A solid argument.  Except;

The PP de-funding, had nothing to do with contraception.  I think most of the legislators who voted for the de-funding, would likely support expanded contraception.

It was still dumb.  

As is the idea that contraception lowers abortion rates when,in fact, it increases them.  Dumb is spreading.

Uh, if government involvement was suggested in my response, I missed it.   Government involvement such as availability of contraceptives IS part of the answer and have never seen any evidence to the contrary.  As TA pointed out the defunding of PP will likely have unwanted consequences.

Ok, this may seem extreme to some of you.  

I think we should offer people a moderate cash incentive to get “fixed” so they don’t have feral babies. Two hundred dollars would be a good amount. There would be people waiting in line for the cash and the procedure. 

Anyone who would sell their reproductive rights should not be a parent. 

I also think we should drug test (like Florida) to get welfare benefits and require community service from people who collect public funded benefits.  Community service could be something as simple as pulling the weeds from the public curb in front of your street or picking up the trash on your block.

AFDC began replacing natural fathers as breadwinners and this trend continued until Losing Ground destroyed the compassion argument (and the political purchase of a sizable minority population).  After the Black family was destroyed, as pointed out at the time by Senator Pat M, benign neglect became the government policy and Black males became useless, supplanted by Uncle Stupid. 
    It is true that your post did not mention government involvement but most folks realize that the destruction of the family has been one of the driving forces of the government whether realized by most or not. 
     As to the evidence you have never seen, well, you have to be looking for it. 

Yeah, Melyssa, I think that is extreme.  That’s only a step above forced sterilization and Indiana infamously has been down that road.

As far as testing people who get government benefits, where is that going to end?  If we get a tax refund, should we be drug tested?  If we get social security should we be drug tested?  Your suggestion opens the door to enormous government intrusion into people’s personal lives.

As far as workfare, a lot of states have that.  The trouble you always have is that the waivers (such as those for people with health problems) always constitute the majority of recepients.  It also makes the program much more expensive to adminster.

Good try at extreme.  How about this:

Mom can have the baby but either she discloses useless dad and he gets snipped or she can get tied.  Womans choice. Pro-choice. Somebody is going to be held responsible for a change.  It may put a pause in the intensity of the hunt for the male animal.

In the spirit of taking care of children-in-need in the short run, we’ve let fear of accusations of intruding upon “rights”, or prejudice, or racism prevent us from taking care of the child, and society, in the long run. 

Children aren’t cars you patch up after accidents and expect them to be what they were.  The abuse/neglect that’s done by age two or three very often affects the child the rest of their life.   When the state’s well meaning welfare to take care of the needy child doesn’t include sufficient follow-up visits to the home, inspections, “quality control”- then the results are arguably worse than a non-inspected off-shore drilling platform spewing everywhere, or government agencies and financial firms that nearly crash our economy as Congress and the SEC look the other way.

With dysfunctional state-subsidized parenting, we get statistical increases in abuse/neglect in the home, obeisity, poor graduation rates, drug abuse, incarceration, and most of all:  a repeat of the whole cycle and another generation of dependency on a dwindling pool of taxpayers.   

If we want to really get ”recivilized”, I would argue for a return to former parenting standards, especially having two adults in the home to parent.  If we’re not going to put the genie back in the bottle on societal norms, we have to at least make the long-term investment to deincentize abysmal parenting by shoring-up foster care or bulk housing alternatives that at least avoid abuse and neglect to the young child (I know, I know- we have to do better than orphanages of old.  However, the bar for “real” parenting has been lowered).  

I would imagine a long-term business case could be made, given the fiscal and moral costs of all the social ills from bad parenting.  Particularly, when you contrast the declining productivity we’re collectively creating by looking the other way (as our global competitors are raising their game). 

By no means does abusive and neglectful parenting have to come from a single-parent household, a poor one, a certain race or ethnicity, etc.  There are successes and failures of every variation all around us.  However, in our morally and fiscally deficit nation, with a goal of societal protection and the launching of the next generation of productive citizens, we neglect the child and our country without demanding long-term accountability and  solutions.   

How in the hell can you equate a tax refund with welfare???  Melyssa is right on!

There is nothing at all forced about it, Paul.  It’s completely voluntary and consensual.  

Employers drug test.  When you pull a work-free paycheck from the taxpayers’ purse, then the taxpayer should be able to demand a drug test for our payment.  No one is forcing anyone to apply for welfare, just as I am not forced to apply for a job that requires a drug test.   There’s a better chance of a person transitioning into working society if they are clean and sober, anyway.  Employers want sober, they don’t want druggies. 

I do, however, see your point about the administration of expecting work for the handouts we give. 

And Paul?  I’d even be cool with the state offering free voluntary sterilization procedures.  I’m sure many people would take them up on it.   

Sterilization is something you can pay for now. How great for poor people if the taxpayers just gave it away? 

Unfortunately “the hunt” for the father would often end up found in the prison system. 

After thinking about it, I am sure something could be designed to force community service work for the welfare payment. 

It could be as simple as requiring the recipient to file a detailed report of the work they’ve done each month with the caveat that a surprise inspection or audit of that work could be done at any time by the state and “x” number of welfare recipients will be randomly checked just as they do the probation alcohol and drug screening now. 
As far as the disabled ones? I’m sure we could find something for them to do to earn their keep.  If they don’t have a GED, they should be made to study.  

It should be a  hassle to get and stay on welfare.  It should not be easy. 

You will not likely ever have the same information.  At times I will source things in short hand, such as Losing Ground, a book by Charles Murray, libertarian scholar, writer of very influencial books.  The instant book was the key informer to lawmakers who very much altered the American Welfare state back in Clinton’s day.  Short book.  Classic scholarship.  Read it and then get back to us.  If you read the footnotes you will be able to competently comment on IPS and their serial lies re graduation rates and the declining value of their diploma.
      His Real Education book was assigned by Mitch to the Indiana Roundtable.  So, Mr. Murray has a lot to offer Indiana and those residents of it that may wish to know/learn which end is up.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/20/planned-parenthood-indiana-may-cut-staff-after-de-funding/  Your tears for abortionists are misplaced.  Ever look into AIDS in Africa?  Africans who loaded up on the “rubbers” are now mostly dead.  Use of rubbers stop some pregnancies but do increase abortion rates especially if the fools using them use the Planned Parenthood brand (see Consumer Reports).  Not same everywhere.  It is either Uganda or Nigeria where AIDS rates are in decline.  Get back to us when you know why.

No baby penalized. Mom has baby, mom gets fixed so she can’t be stupid again. 

BTW, Poor writing on my part. I was referring to the incessant hunting of “game” by the males.

This actually was the universal practice in the US prior to women getting the vote-a huge mistake, that.

I’m sorry, I can’t get over the fact you watched a Maury Povich show.  Every show is the same…about baby daddies and DNA tests.  My brain starts deteriorating about 5 minutes into the program.

Don’t be sorry Paul.  Sounds like you watched one too.  It is human nature, I think, to not be able to turn away from watching a train wreck. 

http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2005.6.htm#Redefining_Marriage What you say may be correct for the one divorce case but the idea is to greatly reduce the number of divorces and end the social costs they dump on society.  Trimming the judicial system down by 30% is, as they say, only a good beginning.  Ending the dumping of functional bastards on to the schools is another cost reduction. The social costs of allowing lawyers to profit by aiding the government in the destruction of intact families are getting to be too great to be ignored. 
    It used to be that attorneys really didn’t like divorce cases at all and were under obligation in their formerly grounded ethics, to preserve marriages to the extent they were able.  Now that legal ethics have become somewhat a bad joke, not to mention, as ungrounded as pre WWII German jurists, busting up most anything for profit is fair game.
     And, yes, fixing the mess will put lawyers out of work and it is a good thing to do so in this case-and let the judges and judicial system put in 40 hour weeks on more important things like white collar crime in Indianapolis.