Do you think that this idea is harsh and unfair?
Scheming Angel asked:
I think that women who apply for government assistance — such as welfare, food stamps, public housing or Medicaid — should be required to go on birth control in order to receive benefits. If they’re admitting that they can’t afford to feed, house, or support themselves and whatever children they already have, what right do they have to get pregnant? Not only would they make their own situation worse, but they’d be subjecting another innocent child to a life of poverty.
Naturally, the exam and medication should be provided for free, and should be something like Depo, Norplant, or an IUD. The pill wouldn’t be effective, because anyone who disagreed could throw them away and claim that it didn’t work.
Who thinks that this is a logical solution to an ongoing problem and who believes that I’m just being prejudiced and unfair? If you choose the latter, please explain why…
I should point out that I am on food stamps — and birth control — myself, so this isn’t a case of some middle class soccer mom not understanding the plight of hardworking single moms.
link building service
Related posts:
- What types of government assistance can I get while on maternity leave? deidre asked: I will be having my baby in the...
- Can my wife apply for assistance if we are separated? Joseph M asked: My wife and I were recently separated....
Filed Under Other - Politics & Government |
Tagged With Medicaid, Norplant, Poverty
Comments
6 Responses to “Do you think that this idea is harsh and unfair?”
I could definitely get on board with that. It is logical that if you can’t feed yourself you shouldn’t be bringing children into the world that you also can’t feed.
I think that is a wonderful plan. Some people pop out kids just so they can get more free stuff. With the overpopulation issue today, i say they don’t deserve kids.
I think it’s a great idea, but birth control can fail.
I believe this is a logical solution.
Chnaces of being implemented 0.00001%
I like it but people will state that it takes away the right of free “choice” and other will say it promotes immoral behavior. All kinds of arguments against it but they seem to forget it’s just common sense that those that need assistance might also need assistance in those areas.
Well, if you see kids as nuisance, why not?
But if you see them as the most valuable portion of the society, i.e. the future population, maybe it would be best to advocate free healthcare and free quality education for all kids.