# Should women on welfare be paid for tubal ligation ?



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

I was reading that the biggest cost to tax payers in the United States is paying for child welfare. An unwanted child costs taxpayers over $250,000 from birth until age 18. & even more when people on welfare statistically end up in prison. I have herd that on the reserves that a lot of the natives will have children just to get money for children from tax payers. Welfare women & women on reserves that receive tax payers money in any way should perhaps be given a one time tax free payment of $50,000 that can be used for anything legal. Then perhaps be cut of. In the long run this would reduce the number of people on welfare. No money should be given for having kids money perhaps given for not having kids ??????/


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, should men on welfare not receive the same incentives?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

heyjude said:


> Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, should men on welfare not receive the same incentives?


Except that women on welfare can have children by men who are not.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

maybe Ontario could be a test province.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

No need for sterilization. Just stop the payments and the babies will (mostly) stop.


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> Except that women on welfare can have children by men who are not.


And once this child is born, mom and baby are off to court for child support.:biggrin:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Making abortions legal and available have already reduced the problem of unwanted children, and even lowered the crime rate.

There is no point in paying anyone to go off welfare. Many will be in trouble again later and you can't let them starve.

It would make more sense to pay for sterilization for those who want it.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

nortel'd said:


> And once this child is born, mom and baby are off to court for child support.:biggrin:


If they can locate _Nortius Maximus_...or his pal....(apologies to Monty Python).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Okay, I get the sterilize the genetically inferior argument, we tried that, we've since realized it was wrong.

But sterilize the poor and unemployed? That's just a bit much.

Now a more logical argument.
How long do you have to be on welfare before you get sterilized? A month, 2 months? years? 
Politically it's impossible, it's well known that drug issues are an issue for SOME, people freaked when Harris proposed drug test to help identify and provide treatment. There is no way sterilization will happen. 

Just because a parent is on welfare doesn't mean the child is unwanted. 
Abortion in much of Canada is quite accessible, there are huge waiting lists for adoption. There really aren't "unwanted" children.

Secondly our birthrate is too low, it's not even at a sustainable level. If we didn't have significant immigration, we'd be in bad shape, look at the demographics of Japan or China, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

I know lots of well educated, employed couples, they have 0-2 kids, almost none have more than 2.

The less educated lower earning people have more kids. 
I know of people who have half a dozen kids or more, quite honestly I feel a bit sorry for the kids, generally the kids are great, they just don't have close to the resources of my kids. Do you have any idea how many kids don't even get a "book of their own" until they go to school?
What we should do is ensure all kids have adequate support.

I grew up on the "wrong side" of town, class mobility is a reality in Canada, lets just keep it that way. I do know of kids raised on welfare who went on to good productive careers. I know people who went on welfare for the right reasons. I went to school with kids who wanted to be welfare recipients when they grew up (sad statement for a 6yr old).


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

My parents were on welfare while my dad went to university.

Testosterone patches will alleviate that grumpy feeling of the world being full of chiselers and layabouts. I recommend you discuss this with your doctor.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Amen Wendi and Mr. Matt.............

People would be surprised to learn of the "welfare" past of some successful people.

For some young people, welfare becomes a way of life..........a cycle of poverty.

For others it fuels a burning desire to do better in life.

An old axiom I have found rings true much of the time...........

A child that wants for nothing................wants nothing.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I don't see the harm in offering it for free if they volunteer and submit that they have no ambition. 
Education is the obvious way to deal with any notion of bloated welfare roles, but not every horse led to water will drink. 
Sure there are quite a few success stories and that's why welfare is there, but a small percentage of our able bodied and able minded population would not honestly work under any circumstances.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> Welfare women & women on reserves that receive tax payers money in any way should perhaps be given a one time tax free payment of $50,000 that can be used for anything legal. Then perhaps be cut of. In the long run this would reduce the number of people on welfare. No money should be given for having kids money perhaps given for not having kids ??????/


Re-Read this again and formulate in your mind how ridiculous you sound.

OntarioWorks is like $630/month. I have known people that have been on it. It's hard enough to survive on $3k/month.
By giving someone $50k in a lump sum, you are giving them the equivalent of 6.5 years of welfare. Most of the people on welfare would use that $50k for stupidity and it would not last 6.5 years. Then, because we live in Canada and Darwinism is only a (beautiful) ideology and won't be implemented, they will come crawling back and do protesting and blah blah blah and then the government will end up giving them more money. Imagine the political strongholds?

"Vote for John Smith as Prime Minister, because John Smith puts food on your table!"

Jesus. I can see it now... And the unfortunate thing is that John Smith would win, since statistically there are more poor people than wealthy.

And paying people to not have kids is counterproductive. The government currently pays people to have kids, as people do not have enough. We would have bigger issues if people were paid to not have kids.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

jacofan said:


> Investing in mutual funds - sterilization.


Ha! Even in a thread full of this much ridiculousness, this stood out and made me laugh.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

lonewolf said:


> Welfare women & women on reserves


Sexist and racist, how did this thread survive this long?

hboy43


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

jacofan said:


> Investing in mutual funds - sterilization. .... Google robots actually....


Lol. Excellent.

However, there are low-cost mutual funds available. I think the law has to be clarified that this procedure only take place if the MER is over a certain threshold - perhaps 1.0%?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

jacofan said:


> Could be a make work project for the Country. Doctors travel the country sterilizing people on the go. Speeding - sterilization. Watering during restrictions - sterilization. Late with credit card payments - sterilization. Investing in mutual funds - sterilization. The list could go on... Even have robots doing it. Google robots actually....



this is precious
gotta build on this
littering out the car window - sterilization
littering - sterilization
more?


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Doctors wouldn't touch this. Humans are job security. 
I tried to get a vasectomy when I was 25 or 26. No doctor would do it because I had no kids. Had I impregnated someone I would have sued.


----------



## Myrian (Aug 8, 2014)

*Women do not get pregnant alone*



Nemo2 said:


> Except that women on welfare can have children by men who are not.


In order to deal with child or pregnancy issues, one must look at the society at large not the carriers!


----------

