No Contraception no Dole

[AttonParticipant]

I found this little gem online after hearing about it on the news and honestly it sounds like a good concept. It may require a few changes but I think that it is necessary. The only thing I would change is that the contraception is permanent, in cases where the person already has children.
http://www.kidspot.com.au/no-contraception-no-dole-argues-ex-labor-mp/#!
What do you guys think any ideas, opinions or objections?

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

You shouldn’t have more children than you can support.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[RoyDalParticipant]

“But the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.”

He is right, of course. Things have gone so far for so long, that only a massive crusade will make these and other changes to the welfare and divorce laws. Too many people make too much money from them, and they are centerpieces of feminist ideology. Even so, it’s a very good idea whose time four or five generations ago.

Dear Unmarried Feminists everywhere, the current welfare system has a lot to do with why you can’t find any good men. Think about it; you’ll figure it out.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Mr. SpockParticipant 10936]

I am not a fan of our welfare system here in the US and I agree with the comments of all the above posters. At the very least they should change the law so that once you start collecting, that amount stays static. If you have more children, then you must make due with what benefits you are getting. Productive members of society don’t have the option of getting more money from their employers (if they work for someone else) or customers (if they own a business) simply because their wife is pregnant and about to have another child.

Feminism isn't about equality with men, it's about leverage over men.

[EntropyParticipant 902]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

You shouldn’t have more children than you can support.

Wow… That Is blatant, hate-filled selfishness.

"Compare your lives to mine and then kill yourselves" -BBR

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

@entropy

Selfish, heck yeah.

Please explain why I should have to work to provide for someone else’s bad decisions.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[narwhalParticipant]

I whole heartedly agree with the principle, but in reality, this would never fly. IMO, two questions I want to ask for every potential law are…Is it enforceable?…and…What are the unintended consequences?

I don’t see this as enforceable. Not at a realistic cost anyway. Assuming the contraception is not permanent, how would you ensure that the contraception is used. Could it be some sort of monthly shot every time you go to pick up your welfare check? What about those who are religiously against contraception? What would the punishment be if someone gets pregnant while on welfare? Forced abortion, forced adoption? Permanent contraception? Prison time? A monetary fine? It’s a mess anyway you do it.

The unintended consequences are worse. You’re basically saying the government has the right to determine who can and cannot have children based on income. So we’ll draw a line somewhere around the poverty level, at first, but then there will be studies that will prompt the government to raise the amount. What else will the government start controlling? Plus there will be women who chose to not get welfare, then we will hear about the growing homeless problem and the people we aren’t taking care of. And yes, I understand there is a difference between dictating our lives and denying benefits if conditions aren’t met. However, I don’t think the media and general public will make that distinction.

The way I see it, this country made a decision a long time ago…no one will be allowed to fail at life. The government will support everyone, regardless of their bad decisions, and how much they deserve to fail. We don’t have the stomach for it, particularly if kids are involved. And like anything else, the failures will get worse and worse and more and more people will fall, because we do not allow rock bottom…for women anyway. That isn’t going to change until we have a drastic shift in attitude about those that are not pulling their own weight. And that attitude is actually shifting in the opposite direction these days. I honestly think we will never let people fall, until the western world starts caving in on itself, or we reach a level of technology where work is really no longer required.

Ok. Then do it.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

I always thought all women who give birth in a hospital should be offered a free tubal ligation (tube tied) and $3k in cash if they accept. They say it is easier to do this after birth.

$3K cash + $10k surgery will be much cheaper than subsequent kids on the welfare dole.

Afluent people will reject it and the people who do it are exactly the people we want to limit.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[narwhalParticipant]

@jan, I don’t know that it’s easier after any birth, but is definitely easier after a C-section. You’re pretty much already there. This was what my ex did after the birth of our last child.

I don’t think I would be in favor of your idea though. Free handouts never work as intended. You’ll have a lot of people who take the cash because they were going to tie the tubes anyway. Then there will be those who won’t get them tied simply because you suggested they should. Besides, you think that $3k is going to go to something useful?

It reminds me of the ‘new home buyer’ tax relief thing Obama had years ago. My ex was a recipient of that…and new boobs.

Ok. Then do it.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

I’ve been saying that should be a requirement for years. They can give them one of those implants that lasts for like 3 years…easily reversible if they get their act together and relatively cheap.

I don’t have a problem with people getting help, I understand people fall on hard times…but when you already have 3 kids you can’t afford and you just go pop another out because you don’t care, your on state anyhow, that just infuriates me, especially considering how most middle class people these days stop at 1 or 2 because its all they can afford.

Its just f~~~ed up scum bags have an endless right to reach into your wallet when you are already paying for existing kids they can’t afford…yet if you suggest hey, we should put some sort of requirements on these programs because they are a privilege to get, not a right, people get all up in arms.

The sad part is statistically married couples have a lower chance of being on welfare than single moms…yet the government and feminist do everything in their power to wreck marriage…they are only making the problem worse. I can’t wait for early retirement and paying a fraction of what I do now in taxes…I hate supporting this system.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

narwhal wrote:

Assuming the contraception is not permanent, how would you ensure that the contraception is used. Could it be some sort of monthly shot every time you go to pick up your welfare check?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel_implant

It’s good for three years. No implant = no monthly check.

What about those who are religiously against contraception?

What about them? Freedom of religion means you are free to practice whatever faith you choose. It does not mean everyone else must accommodate your religious choice. If your religion precludes you from using contraception, then it also precludes you from getting a monthly check. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your priest, not the tax payer.

What would the punishment be if someone gets pregnant while on welfare?

The “punishment” would be they don’t get any additional money. Or any money.

Not getting a monthly check you didn’t earn is NOT punishment.

Forced abortion, forced adoption?

Well that’s their CHOICE, now isn’t it? And right now they are CHOOSING to make you and me pay for their CHOICE to have a child. Why should they be empowered to do that? We certainly don’t get a choice about paying the taxes to support their selfishness.

Prison time?

Governments don’t seem to have any problem with sending MEN to prison for non-support of children. They even do it to men for children THAT AREN’T EVEN THEIRS.

Why should women be immune to that sort of accountability? At least with women there wouldn’t be the problem of imprisonment for false maternity.

It’s a mess anyway you do it.

It’s a mess any time a woman CHOOSES to have a child she cannot support. And that’s entirely her fault. It’s a mess she created. It’s HER mess. So why should it be on the heads of everyone else to clean up HER mess? How is making everyone else responsible for her poor CHOICE going to persuade her to stop making bad CHOICES?

You’re basically saying the government has the right to determine who can and cannot have children based on income.

Bulls~~~. That whole “eugenics” argument is a p~~~ poor canard.

You can still have all the children you want, but the taxpayer isn’t going to pay for them. If you cannot support more children it’s not the government telling you to not have any more. It’s life telling you that.

What else will the government start controlling?

Not giving you a monthly check is not controlling. It’s the opposite of controlling. If the government isn’t giving you a monthly check, then it doesn’t have to extract the funds for that check at gunpoint from some productive person (which most definitely is controlling).

[BeerParticipant 11832]

sidecar wrote:

Bulls~~~. That whole “eugenics” argument is a p~~~ poor canard.

You can still have all the children you want, but the taxpayer isn’t going to pay for them. If you cannot support more children it’s not the government telling you to not have any more. It’s life telling you that.

Exactly…if people don’t like the fact that welfare comes with strings attached…simple solution, don’t go on welfare.

[Author]

Posts