The anti-abortion cure for poverty??

Question

I think that abortion is wrong, but I feel bad for poor women who keep having lots of children just so they can get meager government benefits. What if we impose mandatory sterilization after 2 kids in the lower economic tiers. Hey, this could get rid of poverty too!

Answer 1

Too bad it wasn't enacted before your mother started squeezing out puppies.

Answer 2

I think the whole "women having children so they can get meager government benefits" pretty much ended in the 90's. Are you aware of the way welfare works now? There are srong negative incentives against having more children.

Population control, which the world will eventuall need very badly, will only work if it is done with complete disregard to socioeconomic status and with adeqate checks and balances to ensure it is enforced fairly.

Answer 3

we are!! At this very 2nd somebody is examining the U.S. shape to discover the thank you to reinterpret it so as that this is taken to serve a fundamentalist schedule. After the Lord's sheep settle for this because of the fact the real which skill of the form we are able to rule by way of Christ! as quickly as we get the blasphemy regulations up and dealing....some 'instruct' trials accompanied by skill of a few public executions could do it ...we are going to easily ban abortion thoroughly!! Shoot, we ought to have the very word 'abortion' stricken from the dictionary!

Answer 4

Because it would be a clear violation of human rights!!

what would you do if you had 2 children in a low socio-economic area and then improved your standard of living and wanted another child?

Or if you are in a low income family (perhaps not on benefits) and want more than 2 children? It's the way it is because some people cannot recognise the benefits of living in lower socio-economic families, your theory kinda reminds me of a Hitler type theory.....

I dare you to try it and see what reaction you get!

Answer 5

Well that's 100% against the US Constitution!

But, cutting off welfare benefits for additional children isn't!!!

I think the key is in the money. If people couldn't get something for nothing, they'd actually have to go out and get that something for themselves.

Welfare wasn't meant to be support for life...nor was it meant as a means to subsidize someone's desire for more children.

There needs to be limits. Without limits, there is a possibility of more and more people wanting to benefit from the program and less and less people financially contributing to that program....what happens then... the program will become much like Social Security, underfunded with politicians wondering its fate.

When the government can no longer afford to carry a few generations of people who have learned no other way to support themselves and funds have to be cut off, then what?

The answer starts before the money runs out. The government dole cannot be the answer. Therefore, without infringing on the right of procreation, we must limit our own rights to take $$ support indefinitely.

Where does it say that anyone has the right to free taxpayer money for as long as they desire and for as many children as they choose. As taxpayers, we have rights too!



.

Answer 6

Wow!!! I'm reading all of your questions and so far either you are really a snobby rich girl with no grasp on reality or just an uneducated person trying to talk just to her herself talk.

When the human race starts deciding who lives and who dies based on income to debt ratios and basically convenience of the living, your crossing the boundaries of morality and judging by some of your other question's I'm not sure if you have any moral compass whatsoever.

Answer 7

No, actually it wouldn't. It has been tried in many countries, like China. Also, it has already been decided by the US Supreme Court to be Unconstitutional.

Answer 8

I think that the most effective thing to do would be to make them pay for their own hospital bills, diapers, formula, babysitting, housing and food. They have no concept of accountability.