Birth Control

[toasty]

I don't believe the government has any role in discouraging or encouraging people to have or avoid having children. Frankly, that is none of the government's business.

Agree 100%. Government should have no role in people's procreation decisions whatsoever.

How is this against their will? If they apply for welfare they are making a choice. ...

I understand not everyone abuses the system, but if companies can choose not to hire you based on you being a smoker, or firing you if you gain weight, I think we should be able to put stipulations on the assistance we offer.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here -- the difference between the rights given to a private company to exercise some control over who is employed there (within limits) and the limitations the constitution puts upon the government's intrustions into our private lives. Even if people are only sterilized temporarily and it is done only upon applying for welfare, who are we as a country to say, "Sorry, you've lost your baby-making privileges. Get your shit together and try again in 5 years." That's crazy.

[neoee]

^^^Fair enough in regards to private monies vs. government monies. Let's compare apples to apples.

We *do* put limitations on other government funds. As I stated before we have unemployment insurance, we all put into the fund and if we find ourselves unemployed we draw from it, but we only get money if we are actively searching for a job.

Some schooling grants/funds available (govt. provided) stipulate that you cannot be employed while attending school, for programs that were funded with said dollars.

When government funds are used in private industry (military contracts for weapons, transport equipment etc.), ISO 9001 compliance is required, security standards must be met (for apparent reasons).

What about research grants? Stem cell research is a primary example. Government funds are no longer to be spent on new embryos for embryonic stem cell research. You don't comply, funding is pulled. This may seem like a far parallel to the topic at hand but...

In all these scenerios a program was applied for (or a proposal submitted), much like with welfare assistance. You mention government intrusion, hardly. This was invited when the application was signed.

Its easy to forget where this 'government money' comes from- our tax dollars. If this was a privately funded operation there would be no questions. Let's take the government out of the picture for a sec. No one is forcing me or you to apply for welfare. When a person applies for welfare what they are saying is that I currently have some unfortunate circumstances which prevent me from providing for myself and I need your (tax payer's) financial assistance for a bit. With that said, how do we say its ok for you to pop out another dependant when you can't provide for yourself? If you can't afford your current lifestyle, do you then go out and buy a new car?

I hope I don't come off as insensitive. I do understand we are dealing with people's rights. Typically my views would be labeled "liberal". I do think the government has already taken too many of our rights away, but this isn't something where the government just arbitrarily picks who can and can't have [more] children, you had to apply for the assistance. We (the taxpayers) are 'investing' in the person applying for welfare, with the hopes that they will become productive members of society. Having them pop out another kid seems like a very bad investment to me.

Let's make this even simpler. Forget I said sterilization. Let's just require that a person who is on welfare is not allowed to concieve a child- if they do, we pull their "funding".

On a tangent, I thought I'd leave you with some more abuse of the system. My g/f works at a higher end hair salon. First off, if your on welfare, you shouldn't be here. I recall a time she mentioned to me how this gal was able to spend 70 dollars to have her nails done yet was on welfare. To be honest, I've got more respect for the some of the panhandlers in downtown than I do for these leeches.

[toasty]

^^ I see your point and would be hard-pressed to disagree with much of what you've said, but I do think there is a difference between government assistance that you apply for because you want it and government assistance you apply for it because you need it. No one goes signs up for welfare on prom night -- it's only when things get to a point where they truly need the assistance that they apply for it.

Or at least that's the way it should be. There are rampant abuses of the welfare system, and it has become a way of life for far too many generations of people. It needs an overhaul. With that said, I can't advocate placing restrictions upon child-bearing which is essentially based upon income level -- that type of thing falls into the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness category, I think. I wish people that can't economically handle children would quit having them, but I have a problem telling them that they can't, whether via sterilization or cutting off their welfare.

[Yao]

But still...sometimes people who are really incapable of supporting their child financially do have them, with all the consequences. I do not advocate forced taking of pills and stuff, but if someone would apply for them, I'd advocate giving them free.

Nice sig, Toasty!

[timkell]

I don't believe the government has any role in discouraging or encouraging people to have or avoid having children. Frankly, that is none of the government's business. Besides it is wholely an American point of view that poverty is a burden no one should bear.

Huh? Why do you think we have marriage? The government encourages marriage in order to encourage kids. There are tax credits for dependents to encourage kids. The gorvernment clearly has a role in encouraging, and discouraging, kids. It encourages marriage to have stable families raise the next generation of workers.

On the other side, it makes a lot of sense to discourage kids for those on welfare. Single women on welfare, for the most part, are very unlikely to be wanting kids. At the same time, they have no health insurance, so they can't afford birth control. It's way cheaper for the government to give away free birth control than it is to offer free medical care while the woman is pregnant and delivering, plus increased welfare benefits to pay for the new child. I don't agree with forced birth control, but it makes a lot of sense to offer it in a voluntary, and I believe it's definitely something the government should be involved in.

As for the other comment, I don't think that's an American view at all. Europe and Canada hold that sentiment a lot more strongly than we do. Our social support systems pale in comparison to nationwide free healthcare and many other services those nations offer. I like our model better, but I I would completely disagree with your statement. We accept poverty a lot more than Europe does.

[sammwalk]

This sort of laissez faire attitude toward government aid for the poor would be a bit easier to swallow if the government wasn't in the business of aiding the rich. What we have here in this "democracy" is laissez faire for the poor and welfare for the rich. Just think about how much the government promotes business, helps the elite, etc. So government non-interference is impossible, because even if the poor are hard working and intelligent, they are still at a disadvantage to the government aided upper classes.

Not to mention that the government's ideal duty is to promote the welfare of its constituents.

Sterilization is something that should be voluntary, unless the world be overflowing with people and there be a shortage of food. In a country that should have free basic health care but doesn't, birth control would obviously be something that it would cover.

There are many things the government does that the voting public does not condone; just because there is a certain portion of the population that archaically disagrees with birth control doesn't force the powers that be to change their policy. Tax dollars are being spent by the billions on weapons, though many in the country are pacificts, for example- you don't see the government stopping development, do you?

It is typically attributed to traditional conservatives (not the ultra-reactionary Christian right) that they have a stronger grip on "values". I would tend to disagree because what value system condones the disdain of the entire lower class? Conservative "capitalism" (not true capitalism) says that if you work hard enough you can get a good life, without government aid. This is obviously not true; think about how many hard working people you know that make very little money, and think about how many people work very little (inheritors, investors, many CEOs) and rake in huge amounts of money, with government protection and aid all along the way.

Welfare, and, in turn, health care, should be afforded to all. With the amount of money that taxpayers send to the government, it's ludicrous that it hasn't happened yet.

[jula]

If you cant feed em, DONT breed em.

1000% of right.

jula

[toasty]

But still...sometimes people who are really incapable of supporting their child financially do have them, with all the consequences. I do not advocate forced taking of pills and stuff, but if someone would apply for them, I'd advocate giving them free.

It's the forced action that I'm really against, too. I'm more on the fence when it comes to providing it for free, primarily because of cost concerns. If there were reliable data suggesting that the government would save more in the long run by providing free birth control to people, I'd probably be on board for it, since it is basically just assisting couples in a decision they have already made rather than making a decision for them.

PS thx for the kudos on the sig!

[fishingnut]

i would but i have said it b4 and ill say it again.

If you cant feed em, DONT breed em.

no kid should be brought into the world to live a life of misfortune beacsue mommy and daddy couldnt control themsleves.

but you get an extra check from the gov't, i needs my check

[Balanc3]

your such a cockhole fishingnut.

[fishingnut]

what's the matter

[Balanc3]

You remind me of sacredawe.

[skahound]

My ex-gf used to get her pills from the Public Health Clinic. She couldn't go to the gyno and get a prescription because her family would find out. I've also gotten boat loads of condoms from the 'Clinic' as well.

[thesightless]

Re: Birth Control

this thread reminds of a great line from the norm mcdonald movie "dirty work"

spoken by the father in the movie

""AAAAHHHHH comon, i mean when i was young we didnt have these fancy methods of birth control, you know.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIKE PULLING OUT!"

[mylexicon]

I don't believe the government has any role in discouraging or encouraging people to have or avoid having children. Frankly, that is none of the government's business. Besides it is wholely an American point of view that poverty is a burden no one should bear.

Huh? Why do you think we have marriage? The government encourages marriage in order to encourage kids. There are tax credits for dependents to encourage kids. The gorvernment clearly has a role in encouraging, and discouraging, kids. It encourages marriage to have stable families raise the next generation of workers.

Giving people their money back, hardly constitutes as encouragement. Manipulation
or coersion might suffice but those are allegations for another time. Besides
if the government is giving tax credits for people to have kids we all know
what that really means: the government is taxing everyone else extra hard
for not having kids. It's cleverly disguised of course, so we don't get mad
and change things. It's the same technique corporations use when they give
you things for "free". Whether or not you perceive it, you are still paying for
it.

As for the other comment, I don't think that's an American view at all. Europe and Canada hold that sentiment a lot more strongly than we do. Our social support systems pale in comparison to nationwide free healthcare and many other services those nations offer. I like our model better, but I I would completely disagree with your statement. We accept poverty a lot more than Europe does.

That is only partially true. We are more accepting of poverty b/c we still believe
that our society is merit-based or freely accessible to all people. However,
we have a much lower toleration for the wealthy and for inaccessiblity. People
in other countries accept that there will always be rich and poor. Which is why
they make transfer payments rather than trying to end bureacracy. Its kind
of a peace payment. The rich get to stay on top and they write lots of socialist
legislation to keep the poor and middle class right where they are.