fooger03

iTrader: (2)

While "food stamps" is faulty logic, "handouts" is not. As someone whose own opinions on politics and economics are offensive as hell, I welcome your offensive opinions.

Another potential solution is: first off, gov't doesn't pay for you to have a baby, but secondly this: Each individual is entitled to one "financed" abortion. That is to say that the gov't will loan you money to have an abortion with the expectation that you pay all of it back. I'll even throw in the possibility that it be an interest free loan.
A second option allows the mother the opportunity to have the gubment pay for half of the abortion, and she pays for/finances the other half of it. All half-paid abortions come with free, compulsory, permanent, irreversible, birth control.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And that's the point you lose me at, broski.

Implanted contraceptives are reversible. I will grant you there are documented incidences of certain abuse of the system with respect to having children. My solution to it is to nip it in the bud (Get rid of their ability to abuse it via contraceptives), but is also fully reversible for when they are no longer receiving benefits from the system.

Aka, if you want to have more kids? GTFO the system. But permanent and irreversible? I have a problem with that.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im so confuses.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I'm not taking a side here, but I think you are misrepresenting his position a little bit. He said nothing about welfare fraud and only welfare recipients.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

He was using an argument, if I read him correctly, that some people stay on welfare and continue having kids for the benefits.

I contra-argued with the only hard data I have on hand (welfare fraud) for a problem that IMO is as overexaggerated as welfare fraud. However, I do not believe there is any way to get hard data on his claims. With that said, I think even you will agree that black women who have out of wedlock births for the "free handouts" are a vanishingly tiny minority in the system.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

But that's besides the point.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And? In some states, it CAN be a form of welfare fraud. So it can be entirely on point depending on your state's laws.

P.S. Welfare fraud, and what Foogy are complaining about are due to state, not federal laws normally, as the states set their own standards and administrate the system their own way. One great example? If you go on welfare in my state, you have to pay it back and only can be on it for so long.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

What do we use to decide who gets the implanted contraceptives?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

If you receive benefits, you get contraceptives. Period. At least IMO.

Like I said, IMO, if you want kids, GTFO the system.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

How do we deal with the middle/high school aged children whose parents are the recipients of the benefits? Do they received compulsory contraceptive implants too? Your idea has merit to it, but I want to close the loopholes.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

If they are getting welfare for being a parent, sure. If they aren't receiving welfare, I would be utterly terrified to say yes because it sets a nasty precedent for involuntary governmental control.

Note: By "they", I mean the children.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

How do we prevent the children from bearing kids themselves and becoming new recipients of government welfare? Or do we prevent it at all? Condoms in the classroom? Have free condoms historically reduced pregnancy?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Have everyone given the contraceptive implants and then be required to pass various tests (including income) to receive a license to procreate. I may or may not have given a persuasive speech on this once upon a time in college and had a girl in class come up to me afterward and say, "That is a horrifying idea, but you made a very persuasive case for it..." She was appalled and impressed at the same time.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's typically the impression i give the ladies.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I'm 100% for preventing pregnancy in people that shouldn't have kids, but I'm also 100% against the authoritarian thing. At least blaens experiment provides a choice.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

how about this:

come in and get a vasectomy and we'll give you either

A) an Escalade
or
B) free food for 10 years. good food too, not gubmint cheez.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

wtf, id get a hysterectomy

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You have a vagina now, Brainy?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

This is key to my philosophy.

Choice is required. I have no problem with giving someone the choice of benefits and contraceptives vs. no benefits. I do have a serious problem with giving someone no choice - i.e., forced sterilization as Joe mentioned.

I have no problem with say, someone donating a kidney to someone who pays them $$$ - or part of a liver either. I have a major problem with criminalizing this behavior.

This is also very similar to where I get so heated on the abortion or contraception topics on here. You don't ------- take someone's choice away.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i'm the <1% that abuses the system.