I'd guess you'd only need to step out your front door to see proof of the inaction in action.
I'm not cool with generational welfare, and I don't believe it works that way (for the most part). There are other ways to handle it than
involuntary birth control. If you read my post, I'm saying society have a responsibility to better the conditions, and to provide more opportunities for people to better themselves.
If your mother worked under difficult times, more power to her.
Marginalized conditions are however synonymous with welfare recipients, given their previous history which proceeded their need for welfare (physical/psychological illness etc. etc.). People on welfare are further living marginalized simply by beeing poor. Under such circumstances I'd guess it would be quite hard to advance in life, which as I see it one should work to better. Of course there are people who will never be able to work, people I believe, society have a duty to take care of (and no, not a duty to take care of their fertility).
Marginalized conditions "can relate" to welfare recipients. They are not exclusive. To the rest...uh yeah...ok. An able bodied person that doesn't want to work should be marginalized. Easy availability of benefits tends to create freeloaders. Effort is relaxed. Urgency is nonexistent. The shot would not create a solution for effort or urgency. It would help remove a barrier. Does effort and urgency jump in due to a baby? Sometimes.....and offset by government. Another check on the way.
I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.
I don't see what
you are getting at. The part in red is how I picture it would get
if birth control were implemented. So, yes, you would get one class of people denied reproduction; people on welfare
Oh ok, welfare people, not poor people. Glad that was cleared up. Didn't know that was a class of people either.
As long as many people live of substantian wealth, money they will never ever have use for - then that society, which foster such hording of resources, have a duty to take care of people at the bottom. The earth can't foster every one of us living as large as the few.
Ok, ok and there are bad people in the world and so forth.....
Did you also know that capitalism works best under conditions of some unemployment, working as a buffer against increased wages? Needless to say there will always be people at the bottom, and a society which foster such should take care of those, it in fact, are dependent upon. So capitalism must take its share of responsibility then - you can't simply reduce the issue
completely to the individual.
Who did?
Edit, I can't agree more regarding abuse of the system. Obviously if enough people abused it - it would break.
Bookmarks