Why should taxpayers pay woman to have babies that they can not afford to take care of.?

Question

Should they be made to have their tube tied after the first baby and should the father be made to support the baby.

Answer 1

law already requires fathers to pay child support. As for your original question in reference to welfare, taxpayers are not paying women to have children (not in this part of the world anyway). Unless your last name is Jackson, having children is in no way lucrative. I assure you, no one on welfare is living it up. Taxpayers are helping to provide for another life and investing in the nations future. Poverty contributes to crime.

Answer 2

I agree with you partly. Not only should the woman have her tubes tied but, the father should have a vasectomy.

It really needs to go both ways. I live in a city that has too many teen pregnancy's. So of course the taxpayers are the ones that end up paying for the medical care.

Answer 3

Statistics show that families on social assistance (welfare) raise families that will also subsist on welfare. It is a vicious circle. There is no incentive to get off the merry-go-round. Why work when the government will pay you for doing nothing. The more children you have the more money you get. It is time the taxpayers of our countries spoke out and put a end to this sham.

No one should be allowed on social assistance unless they cannot work because of physical or mental disabilities. If people need money for food, clothing and housing then they should have to earn it. Can't get a job because of lack of education or lack of job skills? Then the gov't should provide the education or skills needed but no free meal tickets. Give interest free loans until their education and job skills have reached a level where they are employable. Think having more kids will get you more money? Penalize women who are receiving social assistance who have more than two children by decreasing their allowance. Should the father be made to support the baby? Of course, but many times the father is also on social assistance and what can he afford to give? Sometimes they don't even know who the father is. If these families opt for tubal ligation or vasectomy then the penalty will be withdrawn.

This may sound harsh but it is the only way to get these people out of the vicious welfare cycle and back on their feet where they can feel good about themselves and have some self-respect because self-respect is what it is all about. If you don't respect yourself, no one else will respect you. The more support groups out there to help these people, the faster they will be back on the road to being self sustaining.

Answer 4

Taxpayers shouldn't. I am of the firm conviction that people should have to pay back the money - even if it means paying back for the next 10 years through wage assignment on their personal paycheck. If they can find out who the father is, they should make him pay for half of it as well.

Why have just the women have their tubes tied? Why not go after the men as well and get them snipped since they most definitely had a part in getting the woman pregnant?

Better to attack the whole of the problem than just one half.

Answer 5

I agree that the father should be responsible for half the support of the child. State enforcement of deadbeat dad laws are a joke.

No, women should not be sterilized after a birth if they're on public assistance. There's a word for that.

How about we invest one one-thousandth of the money of raising a child into birth control education and access? Even providing free birth control would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

Answer 6

I totally agree, there are way to many ways of preventing birth. I don't think that they should be made to have their tubes tied but they should be made to take contraceptives. Yes, the father should be made to support his child or mother.

Answer 7

There will always be people around who are so lazy that they are perfectly willing to sit on their butts and let you and I support them. I don't believe in forced contraception. What I do believe is, if you are on public assistance of any kind, and you have a child, you are cut off from assistance immediately. I believe that public assistance should be for no more than 6 months in any case, unless the recipient is a quadraplegic, deaf and mute..... Anyone can work who wants to.....

As for fathers - absolutely! Those deadbeats who disappear or cut out on child support should be forced to work days and spend their nights in prison.

Answer 8

I don't think that a woman should be forced to have her tubes tied. Nor do I think that the deadbeat fathers should be forced to have a vasectomy. They should, however, take responsibility for raising their child.

Answer 9

forced sterilization, just like the nazis had. great plan. thanks for that.

so women shouldn't be allowed to choose whether they have children at all? I mean, abortions are so restricted now, and pharmacists are refusing to give out the pill -- now you are saying that not only should women not be allowed to choose if they don't want to get pregnant, but now the government has some business deciding if they should be able to get pregnant either? Why don't you just have a federal agent stationed in my uterus?