The Welfare State

[Busyman™]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

True dat. It ain't 100%. That was known. Still give 'em the shot. And....

Those issues would be addressed just like they currently are. By a doctor.

The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.

Agreed. That's why I like the shot as the method.

Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.

So no welfare check then?

I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented.

Fault of government or the individual?

[Cheese]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

True dat. It ain't 100%. That was known. Still give 'em the shot. And....


The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.

Agreed. That's why I like the shot as the method.

Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.

So no welfare check then?

I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented.

Fault of government or the individual?

Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The sectarianism you pointed out may also be a problem.

Oh and the Nazism, that could present a problem too.

[Busyman™]

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.

Anything can break. Wait.

[Busyman™]

Fault of government or the individual?

Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis.

So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".

[Cheese]

Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis.

So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".

None without potenially harmful side-effects, just look at the box of any of these contraceptives (when I worked in a sexual health clinic we were required to tell young people of all the potential side-effect of the injection, pill and the coil, they're not nice). Sorry, but your "idea" is horribly unworkable given current contraceptive options. When (more of an if really) they invent a contraceptive that doesn't fuck women up (pun) then you would only have the moral argument to surmount. Still, if you are willing to ignore the moral ramifications and potential health risks to women then you have a wonderful idea.

[ahctlucabbuS]

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.

True. Post clarified to reflect its intended meaning.

[Busyman™]

So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".

None without potenially harmful side-effects, just look at the box of any of these contraceptives (when I worked in a sexual health clinic we were required to tell young people of all the potential side-effect of the injection, pill and the coil, they're not nice). Sorry, but your "idea" is horribly unworkable given current contraceptive options. When (more of an if really) they invent a contraceptive that doesn't fuck women up (pun) then you would only have the moral argument to surmount. Still, if you are willing to ignore the moral ramifications and potential health risks to women then you have a wonderful idea.

The idea is wonderful anyway.

Yeah from what I see, drugs in general have potential harmful side effects. I do hate the fast talking disclaimers when I hear an advertisment on the radio.
The same goes for those fucking commercials. Why don't they say "may cause death" to shorten it. People that wanna take herpes medication will flock to it anyways.

Herpecin may cause itchy scalp, shortness of breath, and a painful death. Talk to your doctor if any of these symptoms arise.

[Seedler]

Herpecin may cause itchy scalp, shortness of breath, and a painful death. Talk to your doctor if any of these symptoms arise.

Indeed.

But also very .