What if we decided that welfare mothers have to get norplant

[Superman]

A few years ago, my father married a woman with a daughter. This daughter is 26 (I think) 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 society, get to fund her ability to have and raise a litter of kids. Her boyfriend does work, but I don't know how much he spends on her or the kids. I know he's the dad of this last one... a few of the others have different fathers.

Anyway, she won't be winning any 'World's Greatest Mom' contests any time soon. Everytime I see her, she's yelling at one of them or loudly criticizing her boyfriend.

What irks me is that one of her sons, I think he's 12 or 13, is a pretty cool kid. He has behavioral problems, chronic bedwetting, and is very hyperactive, but I really think he means well most of the time. He reminds me a lot of myself at his age. Despite his continual problems, his mother's answer is to continue to try and punish these things out of him.

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 don't mean to pick on women here either; if there was an equivalent for men, of course they should also be required to receive it. I'd really like to see what others have to say about this.

[Pablo Sanchez]

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?

Gee, I don't know what could possibly be wrong with preventing the poor from reproducing.

[Dominus Atheos]

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?

Gee, I don't know what could possibly be wrong with preventing the poor from reproducing.

Probably because there is nothing wrong with it, or at least the benefits largely outweigh the doubts.

No one is talking about outlawing pregnancy for anyone, just that if they want government money, they have to use some form of birth control. This is a great idea. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to people less fortunate then me, but I refuse to pay for people like the woman in the OP, who keep pumping out babies that they can't afford to support. Mandatory birth control would be a great way to curb this problem.

There is also the issue of what kind of life these kids have. As someone who grew up with a single mother living on welfare (I was an only child, thankfully. My mother was smart enough to get Norplant all on her own), I can tell you that it's not a good life. Any effort to curb the circumstances I grew up under is one I fully support.

[Zixinus]

Well it would make abortion less necessary. I think that knowing that you won't have kids for x-amount of time is a better choice then trying to abort a child, from that standpoint of the mother. It would be much more humane.

However, the political problems associated with this will be nothing sort of hellish.

[weemadando]

Most of you would know that this is my area of expertise. The other day someone at the office had a case where a single mother was on Parenting Payment (Single), Family Tax Benefit and Multiple Carer Allowances.

So, that sounds kind of reasonable... Except, this woman was receiving MORE in welfare each fortnight that I receive BEFORE tax is taken out. What the hell!

Its why I support many of the very harsh welfare reforms that are often tabled in Australia. Because, its patently obscene to have the welfare recipient receiving more than the person who has to hand it out.

[mr friendly guy]

I have to agree. If you can't or don't want to support a child, don't have children. We tell fathers who bitch about paying alimony that line, so why shouldn't it apply here as well?

[Zwinmar]

I would agree on this, what gets me is that I have seen how broken the system is first hand. Once I was out of the house (in the military) my dad had to get welfare, but he got jack shit. Dispite the fact he had two boys (my youngest brothers) in the house and is a widower, and he has leukemia. But yet, the perfectly heathy individuals can get it because they meet certain 'criteria' that makes no sense.

Male, female, black, white, pink, purple with pink pokadots shouldnt matter, yet it does. They found every loophole possible to give my father the least amount possible.

Even with Leukemia he still tried to work, though realistically he couldnt, not with the chemo treatments. Keep in mind he worked two jobs while me and my brothers were growing up, in addition to military reserve. The leukemia came on after my mom died, and myself and the second oldest had already moved out.

[Astarial]

what would be wrong with requiring mothers on welfare to get norplant or some other form of birth control?

I think it's a great idea (for all the reasons posted above), but there could be legal and political issues with it. What if birth control is against her religion? What if she's on some other medication which birth control would interfere with? What if she's no longer sexually active?

[Justforfun000]

but there could be legal and political issues with it. What if birth control is against her religion?

And having sex out of wedlock with no long-term stable relationship would be in her religion?

[CmdrWilkens]

Part of the problem is that it gets into the same territory of a women's right to be in control over her own body. Yes its probably for her benifit and the benifit of kids who would otherwise grow up underprivledged as a result BUT you are messing with a woman's reproductive rights and the second you can do that you open the book on fucking with abortion even more. The problem is trying to have a bunch of folks sit around a table deicde on the best course of action even though it likely correct you are, by default, dismissing the individual's opinion, however informed or misinformed.

So to make a longwinded post les longwinded in theory great idea in practice incredibly difficult to balance against the inevitable horesbacking of other issues into this new ability to intrude in individuals reproductive rights.

[Justforfun000]

CmdrWilkens Wrote:

So to make a longwinded post les longwinded in theory great idea in practice incredibly difficult to balance against the inevitable horesbacking of other issues into this new ability to intrude in individuals reproductive rights.

Spot on mate. Horribly difficult in practice. Great ideas in theory. I think the only possible way that it could be addressed would be to have a general sterilization (if it was possible) that made all women infertile temporarily that caused no harm whatsoever in procedure or side effects, and then they would apply to have it reversed when they demonstrate a long-term relationship with the likelihood of a stable family life for children and at least a hope for the best at that stage.

Of course this is patently impossible, so it's ultimately unfeasible and therefore my solution is nothing of the sort.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Probably because there is nothing wrong with it, or at least the benefits largely outweigh the doubts.

No one is talking about outlawing pregnancy for anyone, just that if they want government money, they have to use some form of birth control.

Oh, so making welfare money contingent on accepting birth control isn't forcing anybody. It's just that, if somebody is too poor to support themselves, they can either maintain control of their own reproductive process, or they can have enough money for rent and food. In America, everyone has the freedom of choice!

It's insulting to the dignity of the poor. It implies that the women, because she is poor, is such a failure at life that she cannot be allowed to reproduce. As if it isn't bad enough being poor, now a government doctor can inform women on welfare that, because they are poor, and because the government thinks it's likely that they are too stupid and irresponsible to prevent themselves getting pregnant multiple times, that they are going to be temporarily sterilized for a period of five years. And if they don't like it, they don't get any more checks. Not only is this extremely intrusive, paternalistic, and insulting to the woman, but the ability to bear children is one of the defining characteristics of womanhood. Being forced to cede this ability for an extended period, even if one didn't actually want to have children, is uniquely invasive and humiliating--that is, being poor makes you no longer a real woman.

Direct government control of the reproductive process is something that I'm frankly uncomfortable with in any context.

Why don't we think about who else we should prevent from having children? Children from single parent households tend to have problems. Why not enforce birth control for all unmarried women? Children of people with congenital disorders like albinism, dwarfism, sickle-cell anemia, and so on can have serious problems in their lives. So what if only a small percentage of these children will have the problems? Only a very small percentage of welfare mothers are having lots of children! Norplants for everybody.

This is a great idea. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to people less fortunate then me, but I refuse to pay for people like the woman in the OP, who keep pumping out babies that they can't afford to support. Mandatory birth control would be a great way to curb this problem.

I'd like to see some kind of statistics to suggest that the situation referenced above is common or in any way a serious drain on welfare resources. In any system you're going to have certain efficiencies, and any welfare program will have trash who are going to try to cheat by whatever means available. But the idea of forcing all people who need government assistance to have birth control is overly draconian. If someone could actually prove that welfare mothers were rampant breeding machines who were all gaming the system, that is, that this proposal was actually necessary, I'd definitely change my opinion. But one or two anecdotes aren't going to convince me, nor should they convince any intelligent person.

Should the specific women in Superman's and Weemadando's stories have had so many kids? No. Should they have their children taken from them? Maybe, if they are unable to care for them. There are social services specifically designed to deal with that kind of problem, and if Superman thinks it's gone to that level, then he can call them in.

But are they justification for a blanket policy that will affect millions of women, the majority of whom aren't having clutches of children? No.

More on this point--welfare mothers are like sex offenders or chavs/bogans/white trash in that they're very easy to attack. But a little google-fu shows that welfare mothers are mostly a myth. A plurality of mothers on welfare have only one child, and only about 10% have four or more children. So, yeah, this kind of program would be unfairly targeting a substantial majority of women who are not behaving in the ways you wish to proscribe, and are pretty totally unnecessary invasions of privacy.

There is also the issue of what kind of life these kids have. As someone who grew up with a single mother living on welfare (I was an only child, thankfully. My mother was smart enough to get Norplant all on her own), I can tell you that it's not a good life. Any effort to curb the circumstances I grew up under is one I fully support.

Why don't you ask your mother how she would have felt if a government official had come down and forced her to get the norplant under the threat of stopping her checks. Even if she had wanted it anyway, I'm not sure that the experience would have brightened her day.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Boh fucking hoo...

I think I speak for many people when I say the rest of us shouldn't foot the bill for the results of a womans 'right to choose'. How's that go about someone else rights end where the rest begins?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Boh fucking hoo...

I think I speak for many people when I say the rest of us shouldn't foot the bill for the results of a womans 'right to choose'. How's that go about someone else rights end where the rest begins?

Wow, what a great post. In only two sentences, you managed to pack in two meaningless stock phrases and an appeal to popularity. I'm impressed, but I guess it's too bad that you didn't leave enough room for an actual fucking argument. For your next trick, why don't you fuck off until you've got something worth posting?

[Cairber]

As someone who cannot take hormonal birth control without becoming depressed and unable to think straight, I wouldn't support an idea like this. The only way to make an idea like this work is to use hormonal birth control (pill/norplant/IUD, etc) and, besides the other issues already discussed by other posters, the risks of these devices/medications is just not something I am comfortable forcing on anyone.

[Covenant]

You could just cap the amount of money you pay out. That way you avoid the real danger of this circumstance without needing to force chemical treatments on someone, since if you're capped at like 2 kids, then having more than two kids for the sake of welfare isn't going to benefit you.

Obviously, this still makes the kids themselves the victim, but there's nothing we can do about that. We can't enforce good parenting, and financially stable parents are fully capable of legally fucking their kid up too. It'd be pleasent if children were considered more of a responsibility than a right, but the fact is that breeding remains as one of these human 'rights' in a sense, even though doing it in poor circumstances can often cause compound problems later.

That is, however, outside the realm of this discussion. So why not just cap welfare payments? If these people are mostly a myth, it'll only hurt the few bad apples that do exist, and if these women are good mothers then I'm sure they'll do fine, since I know a lot of hardworking single moms who are totally great moms and don't need to live off of welfare.

It seems like Welfare is supposed to be a 'leg up' sort of thing to get you moving so you can get out of poverty and start putting energy back into the system. Can't you get a 'leg up' with a cap? After you have your first kid and apply for your check or whatnot, you'd obviously be told about capping it at two, so nobody would get bushwacked.

[General Zod]

It seems like Welfare is supposed to be a 'leg up' sort of thing to get you moving so you can get out of poverty and start putting energy back into the system. Can't you get a 'leg up' with a cap? After you have your first kid and apply for your check or whatnot, you'd obviously be told about capping it at two, so nobody would get bushwacked.

The problem with a lot of American wellfare systems, is that the moment you start earning income greater than the bracket you're covered in, you get your benefits yanked. Which means that there's very little incentive for people who are on wellfare to try for a higher paying job, as it still might not be enough to cover the essentials without their benefits.

[Faqa]

It seems like Welfare is supposed to be a 'leg up' sort of thing to get you moving so you can get out of poverty and start putting energy back into the system. Can't you get a 'leg up' with a cap? After you have your first kid and apply for your check or whatnot, you'd obviously be told about capping it at two, so nobody would get bushwacked.

The problem with a lot of American wellfare systems, is that the moment you start earning income greater than the bracket you're covered in, you get your benefits yanked. Which means that there's very little incentive for people who are on wellfare to try for a higher paying job, as it still might not be enough to cover the essentials without their benefits.

The solution, obviously, is to quit this moronic idea of welfare as straight money. Food stamps, public transport passes, whatever, just quit handing out money.

As to the OP, forcing the treatment is a bit much. Just run regular checks on the family, yank the welfare if they have more kids than at the time when they began being on welfare. Of course, make it known the abortions and birth control are freely available.

I know the system might create some strategies, but I'm sorry. If you need goverment charity, your right to reproduce is limited, and frankly, it reeks of irresponsibility. You can't support yourself and you want to bring a KID into it? Well, not on the goverment's tab, you don't.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think proper sex education in the public schools and the cheap availability of contraceptives and birth control pills would go a very long way towards alleviating this problem in lieu of more draconian measures. Most women, even the stereotypical poor uneducated ones at the center of this tread, are not in a mad rush to have as many kids as possible simply because they can. This is especially true if they've had one already and are finding raising him or her difficult enough.

Perhaps instead of tying norplant with welfare checks the government could instead mandate certain educational classes every couple of months for welfare recipients. They could be on topic like job searching, adult educational opportunities, personal budgets, sex education, etc and etc.

[une]

It seems like Welfare is supposed to be a 'leg up' sort of thing to get you moving so you can get out of poverty and start putting energy back into the system. Can't you get a 'leg up' with a cap? After you have your first kid and apply for your check or whatnot, you'd obviously be told about capping it at two, so nobody would get bushwacked.

In America at least, welfare, on the federal level, is already capped at five years. I'm sure there are other caps as well.

[Spyder]

It's not a problem you're going to fix with an overnight solution. Start being invasive with the reproductive cycle and you will have riots.

Make sure the kids grow up educated and nourished and make birth control free. We have to remember that these people were those kids once themselves, a lot of them don't understand the kind of fulfillment you can have out of doing...well anything.

Getting kids to do stuff is easy, it'll be harder with the adults but not impossible,

[Dark Hellion]

Having children should not be a right, it's a responsibility. Those who cannot handle this responsibility should not be allowed to have children, just like those who cannot handle the responsibility of driving aren't allowed to drive.
The fact that it is so easy to have children should not be an excuse.

[Cairber]

Having children should not be a right, it's a responsibility. Those who cannot handle this responsibility should not be allowed to have children, just like those who cannot handle the responsibility of driving aren't allowed to drive.
The fact that it is so easy to have children should not be an excuse.

I don't think that analogy really works since, for driving, you are tested and if you can't drive you don't get a license. I don't necessarily think that being poor immediately makes someone unable to handle the responsibility of being a parent. (although I may be reading your argument wrong-?)

I guess I think of moms on WIC, which is a form of welfare. It does require less financial hardship to get, but it is still welfare. Anecdotally, I know a lot of families who take WIC but their kids are still provided for. Then you also have families who fall into hardship and may take WIC or children's health care, or perhaps health care just isn't offered at their jobs. There's a lot of grey area here.

[SirNitram]

I wonder if any of the squawkers in here would like to defend the idea of pumping a human being full of chemicals if they dare to be poor, because there's a one-in-ten chance they'll be a bad egg. Remembering that pumping people full of chemicals has side-effects.

[weemadando]

I wonder if any of the squawkers in here would like to defend the idea of pumping a human being full of chemicals if they dare to be poor, because there's a one-in-ten chance they'll be a bad egg. Remembering that pumping people full of chemicals has side-effects.

Well, the measure's I refer to in my post include
*Quarantining payments to ensure that rent and bills get paid, that the kids get meals and schoolbooks.
*Ensuring that all reasonable measures are taken to find an alternate income source.
*Focus on breaking the cycle of dependency which has lead to Australia having significant swathes of the population on multi-generational welfare support.
*Actually having punishments for screwing the gov't. I get sick of seeing thousands of dollars paid incorrectly only to have the person "punished" (if they even get caught in the first place) by having US pay OURSELVES back - rather than actually getting the lying, cheating scumbags to pay back the money themselves!

It drives me mad to see these abuses every single working day, many, many times a day. And the amount of times where we have "single" mothers who a) aren't single, b) complain about having to look for work for a few hours a week once the kid is of school age, c) claim for addon payments like Carer Allowance because their kid is a spoilt, sugar loaded shit who allegedly has ADD or worst of all (and thankfully, reasonable uncommon) d) have kids for the sole purpose of continuing their welfare entitlement.

Forcing contraception isn't the answer - the answer is to ensure that people realise that welfare is a goddamn priviledge not a right.