Is birth control an effective way to combat poverty?

[Ken Carman]

Contraception is cheap compared to the costs of taking care of a child (especially all the medical bills). Additionally, when you have a child you can't care for effectively, you put large costs on society (education, medical bills, the penal system, etc) and you have to pay for what society doesn't, keeping your standard of living (and the child's) down.

Are there any non-religious arguments against doing things like providing low cost/free contraception or paying people to get vasectomies as a way to reduce poverty?

To answer the title/question...

As it exists in society right now: no. Too much a political/social football. For it to be such we'd have to drop all that and allow it to be offered as an option. parents would have to realize that no matter how much you try to teach abstinence, human nature is what it is. Make sure you teach it, but tell them, "If you think you might be too tempted it I'd rather you be protected either way." Taking, having and using birth control does not mean one has to actually have sex, and those parents consider it a "license" are admitting that they will probably fail in this regard. There's nothing wrong with admitting the possibility, but then if you don't take steps to offer the protection then you are, in part, to blame.

I'm not all that fond of the concept of using it to eliminate poverty. It won't. Might help lessen it a little, given the context of my comments above... but probably not much.

But it will lessen abortions.

I'm a Unitarian and you'd think they would be doing it. No, they're not from my experiences: and when I tour the east coast I'll often visit different fellowships and congregations: pretty much nada. You'd think some of the more liberal faiths would: especially considering the push from the other end of the theistic spectrum.

[Cephus]

Article 16.1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Try again.

Screw the UN.

Try again.

[Electric Hermit]

Screw the UN.

Try again.

I accept that this may be as close as you can get to a thoughtful comment.

[Cephus]

I accept that this may be as close as you can get to a thoughtful comment.

No, it's called reality. The UN can invent any rights they want, they do not represent a society, hence their claims have no bearing on any society.

[Charlatan]

I think the best way to combat poverty is to provide capital for the ones with no resources so that they can start thier own ventures that provide service for the ones that do exist, and then for each other. Maybe if their states were given money from the west, that money will be traded for their own goods, raising their value regaurding markets. If they gave money to the impoverished then they should rather lend them money to start their own ventures that they will benefit more in the long run.

[Chancellor]

Yes, there is the economic one. Why should only the rich be allowed to breed?

Because they can afford to take care of their offspring.

[Electric Hermit]

No, it's called reality. The UN can invent any rights they want, they do not represent a society, hence their claims have no bearing on any society.

The UDHR which you dismiss with all the arrogance of the terminally ill-informed is embraced by almost every nation on the planet - including the US. It informs and underpins countless international treaties as well as national constitutions and laws.

Only religious and political extremists question question the validity and value of the UDHR. And only a complete fool would dismiss it completely.

[Disinformant]

Contraception is cheap compared to the costs of taking care of a child (especially all the medical bills). Additionally, when you have a child you can't care for effectively, you put large costs on society (education, medical bills, the penal system, etc) and you have to pay for what society doesn't, keeping your standard of living (and the child's) down.

Are there any non-religious arguments against doing things like providing low cost/free contraception or paying people to get vasectomies as a way to reduce poverty?

I'll ignore the eugenics implications to just state that it would be PROFITABLE to have a child if you were free. It is made expensive on purpose.

[Ken Carman]

I'll ignore the eugenics implications to just state that it would be PROFITABLE to have a child if you were free. It is made expensive on purpose.

Wait, isn't this just what many on the Right accuse those who need to be on food stamps and such of, "Having a child for 'profit'"?

[Disinformant]

Well, surely in that case perhaps it is. I was just talking about how much more money a well structures household can bring in. For example, I had a neighbor when I was a kid who at 18 bought a home for his entire family and shared it with them. They had 3 incomes, and the daughter was going to a nice school. Needless to say, in that particular case alone having more family members is worth it. Instead, what we've created are these little consumer monster children who just want new games and crap all the way along and it takes them until their 30's to start turning a profit.

[Dan_77]

Hearsay and gossip does not constitute a sound basis for social policy any more than reactionary ranting. I will extend to you the same invitation I offered to another one of those ranters. Prove your case! You are banging on about a "problem" without even having demonstrated that it is a problem. Are poor people really having dozens of children? Does this really cause a huge problem for the economy? Just how "huge" is this problem compared to other issues?

Children in Poverty: America's Ongoing War

• About 15 million children -- one out of every four -- live below the official poverty line.
• 22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are hungry or at the risk of being hungry.
• Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty; 27 die because of it.
• Children and families are the fastest growing group in the homeless population, representing 40%.

That children are born, in the United States, to parents who cannot afford to care for them is pretty much axiomatic.

As I said, children being born into poverty is a problem that can be easily mitigated by simply requiring all persons accepting public assistance (cash welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, TANF, etc) to be on passive birth control for so long as they cannot support themselves.

We place numerous strings on the receipt of public assistance, this one would be no different than those requiring public assistance recipients to be drug-free, for example.

[Electric Hermit]

Children in Poverty: America's Ongoing War


That children are born, in the United States, to parents who cannot afford to care for them is pretty much axiomatic.

As I said, children being born into poverty is a problem that can be easily mitigated by simply requiring all persons accepting public assistance (cash welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, TANF, etc) to be on passive birth control for so long as they cannot support themselves.

We place numerous strings on the receipt of public assistance, this one would be no different than those requiring public assistance recipients to be drug-free, for example.

To the rational mind, the disgrace here is not that people are having children but that the supposedly richest country in the world allows such poverty to exist.