Why Should Drug addicted Woman be give "CASH" insentive to get implanted with a semi-permanent birth control method?Why Should Drug addicted Woman be give "CASH" insentive to get implanted with a...

Why Should Drug addicted Woman be give "CASH" insentive to get implanted with a semi-permanent birth control method?

Why Should Drug addicted Woman be give "CASH" insentive to get implanted with a semi-permanent birth control method?

5 Answers | Add Yours

brettd's profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

This proposal also operates on the likely assumption that drug addicted women are much less likely to use birth control, and tend to be more sexually active in the prostitution world, therefore the likelihood of pregnancy is much higher, as is the likelihood of birth defects and health issues for the child.  The child is more likely to become a dependent of the state or foster care system, which is expensive and certainly less than ideal.

An implanted, semi-permanent form of birth control is cost effective, humane, and more socially responsible.  Not sure I agree with the precedent though.

besure77's profile pic

besure77 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 1) Senior Educator

Posted on

Another way to look at this is that if a woman is addicted to drugs, she is likely to be an unproductive member of society. She may live off the government and get money for rent, food, etc. If she has a baby, the government will end up having to pay for that child as well. This not only includes prenatal care if she goes to the doctor but expenses for the child as well. Like the previous posts stated, the child has a high probability of being born with defects that will require treatment and a lot of money. All of this money is basically coming out of the taxpayers pocket.

The money that she may receive from the government for getting a birth control device will cost much less than supporting her and her child.

From a different point of view, some may argue that this is unethical. Some will say that a woman has the right to bear children if she chooses and we should instead take that money used to prevent pregnancy and get her drug counseling instead.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Just from the point of view of money, it makes sense to do this.  By doing this, we can avoid having to spend even more money after the woman's baby is born.

As the first answer says, this woman is likely to have a baby with birth defects.  The baby may also come out already addicted to drugs.  In both cases, it is likely that the government is going to have to pay for the baby's care.

It is also more likely than not that the child will require a lot of spending on things like welfare later in its life.

So, instead of paying lots of money to take care of the kid, why not pay a little money to stop the kid from being born in the first place.  Again -- this is just from an economic point of view, not a moral one.

gisella1982's profile pic

gisella1982 | Student, College Freshman | (Level 1) eNoter

Posted on

This is actually a wonderful idea and for once " Big Brother" is using their heads.The facts are when a drug addicted mother gives birth, it is to drug addictive child. The baby is born and suffers withdrawl and often have life-long developmental delays,learning disabilities,behavior disorders and those are just the developmental issues that this poor human being will suffer.

Drug addicted women are usually infected with STD's and undiagnosed HIV,herpes can cause blindness in a baby delivered vaginally,herione use in pregnancy can cause a child to be severly mentally and physically disabled,then the tax payers get to pay for that childs treatment.This child will be put into foster care,usually never adopted b/c let's face it,ppl aren't lined up around the block to adopt mentally/physically disabled children,HIV infected children or developmentally delayed children.He/she will be shuffeled from fosteer home to foster home or institution to institution,suffer from maladjustment to childhood.Therefore an innocent child suffers for the rest of his/her life.From a moral and economical stand point this is a wonderful idea,it is not forced sterilization,it is a choice,give them a grand to get high and save an innocent persons life.Semi-permanent means it can be reversed if this woman gets herself together and decides she would like to have a child,when she is ready to be a mother.

mkcapen1's profile pic

mkcapen1 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

I am not sure that I agree with this proposal, but in playing as a advocate fo it, I would have to say that it is relative to decreasing birth rates as well as birth defects.  When a woman is pregnant her system is feeding the developing fetus the chemicals that she takes into her own system.  The developing fetus of a drug addicted woman has a higher chance of birth defects or negative long term affects.  In addition, the infant may be born with addictions and experience pain as he/she withdraws from the medications that are in his/her system. 

Drug addicted women seek medical care less often during pregnancy than women who are not addicted to drugs.  The lack of medical care in combination with drug use also increases the chances of problems for their unborn infant. 

The idea of giving money to allow pregnancy prevention could help to suppress some of the births and prevent birth defects as well as children exposed to a drug induced environment.   However, the issue of semi-permanent birth control would need to be monitored in someway to prevent it from becoming a money making racket.

 

We’ve answered 318,994 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question