Welfare families a choice?
Either the mom gets sterilized or they get cut-off from the government teat?
2006-11-23 15:20:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It ought to be mandatory to get food assistance in 3rd world countries where they are producing babies as fast as they starve to death, but it's not a bad idea here, especially if they are 3rd generation welfare recipients. I'm one of the working pooor who gets annoyed at people on food stamps driving better vehicles than I have, have their rent paid for, who whine about not getting more money and spitting out babies to get more benefits. Gee, I guess I'm developing an attitude :P
2006-11-23 15:32:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You're question is as absurd as it is morally repulsive.
You aren't offering a choice. Unless of course you call a choice choosing between sterilazation and having you and your family starve to death. That's like a thief offering you the choice of handing over your money or getting shot in the face.
According to your question, in an effort to balance society, you would endorse a policy of eugenics on the under-privileged.
Who died and made you god?
How many great people started off being members of poor families? How do you know that one of the kids a poor mother will not grow up to become the next Einstein? Or maybe find the cure for cancer?
How do you know those kids wouldn't become productive members of society? I started out in a poor family and now I'm pulling down six figures a year.
People of your political mindset (right/far-right) complain about abortions and complain about stem-cel research, but then come up with ideas like this where you're eliminating an entire class of human beings just because they haven't had the same good fortunes as you.
That's KKK/Nazi type mentality. That's the old French aristocracy mindset.
Any government that supported a policy like this would be an authoritarian state, not a democracy. They would be no better than Hitler's Germany.
On a parting note, you should keep this in mind. Most of the people in the military come from lower class families. The poor outnumber the priviledged by quite a bit. The poor have less to lose and more to gain. The poor are more desperate than you.
Your palaces are built on the backs of the poor and working class. It would be wise not to anger them.
~X~
2006-11-24 00:13:40 · answer #2 · answered by X 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, that's called oppression. The problem is that there is no incentive to get off of the government "plantation", not children, per se. Welfare should be a temporary thing, not a permanent state. Make it more desireable to find work rather than stay on welfare.
2006-11-23 23:51:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
why do conservatives talk about the ideas of freedom and liberty...
yet, when they actually talk about ideas and issues... they don't seem to care about freedom and liberty... only money?
or do they think freedom and liberty is just another way of saying rich?
but, to answer your question... no... that would not be a good idea...
do you have any actual facts about mothers and children on welfare and abusing the system? you talk about it a lot, but if you look at the facts... yes, it's a problem... but it's not that big of a problem... relatively...
if one or two senators would stop building roads/bridges to nowhere... you would make up probably the majority of the waste in welfare... and that's ony one or two senator's waste...
oh well... I guess it's better to pick on the poor that are a small problem than those that are huge problems... right?
2006-11-24 00:27:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I started thinking about this more than 25 years ago.
Sterilization is permanent. Being on welfare is not, JK Rowling being a good example.
A better solution is that when one goes on welfare she cannot receive an increase for any children born after that date.
2006-11-25 01:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would set a dangeious president! If they could do this to once class of people then the ground is set to say out law republicans from breeding , tempting but not just. I think if you made them work at say picking up trash or raking leaves,scrubbing bed pans at hospitals, theyd soon leave the welfare roles
2006-11-24 04:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you let the government start deciding who can and cannot have children you are taking away some of our individual rights.
i don't like people taking advantage of the system but sterilizing someone isn't the answer, in my opinion.
all the freedom we have in the US is a blessing. lets not give it up.
2006-11-23 23:29:16 · answer #7 · answered by SD 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
we can offer but if they do not accept we can not cut the fundings as long as they are doing their best to look for a job. a just government does whats best for it's citizens and that is making sure that they are able to live with as little trouble as possible.
2006-11-24 17:05:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
But not only the mom. If a woman gets pregnant and wants welfare, she should be sterilized AS WELL AS THE FATHER if he will not support the child. No exceptions for any reason.
2006-11-23 23:30:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Theres a country on this planet that has rules like that, its called China.
2006-11-23 23:30:45 · answer #10 · answered by Arpan G 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋