What do you think…
February 8, 2010 Economics, Sexuality
……of mandating a long-term, state-sponsored, reversible birth control procedure for those seeking extensive government benefits for their second child (excluding child illnesses, special situations, etc.)?
Keep in mind, they don’t have to take the government benefits. And they could wise-up after (or before) their first child and use non-invasive birth control techniques.
7 comments
That’s effectively how the one child policy in China works. While I’ve read that in some places there have been harsher enforcement mechanisms (forced abortions/sterilizations, etc.), the way the policy is supposed to work is that you lose all your government benefits if you have more than one kid, which gives you a strong incentive to get the birth control right on your own.
themicah,
What I am advocating is more moderate, in that one may still receive all benefits that the regular population receives (social security and medicare). Just not underclass benefits (medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing).
My brother would subject them to evolution. (Statistics show that over here, the less women are educated, the earlier they get children, and the more they need to rely on the welfare system.)
DK, the idea makes sense to me. But it would probably face strong opposition from elements of both the nutty Left (because it’s discriminatory to suggest that poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have as many kids as they want, or that Innocent Children shouldn’t be entitled to a good meal) and the nutty Right (because it might lead to evils like birth control and abortion).
Sarah, have you seen Idiocracy? The intro is genius.
themicah,
many good ideas face hostility from both the nutty Left and the nutty Right.
This one may just be worth fighting for.
themicah, that was funny – and pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, Germany’s got a very generous welfare system, and a woman can claim welfare for six years after giving birth (children start primary school here at age 6). I’ve had a student whose monthly welfare deposit (no cheques here) was almost 3,700 Euros (that’s about $4.5k) on top of rent, clothing, extraordinary expenses (e.g. b’day and X-Mas gifts, vacations etc.), heating, water, full-cover health insurance paid for. She complained she had to cover her electricity bill from that money and fill in a new form every year to apply for welfare. I told her I have to fill in my tax declaration form every year, which pays for the rest.
After my father’s death, my mother had to quit working until my youngest sibling was of school age, and she could return to work. She received public assistance for 2 years, and it wasn’t what it seemed to be today. We barely kept a roof over our heads and food on the table, I remember hating the entire experience. When the youngest, my sister started school, she went back to work and while things were still tough, it felt like a weight was off our shoulders. I can not understand how anyone would want to extend their and their children’s dependence on welfare, et al…
I do support a safety net, for emergency situations, but I also believe that if you are in such dire straits, that it makes no sense to continue to have children while you can not afford to support the ones you have already. It makes perfect sense to require a mother to prevent further pregnancies while expecting the taxpayer to support herself and her children.
Leave a Comment