- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should citizens who are receiving government assistance be allowed to have new children?
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:09 pm to weagle1999
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:09 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Don’t make that leap.
Umm this is your title:
quote:
Should citizens who are receiving government assistance be allowed to have new children?
If your question is more akin to “Should citizens who are receiving government assistance be allowed to keep their welfare if they have more children?” then you should rephrase your question.
Otherwise, your question as stated isn’t even worth discussing in a free society.
1
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:13 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
How about long term birth control, something reversible... the goal is to have assistance temporary.
No birth control, particularly reversible, is 100% effective. Even if it’s a low percentage, instituting this at the population level will mean a not insignificant amount of pregnancies still happen.
Now what?
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:15 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Should citizens who are receiving government assistance be allowed to keep their welfare if they have more children?
TD doesn’t allow a thread title that long
But, I will argue that once you decide to take fellow citizens’ productivity / money / time then you are no longer entitled to enjoy the benefits of a free society. At least while you are taking.
Get off the dole? Welcome back to freedom.
This post was edited on 10/5/25 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:17 pm to weagle1999
fcking rtard question op
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:18 pm to weagle1999
Common sense would be you can have as many as you want but you’re only getting money for the first one…..two at most.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:19 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
No birth control, particularly reversible, is 100% effective. Even if it’s a low percentage, instituting this at the population level will mean a not insignificant amount of pregnancies still happen. Now what?
The dependencies on government assistance will still be reduced. As you stated, no birth control is 100% effective... reduction, temporarily, while women and families get back on their feet is good enough.
If a woman should make a good faith effort yet still turn up pregnant... I wouldn't imagine any penalty should be due her.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:20 pm to weagle1999
quote:
TD doesn’t allow a thread title that long
Cmon now
quote:
But, I will argue that once you decide to take fellow citizens’ productivity / money / time then you are no longer entitled to enjoy the benefits of a free society. At least while you are taking.
So, someone is on welfare. How does the government stop them from having “new children?”
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:23 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
So, someone is on welfare. How does the government stop them from having “new children?”
Provide absolutely free prevention.
Go after the new father for child support. This would be a good one.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:23 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
The dependencies on government assistance will still be reduced.
Sure, I’m not arguing the ends, but the means.
quote:
As you stated, no birth control is 100% effective... reduction, temporarily, while women and families get back on their feet is good enough.
So all women of child bearing age on welfare is forced to have an IUD or something of the sort?
quote:
If a woman should make a good faith effort yet still turn up pregnant..
What does this mean? A sensor on her vagina that monitors how much intercourse she’s having
The problem with these topics is they are so impractical they are almost not even worth discussing. Unless this is some weird freshman ethics class.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:25 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Provide absolutely free prevention.
Ok, and if the women is like “nah I’m good”….then that’s it?
I am not of the belief that the cost of OCPs is the limiting factor of its use.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:26 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
So all women of child bearing age on welfare is forced to have an IUD or something of the sort?
Forced? No...
Offered, with an incentive bonus, why not?
quote:
If a woman should make a good faith effort yet still turn up pregnant..
What does this mean? A sensor on her vagina that monitors how much intercourse she’s having
No.. just an agreement to use reasonable pregnancy prevention.
quote:
The problem with these topics is they are so impractical they are almost not even worth discussing. Unless this is some weird freshman ethics class.
1) You're here, discussing it....
2) So what if it is a thought exercise?
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:27 pm to hansenthered1
Any kids you currently have when you are granted welfare will be paid by taxpayers.
As a stipulation of receiving welfare, you will have the tubes tied or vasectomy, whichever applies.
Nobody is being forced to not have future kids UNLESS you've proven (by applying for welfare), you can't afford them on your own.
I think that's perfectly fair. If you want to have future kids, don't accept the help. No current kids are penalized, and we greatly reduce the burden on taxpayers.
As a stipulation of receiving welfare, you will have the tubes tied or vasectomy, whichever applies.
Nobody is being forced to not have future kids UNLESS you've proven (by applying for welfare), you can't afford them on your own.
I think that's perfectly fair. If you want to have future kids, don't accept the help. No current kids are penalized, and we greatly reduce the burden on taxpayers.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:27 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Should citizens who are receiving government assistance be allowed to have new children?
I’m at a loss as to how you’re gonna stop it.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:28 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Ok, and if the women is like “nah I’m good”….then that’s it?
You failed to address my second point... chasing the new fathers for child support.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:38 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Should parasitic members of our society be not only allowed, but encouraged to have children that they can’t afford to support?
This isn't the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is: "Could a future leftist government define 'receiving government assistance' as 'anyone who uses a tax break' and use such a law to tell my family we can't have anymore children?"
The answer is yes. This is a really bad road to go down.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:39 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Forced? No... Offered, with an incentive bonus, why not?
I think it makes infinitely more sense to just cap the amount of welfare you get at $X no matter how many children you have. We don’t need to incentive birth control…we need to financially disincentivize having kids you can’t afford. The rest will flow from there.
quote:
No.. just an agreement to use reasonable pregnancy prevention.
Agreement in what form?
quote:
2) So what if it is a thought exercise?
I’ve been around here long enough to know a lot of posters on here are serious about this
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:41 pm to tigahlovah
quote:
Any kids you currently have when you are granted welfare will be paid by taxpayers. As a stipulation of receiving welfare, you will have the tubes tied or vasectomy, whichever applies.
Sally, see what I mean
And this poster is talking irreversible birth control…
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:46 pm to onmymedicalgrind
There is a SUREFIRE way to avoid the birth control.
DO NOT apply for welfare, and you won't be touched.
Millions of responsible Americans don't apply for it their entire lives.
DO NOT apply for welfare, and you won't be touched.
Millions of responsible Americans don't apply for it their entire lives.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 8:47 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I think it makes infinitely more sense to just cap the amount of welfare you get at $X no matter how many children you have.
Yes... a large part of me agrees with this. A small part wonders how splitting resources that meet requirements for two children spread across three or more.
I'd be a big fan of absolutely going after fathers for child support more rigorously in these situations.
quote:
Agreement in what form?
I don't know... hopefully an acceptance of norplant or an IUD, but I'd be hard pressed to make a case for coerced medical decisions. Perhaps give bonus pay to those that accept long term BC.
quote:
I’ve been around here long enough to know a lot of posters on here are serious about this
Yeah, well... you're talking to a poster that actually enjoys these debates.
Posted on 10/5/25 at 9:00 pm to tigahlovah
Think of what you are saying....what sort of society would force sterilization/medical procedures on someone who needs help? This is sick thinking. Immoral. It's utilitarian heartlessness
Where does this end....no relief unless you agree that Trans are the sex they claim?
Why not just do as the left want and take said kids and raise them to meet your ideological needs?
Where does this end....no relief unless you agree that Trans are the sex they claim?
Why not just do as the left want and take said kids and raise them to meet your ideological needs?
This post was edited on 10/5/25 at 9:03 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News