Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Recipients of welfare need to stop making babies
Published on November 25, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

Having grown up poor I don't have a lot of sympathy for people on welfare. By and large, they seem to have been people who aren't able or willing to be responsible with their own lives and essentially rely on everyone else to support them.

Often times, it seems, that it's just a matter that they don't think ahead. They don't think through their actions. Statistically, most welfare recipients are young females with 2 or more children and are under 25. Sure, you can bring up cases that don't fit that. But the fast track to welfare is having multiple children before you can realistically afford them. And it gets worse, most (over half) of these people have never been married. That is, they've had >1 child yet never been married.

Apparently the common sense gene just doesn't get activated in all people.

One way to help people on welfare is to try to keep them from slipping further into dependency. More to the point, keep them from having more children. My solution: Forced contraception.  Today we have the ability to implant contraception that will keep someone from getting pregnant for months at a time. In order to receive public assistance, the recipient would have to agree to have the contraception implanted. The contraception would stay implanted as long as the individual was on public assistance. The same would be true of males, btw when possible. If you're a male on welfare, no making babies.

While some would argue that this is a violation of the welfare recipient's freedom, I would argue that the rest of us who are forced to work 4 to 5 months per year for the government suffer a greater loss of freedom.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 25, 2003
"While some would argue that this is a violation of the welfare recipient's freedom, I would argue that the rest of us who are forced to work 4 to 5 months per year for the government suffer a greater loss of freedom."

I would argue that breeding is a privilege, not a right.
on Nov 25, 2003
I can argue both ways! My mom was on welfare while supporting my brother and I. Our father had left when we were toddlers, and my mother, despite her best efforts, needed some help. I don't like being a burden on society, but it's not like my mom was a trailer-trash whore or anything. And she got off welfare in...a little over a year I think. We're all well and good now, and I can't say it would be the same w/o a little gov.'t aid. I do, however, see both sides, and there is a difference between trying an failing and not trying at all...kudos to you for touching on a debatable subject, many kudos!
on Nov 25, 2003
You seem to have a misconception of exactly who is on welfare these days. They are overwelmingly seniors or disabled persons. I don't think either of these groups would benifit from your suggestion. There is, of course, aid to families with dependent children. Threatening to sterilize the parents would certainly keep them from applying for beinfits. They might just go back to not feeding their existing children properly instead, or turning to crime to support them.
on Nov 25, 2003
I've always felt forced contraception would be a good idea too, but as you already mentioned, there would be many people against this. Although they'd say it'd be cruel to do that to a man or woman, I feel it's more cruel to allow a man or woman to breed children for more welfare.
Maybe, so as not to punish the people who only need welfare to get back on their feet, forced contraception should only go in effect if the recepient has a child while on welfare.
on Nov 25, 2003
Draginol, Draginol, Draginol, you never stop do you? This argument is tired, you will never respect, or agree with someone else's opinion. I wrote about this subject a week ago, you in turn wrote about this same subject. Now again? You want to force contraception on people? Davhill was right, most people on welfare are elderly, or disabled. Due to the welfare reform bill that Clinton signed into law, there is a 5 year lifetime cap on welfare. That means that you can only receive welfare for a total of 5 years. Here's the part I'm sure you will love Draginol, if a child is on welfare, when he or she grows up, they can't EVER receive welfare. If a person's been convicted of a felon, once she's out of prison and tries to resume her life, she can't get welfare for her kids. That person getting out of prison might not have any skills, and 9 out of 10 times she will revert back to a life of crime. Which in turn would force someone to take care of any kids she may have. Increasingly, elderly people are forced to raise their grand kids. They will have to take their social security checks and raise the children, and often it's not enough, so they will have to receive welfare. How much do you think welfare's costing you? Compare it to housing and feeding a prisoner because some poor child had a Mother or a Father who didn't have any job skills whatsoever, and only taught him or her a life of crime. Seems grim doesn't it? You can't force someone to take contraception, you can't take away someone's free will. That's akin to playing God. As I've said before, we can't act as the moral conscience for the poor, or anybody for that matter. You act as if all of your tax dollars go toward welfare. If that's what you think, I'm here to tell you it isn't true. You aren't working that extra 4 or 5 months to take care of someone on welfare, maybe a week or two is for welfare, the other time is used for other things. Things like the military, Homeland Security, and other things that are needed to run this country. I don't think you'll be happy until everybody who's on, or who's ever been on welfare apologize to you for being dumb. That's what you think right, every "poor person's dumb", everybody on "welfare's dumb", everybody who "doesn't have a high school diploma is dumb". Those are your words, not mine. Stop beating a dead horse. Complain about some other form of welfare, like, hmm, let's see, corporate welfare. There's certainly a lot more of that going around. I bet more of our tax dollars go toward corporations who don't want to pay taxes, than poor people.
on Nov 25, 2003
People are forced to do many things. How many American men were forced to "sign away their free will" by registering for the draft? Requiring those applying for welfare to take contraceptives doesn't take away their free will. They're allowed to deny the contraceptive and forget about welfare.
Although I disagree that people in poverty or on welfare are dumb, I do wonder why somebody wouldn't have a high school diploma, so I could agree that dropouts are dumb unless they dropped out to do something meaningful such as becoming a secret agent.
As for corporate welfare, it might just be me, but I see the corporate welfare as more of an investment, as corporations also bring in money. Meanwhile, whose benefitting from welfare besides the recepients?
Also, I'm sure people would love to have an extra week or two of vacation in lieu of helping those that aren't helping themselves.
on Nov 25, 2003
If I belt out an article calling for the sterilization of welfare mothers that makes me a racist, narcissist, or a troll.
on Nov 25, 2003
" I could agree that dropouts are dumb..."--Messy Buu

Dropouts tend to fall into two categories, dumb and extremely intelligent.
on Nov 25, 2003
Every dropout I've met says they drop out because it's too easy for them, but how is doing nothing with their life more intelligent?
on Nov 25, 2003
How is dropping out of HS equivalent to doing nothing with your life?
on Nov 25, 2003
It's not the dropping out part that's equivalent to doing nothing. It's the not doing anything with their life that's equivalent to it. If they have reasons to drop out, like they are John Connor and must stop Skynet, that's different, but usually they don't.
on Nov 26, 2003
LOL. Most people on welfare are elderly or disabled? Um no. Most people on public assistance are young, female with 2 or more children. That isn't open to dispute. That is stastical fact, Luscure.

I've never met an intelligent high school drop out. And the statistics on poverty certainly don't help their case either.

Bottom line: It is not society's fault to raise other people's children. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. If you are too ireresponsible to take care of children and require society's help to pay for them, then society should have a say over whether you can have them while you're on the dole.

Luvscure, I can't think of how to put this any more succinctly: You are incredibly ignorant on this particular issue. First you buy into some weird story that the elderly are the ones mosty on welfare? (which is totally untrue unless social security and medicare/medicaid has now been reclassified for this argument when it should be clear what type of welfare we're talking about). But now you're arguing that we spend more on corporate "welfare". Do tell. How much do we spent on corporate welfare. Do you have even one statistic, one fact to back up that claim? I'll give you a little hint: It's TINY as a percentage of the budget and arguably at least goes towards people who are producing something.
on Nov 26, 2003
OK, not really sure how to respond to what you said Messy Buu, because I don't understand what you are trying to say. So I will just say this. There are A LOT of HS dropouts who lead, what is commonly considered to be, successful lives.
on Nov 26, 2003
"I've never met an intelligent high school drop out."

So every time you meet someone who you consider to be intelligent, you ask them if they graduated from HS? No, of course not.
on Nov 26, 2003
I think I met a few intelligent highschool drop outs. I would have to agree with Abe. If someone is intelligent I wouldn't ask if they were a highschool drop out. Nevertheless I do know of some highschool drop outs who made it by working.

I have heard the idea of not allowing people who are on welfare to have children anymore until they get off if it, but it is not really piratical.

More likely than not, those females who have 2 children had them before they were on welfare. If not that scenario, then she might find herself in more trouble from contracting a disease from having free sex without worry of getting pregnant.

If not that scenario, you will have people who will NOT apply for aid and not fee their children or do criminal activities.

If not THAT scenario, then you find yourself by process of elimination targeting minorities to not have children because they are poor (I am sure there are many statistics about who the majority of poor people are in the US)

If not that, then... well I'll stop here.

The idea of public assistance really is that we save as much as we can from the situation. If we pay for some of those 'lazy people' maybe their children will be productive. If we give them a chance (the parents and the children) maybe will will get something out of it. The most basic thing we get out of it is that these people have something (and therefore stay away from crime), also, by giving food, housing and money, they are able to live at a higher standard. They go to work and produce more, spend more.

Also by taking care of them it lessens the chance of diseases being spread do to lack of food, doctor care, self care; also, violence related crimes (you have and I want it), sexual deviancy (sex is the great drug to forget your cares), drug use and others because they are getting a minimum living standard.

Honestly, if we are not paying this way, we will pay in other ways.

Oh and honestly, where does the idea of being on welfare means your unintellegent, lazy, or just a plain slacker? I have met people who just wanted to 'get by' or be on welfare and like it, but it is a very few. Most do not like it, or how they are treated, or the way people speak to them, or being on a 'allowance'.

The real answer is workfare AND education not contraception.
3 Pages1 2 3