Should people on welfare be allowed to have multiple children?

[WowwGirl]

[RolandCuthbert]

This question has been posted before. Trying to engage in population control is a form of eugenics. If you have proof that parents are neglecting or abusing their children, then yes, you should be able to take them away.

But the U. S. government has a very long nightmarish history when it comes to sterilization of "Black" and "Brown" people. All because of some weird racial/economic standard.

https://time.com/5737080/native-american-sterilization-history/

A 1970 Law Led to the Mass Sterilization of Native American Women. That History Still Matters

Marie Sanchez, chief tribal judge on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, arrived in Geneva in 1977 with a clear message to deliver to the United Nations Convention on Indigenous Rights. American Indian women, she argued, were targets of the “modern form” of genocide—sterilization.

Over the six-year period that had followed the passage of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, physicians sterilized perhaps 25% of Native American women of childbearing age, and there is evidence suggesting that the numbers were actually even higher. Some of these procedures were performed under pressure or duress, or without the women’s knowledge or understanding. The law subsidized sterilizations for patients who received their health care through the Indian Health Service and for Medicaid patients, and black and Latina women were also targets of coercive sterilization in these years.

[OlderAndWiser]

I don't think you can legally interfere with their right to procreate but you can cut off the benefits after the second child and offer her a free tubal ligation. If she declines and continues to have children that she can't afford, that should be considered child neglect.

[WowwGirl]

I like your answer

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[Erellvy]

Yeah, what would the alternative be? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? No, we don’t do that because it’s a huge violation of human rights, extremely dark and dystopian and nobody has the right to force bodily procedures like that on another person. They are their own free person.

So, cap the welfare? Make it so those who do have multiple kids aren’t allowed welfare? Well, that would only create more children living in absolute poverty because people won’t stop having kids because welfare is taken from them. People will always continue to have kids no matter what, planned and unplanned, and it would be the kids and in longterm the society overall who suffers if welfare was taken away from them because a lot of those children would grow up to be criminals, addicts and end up on welfare themselves. This is the case already to some extent but taking welfare away from a lot of families would only make the problem a lot, lot worse than it is. It would be a lose-lose kind of situation where the kids grow up on the streets and in home built tent and shed ghettos without any sort of future and it would end up costing tax payers more in the longterm with all these kids future needs and crimes they’d commit. Not to mention how much more unsafe the society would be for everyday citizens. And imagine having a huge population who needs to feed theie kids and have nothing to lose to get them what they need. You better not go outside and make sure to get the best security system for your home. Lock your doors at red lights. You get the point.

So take the kids away? No, there are already thousands and thousands of kids in foster care being thrown around into new homes and families (often as bad or even worse as their original families) all the time and never getting a real and safe home environment and family who loves them because of it. And taking children away from their parents and siblings causes a huge trauma that should never be taken lightly. If the parents are loving and capable to care for their kids it is always in the childs best interest to stay with their birth family. Being poor or on wellfare doesn’t make one a bad parent and it would be best for the child to stay with them and have the family receive monetary support (monetary support goes out to foster families anyway). And it is the best interest of the kids that should be taken into consideration above all else. They are innocent in the situation and didn’t ask to be born.

[cth96190]

I would not want to live in the type of totalitarian Hell state that would “allow” people to have children.
Only the Chinese Communists have been that psychotic and insanely despotic, to date.

For Democrats, that would be a wet dream, because they would reject all applications by white couples and bring about our extinction that much earlier.
What I would do, however, is end welfare as most have known it and stop paying the low IQ underclass to breed, via an increase in welfare for each new retard added to a family. The current system is designed to create huge social problems.
There would be no welfare for doing nothing.
If someone did not have a job, there would be a shovel on a capital works project that would have the person’s name on it.
That was how the NSDAP turned around Germany’s economy post 1933.
Welfare for single mothers would end.
Paying dysfunctional fools to breed with Chad and Tyrone will destroy a society.
Stop paying single mothers to be single mothers and watch how quickly the out -of-wedlock birth problem goes away.

[ChrisMaster69]

It’s always a hard one.

What happens if a couple have worked most of their life, the company they both work for goes bust.

They have 2 kids and she is pregnant and has just been informed she has twins due.

The idea of restricting welfare works if they have never worked say, are simply taking advantage of the system, unfortunately there are real cases where people with more than 2 kids lose their jobs.

At a friends company, he had to let people go, including those with kids, losing their job out house mortgage at risk and put them on welfare.

Then you have those desperate to work, on really low wages and she gets pregnant with triplets?

What happens if you are trying for a child, expect a single, then end up with triplets?

You ‘have’ to give birth to them, do you put 2 into care or all 3 ?

it’s not an easy one size fits all.

lot of knew jerk reactions come out with know they should not, however does this means anyone losing their jobs has their kids put into care?

[Levin]

This is the central problem of the benefits system.

They can't figure out a 'moral' solution around this.

In the UK you get £250 per child, which I'm effectively paying for out of my tax paying money, while I can't afford my own. It's kind of disgraceful, but no one cares, so...

[zerofuks]

No they should not. But and said we decide to give them more money for every kid they have and and it costs less Thanks to economy of scales so you have failures popping out as many kids as they can increasing poverty because they don't actually care about the kid they're just an atm

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Nope, what is sad is these families half are crack addicts
heroin addicts have 5 kids or more and the politicians
don't do anything about it, they just let them go having
more kids also have these moms who are on SSI
and take their kids to these shrinks and these quacks
diagnose the kids with Autism, Bipolar, the list goes on
and they have the best houses while other people live in
dumps yes it is sad, Now I'm not bashing the good people

[AndrewMG]

A massive majority of people that have had a social impact whether through sports, music, acting etc have come from a tough background... hardship often leads to creativity. The aim should be to reduce the people on welfare rather than to punish those that suffer hardship.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

Yes. Limit welfare not peoples rights to procreate. Stop allowing people to treat their kids like free paychecks from the government.

[Avicenna]

Yes, it’s s human right. And most people don’t stay on welfare, plus work requirements can always be enforced

[Roguehoneylife]

I think healthcare should be universal so people on welfare aren’t having kids they can’t afford / don’t want which result in a cycle of poverty, abuse and foster children.

[Mangospacho]

No. It should be strictly enforced like if you’re with someone on welfare and things get intimate, this happens…

[whosnumber1]

there is a lot of people out there that probably shouldn't be allowed to have kids. pretty hard to regulate that though.

[blondfrog]

Hard to say because welfare was basically intended for single moms at first. Like WIC checks, food stamps, SNAP, etc.

[skeetskeetskeet]

Yeah. . I mean someone's gotta be the garbage man in life

[Joker_]

They should be able to have only 10 children at most

[EaterPeter]

People should not be allowed to have more than 2 kids.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Constitutionally, yes

[CuriousMufuxka]

People on welfare already have multiple children!

[slatyb]

As opposed to what? Forced sterilization?

[emperor90]

No cause they will be taking advantage

[OddBeMe]

Uhg. How about no children. Or shotguns.

[boobliker]

maybe not!!

[kokikordi20]

hello

[eagle1951]

i don't see why not