Current Events > Should the state mandate birth control for people receiving public support?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, if a mother is getting welfare payouts and wick, would it be reasonable to say she needs to be on birth control to qualify for support?
---

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

Is this not basically just one step below eugenics?
---

Bio1590 posted...

Is this not basically just one step below eugenics?

Slippery slope.
---

I don't like the sound of forcing people to take birth control like that.

If something like that had to happen, I'd prefer it be sort of the flipside - you have your choice on what to do with regards to birth control/abortion/adoption, but having a kid and keeping it will end your welfare.
---

Make OP's post gender-neutral, and I'll 100% agree with it.
---

i dont think it should be required. but i think it should be offered for free (because, if used, it saves money).

hell, I would give them extra if they used it and gave proof that they were on it

Yes to all.

The state already spends taxpayer money in spying its own citizens, in legal killing via capital punishment, in making the world a most violent place via the army or cop abuse.

Protest that kind of bullshit first before being against public spending on health of any kind.
---

No.

Bio1590 posted...

Is this not basically just one step below eugenics?

Nope. It's eugenics plain, and simple.

JE19426 posted...

No.

Bio1590 posted...

Is this not basically just one step below eugenics?

Nope. It's eugenics plain, and simple.

How so? No one is forcing anyone not to reproduce. Every single person still has the option of getting a job, earning their own money, and reproducing as much as they want. They simply can't rely on government handouts to create children they can't support. If you aren't earning your own money, you don't get to complain about the requirements to receive it.
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

They're called condoms and you can get them for free
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

They're called condoms and you can get them for free

All someone has to do with condoms if they want to have a baby anyway, is not use them. And if they get called out, they just claim it broke. It's easy to forge a broken condom, if need be.

It needs to be something that's either long-term, or can be definitively proven whether or not they were actually using it.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

They're called condoms and you can get them for free

Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control (unless you count pullout and rhythm based planning, which I wouldn't). Also, they may be free at some places, like Planned Parenthood or a university health center, but the vast majority of people don't have access to them.

RedWhiteBlue posted...

We should try to find an alternative to condoms that doesn't involve permanent change, like snipping or tube tying. Sadly not even the pill is a guarantee as some women can't even use them due to cramps. Fluids + skin-skin contact are huge deals.

There could always be exemptions for those who have a legitimate medical reason for being unable to take it, while the "you must take it" policy still applies to the vast majority who can do so with no problem other than whiny entitlement.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control (unless you count pullout and rhythm based planning, which I wouldn't). Also, they may be free at some places, like Planned Parenthood or a university health center, but the vast majority of people don't have access to them.

It's still a cheep and reliable method you asked for.

As for TC's question, I want every family to only have one kid like in China. The only reason why I'm against immigration is because we're running out of room and resources, but that's also our own fault for having so many fucking kids.

Stop having kids! I would vote for a 1 kid per family cap, maybe 2
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

DarkTransient posted...

Make OP's post gender-neutral, and I'll 100% agree with it.

This. Male or female, if you can't afford yourself, you don't need to shit up the world with more babies that will inevitably be raised in poverty - kids DESERVE better than that.
---

people who support this overwhelmingly are people who themselves should not reproduce
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control (unless you count pullout and rhythm based planning, which I wouldn't). Also, they may be free at some places, like Planned Parenthood or a university health center, but the vast majority of people don't have access to them.

It's still a cheep and reliable method you asked for.

As for TC's question, I want every family to only have one kid like in China. The only reason why I'm against immigration is because we're running out of room and resources, but that's also our own fault for having so many fucking kids.

Stop having kids! I would vote for a 1 kid per family cap, maybe 2

Who is running out of room?

Section 8
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Who is running out of room?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE" data-time="
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control (unless you count pullout and rhythm based planning, which I wouldn't). Also, they may be free at some places, like Planned Parenthood or a university health center, but the vast majority of people don't have access to them.

It's still a cheep and reliable method you asked for.

As for TC's question, I want every family to only have one kid like in China. The only reason why I'm against immigration is because we're running out of room and resources, but that's also our own fault for having so many fucking kids.

Stop having kids! I would vote for a 1 kid per family cap, maybe 2

IUDs and oral contraceptives are cheaper and more reliable in the long run.

_Rinku_ posted...

IUDs and oral contraceptives are cheaper and more reliable in the long run.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. Since I'm a loser that has no social life, the price of things is admittedly out of my knowledge range. Thanks for the correction

I do stand with we need to limit how many kids we have in a family
---

545x39 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control (unless you count pullout and rhythm based planning, which I wouldn't). Also, they may be free at some places, like Planned Parenthood or a university health center, but the vast majority of people don't have access to them.

It's still a cheep and reliable method you asked for.

As for TC's question, I want every family to only have one kid like in China. The only reason why I'm against immigration is because we're running out of room and resources, but that's also our own fault for having so many fucking kids.

Stop having kids! I would vote for a 1 kid per family cap, maybe 2

Who is running out of room?

Section 8

Fuck section 8. My city has a rule that new housing developments have to have some section 8 housing in the property. Its led to a lot of projects being scrapped and property being devalued. Yes the poor need a place to stay but it doesn't need to be on prime waterfront real estate.
---

JE19426 posted...

No.

Bio1590 posted...

Is this not basically just one step below eugenics?

Nope. It's eugenics plain, and simple.

It's the kind of eugenics I can get behind.

The last thing the impoverished and dependent need is getting pregnant and having kids that will be further dependent on the state. Put them on birth control until they get their house in order.

Once they're at a point where they can take care of themselves, then they don't have to take the birth control anymore.
---

DarkTransient posted...

How so? No one is forcing anyone not to reproduce.

Lmao. You really think forcing people to take birth control isn't forcing anyone not to reproduce?

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

How so? No one is forcing anyone not to reproduce.

Lmao. You really think forcing people to take birth control isn't forcing anyone not to reproduce?

Not forcing. Only if they want public support for their kids.
---

"Not forcing"
"Only if"

Yeah uhhhhhhhhhhh
---

I can see why people would say yes.

We definitely should distribute birth control / sterilization kits throughout the poorest countries. They're adding 80 million people per year to our globap population.
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Not forcing.

- Mandate
- Not forced

Pick one, you can't have both.

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

How so? No one is forcing anyone not to reproduce.

Lmao. You really think forcing people to take birth control isn't forcing anyone not to reproduce?

It is not, because they can simply not go on welfare, and find other means of supporting themself instead, if they don't like the conditions that come with it.

And if you're literally in a position where you have no other option, you're in no position to be reproducing in the first place.
---

DarkTransient posted...

It is not

Yes it is. You even admit it right here:

And if you're literally in a position where you have no other option

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I can see why people would say yes.

We definitely should distribute birth control / sterilization kits throughout the poorest countries. They're adding 80 million people per year to our globap population.

Too bad the religious idiots in your country think birth control is evil
---

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

It is not

Yes it is. You even admit it right here:

And if you're literally in a position where you have no other option

Until you can show me a situation where someone is legally obliged to sign up for welfare, it is not forcing anything.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Until you can show me a situation where someone is legally obliged to sign up for welfare, it is not forcing anything.

-Mandate
-Not forced

Pick one, you can't have both.

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Until you can show me a situation where someone is legally obliged to sign up for welfare, it is not forcing anything.

-Mandate
-Not forced

Pick one, you can't have both.

Perhaps you don't understand the suggestion.

IF someone wishes to sign up to welfare, they must be on birth control in order to receive it.

What part of that legally prevents them from choosing the option "don't go on welfare, and remain off birth control"?

That's like saying that a law requiring wearing lifejackets on boats is "forcing people to wear lifejackets", even though if they have an aversion to that they can simply not go on a boat.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Perhaps you don't understand the suggestion.

IF someone wishes to sign up to welfare, they must be on birth control in order to receive it.

What part of that legally prevents them from choosing the option "don't go on welfare, and remain off birth control"?

The part where as you stated some people are literally in a position where they have no other options.

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Perhaps you don't understand the suggestion.

IF someone wishes to sign up to welfare, they must be on birth control in order to receive it.

What part of that legally prevents them from choosing the option "don't go on welfare, and remain off birth control"?

The part where as you stated some people are literally in a position where they have no other options.

I mean, you never literally have no other options. The point is, if you get into a position where you feel like it's your only option, or you conclude it's the only sane option, or whatever, then you must take everything that comes with that option. A birth control obligation is no different to an obligation to look for work if you're able, or attend training, or whatever other requirement might be put onto receiving that welfare to ensure you're on it for as short a time as possible and don't create any extra burden.

There is still never a situation where you are legally obliged to sign up for welfare. And until there is, a law saying you must be on birth control to receive welfare is not forcing anyone to do anything.
---

DarkTransient posted...

A birth control obligation is no different to an obligation to look for work if you're able, or attend training, or whatever other requirement might be put onto receiving that welfare to ensure you're on it for as short a time as possible and don't create any extra burden.

It's different in that it's eugenics, and the others aren't.

And until there is, a law saying you must be on birth control to receive welfare is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Wrong mandating something is literally forcing it.

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

A birth control obligation is no different to an obligation to look for work if you're able, or attend training, or whatever other requirement might be put onto receiving that welfare to ensure you're on it for as short a time as possible and don't create any extra burden.

It's different in that it's eugenics, and the others aren't.

Explain how it's different in real terms, rather than just "here's a buzzword that I think applies to it".
---

There's always the choice not to go on welfare. Even if it's a bad move, it's still a choice.

I still don't like the original premise of this topic, but putting the word "literally" into a sentence doesn't automatically make it true.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Explain how it's different in real terms, rather than just "here's a buzzword that I think applies to it".

I literally just did in the post you quoted. It's eugenics, and the others aren't.

Bio1590 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I can see why people would say yes.

We definitely should distribute birth control / sterilization kits throughout the poorest countries. They're adding 80 million people per year to our globap population.

Too bad the religious idiots in your country think birth control is evil

IIRC the US is the leading country when it comes to distributing birth control in poor countries, and most people here have no qualms with it. We just don't wanna pay for other people's birth control.

I'd gladly contribute a dollar per check if it meant that less people would be born into poverty though.
---

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Explain how it's different in real terms, rather than just "here's a buzzword that I think applies to it".

I literally just did in the post you quoted. It's eugenics, and the others aren't.

No, you didn't. If you think you did, you ignored the second half of my post.
---

Guys you can't be in favor of reduced immigration and support mandated birth control. You gotta pick one.
---

DarkTransient posted...

No, you didn't. If you think you did, you ignored the second half of my post.

Not at all. I read both parts of your post, and my answer is still perfectly valid.