Why Rich People Should Pay For Poor People's Birth Control

For starters, humans don't NEED birth control or healthcare. Throughout history, prehistory, and even in modern times, humans just reproduce as many offspring as possible. Nature doesn't care about one's own personal happiness level. Nature will just select for the individuals with the highest reproductive fitness. Whoever is able to breed the most number of healthy, viable, fertile offspring will have their genes carried on for generations. This fact works very well throughout history and is complemented by morality (that it is wrong to abort or prevent a pregnancy).

Why Rich People Should Pay For Poor People's Birth Control

However, in modern times, humans face a new problem. Humans have become so successful at breeding and eliminating causes of death that infant mortality and maternity mortality at childbirth decline, and that the life expectancy increases. With more people breeding and less people exiting the world, the world will become exponentially more populous, and soon, humanity will eventually run out of resources and space to live in.

Now, you may think, "Humans should stop engaging in sexual intercourse. No sex means no babies." While that is the most apt, rational response to this overpopulation crisis, that is not practical. And it is not practical, because too many humans are not rational. When you have irrational, stupid humans, someone will always do something stupid. Sometimes, this stupidity leads other humans to make protective guidelines for other humans. Other times, this stupidity makes babies. Combined with a nurturing and safe environment, these stupid babies grow up to become stupid adults, and the cycle repeats itself. Nature doesn't for rational intelligence. It just selects for who will breed the most offspring. If stupid people breed the most, then the future will be full of stupid people.

So, what does this mean for people who are both rich and smart? It means that they should control these stupid people. To control the population of these people, these stupid people should be given birth control. Humans already give birth control to deer and other mammals. So, giving birth control to humans is a non-violent way to prevent human overpopulation. It is possible to just legalize homicide, war, torture, genocide, forced sterilization, and the like on 99% of the global human population, but doing that would be extremely difficult, as most people in the 99% do not want to be selected out of the gene pool. They all want to be in the 1% of breeding individuals. So, what do humans do? The smart ones use their superior intellect to make birth control for the dumb ones. Making birth control costs money, so the rich ones should work with the smart ones to provide funding, legislation, and social pressures to prevent the dumb ones from making babies.

Because the purpose of birth control is contrary to one's evolutionary biology, some humans, persuaded by traditional moral beliefs, may be offended that they and their fellow humans are given birth control. Also, the human psychology must be taken into account. If the humans are made to feel inferior (that they are too stupid/irrational and thus make stupid decisions like having sex without the financial resources to take care of a child), then they will experience reactance and do the opposite of what they should do. They may even make babies just to spite everyone else. That's why creating the right language is important to offer birth control to stupid people who fuck too much.

If humans want to decrease the population, then the number of deaths must be greater than the number of births.

If rich, smart, and powerful people still refuse to finance birth control (including contraception and abortion services) for the poor, then they should not blame the poor for failing to rear the child properly. Poor people do not have the resources to give every child the same lifestyle and standard of living as rich people. Therefore, poor people should be free to let the child die. Let Nature take away the child's life. Infant mortality among the poor will increase, but that is to be expected and should be treated as a positive thing to thin out the number of people entering the world. Clean water access should not be delivered to the poor either, because clean water raises personal hygiene and public sanitation, thereby decreasing infant mortality rate among the poor. If humans want to decrease the population, then the number of deaths must be greater than the number of births.

Therefore, the poor, which constitutes the majority of the human population, should have two options. One, they should let their offspring (at least just the weaker ones) die and deserve no blame for letting them die. Two, they should be given birth control and be made to think that they have some control over their lives, even though it's actually the rich and powerful people who control the lives of the poor people by providing and enforcing the use of birth control.

My personal opinion is that national governments should all favor the latter option over the first option. The first option, while achieves the same goal, causes too much suffering in the world. Nobody wants to see their children die. Even if their children are weak, defected, stupid, or sick, parents generally don't want to see their children die. Parents always think that their weak/defected/stupid/sick children are going to live and thrive despite being the runt of the litter. There should not be a debate about whether or not people should be offered free access to condoms. Offering birth control for the poor (such as free biodegradeable condoms) is the only way for rich people to control the sex lives of poor and stupid people.

2 1

Most Helpful Guy

  • You are talking in terms of the betterment of mankind.
    Nobody gives a shit about the betterment of mankind, especially if it meant that their money is at stake. Everybody just wants what is better for them not what is better for society or the future of humanity, and what is better for me is to ask you to piss off. I am not paying for other people's shit. IF anything, we might wanna install laws prohibiting people from having more than one child or limit the number of their children to their household income - something around that area.

Most Helpful Girl

  • Thew word for this viewpoint is "eugenics." It was a big movement about 100 years ago, and Margaret Sanger, who played a big role in developing the pill, was involved in it. Google it.

    One weakness of your argument is that you equate "poor" with "stupid." You need to clear that up.

    Also, to make your system work, you would have to economically disincentivize having children. If welfare checks increase for every child someone has, then there's an economic incentive not to use birth control.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

17 55
  • In Australia, we already do.
    The majority of commonly used and necessary medications are subsidised and paid for by the government taken in through taxes.
    For a low income earner (someone on benefits) they pay $6.30 per prescription, a pill prescription is generally for 3-4 months.
    An average person will pay $38.80 per prescription with the rest of the cost still subsidised (it shows on the stickers how much you've "saved" like below).

    Honestly I think it's great. It means people don't have to struggle when it comes to the choice of preventing pregnancy, abortion and raising a child on benefit. Really, what's going to be more expensive to tax payers - a few hundred dollars on birth control per person or hundreds of thousands in welfare for both the child and mother in a continuous family cycle?

    Why Rich People Should Pay For Poor People's Birth Control
    • Well, there is always starvation. The mother and child can starve to death and not use welfare. :D That brings down 2 people instead of 1.

  • Without addresses specifics, I generally agree with this and it's why I also support abortion. For the most part, the people seeking it usually have no business having a kid so it's in society's best interest to support their ability to prevent pregnancy. It's basically allowing people lower on the gene pool to selectively euthanize themselves. From a purely practical standpoint this is actually beneficial.

  • Being poor and having low intelligence isn't synonymous. It's two different things and your economical situation hasn't necessary anything with your intelligence to do with. There's usually a good reason why some people is richer and some people is poorer. Some rich people inherit their money from their family and not every rich people earned money on big companies. Some people are poor because of their health and is therefor not capable to work or the country's situation like in 3rd world countries is the causes of it. The wealth shouldn't decide who deserves to live and who doesn't deserve to live.

    I thinks investing on education would be a good idea. If you wants the population to know better knowledge is the way to go. People who knows how impregnation work is more likely to be careful and take more responsibility since they knows the consequences. When it comes to birth controls it already exists charity organizations that gives free sexual education and birth controls where the money are coming from voluntarily people who supports.

    • ever heard of the bell curve. Being in poor areas tends to mean there is more crime, and where there is more crime there are more people who are subject to this way of living and end up having forms of ptsd from it. I have seen it and am constantly paranoid after living in a area like this. being poor and having some kind of mental illness or low intelligence is indirectly related with eachother

    • and traumatic experiences have been proven to have a impact on intelligence and reasoning. this also happens more in poor areas. This is why I firmly believe that there shouldn't even be living conditions like this in 1st world countries in the first place. its inexcusable to have people grow up like that to the point where they are to scared to go outside

    • @imbored2252, poor living conditions shouldn't exist anywhere, so it's not only 1st countries it shouldn't exist in. It's true traumatic experience and bad living condition affects the crime rate. But if these people weren't poor, it would be less likely they would be criminals and then they would get a proper education.

    • Show All
  • Have you had your tubes tied yet?

  • Won't work real poor people rely on breeding and having so many kids that the kids will bring in money and support the older poorer parents. They want to breed think of it as a small ant farm. To them it does not matter much if their kid gets knocked up at 16. It means that hopefully they get another guy to help bring in money. I'm guessing your middle class or higher and have never lived in a very poor area. I'm talking about one where none of the houses have heating or AC.

    Put that money into schooling to better educate the poor kids so they will grow up to good contributing members of society. Instead of hooligans that will likely join a gang or run drugs for good cash.

    • It's more a case of falling birth rates and an aging population meaning there is no one to replace the current workforce leading to a decline economically and no one to support old age pensioners.

    • Somewhat true lower jobs can easily be replaced but higher ones are hard to replace. So while higher jobs come and go often with the old worker dying. Companies often are born and die with the original owner's death or a lack of good leadership being replenished. Lower jobs are always there even skilled jobs. With people being swapped out. China really has that problem that your talking about.

    • Japan too. I fear I'm going to be working into my 90's. Maybe the next wave of job automation will fix it.

  • No, they shouldn't. Keep your legs closed or get condoms if you aren't ready for kids. Rich people are not responsible for poor people's dumb decisions.

  • Ok at first I got annoyed. A bit frustrated. Then I started laughing. Good one.

  • Actually in UK we have single mothers getting benefits for having children.

    I have noticed the trend where intelligent people reproduce less children.

    :-I I kind of agree with this post but no one should pay for someone else's contraception.

  • Well we do need healthcare, we should be helping the sick and needy but as far as birth control, its not needed and nobody should be paying for it. Birth control shouldn't even be a thing, you want to prevent pregnancies? Then practice abstinence or safe sex.. but abstinence is 10X better and FREE. Then after your married and in a stable relationship, thats when you have kids, Nothing is taken out of anyone pockets if we just practice this.

    • What do you mean by safe sex? So in your opinion even when you're married you shouldn't use birth control? Every time you have sex you should just make another baby?

    • @shyblonde I mean what i said above? abstinence. And married couples can use condoms if they want however its unnecessary if you just keep track of your cycle, its not hard nor impossible. The thumbs downs proves people just want to put pleasure before common sense.

    • @BrittBratt2416, times changes and as long we've the technology to make birth controls I supports that people use it. With birth control it's a lesser chance of people getting unwanted children. It's possible to not have sex too. But we've the technology, so then you can get two things. Pleasure and avoid getting children.

    • Show All
  • 'Humans don't need birth control or health care'. Wrong!. This is so an opinion given by a middle/upper class brat! I can't believe ANYONE would be so cruel, as to let someone go without medical attention, if sick, or die, if they can't afford medical. Clearly, you are American!

    • If humans need birth control, then would you concede that rapists need sex and therefore cannot be held accountable for their crimes? Because this is where your sort of thinking leads to. Either human beings are capable of self control and restraint or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.

    • Come the revolution his entire class will be up against a wall, blindfold, last cigarette BOP! BOP! BOP! as Wolfie Smith used to say.

  • Birth control is a choice. You either choose to use it or not. If you choose to use it, you should pay for it yourself. Plain and simple.

  • Fuck that. I ain't paying for peoples' mistakes. If you want to reduce the population, keep your legs closed

    • I imagine you will get responses that she's doing other guys a favor :D

    • @sp33d Oh yea probably but I pay little attention to men that are desperate enough to plug some trashy women

    • I hope you losses your job, then I hope your kids get sick and I hope you have to watch them die in agoney because you can't afford health care.

  • Wow! There is a lot going on in this. I feel like I should disagree with the whole thing, but there are some valid points. I don't know how I feel about this.

  • The concept of paying other people to essentially just fuck around, literally, is ludacris in my opinion.

    • You'd rather people in lower socioeconomic areas reproduce, and have high odds of becoming criminals and social degenerates? Yeah that's smart 😂

    • @Prof_Don I'd rather money be spent on better sex-education.

  • The founder of Planned Parenthood specifically desired to reduce the breeding of blacks. She had some success.

    As a rich person, I would be more philosophically interested in sterilization of any female as a condition of receiving any form of welfare, starting at age 15.

  • oh hey yeah just take my hard earned money because im rich and you would rather fool around in the bedroom rather than take responsibilities for your own actions

    • You realize providing free or more affordable birth control would save money overall if done properly? Like children are fucking expensive, and when the person raising the child doesn't have enough money or if the child is given up for adoption guess who pays for it- the state. Same goes for medical care during pregnancy actually. So really it's way better for pretty much everyone if we ensure everyone has access to birth control.

    • @cipher42 it should come out of the governments pocket then not civilians isn't that what governments are supposed to do look after the civilians

    • The government's pockets are funded by civilians. Ever heard of taxes? That's the price we pay for the government looking after us and for living in a stable society.

    • Show All
  • Mother nature has a way of working these things out, I wouldn't worry too much.

  • "If stupid people breed the most, then the future will be full of stupid people."

    You know what makes stupid people? Lack of education.

    Put MORE (or even the same) money into educating poor people than rich people, and you'll have a more educated populous.

    • You really love to spend other people's money on irresponsible people.

    • @Rissyanne First of all, who the fuck says poor people are irresponsible? Second, even if they are, why should their children have to pay the price for that through shitty, underfunded schools? And finally, you do understand that a lack of education or a shitty education is only going to create more irresponsible people incapable of making a decent living?

    • I reported you. You were blocked

    • Show All
  • all i see is a wall of text... in short all i really read was:

    "im too poor to afford my own BC so somebody should pay for me"

    fuk that. if rich people should have to pay for BC, then the poor people should have to work for them for dirt cheap. you want to save money? so do i. and the answer too poor people and poverty isn't more social welfare.

  • I wish the government would stay the hell out of the bedroom.

  • Show More (52)