is just another excuse.

Which is why you don't allow that as an excuse.

It appears that you are missing the point.

Then maybe you should try having a point. If the only exception was granted for a legitimate, doctor-approved medical reason, people won't be able to claim they have a reason.

I would also like to know what women think of this idea. Methinks women are not so enthralled with the idea of men deciding they don't want to pay taxes to take care of society's most vulnerable.

I personally don't have a problem with the OP's idea, and it's not just men deciding.

You are misstating the basis of the argument, though. It's not a decision that "I don't want to pay taxes to support society's most vulenerable." It's "Women who cannot afford to raise their kids should not have full license to have as many as they want on my dollar." Society's most vulnerable, the children of low-income families, should by all means be cared for... but their parents should not be rewarded for putting their children in such a situation.

[brianeyci]

You are misstating the basis of the argument, though. It's not a decision that "I don't want to pay taxes to support society's most vulenerable." It's "Women who cannot afford to raise their kids should not have full license to have as many as they want on my dollar." Society's most vulnerable, the children of low-income families, should by all means be cared for... but their parents should not be rewarded for putting their children in such a situation.

Excuse me, but if desperate women refuse norplant, as many will, and have children, these children will have to be taken care of, by guess what: welfare. So like it or not, you will be putting children in the shitter with this policy, deny welfare unless you take norplant, unless you want something as draconian as forcing poor people to take birth control regardless of their consent. If you don't support norplant, same deal: these so-called psycho moms, who I am not convinced are statistically significant anyway, will simply have the children.

It costs far more to raise a child than the pittance welfare dollars provide, in emotional, psychological and it's a 24/7 job. Parents are "rewarded" by having more children? Ha. Maybe if they totally neglect those children, but inspections by child services is the protection, not invasive medical procedures.

I still don't see the reason for this knee-jerk reaction, poor, don't have children. Do you know in my apartment building there are parents in subsidized housing, parents who are sucking society's tit, who work two jobs just to make ends meet for their children, who go to food banks for their weekly meal, and will continue to shit out more children? But their children go to school, and they'll want desperately as hell to escape poverty and work their ass off. I don't see the connection with poor = bad parent as many people are seeing here, or even that poor = undesirable. They might not grow up with state of the art computers, trips to Disneyland or a big allowance, but that's not what makes a good citizen. I would strongly advise against raising a child in such circumstances, but it's possible to grow up poor and be a responsible, contributing adult.

[Cairber]

How about this? Only give norplant or whatever else, AFTER two children.

That's more then enough for a single mother, and making them temporarily sterile won't breach their right that much. Although, I hope that there is somehow a better solution, because of the side-effects.

How about you explain why it's ethical.

It doesn't cause harm (if it does, a doctor's say-so should be sufficient to waive the requirement). It's hormone-based, so it will simulate a pregnancy. If the woman would have gotten pregnant had she not been on it, she would have the same symptoms. It prevents harm, because it prevents another child being brought into the world whose parents can't support it.

Instead of writing out a huge post debunking this crap, I'd like to simply ask they you prove what you said here.

Please prove that:
1) It doesn't cause harm
2) hormone based birth control bills stimulate a pregnancy
3)a woman would have the same symptoms during pregnancy as birth control


And I'll just throw in that I get utterly depressed on hormonal birth control to the point of not being able to think straight, but I have had wonderful pregnancies totally free of that problem.

[Cairber]

Note: pills/IUD/ring/norplant all use the same basic system to prevent pregnancy (combinations of synthetic estrogen and progestin)