NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=148417&shu=1

This woman has already given birth to four kids and has twins on the way. Neither her nor her boyfriend have jobs. I believe in a social safety net to take care of people down on their luck but having six kids on welfare is fucked up.

seven kids. 3 sets of twins, and another one.

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=148417&shu=1

This woman has already given birth to four kids and has twins on the way. Neither her nor her boyfriend have jobs. I believe in a social safety net to take care of people down on their luck but having six kids on welfare is fucked up.

Somebody sucks at planning. You have to feel bad for the kids but the parents have no sympathy from me.

isn't that what planned parenthood is for?

really?

She's probably cranking out children for the additional welfare money.

maybe Welfare Checks should come with condoms or Birth control pills...:p

Man...maybe we should prohibit people from having more children (As in, having additional children. Existing children are fine.) while on welfare...I know it sounds callous, but this is fucking nuts...

one thing I'm unsure of, have the other two simply not found a job, or not looked? If they have made a good faith effort to find a job and have not succeeded they can not be blamed for that.

It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to get irritated everytime I see a pregnant woman or a baby. That's not good.

In my head I'm like "Jesus FUCK, woman, don't you know how many people are already on this earth, much less how many of them are starving and alone?! AND YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE COLLECTION."

Being bitter and angry loses its fun after a while.

maybe Welfare Checks should come with condoms or Birth control pills...:p

Or a vasectomy/ tubal legation.:rolleyes:

They can be blamed for having so many children though.

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to get irritated everytime I see a pregnant woman or a baby. That's not good.

In my head I'm like "Jesus FUCK, woman, don't you know how many people are already on this earth, much less how many of them are starving and alone?! AND YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE COLLECTION."

Being bitter and angry loses its fun after a while.

Well, there is one group of people who enter our country with no visa or citizenship papers every year. You know who I'm talking about. They don't have jobs, they don't speak the language, and they want everything handed to them. Fucking babies. I think there should be an immigration officer present at every birth, and if the kid doesn't have a green card, kick him back inside.

one thing I'm unsure of, have the other two simply not found a job, or not looked? If they have made a good faith effort to find a job and have not succeeded they can not be blamed for that.

They can be blamed for having so many children though.

Or a vasectomy/ tubal legation.:rolleyes:

Or the motivation to get a job. I don't care how bad the economy is, you can surely get a job flipping burgers our something.

one thing I'm unsure of, have the other two simply not found a job, or not looked? If they have made a good faith effort to find a job and have not succeeded they can not be blamed for that.

They should make a good faith effort to stop fucking. Or atleast go Anal. No one ever got pregnant from a lil butt play.

Let us play devils advocate here and answer that with: "Why should they ?"

Good question actually. Is the right to have children actually included in any countries bill of rights?

This is why unending welfare checks are stupid.

They have no motivation to get a job, so they just live on welfare.

If they get a job, but still need checks (although lower) then give them it, but if they are to fucking lazy to get a job then why should we have to pay them to keep on being lazy?

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

Let us play devils advocate here and answer that with: "Why should they ?"
Or with "Why should society provide for their desire to increase their influence in the genepool without being able to care for this increase" ?

Good question actually. I the right to have children actually included in any countries bill of rights?

Its defacto.

Well "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" seems to allow it, with the word Life.

I Agree there should be a baby limit when certain conditions are met. I, myself, believe that in America, there's really way too much freedom, and that causes more problems for everyone, because a lot of people can't make good decisions on their own, and they won't accept advice, and that just injures other people.. When you injure people, aren't laws passed to prevent that?

Let us play devils advocate here and answer that with: "Why should they ?"

The 14th amendment seems to address that one.

Or with "Why should society provide for their desire to increase their influence in the genepool without being able to care for this increase" ?

So the government should let children starve?

Or the motivation to get a job. I don't care how bad the economy is, you can surely get a job flipping burgers our something.

not one good enough to support 6 kids.

the problem is that people dig themselves into these holes and there really isn't (currently) a good way to get them out of them

I see a lot of it in financial planning, it's just slightly easier for my clients because you can sell belongings......kids are hard to get rid of.

Having that many kids is a job in itself.

Let alone the making. :D

They should make a good faith effort to stop fucking. Or atleast go Anal. No one ever got pregnant from a lil butt play.

You should meet my mate Steve...

So the government should let children starve?

Nice dilemma isn't it ?
Let us now assume that we indeed recognise the right of every human being to have children. Let us assume we believe it to be the duty of the state to support that right.
Should the support be infinite, or should there be a limit on the number of kids someone should get statehelp for ?
If you believe limits are wrong since they harm the children, but do think the parents are behaving in a manner that is undesireable, how do you propose to punish them ?

That Website is annoying the hell out of me. Seriously. :mad:
I can't watch that stupid video, it keeps jumping to other videos and adds.

Nice dilemma isn't it ?
Let us now assume that we indeed recognise the right of every human being to have children. Let us assume we believe it to be the duty of the state to support that right.
Should the support be infinite, or should there be a limit on the number of kids someone should get statehelp for ?

now that is the question isn't it.

But let's look at this from another direction. The argument is they choose to have kids, so why support that?

We also have the right to vote, would we consider it fair to say that ones welfare gets cut off if they vote for a democrat?

Or speak out against the government?

Or marry someone outside of their race

Or have an abortion

We would be sickened and angered if someone suggested that someone would lose their welfar if they voted the wrong way, or said something the govenrment didn't like, or exercised any other right.

Why is having children different?

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

Does anybody have the right to have children?
Personally, I would suggest that everybody who considers procreatin first has to do a parent-suitability test. Pretty much like you'd have to when you want to adopt.

They should make a good faith effort to stop fucking. Or atleast go Anal. No one ever got pregnant from a lil butt play.
When you're a guy, that is.

There is a good chance that the little guys and gals find their way home none the less...

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

Nobody has the right to have children they cannot support. Anyone who intentionally does so is worthy of nothing but contempt and should most likely have the child immediately removed from their custody.

When you're a guy, that is.

There is a good chance that the little guys and gals find their way home none the less...

From... ?!? :eek:

You just have to keep scaring me, don't you???

Does anybody have the right to have children?

The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty [to have children]

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (emphasis added)

Nobody has the right to have children they cannot support.

See above. It would appear the supreme court disagrees, and has defined having children as a substantive due process right.

You can't force them not to have kids, but you could always take them and put them in foster care, so they don't pick up their parents slacker ways. A bit cruel perhaps but better for everyone in the long run.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (emphasis added)

Ah, ok. I'm no lawyer, so this are really just my thoughts on this:

That bit is about sterilisation, meaning the person will never in their entire life be able to have children. I agree that this cannoth be negotiated, as it would be an attack on a person's body and health, as well as being an irreversible act.

However, people who do reproduce and are found unsuitable to take care of their children, neglect them or abuse them, will (hopefully) have those children taken away from them quite legally. This is not irreversible, as the parents can at some stage possibly claim the children back, once they've shown that they are capable and willing to take better care of them.

So I assume that there is no right to have children, just a right to immunity from bodily harm when it comes to reproductive capabilities.

Why is having children different?

Because this welfare is given to support the child, not the parents. No child, no welfare needed.

See above. It would appear the supreme court disagrees, and has defined having children as a substantive due process right.

I think the English language is a bit ambiguous about "having children". Are we talking about reproducing, or raising one's offspring?

See above. It would appear the supreme court disagrees, and has defined having children as a substantive due process right.

Do you not think that permenently removing someones biological ability to have kids and telling them that if they choose to then they have to find a means of supporting it themselves is somewhat different though?

See above. It would appear the supreme court disagrees, and has defined having children as a substantive due process right.

The quote you listed appears to pertain to sterilization, not to idiots who have children that they cannot or will not support. Find me a case in which the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to take children out of the custody of irresponsible parents and you'll have a point.

Ah, ok. I'm no lawyer, so this are really just my thoughts on this:

That bit is about sterilisation, meaning the person will never in their entire life be able to have children. I agree that this cannoth be negotiated, as it would be an attack on a person's body and health, as well as being an irreversible act.
...

So I assume that there is no right to have children, just a right to immunity from bodily harm when it comes to reproductive capabilities.

you have to look at the language of the case. The court clearly stated that the right to have children is a fundamental right. Sterilization in that matter denied that that right. Regardless of the methodogy, you can not prevent someone from having children. You can not outlaw their right to have them.

now whether the children can be taken away is another question all together, but to say "you can not have children" is a very seperate situation, and you are wrong in your assumption that the court has not articulated a right to have children. Sterilization was ONE METHOD of preventing that, however the court didn't say you have the right to avoid bodily harm that would limit reproductive capabilities, it said that there is a right to have children, period.

You can't force them not to have kids, but you could always take them and put them in foster care, so they don't pick up their parents slacker ways. A bit cruel perhaps but better for everyone in the long run.

Foster care is a bad idea at the outset - moves the child around too much. It would be better (although probably not legal) to remove them from their parents' custody altogether and get them in the adoption system early on.

Find me a case in which the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to take children out of the custody of irresponsible parents and you'll have a point.

of course there isn't one. There never has been one. That's stupid. I never said it's unconstitutional to take children, already born out of the home. I said it is unconstitutional to PREVENT them from having children. That's a very fundamental difference. The government can't STOP them from having children.

Why would I try to back up an argument I never made?

now that is the question isn't it.

But let's look at this from another direction. The argument is they choose to have kids, so why support that?

We also have the right to vote, would we consider it fair to say that ones welfare gets cut off if they vote for a democrat?

Or speak out against the government?

Or marry someone outside of their race

Or have an abortion

We would be sickened and angered if someone suggested that someone would lose their welfar if they voted the wrong way, or said something the govenrment didn't like, or exercised any other right.

Why is having children different?

Because the taxpayers have to pay to support their children. I would be in favor of limiting the ammount of kids you can have on welfare, but I don't see how to enforce it. I don't want kids to starve, and I recognize that forcible sterilization is not the answer. Maybe the parents who abuse their right to have kids while on welfare should serve short prison sentences while their kids are cared for in foster homes. I just don't know.

you have to look at the language of the case. The court clearly stated that the right to have children is a fundamental right. Sterilization in that matter denied that that right. Regardless of the methodogy, you can not prevent someone from having children. You can not outlaw their right to have them.

now whether the children can be taken away is another question all together, but to say "you can not have children" is a very seperate situation, and you are wrong in your assumption that the court has not articulated a right to have children. Sterilization was ONE METHOD of preventing that, however the court didn't say you have the right to avoid bodily harm that would limit reproductive capabilities, it said that there is a right to have children, period.

Ah, so you're talking exclusivly about reproduction.
"Having children" doesn't only mean to pop them out into the world, it also refers to having them live with you and raising them.
The courts only decied the first bit, as the second bit is not a right as such, it is something that can be taken away if abused.
And in this case, I would assume it's not necessarily the children who are being abused, but society which provides the welfare for the parents.
I would opt to take the children away from them and let somebody adopt them.

you have to look at the language of the case. The court clearly stated that the right to have children is a fundamental right. Sterilization in that matter denied that that right. Regardless of the methodogy, you can not prevent someone from having children. You can not outlaw their right to have them.

In some cases, this ends up being unfortunate, but it is true. The problem is that the law doesn't allow for the state to immediately remove the children from idiots' custody and put them up for adoption.


Why would I try to back up an argument I never made?

Because it is the only way you could actually be arguing with my opinion?

Because the taxpayers have to pay to support their children. I would be in favor of limiting the ammount of kids you can have on welfare, but I don't see how to enforce it. I don't want kids to starve, and I recognize that forcible sterilization is not the answer. Maybe the parents who abuse their right to have kids while on welfare should serve short prison sentences while their kids are cared for in foster homes. I just don't know.

How about something along the lines of if you break the rules about the number of kids you can have on welfare then you'll only receive benefits until the oldest is 18 and then nothing after, ever.

How much fun can retirement be without any savings or government assistance?

Do you not think that permenently removing someones biological ability to have kids and telling them that if they choose to then they have to find a means of supporting it themselves is somewhat different though?

Of course it's different, never said it wasn't. My point is this.

We have the right to biologically conceive and (for women) give birth to children if we so choose. We have the right to have children.

Your suggestion is to say that if they choose to exercise that right, they lose their social welfare benefits, ok.

Now, as I said, would we find it acceptable to say:

You lose your social welfare if you vote for a democrat

You lose your social welfare if you say something negative about the government

You lose your social welfare if you marry someone that is not of your race

You lose your social welfare if you have an abortion

You lose your social welfare if you use contraception

You lose your social welfare if you engage in gay sex

You lose your social welfare if you decline to join the military (absent a draft)

Everything I have said is a right articulated by the Supreme Court. Would we accept these conditions? I don't know about you but I'd be sickened. We wouldn't accept this. We wouldn't tolerate a restriction that stripped someone of social welfare if they exercised their right to vote, or choose their sexual partners, or marry. We would be horrified.

Why is this different?

Ah, so you're talking exclusivly about reproduction.
"Having children" doesn't only mean to pop them out into the world, it also refers to having them live with you and raising them.

I was refering strictly to conceiving and giving birth, not remaining a parent. That's an entirely seperate set of laws, but I was speaking only of conceiving and birthing. But once we recognize that giving birth is a right much like any other, why is it acceptable to restrict this right, but not others?

now that is the question isn't it.

But let's look at this from another direction. The argument is they choose to have kids, so why support that?

We also have the right to vote, would we consider it fair to say that ones welfare gets cut off if they vote for a democrat?

Or speak out against the government?

Or marry someone outside of their race

Or have an abortion

We would be sickened and angered if someone suggested that someone would lose their welfar if they voted the wrong way, or said something the govenrment didn't like, or exercised any other right.

Why is having children different?

Whoa whoa whoa... you really took that and went with it didn't you? I really don't think the two are related though. The voting scenario you put forth would translate roughly into a person losing their welfare for having a girl rather than a boy.

What would make more sense would be for them to lose their welfare for having children as opposed to not having children, which can be compared to voting vs. not voting.

The other examples are just the same old slippery slope argument, give an inch and they'll take a mile, eh? I doubt the populous would stand by and allow welfare to be determined on factors other than the degree too which a person has impoverished themselves, and having more children is a way of increasing their poverty.

Why is this different?

Because none of the above will result in public money going to your pockets.
Having children on welfare will.

Because none of the above will result in public money going to your pockets.
Having children on welfare will.

Ohh, ok. So I shouldn't start a business like farming that gets government subsidies while on welfare then either?

You lose your social welfare if you have an abortion

You lose your social welfare if you use contraception

You lose your social welfare if you engage in gay sex

From what we've been saying, these three would actually help your case by leading to you not having more children ;).

How about something along the lines of if you break the rules about the number of kids you can have on welfare then you'll only receive benefits until the oldest is 18 and then nothing after, ever.

How much fun can retirement be without any savings or government assistance?

It wouldn't be right to let the younger kids do without because their parents wouldn't use birth control. Otherwise I'd be fine with what you said.

I was refering strictly to conceiving and giving birth, not remaining a parent. That's an entirely seperate set of laws, but I was speaking only of conceiving and birthing. But once we recognize that giving birth is a right much like any other, why is it acceptable to restrict this right, but not others?

I can't speak for everybody here, but what seems to outrage people is not the fact that the woman in this case keeps conceiving and giving birth. What annoys people is the fact that she then goes on and raises her offspring on welfare money.
So it's not really the first bit people object to, but the second one.

Of course it's different, never said it wasn't. My point is this.

We have the right to biologically conceive and (for women) give birth to children if we so choose. We have the right to have children.

Your suggestion is to say that if they choose to exercise that right, they lose their social welfare benefits, ok.

Now, as I said, would we find it acceptable to say:

You lose your social welfare if you vote for a democrat

You lose your social welfare if you say something negative about the government

You lose your social welfare if you marry someone that is not of your race

You lose your social welfare if you have an abortion

You lose your social welfare if you use contraception

You lose your social welfare if you engage in gay sex

You lose your social welfare if you decline to join the military (absent a draft)

Everything I have said is a right articulated by the Supreme Court. Would we accept these conditions? I don't know about you but I'd be sickened. We wouldn't accept this. We wouldn't tolerate a restriction that stripped someone of social welfare if they exercised their right to vote, or choose their sexual partners, or marry. We would be horrified.

Why is this different?

I think the difference comes from those other choices not directly costing the taxpayer money.

The only possible exception I can see is the choice of who you vote for and the cost of them maybe raising taxes.

I think that welfare is a good system for helping those in need but I also think that it shouldn't be abused and that the people who receive it should make a genuine effort not to cost society more than they have to until they are on their feet again. Have children is a luxury in my mind and one that they should forgo until they can pay for it themselves.

Why is this different?

Because in this case the reason for the welfare is directly related to the action you took: having a child. Again: the welfare is NOT for the parents - it is for the child.

Ohh, ok. So I shouldn't start a business like farming that gets government subsidies while on welfare then either?

If you can afford to start a business you sure as hell shouldn't be on welfare. Fraud somewhere.

Look up the prices on even small farm tractors and tell me if you think you'd be buying one whilst on welfare.

Ohh, ok. So I shouldn't start a business like farming that gets government subsidies while on welfare then either?

I'm in favour of limited susidies, like tax cuts for the first year or two to get you started. Keeping a business alive on government money is not something I'd agree with.

It wouldn't be right to let the younger kids do without because their parents wouldn't use birth control. Otherwise I'd be fine with what you said.

Not what I meant, by the oldest I meant the oldest of any kids they have not just the ones before the parents went on welfare.

Give 'em ASBO's. What they're doing is the very definition of antisocial behaviour, acting selfishly to the detriment of everyone else.

Give 'em ASBO's. What they're doing is the very definition of antisocial behaviour, acting selfishly to the detriment of everyone else.

I don't think we have ASBOs in the US.

I think part of the problem is in society everyone is expected to get married and have kids. The marriage one isn't really a horrid expectation, it seems reasonable to believe that some one will eventually find a person they want to be with, but the children one is just silly.

I don't think we have ASBOs in the US.
Bah! That's no excuse!


TBH I didn't click on the link and just assumed it was Britain because these sorts of stories occur on a daily basis here.

I would be in favor of limiting the ammount of kids you can have on welfare, but I don't see how to enforce it.

There is no way you can enforce the amount of kids a person on welfare can have. But you can enforce the limit on funding. It's called a family cap. If the cap is six kids..if you have another..or have more..you would only receive the amount you would get for having 6 kids.

I am also in favor of all states enforcing a time limit on welfare and having to show that you are actively looking for a job to continue with the benefits. My state has a limit of 5 years during your lifetime and in order to receive those benefits a person has to be looking for a job along with taking job training classes.

Nice dilemma isn't it ?
Let us now assume that we indeed recognise the right of every human being to have children. Let us assume we believe it to be the duty of the state to support that right.
Should the support be infinite, or should there be a limit on the number of kids someone should get statehelp for ?
If you believe limits are wrong since they harm the children, but do think the parents are behaving in a manner that is undesireable, how do you propose to punish them ?
It's easy. Take the kids away from the parents. No matter where they end up, it will be better than where they were. Put the parents to work. If they can become self-sufficient enough to get the kids back, then let them.

Ah, so you're talking exclusivly about reproduction.
"Having children" doesn't only mean to pop them out into the world, it also refers to having them live with you and raising them.

Precisely. Perhaps the attitude that "having children" involves nothing more than popping them out is a big part of the problem here.

It's easy. Take the kids away from the parents. No matter where they end up, it will be better than where they were. Put the parents to work. If they can become self-sufficient enough to get the kids back, then let them.

Depending on how long it takes for them to get self-sufficient, that is very likely not the best thing for the child. It would be better to put them in a stable home at the outset, rather than placing them in the foster care system until their biological parents were ready to take care of them.

now that is the question isn't it.

But let's look at this from another direction. The argument is they choose to have kids, so why support that?

We also have the right to vote, would we consider it fair to say that ones welfare gets cut off if they vote for a democrat?

Or speak out against the government?

Or marry someone outside of their race

Or have an abortion

We would be sickened and angered if someone suggested that someone would lose their welfar if they voted the wrong way, or said something the govenrment didn't like, or exercised any other right.

Why is having children different?

Because responsible adults put off having children until they can support them.

And if, because fate is funny that way, they have ONE (or two) they can't afford to support, they don't make six more and expect the rest of us to foot the bill.

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=148417&shu=1

This woman has already given birth to four kids and has twins on the way. Neither her nor her boyfriend have jobs. I believe in a social safety net to take care of people down on their luck but having six kids on welfare is fucked up.

Cementing my belief in involuntary sterilization.

Why is this different?

This is different because it involves bringing a new person who must be supported into the world.

That said, I don't think a person should lose welfare benefits for having children. I simply think they should not get any increase whatsoever for a child conceived and birthed while on welfare. If this means that the parents cannot take care of the child (which is likely enough that their situation can be reviewed well before any harm is done), they should be charged with neglect and the children should be removed from their custody.

I also think that a person who is not actively seeking employment (or currently employed and making an effort to improve their situation) should not receive perpetual benefits. The welfare system should be one that helps a person become self-sufficient, not a perpetual childhood. (Note: I know that most people on welfare do use it this way)

Because responsible adults put off having children until they can support them.

And if, because fate is funny that way, they have ONE (or two) they can't afford to support, they don't make six more and expect the rest of us to foot the bill.

We're going to foot the bill regardless. But at least we can make sure that they don't benefit from it (and the children actually get taken care of by competent, responsible people).

Quite simply, if she has children already, and neither parent has a job, she ought to have been sufficiently responsible so as to avoid having further children until such a point as she could sustain them.

However, given that the average citizen lacks any sense of social or personal responsibility, I would suggest her welfare be withdrawn, she imprisoned, and the children taken into care.

However, given that the average citizen lacks any sense of social or personal responsibility, I would suggest her welfare be withdrawn, she imprisoned, and the children taken into care.

That seems a touch overkill mate. What about the father anyway, it takes two to tango...

We're going to foot the bill regardless. But at least we can make sure that they don't benefit from it (and the children actually get taken care of by competent, responsible people).

What I am pointing out is that people are outraged because this couple and others are irresponsible, and beneath that is a sense of ENTITLEMENT. "I am ENTITLED to have as many children as I can even though I can't support them, AND expect YOU to pay for them AND too bad if you don't like it!"

It's infantile behavior, and since obviously they are not capable of raising a family, they should not be indoctrinating another generation into expecting Uncle Stupid to provide what others are working hard for and can't achieve.

Well, there is one group of people who enter our country with no visa or citizenship papers every year. You know who I'm talking about. They don't have jobs, they don't speak the language, and they want everything handed to them. Fucking babies. I think there should be an immigration officer present at every birth, and if the kid doesn't have a green card, kick him back inside.

Um, no. Dumbshit. Illegal immigrants work their asses off from dawn til dusk doing everything from building your neighbors' homes to picking the fresh oranges you drink in the morning.

That seems a touch overkill mate. What about the father anyway, it takes two to tango...

He can go as well.

What I am pointing out is that people are outraged because this couple and others are irresponsible, and beneath that is a sense of ENTITLEMENT. "I am ENTITLED to have as many children as I can even though I can't support them, AND expect YOU to pay for them AND too bad if you don't like it!"

Indeed. I couldn't watch the video earlier, and now I'm just more pissed off. The mom is like, "I love children. I used to babysit. That's why I'm having lots of children. Because I want to."

The dumb bitch should find a way to take care of them first - one that doesn't rely on handouts. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, she should be charged with neglect and the children should be placed with responsible parents.

It's infantile behavior, and since obviously they are not capable of raising a family, they should not be indoctrinating another generation into expecting Uncle Stupid to provide what others are working hard for and can't achieve.

I agree.

I'm quite taken aback at the level of anger being directed at these people. Some of you are fairly frothing at the mouth.

You people talk about having too many kids as a bad thing. Are you guys not aware that the birthrate of the E.U., Japan, and virtually every other country besides the U.S. is not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing deaths from Baby Boomers?

One of the reasons why the US has been able to be the world's GDP leader is because of the cheap labor provided by incoming immigrants. Without a large population and the consequent cheap labor, the country's toast. So, support reproduction. ;)

You people talk about having too many kids as a bad thing. Are you guys not aware that the birthrate of the E.U., Japan, and virtually every other country besides the U.S. is not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing deaths from Baby Boomers?

One of the reasons why the US has been able to be the world's GDP leader is because of the cheap labor provided by incoming immigrants. Without a large population and the consequent cheap labor, the country's toast. So, support reproduction. ;)

Still have to balance short term economic growth against the planets ability to support the population dude. A few quid in ones' pocket now is not worth mass starvation in the future.

You people talk about having too many kids as a bad thing. Are you guys not aware that the birthrate of the E.U., Japan, and virtually every other country besides the U.S. is not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing deaths from Baby Boomers?

One of the reasons why the US has been able to be the world's GDP leader is because of the cheap labor provided by incoming immigrants. Without a large population and the consequent cheap labor, the country's toast. So, support reproduction. ;)

Yes, in an overpopulated world, having more people is a great thing.

:rolleyes:

Quite simply, if she has children already, and neither parent has a job, she ought to have been sufficiently responsible so as to avoid having further children until such a point as she could sustain them.

However, given that the average citizen lacks any sense of social or personal responsibility, I would suggest her welfare be withdrawn, she imprisoned, and the children taken into care. As usual, when I go and sound like a fascist, the more practiced ones outshine me.

I'm more concerned with the parents who neglect or abuse their children than those who have children but not the financial means to completely support them on their own.

Although I realise many of you consider poverty a form of child abuse, which amuses me to no end. Oh, how abused I was a child. Oh woe is me, for growing up dirt poor. How dare my mother have so many children when it was clear she might have to access the Food Bank to feed us from time to time.

Alcoholics having baby after baby, all born with FASD? Yes, an outrage. Poor, yet decent people having baby after baby? Hmmm, the anger just isn't rising in me. Something must be wrong.

As usual, when I go and sound like a fascist, the more practiced ones outshine me.

It's a skill.

I'll teach you for a fee.

;)

I'm more concerned with the parents who neglect or abuse their children than those who have children but not the financial means to completely support them on their own.

Although I realise many of you consider poverty a form of child abuse, which amuses me to no end. Oh, how abused I was a child. Oh woe is me, for growing up dirt poor. How dare my mother have so many children when it was clear she might have to access the Food Bank to feed us from time to time.

Alcoholics having baby after baby, all born with FASD? Yes, an outrage. Poor, yet decent people having baby after baby? Hmmm, the anger just isn't rising in me. Something must be wrong.

i agree with you.

its not abusive for poor people to have children. even if they have lots of children.

if she actually takes good care of these kids, they are a future asset to society.

if she doesnt take good care of them, it wouldnt matter if she were a millionaire, she is a bad mother.

I'm quite taken aback at the level of anger being directed at these people. Some of you are fairly frothing at the mouth.

*shrug* I don't take well to irresponsible people when children are involved. If you want to be irresponsible, that's fine - just make sure you aren't taking anyone else with you.

I'm more concerned with the parents who neglect or abuse their children than those who have children but not the financial means to completely support them on their own.

Suppose you already have a child who you can't feed. Now you intentionally have more children. Is that not neglect? You already can't feed the first one. Now you're intentionally having more than you can't feed. It's disgusting.

We aren't talking about someone who had children and then hit financial instability. We aren't talking about people who are working to take care of their children. We're talking about people who are popping out baby after baby with no source of income but what Uncle Sam will give them.

Although I realise many of you consider poverty a form of child abuse, which amuses me to no end. Oh, how abused I was a child. Oh woe is me, for growing up dirt poor. How dare my mother have so many children when it was clear she might have to access the Food Bank to feed us from time to time.

(a) There's a difference between "accessing the Food Bank from time to time" and living off of government aid with no other source of income whatsoever.

(b) If your parents intentionally had children knowing that they did not have the means to take care of them, it was a very irresponsible move. Note, I'm not talking about, "Oh, if we absolutely must, we'll use government aid." I'm talking about having children when you know for a fact that you have no means but government aid with which to take care of them.

Alcoholics having baby after baby, all born with FASD? Yes, an outrage. Poor, yet decent people having baby after baby? Hmmm, the anger just isn't rising in me. Something must be wrong.

Who said anything about "poor, yet decent people"? Decent people wouldn't intentionally have children that they have no means to support. Decent people wouldn't have children because they "used to babysit and really like taking care of kids." Decent people wouldn't be content to sit around and have others take care of them and their kids - they'd be attempting to do for themselves.

We aren't talking about, "I might need a little help from time to time." We're talking about, "I'm living on government aid and all of my kids are being raised on government aid and I'm just going to keep on having more."

Who said anything about "poor, yet decent people"? Decent people wouldn't intentionally have children that they have no means to support.
You're be surprised. Decent, yes. Psychologically sound, no.

What I am pointing out is that people are outraged because this couple and others are irresponsible, and beneath that is a sense of ENTITLEMENT. "I am ENTITLED to have as many children as I can even though I can't support them, AND expect YOU to pay for them AND too bad if you don't like it!"

It's infantile behavior, and since obviously they are not capable of raising a family, they should not be indoctrinating another generation into expecting Uncle Stupid to provide what others are working hard for and can't achieve.

spot on Kat.

It's the entitlement attitude that is one of the number one reasons that the poor in this country stay poor (according to my own personal experience as always)

"Everyone else has an Expedition, I need one too! so what if I only make $1,000 a month, I can afford the $500 payment......besides, I can save for retirement later....."

"So what if I can't pay my bills......I want an Ipod, I need it, I deserve it, I will just win the lottery to get rich"

"I want a big house, my parents had one, so what if it took them 40 years to save up for it, I want it NOW! I deserve a nice house, I grew up in one, I can get an interest only loan and afford it"

:rolleyes:

Rule #1 in Smunkee's financial counseling plan, if you don't have cash for it, you can't afford it. If you aren't caught up on your bills and have 3 months of pay stashed somewhere, you can't afford anything else (except food... maybe).

Oh, and rule #2........finance NOTHING. (except a house, and only then when you have 20% down and can do a 15 year mortgage.)

;)

It kinda goes unsaid that you don't pop out children or buy pets until you can take care of yourself.

Alcoholics having baby after baby, all born with FASD? Yes, an outrage. Poor, yet decent people having baby after baby? Hmmm, the anger just isn't rising in me. Something must be wrong.
For whatever it's worth, I'm pissed off at ANYBODY having baby after baby. Our planet is grossly overpopulated, and there are literally millions of children in need of families. Practice zero population, and if you want a bigger family...adopt!

if she actually takes good care of these kids, they are a future asset to society.

She doesn't.

That's been thoroughly established. She feels entitled to force other people to help care for her children.

A very stupid custom in my country is the separation of "bread winning" and "parenting." A good parent ensures both the financial/material support of their children, AND the hands-on parenting and childcare that their kid needs.

A parent who chooses not to do one or the other is a shitty parent. A dad who refuses to ever change a diaper or apply a band-aid or comfort a sick kid is a shitty father, no matter how much money he makes. A mom who refuses to ensure a source of income that will provide for her children is a shitty mother, no matter how many boo-boos she kisses.

(NOTE: The key here is the refusal. Plenty of good people hit bad times, and are unable to spend time with their kids or provide adequate income because they find themselves struggling too much. Shitty parents are the ones who simply refuse to do what it takes to be a good Mom or Dad.)

Being a good parent requires the whole package. You know how we all are pretty sickened by rich parents who provide their kids with plenty of money but no discipline or attention? Well, this is like the opposite of that. And it's just as much a failure on the part of the parents.

She's probably cranking out children for the additional welfare money.


I hate to say it but you are correct in this instance. I have known of people who did exactly that. It has been going on for decades, its just another way for people to get over on the system and apparently the government isn't smart enough to catch on.

and poor people don't have the right to have children?


This isn't a question of should poor people be allowed to have childred. Rather its a question of should anybody be allowed to have children for a living. Because there are people who have another child whenever they want a raise on their warfare check.

The 14th amendment seems to address that one.



So the government should let children starve?



No they should force the parents to get jobs so they can pay for the children they have a right to have.

Having that many kids is a job in itself.

Let alone the making. :D


As they say, if you can't do the time .... then don't do the crime :p

You can't force them not to have kids, but you could always take them and put them in foster care , so they don't pick up their parents slacker ways. A bit cruel perhaps but better for everyone in the long run.


So the tax payers still end up paying ...

I was refering strictly to conceiving and giving birth, not remaining a parent. That's an entirely seperate set of laws, but I was speaking only of conceiving and birthing. But once we recognize that giving birth is a right much like any other, why is it acceptable to restrict this right, but not others?


When a person uses having children as a way to get a raise on there warfare check it should be considered fraud.

Because responsible adults put off having children until they can support them.

And if, because fate is funny that way, they have ONE (or two) they can't afford to support, they don't make six more and expect the rest of us to foot the bill.

I couldn't have said it better myself

What I am pointing out is that people are outraged because this couple and others are irresponsible, and beneath that is a sense of ENTITLEMENT. "I am ENTITLED to have as many children as I can even though I can't support them, AND expect YOU to pay for them AND too bad if you don't like it!"

It's infantile behavior, and since obviously they are not capable of raising a family, they should not be indoctrinating another generation into expecting Uncle Stupid to provide what others are working hard for and can't achieve.

here ... here

So the tax payers still end up paying ...

But at least the parents are not rewarded for their behaviour.
Unless their goal truly is the spreading of their genetic pattern with no concern for the actual children of course.

You people talk about having too many kids as a bad thing. Are you guys not aware that the birthrate of the E.U., Japan, and virtually every other country besides the U.S. is not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing deaths from Baby Boomers?

One of the reasons why the US has been able to be the world's GDP leader is because of the cheap labor provided by incoming immigrants. Without a large population and the consequent cheap labor, the country's toast. So, support reproduction. ;)


I do support reproduction, I just insist that the parent needs to be responsible for the choldren they produce instead of expecting the taxpayers to pay for them.

You people talk about having too many kids as a bad thing. Are you guys not aware that the birthrate of the E.U., Japan, and virtually every other country besides the U.S. is not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing deaths from Baby Boomers?

"Every other country besides the US"?

Bunk.

Birth rates in Europe, Japan, Australia, China, and Canada are below 2 per woman (in other words, declining population). The USA has a roughly stable population, with closer to 2 births per woman.

But virtually every country in Central and South America has at least stable, if not increasing, population. Every single country in Africa has a birth rate that leads to an increase in population. Same with most of the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.

Um, no. Dumbshit. Illegal immigrants work their asses off from dawn til dusk doing everything from building your neighbors' homes to picking the fresh oranges you drink in the morning.

1) Don't flame people.
2) Read before responding.

When a person uses having children as a way to get a raise on there warfare check it should be considered fraud.

What is a warfare check - presumably money given to the poor instead of spending it on something useful like weapons?

What is a warfare check - presumably money given to the poor instead of spending it on something useful like weapons?

Please tell me you're being ironic...

Please tell me you're being ironic...

Very ironic - I just thought their warfare check instead of welfare check was very telling.

Its a pretty frustrating situation.

Sometimes I read about these instances and get pretty angry,other times I try to imagine myself in the subject's position and feel that they dont want to be in that position and have no easy way out.

I do know there are generations of people that are born and live their entire life while on public assistance.

I think that maybe we need more life skills & decision making type classes early in school.
Welfare,in my opinion, should be a temporary safety net to fall back on when all your luck and efforts have run out. Every effort should be made to get off of it as soon as possible.

But-I can only clearly look at it from my point of view. No one in my family has ever been on any public assistance,not even unemployment.

So-for people that dont know any better-it stands to reason they have a different point of view.

I feel that a large majority of them, if given a choice between handouts for life OR a skill/education + a job, many would choose the job.

But-if you started having kids when you were 15, it really impairs your chances of improving your education/skills/job prospects.

This thread made me sad.

I was unable to watch the film, so maybe I'm missing something here.

I don't understand why so many of you feel that it is a moral thing to separate families simply based on economic grounds. I do not believe that it would be better for the children to be separated from their mother simply because we feel she should be living according to the societal work ethic.

Why do we, as a scoiety, feel entitled to go in and destroy families based on something as arbitrary as the percentage of someone's income that comes from the government?

This thread made me sad.

I was unable to watch the film, so maybe I'm missing something here.

I don't understand why so many of you feel that it is a moral thing to separate families simply based on economic grounds. I do not believe that it would be better for the children to be separated from their mother simply because we feel she should be living according to the societal work ethic.

Why do we, as a scoiety, feel entitled to go in and destroy families based on something as arbitrary as the percentage of someone's income that comes from the government?

Why does she feel entitled to take ever larger amounts of money because she and her mate are too stupid to use a rubber?

isn't that what planned parenthood is for?

really?

Tubal ligation.

This thread made me sad.

I was unable to watch the film, so maybe I'm missing something here.

I don't understand why so many of you feel that it is a moral thing to separate families simply based on economic grounds. I do not believe that it would be better for the children to be separated from their mother simply because we feel she should be living according to the societal work ethic.

I think it would be good for children to be separated from any adult who models such irresponsible, dishonorable behavior.

Good role models are really important. The less time kids spend around lousy role models, the better!

Why do we, as a scoiety, feel entitled to go in and destroy families based on something as arbitrary as the percentage of someone's income that comes from the government?
If you'd read the thread, you'd know that pretty much nobody is advocating that.

The reason people are pissed is because this person is openly choosing not to TRY to support their family, and instead to demand that other people work to support their children for them.

This is an insult to all the hard-working Americans who are struggling to support their own families.

The majority of Americans with children are having difficultly providing for their own kids, and are working their asses off in the process.

They're having to take time away from their own families to work to pay the bills.

They have to miss out on time with their own kids because they have to take another shift in order for the kids to get school supplies.

The majority of poor Americans are WORKING Americans. When people on this thread get mad at a woman who is intentionally lazy, it's insulting for you to twist this to say that we're advocating some kind of discrimination based on "economic grounds," because that implies that all poor people are like this woman. Fuck that noise.

Basic human right to reproduce, so you'll find it in the Universal Human Rights.

Reproduce, yes. But reproduce without limit on somebody elses cost ?

Good question actually. Is the right to have children actually included in any countries bill of rights?

Basic human right to reproduce, so you'll find it in the Universal Human Rights. You didn't think this video and "news" was a bit leading, insofar that it was pushing us to be judgemental? Why mention the fact they are on welfare? How is that pertinent to the triple set of twins? I think the media like to keep class warfare going; and hating the poor seems to be acceptable, so much so that we think it's OK to interefere with their lives/reproduction rights - or at least have opinions regarding it.

I think it would be good for children to be separated from any adult who models such irresponsible, dishonorable behavior.

Good role models are really important. The less time kids spend around lousy role models, the better!

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that pretty much nobody is advocating that.

Aren't you advocating separating the children from their mother in the first sentence of your post? Perhaps I am misreading, or the film shows the mother to be engaging in such irresponsible and dishonourable behaviour that the situation would warrant it. I don't think receiving government handouts is really honourable or responsible, but I don't think it warrants destroying families by separating children from their parents.

The reason people are pissed is because this person is openly choosing not to TRY to support their family, and instead to demand that other people work to support their children for them.

This is an insult to all the hard-working Americans who are struggling to support their own families.

The majority of Americans with children are having difficultly providing for their own kids, and are working their asses off in the process.

They're having to take time away from their own families to work to pay the bills.

They have to miss out on time with their own kids because they have to take another shift in order for the kids to get school supplies.

I have children, and I am a poor working aprent just as you describe above. While I get pissed off at amny of the ways that my tax dollars are spent, this issue does not seem to raise my hackles, nor do I feel insulted that this woman is doing this at the expense of working parents like me. As I said, I must be missing something because this doesn't seem to warrant such a reaction.

The majority of poor Americans are WORKING Americans. When people on this thread get mad at a woman who is intentionally lazy, it's insulting for you to twist this to say that we're advocating some kind of discrimination based on "economic grounds," because that implies that all poor people are like this woman. Fuck that noise.

If you feel I insulted anyone, I apologise. I was merely questioning why someone who receives 100% of their income from the government is immoral and deserves to have her children forcibly removed from her care and/or incarcerated, while someone who receives a lesser percentage is considered perfectly normal.

If you feel I insulted anyone, I apologise. I was merely questioning why someone who receives 100% of their income from the government is immoral and deserves to have her children forcibly removed from her care and/or incarcerated, while someone who receives a lesser percentage is considered perfectly normal.

People are not arguing that they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare. They argue they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare and are deliberately increasing the amount of money they need.

Aren't you advocating separating the children from their mother in the first sentence of your post?

Yes. But you said, "I don't understand why so many of you feel that it is a moral thing to separate families simply based on economic grounds" and "...simply because we feel she should be living according to the societal work ethic."

I don't advocate either of those.


Perhaps I am misreading, or the film shows the mother to be engaging in such irresponsible and dishonourable behaviour that the situation would warrant it. I don't think receiving government handouts is really honourable or responsible, but I don't think it warrants destroying families by separating children from their parents.

Read the thread. You'll find the information you need.


I have children, and I am a poor working aprent just as you describe above. While I get pissed off at amny of the ways that my tax dollars are spent, this issue does not seem to raise my hackles, nor do I feel insulted that this woman is doing this at the expense of working parents like me. As I said, I must be missing something because this doesn't seem to warrant such a reaction.

If you are content to have people take money from your family and give it to individuals who simply don't feel like working, then that's your business.

For you to claim that it is unwarranted for others to be miffed about such things is laughable.

I grew up in a household where both parents worked full time to keep us solidly in the lower middle class. My folks had to miss out on a lot of my life because they had to earn enough to support us. I don't resent them for it one bit, because I respect their decision to support the family they made, but I do recognize that it was a sacrifice on their part.

That's why it disgusts me to see somebody blathering about how much she loves kids, while intentionally taking other people's money to support those kids. She is taking other parents away from their children. She is making other people miss out on more of their own children's lives, because she's too selfish to bother supporting the family she has made.


If you feel I insulted anyone, I apologise. I was merely questioning why someone who receives 100% of their income from the government is immoral and deserves to have her children forcibly removed from her care and/or incarcerated, while someone who receives a lesser percentage is considered perfectly normal.
Then you're asking an empty question, and arguing with a straw man. Have fun!

People are not arguing that they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare. They argue they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare and are deliberately increasing the amount of money they need.

Thank you for clarifying. Still, it seems odd that people would get mad over such a thing. I get more pissed off when the government subsidises business ventures with tyrannical governments, but each to his or her own.

All I can say is that I am glad that she is not going to be losing her welfare, children, or liberty over this. I would rather a system where an individual can abuse the system, than a system that allows the government to abuse the individual.

People are not arguing that they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare. They argue they are immoral for receiving 100% income out of welfare and are deliberately increasing the amount of money they need.
Exactly. And this has been said many times, quite clearly.

My problem is with people who think they are entitled to take me away from my family simply because they don't feel like working. Guess what? A lot of the time I don't feel like working, either! But I am a grown up, and I know that sometimes you have to do work you don't like in order to have the life you want.

If somebody is unable to grasp that fact, then they are definitely not mature enough to be in charge of rearing children. If somebody is able to grasp that fact, but chooses to be intentionally lazy and refuses to support themselves, then they are far too pathetic to be in charge of rearing children. In either case, they're not a fit parent.

Yes. But you said, "I don't understand why so many of you feel that it is a moral thing to separate families simply based on economic grounds" and "...simply because we feel she should be living according to the societal work ethic."

I don't advocate either of those.

Different people in this thread undoubtedly have different reasons for believing this woman is at fault for some reason. All of them seem to equate her economic situation with her morality. Again, I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any proof that she is somehow abusing her children in some way other than being poor.

Read the thread. You'll find the information you need.

I did read the thread. It raised some questions in my head, but did not provide me with the information I seek. Hopefully by discussing this, I can find some answers.

If you are content to have people take money from your family and give it to individuals who simply don't feel like working, then that's your business.

For you to claim that it is unwarranted for others to be miffed about such things is laughable.

I didn't claim that. If I accidentally implied it, my apologies. I was wondering why people are so miffed. People are allowed to be as offended as they want by anything they wish to be offended by.

I grew up in a household where both parents worked full time to keep us solidly in the lower middle class. My folks had to miss out on a lot of my life because they had to earn enough to support us. I don't resent them for it one bit, because I respect their decision to support the family they made, but I do recognize that it was a sacrifice on their part.

I grew up in a similar household. During that time, we received some government assistance. Not much, but enough that we could save a bit and make our lives better, bit by bit. To me this is completely normal and is completely undeserving of rancor or punishment. I live this way now. I see this woman's situation as being qualitatively similar. It's just a matter of degree between this woman's life and my own.

That's why it disgusts me to see somebody blathering about how much she loves kids, while intentionally taking other people's money to support those kids. She is taking other parents away from their children. She is making other people miss out on more of their own children's lives, because she's too selfish to bother supporting the family she has made.

See, answers like this are what I'm looking for. It helps me understand why some people would be pissed off at her. Thank you.

Then you're asking an empty question, and arguing with a straw man. Have fun!

Uhm. Okay. I wasn't really trying to argue anything, just asking some questions (which were apparently empty). Whatever.

Hopefully at least a few of the kids will be smart enough or athletic enough to get into college.

Lazy fucking kids.

Thank you for clarifying. Still, it seems odd that people would get mad over such a thing. I get more pissed off when the government subsidises business ventures with tyrannical governments, but each to his or her own.

Where do you get the silly idea that other people do not ?
Being pissed off at both these things is in no way a contradiction.

All I can say is that I am glad that she is not going to be losing her welfare, children, or liberty over this. I would rather a system where an individual can abuse the system, than a system that allows the government to abuse the individual.

Agreed. But I am not so sure I would like such an abuser to shape the minds of lots of kids.

It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to get irritated everytime I see a pregnant woman or a baby. That's not good.

In my head I'm like "Jesus FUCK, woman, don't you know how many people are already on this earth, much less how many of them are starving and alone?! AND YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE COLLECTION."

Being bitter and angry loses its fun after a while.

I feel the exact same way.

This is why unending welfare checks are stupid.

They have no motivation to get a job, so they just live on welfare.

If they get a job, but still need checks (although lower) then give them it, but if they are to fucking lazy to get a job then why should we have to pay them to keep on being lazy?

Shit man, nobody lives on welfare, nobody.

People can survive on welfare, and moslty if they have lil job on the side, are theif some cash or whatever, but live, on the welfare?! Naaaaaaaa.

She doesn't.

That's been thoroughly established. She feels entitled to force other people to help care for her children.

A very stupid custom in my country is the separation of "bread winning" and "parenting." A good parent ensures both the financial/material support of their children, AND the hands-on parenting and childcare that their kid needs.

A parent who chooses not to do one or the other is a shitty parent. A dad who refuses to ever change a diaper or apply a band-aid or comfort a sick kid is a shitty father, no matter how much money he makes. A mom who refuses to ensure a source of income that will provide for her children is a shitty mother, no matter how many boo-boos she kisses.

(NOTE: The key here is the refusal. Plenty of good people hit bad times, and are unable to spend time with their kids or provide adequate income because they find themselves struggling too much. Shitty parents are the ones who simply refuse to do what it takes to be a good Mom or Dad.)

Being a good parent requires the whole package. You know how we all are pretty sickened by rich parents who provide their kids with plenty of money but no discipline or attention? Well, this is like the opposite of that. And it's just as much a failure on the part of the parents.

excuse me but HOW was this bad mothering established?

i looked at the video this morning and she seems to be a young but competant mother who is having another set of twins. her kids were clean and happy looking, her home was neat and clean. no one looked ill cared for. the kids were behaving themselves.

i saw NO evidence of bad mothering.

were her kids starving? were they naked? were they living in inadequate housing? NO.

being on welfare is not evidence of being a bad parent. having another child that turns out to be twins is not evidence of being a bad parent. i certainly wouldnt recommend it to anyone but she seemed remarkably OK for being so freaking young a mother of 7.

excuse me but HOW was this bad mothering established?

i looked at the video this morning and she seems to be a young but competant mother who is having another set of twins. her kids were clean and happy looking, her home was neat and clean. no one looked ill cared for. the kids were behaving themselves.

i saw NO evidence of bad mothering.

were her kids starving? were they naked? were they living in inadequate housing? NO.

Did their mother provide the food they ate? The clothes they wore? The housing they lived in?

If the physical status of those children is evidence of good parenting, then the TAXPAYERS are the good parents in that home. Their mother provides fuckall for them, materially speaking. She completely fails at half of what it means to be a parent.


being on welfare is not evidence of being a bad parent. having another child that turns out to be twins is not evidence of being a bad parent.

Good thing I'm not claiming either of those. Read more carefully.

Did their mother provide the food they ate? The clothes they wore? The housing they lived in?

If the physical status of those children is evidence of good parenting, then the TAXPAYERS are the good parents in that home. Their mother provides fuckall for them, materially speaking. She completely fails at half of what it means to be a parent.


Good thing I'm not claiming either of those. Read more carefully.

it seems to me that if you are claiming that this mother is a bad mother, you are off base.

based on the evidence we have seen.

i dont care where she got the money for the food, clothing and shelter for her kids. she got them. and it seems that she is using the money wisely.

everyone "fails" at some aspect or another of parenting. no one is a perfect parent. to "fail" at being able to work a full time job while raising 7 kids isnt a terrible thing.

Shit man, nobody lives on welfare, nobody.

People can survive on welfare, and moslty if they have lil job on the side, are theif some cash or whatever, but live, on the welfare?! Naaaaaaaa.

Sure you can, just need to be in cheap or rent free government housing, get food stamps, welfare, medicaid. Pretty soon you're better off than middle class. Kid's got a headache? Off to the ER with you!

I know a woman who's rent is $25 a month in a government sponsored apartment. Two kids, single mother. With child support and her job she's doing pretty well now. I think she's finally made it off welfare. She's the sort that the system was designed to help. A former stay at home mom of two who after a divorce had little of anything. She got herself a job and started making an honest living.

Granted, not too good a job or you lose out on medicaid for the kids. If you know how to play the system you can screw your fellow tax payers good.

Sure you can, just need to be in cheap or rent free government housing, get food stamps, welfare, medicaid. Pretty soon you're better off than middle class. Kid's got a headache? Off to the ER with you!

I know a woman who's rent is $25 a month in a government sponsored apartment. Two kids, single mother. With child support and her job she's doing pretty well now. I think she's finally made it off welfare. She's the sort that the system was designed to help. A former stay at home mom of two who after a divorce had little of anything. She got herself a job and started making an honest living.

Granted, not too good a job or you lose out on medicaid for the kids. If you know how to play the system you can screw your fellow tax payers good.

Heh yeah except you live in a shitty house in a shitty area, you can't let you kids out on their own, you hear sirens all night long. Food is also top notch, and you can afford all the latest fashions too!
Your kids will ultimatly gorw uop with that victim attitude, and you'll be safe in the knowldge that you ahve at least given them a better chance than you had. Yep thats living!

Poor people should not have kids if they do it is their own responsibility to feed them and clothe them. If they cant hack it then they should put the kids in foster care, adoption, orphanage or whatever or else go to jail for child neglect. Government's purpose is not to bail people out of the problems that they got themselves into. The purpose of government is to promote and regulate trade, encourage innovations through patent protection, defend its sovereignty, settle civil disputes, and promote order and domestic tranquility by providing for a criminal justice system.

Poor people should not have kids if they do it is their own responsibility to feed them and clothe them. If they cant hack it then they should put the kids in foster care, adoption, orphanage or whatever or else go to jail for child neglect. Government's purpose is not to bail people out of the problems that they got themselves into. The purpose of government is to promote and regulate trade, encourage innovations through patent protection, defend its sovereignty, settle civil disputes, and promote order and domestic tranquility by providing for a criminal justice system.

Then I am in complete disagreement with you. Just a quick question how much would your income have to be to be considered poor?

I grew up in a similar household. During that time, we received some government assistance. Not much, but enough that we could save a bit and make our lives better, bit by bit. To me this is completely normal and is completely undeserving of rancor or punishment. I live this way now. I see this woman's situation as being qualitatively similar. It's just a matter of degree between this woman's life and my own.

This woman's situation is NOT qualitatively similar. Your parents were trying to improve upon their situation, to make themselves self-sufficient. They were working for their own income. They may have needed some assistance on top of that, but they were doing what they could to alleviate that need.

This woman (and her boyfriend), on the other hand, is not doing that. She is having child after child when she is making absolutely nothing to support them. She is not using welfare as "assistance," as it should be used.

All I can say is that I am glad that she is not going to be losing her welfare, children, or liberty over this. I would rather a system where an individual can abuse the system, than a system that allows the government to abuse the individual.

This wouldn't be the system abusing the individual. It would be the system taking care of the children that she has irresponsibly brought into this world without support. If they are taken from her at birth and immediately put up for adoption, there is a good chance that they will be adopted by parents with at least a little bit of responsibility - parents who will not only love the children, but will actually take care of them. That would be a vastly better situation than the one they are being born into.


i looked at the video this morning and she seems to be a young but competant mother who is having another set of twins. her kids were clean and happy looking, her home was neat and clean. no one looked ill cared for. the kids were behaving themselves.

A competent mother would actually make some attempt to provide for the children she has before trying to have more. She wants dolls, not children. That was pretty evident with her, "I have so many children because I used to babysit..." nonsense.

were her kids starving? were they naked? were they living in inadequate housing? NO.

Was she providing for any of these things? NO. Was she making an attempt to provide for any of these things? NO.

i dont care where she got the money for the food, clothing and shelter for her kids. she got them. and it seems that she is using the money wisely.

Interesting. So she could steal it from a bank and that would be ok? At least that would take some sort of effort on her part.

It's one thing to use government aid as assistance. It's quite another to use it as your entire income and keep adding on to the "assistance" you need.

I think that if you're on government assistance, and you have another child during the time you're on the dole, the government should, in the case of women, inject them with DepoProvera (or no aid), and in the case of men, a similar male contraceptive (if there isn't one, then a vasectomy).

If you can't whittle the fathers down to a single man, say, you think it was one of 3 or 4 men, then all of the men get a vasectomy against their will, and they all have to pay child support.

Then I am in complete disagreement with you. Just a quick question how much would your income have to be to be considered poor?

Enough to provide for the welfare of your children without relying on charity unless some unpredictable catastrophe befalls you and your spouse. Also, I want to point out that I think people can and should give to charities that they believe in. I think helping widows raise children through charity is a good thing. I just do not think that government should do it.

However, if you are already in a bad jam financially you should not bring another mouth to feed into the family. That is what birthcontrol, abortion, and adoption is for.

The government's only involvement should be prosecuting parents who do not provide for their children's necessities or being unable to do that take proper legal steps to have the children taken out of the home either forever or temporarily until the problem is fixed.

I think that if you're on government assistance, and you have another child during the time you're on the dole, the government should, in the case of women, inject them with DepoProvera (or no aid), and in the case of men, a similar male contraceptive (if there isn't one, then a vasectomy).

If you can't whittle the fathers down to a single man, say, you think it was one of 3 or 4 men, then all of the men get a vasectomy against their will, and they all have to pay child support.

That is sexist and feminist. At worst only the DNA tested one should have to pay. I do not think any man should have to pay if he does not want to since men cannot force women to have an abortion.

Heh yeah except you live in a shitty house in a shitty area, you can't let you kids out on their own, you hear sirens all night long. Food is also top notch, and you can afford all the latest fashions too!
Your kids will ultimatly gorw uop with that victim attitude, and you'll be safe in the knowldge that you ahve at least given them a better chance than you had. Yep thats living!

That's only for the inner cities. Around here government housing isn't bad at all. A bit small, but in a perfectly decent neighborhood.

Enough to provide for the welfare of your children without relying on charity unless some unpredictable catastrophe befalls you and your spouse. Also, I want to point out that I think people can and should give to charities that they believe in. I think helping widows raise children through charity is a good thing. I just do not think that government should do it.

However, if you are already in a bad jam financially you should not bring another mouth to feed into the family. That is what birthcontrol, abortion, and adoption is for.

The government's only involvement should be prosecuting parents who do not provide for their children's necessities or being unable to do that take proper legal steps to have the children taken out of the home either forever or temporarily until the problem is fixed.

What then if you are the product of a poor family, you have had a crap education, you can't get a better paying job and you live in the slums, yiou are married and you have 5 kids

You are this way because of an accident of birth, should you be helped, or should you be told, 'well you know you shouldn't have had all of those kids, sorry bub can't help you'

it seems to me that if you are claiming that this mother is a bad mother, you are off base.

based on the evidence we have seen.

That's your opinion. Fine.

I have standards for parenting. Maybe they don't gel with yours. I'm comfortable with that.


i dont care where she got the money for the food, clothing and shelter for her kids.

I do. If she, for instance, robbed a liquor store to pay for her kids' stuff, I'd say she's a shitty parent. It matters HOW a parent provides for their children.


everyone "fails" at some aspect or another of parenting. no one is a perfect parent. to "fail" at being able to work a full time job while raising 7 kids isnt a terrible thing.
No, not everybody fails at some aspect of parenting.

Nobody is perfect, true, but there's a long way to go from "imperfect" to "fail."

Even the best parent will sometimes make mistakes. Doesn't mean they're a failure.

A woman who CHOOSES not to support her own children is a failure as a parent, in my opinion. It's just that simple.

That is sexist and feminist. At worst only the DNA tested one should have to pay. I do not think any man should have to pay if he does not want to since men cannot force women to have an abortion.

Bullshit. He knew the rudiments of biology. And if no one will fess up, I'm not paying extra for tests to find out. And, since it's more than one man, we're more likely to get someone who can provide.

Just because a man (or a few men) and a woman were jointly stupid doesn't mean the rest of us are going to pay for it.

That is sexist and feminist.
That's a contradiction.

If it is sexist, it cannot also be feminist. By definition, feminism opposes sexism, because feminism is the belief equality of the sexes. If you advocate unequal treatment based on sex (i.e. sexism), you are not advocating feminism.

And vice versa, of course.

What then if you are the product of a poor family, you have had a crap education, you can't get a better paying job and you live in the slums, yiou are married and you have 5 kids

You are this way because of an accident of birth, should you be helped, or should you be told, 'well you know you shouldn't have had all of those kids, sorry bub can't help you'

I do not believe that someone in this situation should have had five children. I think that charity should only be for people who unavoidably ran into financial trouble. Having 5 kids was very avoidable. They could have stopped after one or had none at all until they could have afforded it.

I think that this parent should first have no more children. Second, they should place some or all of the children into some sort of orphanage, foster care, or adoption situation. This option should always be open so that children do not unnecessarily suffer for the stupidity of their parents. Obviously, we cannot have starving kids.

That's the crucial bit that some people seem to be missing.

These kids didn't magically drop out of the sky. This woman did not suddenly wake up one morning and find herself with 5 kids and no job.

PREGNANCY TAKES 9 MONTHS. She had a lot of warning before each of these kids arrived. She decided to do nothing to financially prepare for the child she knew she was bringing into the world.

Not to mention that there had to be at least one sperm-spamming idiot involved...

Bullshit. He knew the rudiments of biology. And if no one will fess up, I'm not paying extra for tests to find out. And, since it's more than one man, we're more likely to get someone who can provide.

Just because a man (or a few men) and a woman were jointly stupid doesn't mean the rest of us are going to pay for it.

I agree with you that tax dollars should not be spent on the maintenance of children (although I am not opposed to public orphanages and local government oversight and coordination of foster parenting).

However, I do not think that sex leads to financial responsibility. I think that the choice to keep a child instead of aborting or adopting leads to financial responsibility.

I do not believe that someone in this situation should have had five children. I think that charity should only be for people who unavoidably ran into financial trouble. Having 5 kids was very avoidable. They could have stopped after one or had none at all until they could have afforded it.

That's the crucial bit that some people seem to be missing.

These kids didn't magically drop out of the sky. This woman did not suddenly wake up one morning and find herself with 5 kids and no job.

PREGNANCY TAKES 9 MONTHS. She had a lot of warning before each of these kids arrived. She decided to do nothing to financially prepare for the child she knew she was bringing into the world.

That's the crucial bit that some people seem to be missing.

These kids didn't magically drop out of the sky. This woman did not suddenly wake up one morning and find herself with 5 kids and no job.

PREGNANCY TAKES 9 MONTHS. She had a lot of warning before each of these kids arrived. She decided to do nothing to financially prepare for the child she knew she was bringing into the world.

Dear Bottle, I love it when we agree on something. It does not happen all that often. *high five*

Dear Bottle, I love it when we agree on something. It does not happen all that often. *high five*
That's the great thing about humanity:

There is always somebody rotten enough that we can all agree to not like them.

;)

I do not believe that someone in this situation should have had five children. I think that charity should only be for people who unavoidably ran into financial trouble. Having 5 kids was very avoidable. They could have stopped after one or had none at all until they could have afforded it.

I think that this parent should first have no more children. Second, they should place some or all of the children into some sort of orphanage, foster care, or adoption situation. This option should always be open so that children do not unnecessarily suffer for the stupidity of their parents. Obviously, we cannot have starving kids.

Then I feel very sorry for anybody who calls you friend. I perpously decided to just say 5 kids, without specultion on where they could have come from. To give you a chance to perhaps speculate, to suss out how far with your POV you went.

So instead of asking relevent question to asscertian the whole of the situation in this hyperthetical case, you blanketly say 'well she shouldn';t have had five kids'

Why not? It is after all an imperative for all that lives to procrate, and so a fundemental right.
Cahrity sghould be only for those that run into trouble. What about those born into financel difficaulties. Do you suggest that all of the poor are so by their own work?

As for wait until you can offord to have kids, bloody hell, have you got any yourself? Do you know how expesinve they are? if we all waited until we could afford to have them, then only the inanly rich would do so.

Personly I feel the best time to have kids, is when you feel you want them. I did exactly that, I was holding down a low paid job in a butchers shop.

Thenyou know what happend? My first son was born, and I realsied I did not have enough money to feed him and me and my wife, and pay the rent and bills and travel to and from work, and buy cloths for us all.

The mere fact of having a child stired me up to better my prospects. So where I wonder would I be, if I was stuill waiting until I could afford to have a child? Maybe still in a dead end job, and without two things that have brought untold joy to my life.

Your POV seems very selfish to me. Perhaps you are right, the world would certianly be a better place if it was less crowded, but poor people would still be poor, and those of us that feel that the poor are not worth our time, well you have all heard that platitude about only being two paychecks away from being homeless, yes?

Or the motivation to get a job. I don't care how bad the economy is, you can surely get a job flipping burgers our something.

I, with almost no work experience whatsoever, was still able to get a summer job, after the influx of college students off of school for the summer took all the low-paying summer jobs. I honestly cannot believe these people have given it a serious effort. They're a model for what welfare shouldn't support.

one thing I'm unsure of, have the other two simply not found a job, or not looked? If they have made a good faith effort to find a job and have not succeeded they can not be blamed for that.

Yeh, he probably can't find a job in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area because all the illegal immigrants have all the jobs. :rolleyes:

What then if you are the product of a poor family, you have had a crap education, you can't get a better paying job and you live in the slums, yiou are married and you have 5 kids

You are this way because of an accident of birth, should you be helped, or should you be told, 'well you know you shouldn't have had all of those kids, sorry bub can't help you'

5 kids aren't "an accident of your birth." Bringing 5 - or even 1 - kids into the world when you cannot support them is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances of your birth are. It is one thing to have 5 kids that you can support, and then to fine that your means of support is no longer viable and admit you need help. It is quite another to intentionally do it knowing you cannot support them, digging yourself deeper and deeper into a financial hole.

Now, should people who end up in this situation be helped? Yes, if they are actually willing to make an effort to improve their situation. Chances are, they will need help to do so, but they have to be willing to put in what effort they can to be at all deserving of that help.

That's the crucial bit that some people seem to be missing.

These kids didn't magically drop out of the sky. This woman did not suddenly wake up one morning and find herself with 5 kids and no job.

PREGNANCY TAKES 9 MONTHS. She had a lot of warning before each of these kids arrived. She decided to do nothing to financially prepare for the child she knew she was bringing into the world.

Not true. She filled out the welfare forms.

Yeh, he probably can't find a job in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area because all the illegal immigrants have all the jobs. :rolleyes:

She should have married an illegal alien then. He gets to stay in the US, she gets someone who will work his ass off. It's win/win.

I, with almost no work experience whatsoever, was still able to get a summer job, after the influx of college students off of school for the summer took all the low-paying summer jobs. I honestly cannot believe these people have given it a serious effort. They're a model for what welfare shouldn't support.

Why would they even WANT to give it a serious effort? Shitty people they may be..but it is the government's fault for letting these people take advantage of it. The way that welfare is set up is just asking for abuse. If someone finds a way to take advantage of it..more power to them. I may not LIKE what these people are doing..but I don't blame them. I blame the system.

Then I feel very sorry for anybody who calls you friend. I perpously decided to just say 5 kids, without specultion on where they could have come from. To give you a chance to perhaps speculate, to suss out how far with your POV you went.

So instead of asking relevent question to asscertian the whole of the situation in this hyperthetical case, you blanketly say 'well she shouldn';t have had five kids'

Why not? It is after all an imperative for all that lives to procrate, and so a fundemental right.
Cahrity sghould be only for those that run into trouble. What about those born into financel difficaulties. Do you suggest that all of the poor are so by their own work?

As for wait until you can offord to have kids, bloody hell, have you got any yourself? Do you know how expesinve they are? if we all waited until we could afford to have them, then only the inanly rich would do so.

Personly I feel the best time to have kids, is when you feel you want them. I did exactly that, I was holding down a low paid job in a butchers shop.

Thenyou know what happend? My first son was born, and I realsied I did not have enough money to feed him and me and my wife, and pay the rent and bills and travel to and from work, and buy cloths for us all.

The mere fact of having a child stired me up to better my prospects. So where I wonder would I be, if I was stuill waiting until I could afford to have a child? Maybe still in a dead end job, and without two things that have brought untold joy to my life.

Your POV seems very selfish to me. Perhaps you are right, the world would certianly be a better place if it was less crowded, but poor people would still be poor, and those of us that feel that the poor are not worth our time, well you have all heard that platitude about only being two paychecks away from being homeless, yes?


Having a child is an important decision. One of the factors that must be considered is the impact of a child upon the family's finances. To ignore the financial impact of childrearing is irresponsible and a little stupid.

I agree with you that people have the right to procreate. However, if someone makes that decision they should be responsible for the financial ramifications.

I understand that people like myself (and my poor wife who really wants to have babies right now), have to exercise a little discipline and patience, but I think it is worth it to wait until one's finanaces are stable and not two paychecks away from homelessness as you put it. We have some defined financial goals that we will have to meet before we stop using birth control.

Now as far as the role of charity, let us say that I were to have a child and then all of a sudden get cancer and rack up some serious medical bills. This was unforseen and I think that my family would be a worhy beneficiary of charity. Perhaps even there may be some proper room for government help since I paid into social security and should be entitled to some help upon becoming temporarily or permanently disabled by my cancer.

This is a far different situation from someone who has 6 kids by age 17 and who is not wealthy enough to provide for the necessities of any or all of the children at any point when she was deciding to become or stay pregnant.

You did a passionate job of discussing the joys of parenthood and how important the right to be a parent is. You did not do a very good job so far of discussing what financial responsibilities are expected of someone who makes such a decision. You emphasized that people should have children when they want them. I agree with you but think that this decision should be delayed until someone is financially ready to provide for a child's necessities without resort to charities or a public dole such as welfare.

As far as being selfish. I am not sure where you are coming from. I sort of think it is selfish to have children because you want to even if you are not financially ready to provide for them. It is selfish in the sense that your happiness comes before your child's happiness.

I do not see any harm in a couple waiting until they believe that they are financially reaqdy to have children.

I am glad that we agree that overpopulation is a problem. As far as the fact that even in an overcrowded world we would still have poor people, I do not think that my waiting to have children in any way eliminates poverty or wealth disparity.

You also asked me if poor people are to blame for their poverty. Often they are. However, people who are born with disabilities are not to blame for their poverty and are worthy of our charity. It is amazing how some folks overcome the obstacles of a handicap and acheive wealth but these hurdles require a lot of luck as well as a lot of hardwork. I believe that in America any ableminded and ablebodied person can become wealthy if they work hard at it. It just might take longer or more effort than it does for others.

Why would they even WANT to give it a serious effort? Shitty people they may be..but it is the government's fault for letting these people take advantage of it. The way that welfare is set up is just asking for abuse. If someone finds a way to take advantage of it..more power to them. I may not LIKE what these people are doing..but I don't blame them. I blame the system.

Interesting. Good to know that you don't blame the people actually at fault.

I suppose you don't blame the people who rob a bank either? Instead you blame the bank for not having better security?

Why would they even WANT to give it a serious effort? Shitty people they may be..but it is the government's fault for letting these people take advantage of it. The way that welfare is set up is just asking for abuse. If someone finds a way to take advantage of it..more power to them. I may not LIKE what these people are doing..but I don't blame them. I blame the system.

Then please be so kind as to describe an alternative and superior system.

Then please be so kind as to describe an alternative and superior system.

This wasn't directed at me, but I can think of ways it could be improved. I don't think anyone who is simply sitting around should receive a welfare check. The welfare office should provide job training and job placement. Someone who refuses to participate in such things and does not find a job on their own within a set amount of time should have their benefits cut off.

The system is supposed to be something to fall back on, not something to live on.

Interesting. Good to know that you don't blame the people actually at fault.


Not when the system is set up in a way that people will take advantage of it.

And the difference with your bank analogy is that a person is forcefully taking that money. Some states' welfare is just handing it out without some sort of rules.


Then please be so kind as to describe an alternative and superior system.
What Dem said. Along with a family cap and with a lifetime cap. A family cap would keep people from punching out more kids just to get a little bit of extra cash. The lifetime cap would motivate people to get off of welfare as quickly as possible so that if they ever fall on hard times again in the future, they still can get help.

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

They have as much "right" as everyone else, but they should consider that they may not have enough money to support them. Besides, there's a big difference between having one child and three, four, five, etc...Schooling, feeding and daycare already require that you have a considerable income to support three children, let alone six...

Not when the system is set up in a way that people will take advantage of it.

And the difference with your bank analogy is that a person is forcefully taking that money. Some states' welfare is just handing it out without some sort of rules.

Really? Show me a single state with no rules on how welfare is handed out.

That's a contradiction.

If it is sexist, it cannot also be feminist. By definition, feminism opposes sexism, because feminism is the belief equality of the sexes. If you advocate unequal treatment based on sex (i.e. sexism), you are not advocating feminism.

And vice versa, of course.
It is not a contradiction. Feminism is the belief in empowerment of women such that they are equal with men. That does not equate to equality between the sexes. It of course looks like it but looks are deceiving, especially when dealing with the funs of grammar. One can easily be feminist while being sexist.

It is not a contradiction. Feminism is the belief in empowerment of women such that they are equal with men. That does not equate to equality between the sexes. It of course looks like it but looks are deceiving, especially when dealing with the funs of grammar. One can easily be feminist while being sexist.

No, feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes. It has largely focussed on women's issues, because many societies have oppressed women, but it is not confined to women's issues.

This is why unending welfare checks are stupid.

They have no motivation to get a job, so they just live on welfare.

If they get a job, but still need checks (although lower) then give them it, but if they are to fucking lazy to get a job then why should we have to pay them to keep on being lazy?

The problem is, once you get a job, the checks stop...no "workfare" so, you either sit and collect, or work, and can't pay your bills, or get healthcare, or buy groceries.

The US needs a better system.....well, and the people on welfare need to stop having kids.

Funny, I qualify for WIC (free food for children under 5) I don't take it, because I can buy groceries. It's a struggle some weeks, but doable. I don't understand milking the system because you "can". I DO understand why some people would choose not to LOOK for work, because the "working poor" get very little help, where the non-working poor get lots of help. Doesn't seem fair.

The problem is, once you get a job, the checks stop...no "workfare" so, you either sit and collect, or work, and can't pay your bills, or get healthcare, or buy groceries.

Um...no, they don't. If your job is not sufficient, you can receive welfare, medicare, food stamps, etc. The payments would be reduced if you had other income, of course.

No, feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes.
No, it isn't. Women who are trying to give a new face and distance it from radical feminism are just construing it to mean that.

It has largely focussed on women's issues, because many societies have oppressed women, but it is not confined to women's issues.
Oh of course, why else would it be called feminism.

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=148417&shu=1

This woman has already given birth to four kids and has twins on the way. Neither her nor her boyfriend have jobs. I believe in a social safety net to take care of people down on their luck but having six kids on welfare is fucked up.

I once had neighbors doing that. The more kids they have the more of an excuse they have for asking for money. This couple is disgusting in that they are only having kids for money.

Um...no, they don't. If your job is not sufficient, you can receive welfare, medicare, food stamps, etc. The payments would be reduced if you had other income, of course.

there are other "assistances" but true welfare is cut off. Have you applied for food stamps? In Massachusetts, if you own a car (necessary for going to and from a job in some areas) you have to sell it to qualify. If you own a house, you are told to sell it and live off the proceeds of that until you will qualify for food stamps. WIC is available, until your child turns 5. You can get housing subsidies and child care vouchers, true. medicaid is available to SOME...alot of the working poor don't qualify...it's the reason we have so many uninsured and underinsured people in the US.

As I said, I qualified for WIC, I wasn't willing to sell my house or my car to get food stamps. I don't know anything about the other states, it's more than possible that it's different.

there are other "assistances" but true welfare is cut off. Have you applied for food stamps? In Massachusetts, if you own a car (necessary for going to and from a job in some areas) you have to sell it to qualify. If you own a house, you are told to sell it and live off the proceeds of that until you will qualify for food stamps. WIC is available, until your child turns 5. You can get housing subsidies and child care vouchers, true. medicaid is available to SOME...alot of the working poor don't qualify...it's the reason we have so many uninsured and underinsured people in the US.

As I said, I qualified for WIC, I wasn't willing to sell my house or my car to get food stamps. I don't know anything about the other states, it's more than possible that it's different.

WHERE in the WORLD did you come up with that nonsense? That is not how it works in Mass. either.



These assets are NOT counted:

* your home
* vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, etc.)
* personal belongings and household items, including jewelry
* life insurance, burial plots, and prepaid funeral arrangements
* pension plans (except IRAs and Keoghs)
* inaccessible assets (assets you are not allowed to use)
* income-producing property
* assets of household members getting TAFDC, EAEDC, or SSI
* federal and state Earned Income Credit (EIC)
http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=12&pageID=3%20&subpages=yes&SecondLeveldynamicID=420&DynamicID=418

Houses and vehicles are counted towards your asset limits only IF they are not your primary. So yeah, if you are not willing to part with a car you don't need and a house you don't live in then you wouldn't qualify.

But according to Mass. eligibility, if you have a child under 19, you do not have an asset limit.

WHERE in the WORLD did you come up with that nonsense? That is not how it works in Mass. either.

Intruiging. All those things ARE counted in the social welfare state of the Netherlands. If your car for instance is worth a lot of money while you could make due with a simpler model (so not if it is expensive because it was adapted to allow your wheelchair to enter for instance) you are supposed to sell it. If you own real estate that makes you money than that IS counted as income. If you have a van Gogh on the wall- sell it or no welfare.

And the US calls us socialist ;)

It is not a contradiction. Feminism is the belief in empowerment of women such that they are equal with men.

Not exactly.

Feminism is the belief in the social and political equality of the sexes.

It is also an observed fact that men possess more social and political power than women.

Feminists have many different ideas about what should be done to reconcile these.


That does not equate to equality between the sexes.

Advocating the social and political equality of the sexes does not equate to equality between the sexes?


It of course looks like it but looks are deceiving, especially when dealing with the funs of grammar. One can easily be feminist while being sexist.
Yes, a PERSON can be both feminist and a sexist. People can hold or express many contradictory views.

A person who is, on the whole, a feminist can also express ideas or opinions which are sexist. However, the ideas themselves are still sexist.

A policy, for instance, cannot be both feminist and sexist. However, a feminist PERSON could support a sexist policy. They are engaging in sexism when they do so...NOT FEMINISM.

Oh of course, why else would it be called feminism.
Whether or not you wish to acknowledge it, feminism is--and always has been--about helping EVERYBODY. Males benefit from feminism. They're SUPPOSED to. That's the whole point.

i agree with you.

its not abusive for poor people to have children. even if they have lots of children.

if she actually takes good care of these kids, they are a future asset to society.

if she doesnt take good care of them, it wouldnt matter if she were a millionaire, she is a bad mother.I agree with both of you.
I fail to see how not buying your children food with your own money is somehow equivalent to child abuse or neglect. The system takes children away from their parents for the parents beating the children or locking them in a closet for hours. If such a drastic step is going to be advocated in the case of parents who do not support their own children, then I can only assume that the person views them to be equivalent.
It also doesn't make sense financially. Children in the system have to be cared for. How likely is it that the children being cared for in an orphanage receive less government money than children left with their parents?
No, I don't see the point in taking children away from a loving family and placing them in an already overburdened adoption/foster system to live with people who may or may not love them.
In short - do whatever is best for the children. In this case, leaving the children with their parents is best for them.

5 kids aren't "an accident of your birth." Bringing 5 - or even 1 - kids into the world when you cannot support them is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances of your birth are. It is one thing to have 5 kids that you can support, and then to fine that your means of support is no longer viable and admit you need help. It is quite another to intentionally do it knowing you cannot support them, digging yourself deeper and deeper into a financial hole.

Now, should people who end up in this situation be helped? Yes, if they are actually willing to make an effort to improve their situation. Chances are, they will need help to do so, but they have to be willing to put in what effort they can to be at all deserving of that help.

The accident of birth I talk about is being born into a poor family, in a poor area, where the standard of education is, yep you guessed it poor.

The majority of poor people are not poor because they have wasted all of their money, they are so because that is the way they are born.

It is a cycle, one that can be broken, but not by denying the problems inherent within being born into poor family. You say that nobody should have kids untill they can aford them, then you advocate the ultimate death of a whole swathe of society. That is not right, nor is it right thought.

I say again, to bring up one child takes an enourmouse amount of money, if we where to wait utill we could afford it, then we would never have children. In fact as I have already said, the mere fact of having kids, and no money made me go out and better my circumstances.

I wonder how the children of the outrageslousy rich would fancy doing all of the menial(low paid) jobs that the children of the poor do?

This is a far different situation from someone who has 6 kids by age 17 and who is not wealthy enough to provide for the necessities of any or all of the children at any point when she was deciding to become or stay pregnant.

I wanted to just pick up on this point as it illustrates what I mean.

Hands up all of those adults over 30, who can remeber how mature, insightfull, clever and knowledgeable they were when they were 17?

Now if you insist you were and that even at this age you knew the rights and wrongs as you do now, then hands down if your come from a non poor family, or neighbourhood, or had a good education.

As our glorious leader said when he was elected, education, education, education. This common sense you talk about is far from common. In fact if you talke to the common teenager in the street you will find their is a certian lack of sense.

Indeed in my country there is an absurd number of kids leaving school without being able to read, or even do basic maths.

The poor get a poor standard of education. That is a greater tradgedy than some of your tax money going into a shared welfare scheme.

Um...no, they don't. If your job is not sufficient, you can receive welfare, medicare, food stamps, etc. The payments would be reduced if you had other income, of course.

Umm naaa they don't. In the UK, if you work more than 16 hours a week, you loose your beinfits. No wonder many people chhose not to get the low paid work that they can get, if it does not pay enough.

I agree, welfare should be there to support low income families, but as of yet the system does not do that. Better education, and a better welfare system needs to be sorted.

I once had neighbors doing that. The more kids they have the more of an excuse they have for asking for money. This couple is disgusting in that they are only having kids for money.

I find that utterly laughable. How much do you think they get for each child vs how much to bring up each child.

They will be out of pocket, anybody who really thinks that these people have more kids to get more money is guilty of the loose type of thinking that they accuse these people of.

I find that utterly laughable. How much do you think they get for each child vs how much to bring up each child.

They will be out of pocket, anybody who really thinks that these people have more kids to get more money is guilty of the loose type of thinking that they accuse these people of.

Well, if they can support the family on welfare, I'd say they're abviously getting enough per kid.

An acquaintance of mine once did a calculation to see if she could get by on welfare money. On her own, she couldn't. She now has 4 kids and a car (something that I, personally, can't afford, but there you go.)

I find that utterly laughable. How much do you think they get for each child vs how much to bring up each child.

They will be out of pocket, anybody who really thinks that these people have more kids to get more money is guilty of the loose type of thinking that they accuse these people of.

you assume that people are actually taking care of the kids they are popping out. If you feed them ramen for dinner and send them to school for free breakfast and lunch, and get their clothes for free and shove 5 kids in one bedroom and make the older ones take care of the younger ones whenever you go out drinking.... kids are basically no expense at all. (yes, I have seen this many times, in fact I pretty much grew up in it, and so did every other kid in my neighborhood)

From... ?!? :eek:

You just have to keep scaring me, don't you???
What do you mean, I have to keep scaring you?

It's scary that you didn't know that those little guys and gals can survive up to three days - and only because they travelled... darker roads, it doesn't necessarily mean some won't see the light and manage to serve their purpose. :p

Well, if they can support the family on welfare, I'd say they're abviously getting enough per kid.

An acquaintance of mine once did a calculation to see if she could get by on welfare money. On her own, she couldn't. She now has 4 kids and a car (something that I, personally, can't afford, but there you go.)


Support no doubt, but in comfort? What else are the perants doing to bring money in?

I can probably support my family on welfare, if we dressed in second hand cloths, only had one pair of shoes each, didn't own a PC or the like, eat mostly bread, veg and cheap cuts of meat. No fish, couldn't afford that. Of course this would mean that my children would be lacking in certian minerals etc.. I would probably turn to drinking more to dull the harshness of my life, which would in turn have an adverous effect on the way my children grow up, whiuch would in turn cuasetheir children problems.

Yeah poor people are so beacuse they want to be, spongeing off of society is what it's all about, it's a laugh, they love it they do!

Yeah poor people are so beacuse they want to be, spongeing off of society is what it's all about, it's a laugh, they love it they do!

Hang on... you are argueing that living on welfare is nothing to aspire to. Yet this is just what the family in the provided example is doing.

I've got no problem with anybody being poor having children (it's not as if I've grown up in a rich family, nor would I say I'm rich now), what I object to is people who plan to live their lives of welfare without even attempting to find work and improve matters. And if people like this bring children into the world, it makes me angry. I find it irresponsible.

Hang on... you are argueing that living on welfare is nothing to aspire to. Yet this is just what the family in the provided example is doing.

I've got no problem with anybody being poor having children (it's not as if I've grown up in a rich family, nor would I say I'm rich now), what I object to is people who plan to live their lives of welfare without even attempting to find work and improve matters. And if people like this bring children into the world, it makes me angry. I find it irresponsible.

I really don't think that anybody plans to live on welfare. Okay scratch that perhaps one or two, perhaps. Even these people though I find it hard to blame them, instead of circumstances, or the conditions of their own lives.

It is not easy to break out of the cylcle if you are born into a poor family. As I'm sure that you have guessed by now, I certianly was. In fact I would still be there now if not for the help that welfare, and specificly goverment run education, and training shcemes provided to my in my early adult life.

Living onwelfare is not a choice, not for the vast majority of people. Having extra kids to get extra income from the walfare does not work, and so is not the reason that extra kids arive.

in many case it is a basic lack of education, sex education, I can remember when condoms cost you, they have only been handing them out free at family planing clinics for 20 odd years.

Society dictates what happens to poor people and soceity has it vey wrong.

Support no doubt, but in comfort? What else are the perants doing to bring money in?

I can probably support my family on welfare, if we dressed in second hand cloths, only had one pair of shoes each, didn't own a PC or the like, eat mostly bread, veg and cheap cuts of meat. No fish, couldn't afford that. Of course this would mean that my children would be lacking in certian minerals etc.. I would probably turn to drinking more to dull the harshness of my life, which would in turn have an adverous effect on the way my children grow up, whiuch would in turn cuasetheir children problems.

sounds like every poor kid I know.......I was anemic severely until about 3 years after I got married. Every dinner was ramen or frozen waffles. Mom and dad sold our food stamps for money to get drugs......all of my clothes were second hand, I didn't even get a chance to eat fish (other than canned tuna) until after I was married.

are you sure you grew up poor?

I really don't think that anybody plans to live on welfare. Okay scratch that perhaps one or two, perhaps. Even these people though I find it hard to blame them, instead of circumstances, or the conditions of their own lives.

Erm, you did watch the video this thread is about, did you?

Good question actually. Is the right to have children actually included in any countries bill of rights?

I think its in the EU Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights or something. But if she's American, she technically has no right to have children...Muhahahahahahahaha!

She's probably cranking out children for the additional welfare money.

considering it's more expensive to have a child, no, she's probably not.

considering it's more expensive to have a child, no, she's probably not.

why would she care how expensive it is? she isn't paying. Besides, you guys are assuming a standard of care that most welfare kids don't get.

I think its in the EU Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights or something. But if she's American, she technically has no right to have children...Muhahahahahahahaha!

yes, the US government actually conducted its last forced sterilization in the 1980s. nearly 1/3 of the native american population was sterilized without their consent and many without their knowledge in the last century. it was common practice to sterilize patients in mental hopistals until quite recently, and with a judge's approval the family members of those in mental institutions can still have them sterilized. there was a fairly strong eugenics movement that went around giving poor non-white women hysterectomies for quite some time in the US, actually. hitler's bad PR for eugenics cooled it down, somewhat, but it's still going strong. some of the same people and institutions who were pushing for it back in the 30s are the ones pioneering genetic engineering now. some of the major wealthy dynasties like the rockafellers and carniegees are involved, if I recall correctly.

why would she care how expensive it is? she isn't paying. Besides, you guys are assuming a standard of care that most welfare kids don't get.

I spent 3 weeks reviewing academic literature from both sides of the welfare debate last semester and it seems pretty obvious that welfare mothers are something of a myth, at least in their prevalence. even if this one does exist, the majority of people on welfare are off it within 1 year, and are middle aged homemakers who were divorced, and who have no more children while on wellfare. to be perfectly frank I think racism has a lot to do with the wellfare stereotypes that exist.

I spent 3 weeks reviewing academic literature from both sides of the welfare debate last semester and it seems pretty obvious that welfare mothers are something of a myth, at least in their prevalence. even if this one does exist, the majority of people on welfare are off it within 1 year, and are middle aged homemakers who were divorced, and who have no more children while on wellfare. to be perfectly frank I think racism has a lot to do with the wellfare stereotypes that exist.

I guess my own personal experience is skewed since I didn't grow up in the divorced middle class less than one year on welfare neighborhood, I grew up in the "my parents were on it and I am on it, drug addicts give the kids bread and mayo for lunch" neighborhood.

sounds like every poor kid I know.......I was anemic severely until about 3 years after I got married. Every dinner was ramen or frozen waffles. Mom and dad sold our food stamps for money to get drugs......all of my clothes were second hand, I didn't even get a chance to eat fish (other than canned tuna) until after I was married.

are you sure you grew up poor?

That is no way to grow up. I hope your situation is much better now. I work in a super market and I see two things alot. Most of the foodstamp/welfare recipints I see are eating well. Howevera good perchentage buy stuff I can not afford on a regular basis ( I do make good money but I have bills). Half their cart is filled with soda, chips and other junk food. Their are some who buy expensive steaks, shrimp and even lobester tails. I see this everyday, not just once in awhile and it just makes me question what is going on.
The other thing I see is a family comming in three sometimes four generations and they come through the line all three generations pay with food stamps. From the pregent 16 year old daughter to the mother to the grandmother. It seems like welfare has become instintionalized in some familys. It makes me wonder where my tax money is going. I don't mind helping people down on their luck or people who can't support them selves for a medical reason, but the ones who can obiviosly work and have been on the system for years those are the ones I have a problem with.

That is no way to grow up. I hope your situation is much better now. I work in a super market and I see two things alot. Most of the foodstamp/welfare recipints I see are eating well. Howevera good perchentage buy stuff I can not afford on a regular basis ( I do make good money but I have bills). Half their cart is filled with soda, chips and other junk food. Their are some who buy expensive steaks, shrimp and even lobester tails. I see this everyday, not just once in awhile and it just makes me question what is going on.
The other thing I see is a family comming in three sometimes four generations and they come through the line all three generations pay with food stamps. From the pregent 16 year old daughter to the mother to the grandmother. It seems like welfare has become instintionalized in some familys. It makes me wonder where my tax money is going. I don't mind helping people down on their luck or people who can't support them selves for a medical reason, but the ones who can obiviosly work and have been on the system for years those are the ones I have a problem with.

every single time I am in the convenience store I see people buying candy, chips, ice cream and soda on their food stamps. $30-$40 a time on it. Some people would say I shouldn't even think about how they are spending their money.....I don't really see it as their money though. I feel sorry for the kids, dirty, in torn up clothes, begging for something to eat and the parents saying "I got you a candy bar" :rolleyes:

then about once a week one of them comes to my car when I pull in to park at the grocery store, offers to buy whatever I was going to buy in the store if I can just give them cash.

I guess this is one of those things that only happens where I live though.

No, it isn't. Women who are trying to give a new face and distance it from radical feminism are just construing it to mean that.

No, my dear, that is its meaning. What you are referring to as "radical feminism" is most likely not feminism at all.

Even Webster agrees with me:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
- fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective
- fem·i·nis·tic /"fe-m&-'nis-tik/ adjective

The definition that defines an ideology has to do with equality of the sexes. The other definition is a matter of how it is used to define actions. Unfortunately, there are many people (many of them anti-feminists) who haven't yet realized that "equality of the sexes" means "equality of women and men".

Oh of course, why else would it be called feminism.

Because, when the movement began, the vast majority of issues that needed to be addressed were women's issues. I would still say that the majority are women's issues (especially if we are talking about less developed countries), but the proportions are close enough in some areas that there is less focus on women and more focus on people in general.

The accident of birth I talk about is being born into a poor family, in a poor area, where the standard of education is, yep you guessed it poor.

The majority of poor people are not poor because they have wasted all of their money, they are so because that is the way they are born.


I recognize that. But when a person's own decisions worsen their situation, I'm not going to call it "an accident of birth." It was an accident of birth that someone was born poor and thus received a poor education. It is their own damn fault if they intentionally have children they cannot support.

It is a cycle, one that can be broken, but not by denying the problems inherent within being born into poor family.

It also cannot be broken if the poor person will do nothing to improve their plight and, in fact, make decisions that do nothing but worsen it.

You say that nobody should have kids untill they can aford them, then you advocate the ultimate death of a whole swathe of society. That is not right, nor is it right thought.

It would do no such thing. Poor people have children and support them all the time. They may occasionally need help, but there are plenty of people out there who get by on very little. Their children won't have $100 shoes, but then again I don't think any children should have such shoes unless they earn the money and buy them.

I say again, to bring up one child takes an enourmouse amount of money, if we where to wait utill we could afford it, then we would never have children. In fact as I have already said, the mere fact of having kids, and no money made me go out and better my circumstances.

Exactly! You had the means to take care of your child and you went out and did it. This means that you could afford to take care of your child - and that you had the will to do it. I'm not saying that someone should have all the money they need to take care of 18 years of childhood in the bank when they give birth. I'm simply saying that a person who decides to have a child should be supporting themselves already, with extra money they can use to take care of a child. They shouldn't bring a child into this world that they know they cannot support. This was obviously not the case with you, as you could and did support your child.

They will be out of pocket, anybody who really thinks that these people have more kids to get more money is guilty of the loose type of thinking that they accuse these people of.

Most don't. But some do. I've met them. I also saw my brother's girlfriend - who claimed right up until she gave birth to a very sick little girl that she wasn't pregnant and was not even close to responsible enough to take care of that sick little girl - suddenly reconsider giving the child up for adoption when she found out she could start getting welfare if she kept the baby. Luckily, there was no way in hell that DEFACs was going to let her take that baby home.

Most people who end up on welfare have hit hard times and need a little help. Most of them will do everything they can to get back off of it. Most people have enough pride that they don't want to live off of others - that they want to be self-sufficient. But there are those who could care less about all of that. If it means they don't have to get up off their asses and do something, they're perfectly happy living off of others.


I spent 3 weeks reviewing academic literature from both sides of the welfare debate last semester and it seems pretty obvious that welfare mothers are something of a myth, at least in their prevalence. even if this one does exist, the majority of people on welfare are off it within 1 year, and are middle aged homemakers who were divorced, and who have no more children while on wellfare. to be perfectly frank I think racism has a lot to do with the wellfare stereotypes that exist.

Precisely. Most people use the system as something to fall back on when they have nowhere else to go - as a springboard to get themselves into a better situation. And those who do not - those who just sit on it because they don't want to make an effort to do anything for themselves - give the others a bad name.

I recognize that. But when a person's own decisions worsen their situation, I'm not going to call it "an accident of birth." It was an accident of birth that someone was born poor and thus received a poor education. It is their own damn fault if they intentionally have children they cannot support.

No I don't think you have got the point I'm trying to make at all. tell me, at what stage of your life did you stop making bad desicions? the point is, that poor faimiles have very little chance of helping them selves, they get stuck in the rut, and learned behviour from their poor parents becomes the norm.



It also cannot be broken if the poor person will do nothing to improve their plight and, in fact, make decisions that do nothing but worsen it.

What sort of decsions? Hwo does a poor man with a poor eduction learn what he needs to do? Its a self perpetuatin cylce. Poor, poor education, poor health, drink and drugs to make life bearable, leading to poor life decisions. The point is yes undoubetly some poor people are just shit and bring further shit upon themselves, but even these people only do so because they know no other way, becuase it is the way they where brought up, or they just can't reason their way out of hard times. And yes I'll admit some choose thislife, but that number is a tiny minoritie.



It would do no such thing. Poor people have children and support them all the time. They may occasionally need help, but there are plenty of people out there who get by on very little. Their children won't have $100 shoes, but then again I don't think any children should have such shoes unless they earn the money and buy them.

Yes support, I never denyied this, but I think a better word would be survie.



Exactly! You had the means to take care of your child and you went out and did it. This means that you could afford to take care of your child - and that you had the will to do it. I'm not saying that someone should have all the money they need to take care of 18 years of childhood in the bank when they give birth. I'm simply saying that a person who decides to have a child should be supporting themselves already, with extra money they can use to take care of a child. They shouldn't bring a child into this world that they know they cannot support. This was obviously not the case with you, as you could and did support your child.

No I didn't, I couldn't afford a child, I still had a child because I wanted one as did my wife. It is after all lifes imperitve, to ensure the survival of your genetic stock. I had help to better my life, and so better the enviroment that my kids live their lives under. Again though I have done nothing speacical, all parents want for their kids a better life than they have had. But again, I could not afford a child when I had one, and I had to have help to better myself.

So in a vey real sense, if I did not decide to become a father dispite not being able to afford it, I would not have had the urge nor the imputuss to make my life better. I say it again, to wait until you can afford a kid before having one means that either you will never have on, or you will be sooooo old that you have little or no understanding of your chidlren as they grow.

I'm glad I done it the way I did, and I urge everybody to consider only one thing when deciding to have children, do you want to?

Biolocial emperitive is a massivly hard force to rebel against.

No I don't think you have got the point I'm trying to make at all. tell me, at what stage of your life did you stop making bad desicions?

Never. But I try to recognize my bad decisions, learn from them, and choose not to make them again.

the point is, that poor faimiles have very little chance of helping them selves, they get stuck in the rut, and learned behviour from their poor parents becomes the norm.

No one can help them if they won't help themselves.

What sort of decsions? Hwo does a poor man with a poor eduction learn what he needs to do?

You don't need an education to realize that living takes money, and adding to your need for money increases that amount.

No I didn't, I couldn't afford a child, I still had a child because I wanted one as did my wife. It is after all lifes imperitve, to ensure the survival of your genetic stock. I had help to better my life, and so better the enviroment that my kids live their lives under. Again though I have done nothing speacical, all parents want for their kids a better life than they have had. But again, I could not afford a child when I had one, and I had to have help to better myself.

If you could not afford the child, then you made a very irresponsible decision that put your child's life at risk from the very start.

But the fact that you did support your child demonstrates that you could - that you had the means at your disposal. The fact that you bettered your situation means that you were working to do so.

So in a vey real sense, if I did not decide to become a father dispite not being able to afford it, I would not have had the urge nor the imputuss to make my life better.

That is very sad.

I say it again, to wait until you can afford a kid before having one means that either you will never have on, or you will be sooooo old that you have little or no understanding of your chidlren as they grow.

Not at all. With a few changes to my budget and time, I could have a child right now and provide ample support for that child. Most people, by the time they are my age, could do so - even those with less income. It would be a harder struggle for some, but most who have been working to build a life could manage it.

I'm glad I done it the way I did, and I urge everybody to consider only one thing when deciding to have children, do you want to?

So you don't care if people have children that starve, eh? You don't think parents should actually be responsible human beings who provide for their children, eh?

I find that to be an utterly disgusting attitude.

Biolocial emperitive is a massivly hard force to rebel against.

"Biological imperative" is an excuse. I've wanted children for several years now, but I know that my current lifestyle would not accommodate a child. Thus, I am being a responsible human being and waiting to have a child until I can properly take care of it.

Why doesn't she fucking adopt?

Why doesn't she fucking adopt?

the powers that be wouldn't approve an adoption most likely because she doesn't have a means to support children.

I Agree there should be a baby limit when certain conditions are met. I, myself, believe that in America, there's really way too much freedom, and that causes more problems for everyone, because a lot of people can't make good decisions on their own, and they won't accept advice, and that just injures other people.. When you injure people, aren't laws passed to prevent that?

The problem isn't "too much freedom," it's never"too much freedom." The problem is too little responsibility. People aren't sufficiently pressed to take responsibility for their actions. They're too sheltered from the repercussions of their actions-- for instance, they choose the act of having more children than they can support, and then are shielded (in the form of perpetual welfare) from the consequences of creating a burden that they can't sustain (having to eat one of their children, for instance, or having to give one or more up for adoption). By not making people shoulder the consequences of their decisions, they're disinclined to learn more responsible behaviour.

Give people all the freedom they can stand, but don't bail them out ad infinitum when they use their freedom to make bad, stupid, antisocial and/or self-destructive decisions.

No I don't think you have got the point I'm trying to make at all. tell me, at what stage of your life did you stop making bad desicions? the point is, that poor faimiles have very little chance of helping them selves, they get stuck in the rut, and learned behviour from their poor parents becomes the norm.




What sort of decsions? Hwo does a poor man with a poor eduction learn what he needs to do? Its a self perpetuatin cylce. Poor, poor education, poor health, drink and drugs to make life bearable, leading to poor life decisions. The point is yes undoubetly some poor people are just shit and bring further shit upon themselves, but even these people only do so because they know no other way, becuase it is the way they where brought up, or they just can't reason their way out of hard times. And yes I'll admit some choose thislife, but that number is a tiny minoritie.




Yes support, I never denyied this, but I think a better word would be survie.




No I didn't, I couldn't afford a child, I still had a child because I wanted one as did my wife. It is after all lifes imperitve, to ensure the survival of your genetic stock. I had help to better my life, and so better the enviroment that my kids live their lives under. Again though I have done nothing speacical, all parents want for their kids a better life than they have had. But again, I could not afford a child when I had one, and I had to have help to better myself.

So in a vey real sense, if I did not decide to become a father dispite not being able to afford it, I would not have had the urge nor the imputuss to make my life better. I say it again, to wait until you can afford a kid before having one means that either you will never have on, or you will be sooooo old that you have little or no understanding of your chidlren as they grow.

I'm glad I done it the way I did, and I urge everybody to consider only one thing when deciding to have children, do you want to?

Biolocial emperitive is a massivly hard force to rebel against.

I was going to respond to the selfishness and stupidity of this position, but then I read Dempublicents' reponse and he said everything that I was going to say.

The problem isn't "too much freedom," it's never"too much freedom." The problem is too little responsibility. People aren't sufficiently pressed to take responsibility for their actions. They're too sheltered from the repercussions of their actions-- for instance, they choose the act of having more children than they can support, and then are shielded (in the form of perpetual welfare) from the consequences of creating a burden that they can't sustain (having to eat one of their children, for instance, or having to give one or more up for adoption). By not making people shoulder the consequences of their decisions, they're disinclined to learn more responsible behaviour.

Give people all the freedom they can stand, but don't bail them out ad infinitum when they use their freedom to make bad, stupid, antisocial and/or self-destructive decisions.

I agree. Freedom is great but with the freedom to be stupid must come the responsibility of living with the results. We should be free to make our choices but never free from the ramifications of our decisions.

I'm glad this thread got bumped up front again, so I could respond to this:
Biolocial emperitive is a massivly hard force to rebel against.
BULL. SHIT.

"Biological imperative" is an excuse favored by people who know they're doing something stupid, and choose to do it anyway.

"I know I cannot support a child right now, but I WANT A BAY-BEE! And it's, um, biologically essential or something! So I'm having a baby and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know that girl over there has turned me down, but I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER!! And it's, um, biologically essential for me to stick my penis in things! So I'm going to force myself on her and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know I should control my temper, but I FEEL MAD!!!! And it's, um, biological essential for me to be raging and out of control, because of, um, hormones or something! So I'm going to be a flaming asshole and nobody can say boo about it!"

Fail. Millions of gallons of fail.

If you decided to make a baby when you knew you couldn't support it, then you made a bad choice. This doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can recover from bad choices. You can find healthy, solid ways to deal with the aftermath of a bad choice. Not all bad choices need to ruin anybody's life.

But they're still bad choices. Don't blame "biology" for the bad choices YOU have made.

So in a vey real sense, if I did not decide to become a father dispite not being able to afford it, I would not have had the urge nor the imputuss to make my life better. I say it again, to wait until you can afford a kid before having one means that either you will never have on, or you will be sooooo old that you have little or no understanding of your chidlren as they grow.

But did you have children while not being able to afford it and then made no effort at all to improve your situation ?
Nope - you did not. You just stated that. The people this thread is about however did exactly that. And then did it again. And again. And again. And.. you get the point.

So you don't care if people have children that starve, eh? You don't think parents should actually be responsible human beings who provide for their children, eh?

I find that to be an utterly disgusting attitude.



"Biological imperative" is an excuse. I've wanted children for several years now, but I know that my current lifestyle would not accommodate a child. Thus, I am being a responsible human being and waiting to have a child until I can properly take care of it.

Nope completely and utterly wrong on all accounts.

I could not afford to have kids but I did anyway. That does not mean I don't care if they starve. I made my life better, and the reason I made it better was to provide for my kids.

You call this sad. On the contary, I am very happy that my life took this turn, and I look at it as a life saver.

I find the atutide that try to tells us when we can or cannot have childrten more than disgusting, I'd call it facist in fact.

Biological impertive is the reason behind life, all life exists to live, us, the animals, plants, bacteria. If you view that as an excuse, then I feel sorry for you.

So you do not have children then? Tell me in you maths how much have you factored in to look after a child for the first say 10 years of it's life?

"Biological imperative" is an excuse favored by people who know they're doing something stupid, and choose to do it anyway.



It shows i've been watching too much Heroes when the term "Biological Imperative" automatically makes me think of Sylar.

Oh and good post

I'm glad this thread got bumped up front again, so I could respond to this:
BULL. SHIT.

"Biological imperative" is an excuse favored by people who know they're doing something stupid, and choose to do it anyway.

"I know I cannot support a child right now, but I WANT A BAY-BEE! And it's, um, biologically essential or something! So I'm having a baby and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know that girl over there has turned me down, but I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER!! And it's, um, biologically essential for me to stick my penis in things! So I'm going to force myself on her and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know I should control my temper, but I FEEL MAD!!!! And it's, um, biological essential for me to be raging and out of control, because of, um, hormones or something! So I'm going to be a flaming asshole and nobody can say boo about it!"

Fail. Millions of gallons of fail.

If you decided to make a baby when you knew you couldn't support it, then you made a bad choice. This doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can recover from bad choices. You can find healthy, solid ways to deal with the aftermath of a bad choice. Not all bad choices need to ruin anybody's life.

But they're still bad choices. Don't blame "biology" for the bad choices YOU have made.

thank you Bottle. And I will keep this post of yours, for the next time one of you tries to pull the "but we have to have sex, we can't abstain, biologically we have to have sex" excuses.

Biological impertive is the reason behind life, all life exists to live, us, the animals, plants, bacteria. If you view that as an excuse, then I feel sorry for you.

Most animals have rituals that require them to earn the right to procreate, and the right to procreate more than once. An alpha male for instance will reproduce more than the loser at the back - even though the loser may desire it more. If you wish to talk about biological imperative, do not ignore these aspects.

thank you Bottle. And I will keep this post of yours, for the next time one of you tries to pull the "but we have to have sex, we can't abstain, biologically we have to have sex" excuses.
"One of you"? Who are you talking about?

I've never argued that people are incapable of refraining from sex, and I don't know of any of the folks on "my side" who have done so.

thank you Bottle. And I will keep this post of yours, for the next time one of you tries to pull the "but we have to have sex, we can't abstain, biologically we have to have sex" excuses.

This is actually argued? Seems like common sense to me that you don't HAVE to do anything, it is all a choice.

Nope completely and utterly wrong on all accounts.

I could not afford to have kids but I did anyway. That does not mean I don't care if they starve. I made my life better, and the reason I made it better was to provide for my kids.

You call this sad. On the contary, I am very happy that my life took this turn, and I look at it as a life saver.

No, she calls it "sad" when people CHOOSE to make babies they know they cannot support.

She applauds people who work hard to support their families.

Really, it's not a subtle distinction.


I find the atutide that try to tells us when we can or cannot have childrten more than disgusting, I'd call it facist in fact.

Nobody is trying to tell you that you CAN'T make babies. We've got some people pointing out that it's a bad choice to make a baby you know you can't support. Just because we recognize a bad choice when we see one doesn't mean we are trying to impose "facism" on you.


Biological impertive is the reason behind life, all life exists to live, us, the animals, plants, bacteria. If you view that as an excuse, then I feel sorry for you.

You're choosing to use it as an excuse.

We all experience the same "biological imperative." Shockingly, many of us are still capable of making good choices! Demi is every bit as alive as you are, yet she is able to refrain from having children when she knows she cannot provide for them. You also have this ability, you just made the conscious choice not to exercise it.

You decided to make a baby when you knew you couldn't support it. You could have chosen not to make that baby. Take responsibility for that choice.


So you do not have children then? Tell me in you maths how much have you factored in to look after a child for the first say 10 years of it's life?
You should plan way, way ahead before you have children.

Personally, I wouldn't remotely consider making a baby until I'd already 1) Established a solid career with an income capable of taking care of all necessities, 2) Established a savings account able to cover my family for at least 6 months if some emergency were to befall us, 3) Established an education savings fund for the future child, with a balance of at least $1000 before the child was conceived.

And that's the bare freaking minimum, for me.

"One of you"? Who are you talking about?

I've never argued that people are incapable of refraining from sex, and I don't know of any of the folks on "my side" who have done so.

yeah, I can't remember who right now, probably wasn't you, which is why I didn't say specifically you......but those people (whomever they are) are more likely to not argue with your presentation than mine.

it was one of those "if you don't want kids don't have sex" type of things and they said "oh, but we can't not have sex, we have this chemical drive to do it"

This is actually argued? Seems like common sense to me that you don't HAVE to do anything, it is all a choice.
It's not argued, at least not seriously. Maybe some trolls yammer about how humans are incapable of not fucking, but most of us simply point out that people are going to choose to have sex and it's totally unrealistic to assume otherwise.

yeah, I can't remember who right now, probably wasn't you, which is why I didn't say specifically you......but those people (whomever they are) are more likely to not argue with your presentation than mine.

it was one of those "if you don't want kids don't have sex" type of things and they said "oh, but we can't not have sex, we have this chemical drive to do it"
Well, I'll call BS on people who say that as well.

Well, I'll call BS on people who say that as well.

Yay!

seriously I am keeping your post, I rather like it.

Yay!

seriously I am keeping your post, I rather like it.
Well then YAY from me as well!

I absolutely respect the significance of biological urges and drives. We cannot consciously stop ourselves from FEELING many such drives. But we have the ability to choose how (and if) we will react to these drives.

Example: My mom has told me that when she was in her mid twenties she suddenly found herself wanting a baby more intensely than anything she'd ever wanted. It was like somebody flipped a switch, and all she could think about was wanting to have a baby.

But my father was not ready. He was terrified of being a father. He'd never even held a baby in his life. My parents were also still struggling students, in their first year or so of marriage, with a very unstable and uncertain life. They knew they were not ready to be parents.

So my mother waited. She waited for over five years, even though she describes how hard it was to cope with endless "baby fever." She felt the strongest drive she has personally experienced, but she also had the intelligence and the self-control to make a responsible choice.

Peepelonia,
Earlier you advocated being a young parent as this would help a parent to identify with and understand children as they grow. I am not sure what you meant by that and I would like you to explain it. Also, I wanted to know what age is considered so old that you have trouble understanding children. I think that a good age to have children starts in the late 20s and goes up to about 35 for women and 45 for men.

I was going to respond to the selfishness and stupidity of this position, but then I read Dempublicents' reponse and he said everything that I was going to say.

Nice gravedig there's sparky. Hope a mod comes by to put this puppy down.

It's not argued, at least not seriously. Maybe some trolls yammer about how humans are incapable of not fucking, but most of us simply point out that people are going to choose to have sex and it's totally unrealistic to assume otherwise.

Well I certainly have no problem with this. :)

Nice gravedig there's sparky. Hope a mod comes by to put this puppy down.

This topic was started less than a week ago. Posting in it again hardly constitutes a gravedig ;)

Nice gravedig there's sparky. Hope a mod comes by to put this puppy down.
Hey, I'm having fun!

Why you gotta harsh my mellow?

Nice gravedig there's sparky. Hope a mod comes by to put this puppy down.

You must have a very fast sense of how long a post should be open for discussion. I left off the discussion last Friday and I am resuming in it this Monday after the end of the weekend when I hardly ever do any posting.

Easy solution: parenting license. You can't raise kids unless you have a parenting license, and if you have a child without said license, the baby is put up for adoption. Sound harsh? I'll bet it's better than being numbers 5 and 6 in a family where neither parent works. And if you don't like it? Well, get your damn license before having a kid. Having kids is as much a responsibility as it is a right, and if you cannot be responsible, than perhaps you don't deserve that right. It's what we do with cigarettes, alcohol, cars, work, and a host of other things that are restricted in one way or another. Also I would recommend reading this article: It Is Your Job to Provide For Your Children (http://www.violentacres.com/archives/185/it-is-your-job-to-financially-provide-for-your-children)

Easy solution: parenting license.

The problem most people have with that concept is who will set the actual requirements needed for that license. Often of course with the slippery slope fallacy of "no license if not Christian" or "no license if no arian looks".

Easy solution: parenting license. You can't raise kids unless you have a parenting license, and if you have a child without said license, the baby is put up for adoption. Sound harsh? I'll bet it's better than being numbers 5 and 6 in a family where neither parent works. And if you don't like it? Well, get your damn license before having a kid. Having kids is as much a responsibility as it is a right, and if you cannot be responsible, than perhaps you don't deserve that right. It's what we do with cigarettes, alcohol, cars, work, and a host of other things that are restricted in one way or another. Also I would recommend reading this article: It Is Your Job to Provide For Your Children (http://www.violentacres.com/archives/185/it-is-your-job-to-financially-provide-for-your-children)

what does one do to receive said license? what are the requirements? who is in charge of it?

Easy solution: parenting license. You can't raise kids unless you have a parenting license, and if you have a child without said license, the baby is put up for adoption. Sound harsh? I'll bet it's better than being numbers 5 and 6 in a family where neither parent works. And if you don't like it? Well, get your damn license before having a kid. Having kids is as much a responsibility as it is a right, and if you cannot be responsible, than perhaps you don't deserve that right. It's what we do with cigarettes, alcohol, cars, work, and a host of other things that are restricted in one way or another. Also I would recommend reading this article: It Is Your Job to Provide For Your Children (http://www.violentacres.com/archives/185/it-is-your-job-to-financially-provide-for-your-children)

Although I agree 100% our Supreme Court probably never will.

what does one do to receive said license? what are the requirements? who is in charge of it?

It always makes me laugh when people put the following phrases together:

1) easy solution
2) parenting license

Idiots.

what does one do to receive said license? what are the requirements? who is in charge of it?

I think the following would be pretty good basic requirements:

A) Written consent of man and woman to have a child.
B) No history of child abuse or child neglect convictions.
C) Both man and woman at least 20 years old.
D) Neither man nor woman married to someone other than each other (I would love to include that the couple be married but this might be too contraversial, however I think it is fair that they at least not be married to anyone else)
E) Be certified in first aid for infants.
F) Be certified in having completed a fundamentals of childcare class.
G) Be US citizens or lawful alien residents.
H) Not be receiving any form of welfare other than small business loans.
I) Not to have declared bankruptcy in the past 2 years.
J) Swear always to support and never abuse or neglect the child.

Nope completely and utterly wrong on all accounts.

I could not afford to have kids but I did anyway. That does not mean I don't care if they starve. I made my life better, and the reason I made it better was to provide for my kids.

You stated that the only thing you should consider before having children is whether or not you want them. This means that their welfare need not be considered. You apparently didn't bother to consider the welfare of your child until after you had one. That, to me, is a bad choice.

You call this sad. On the contary, I am very happy that my life took this turn, and I look at it as a life saver.

I don't find it sad that you worked to take care of your family. In fact, I applaud that. I find it sad that you think you would not have worked to improve your situation without having your child.

I find the atutide that try to tells us when we can or cannot have childrten more than disgusting, I'd call it facist in fact.

If it is fascist to think that a parent should actually provide for their children, then sign me up as a fascist. Of course, I don't think it is fascist at all.

So you do not have children then? Tell me in you maths how much have you factored in to look after a child for the first say 10 years of it's life?

No, I do not yet have children. When my husband and I both have stable jobs and enough income to easily support both ourselves and a child, without working crazy schedules (which should be in a year or two), we will have children - when we can support said child. I'm not irresponsible enough to intentionally bring a child into this world when I am not yet capable of adequately taking care of that child.

A) Written consent of man and woman to have a child.

1. Should a couple that cannot have children on their own (e.g. where one partner is infertile) be allowed to use a third party to obtain a child ?
2. Do these rules apply to adoption as well ?
3. Should homosexual/lesbian partners be allowed to have a child ? (see also 1 and 2)
4. Should members of a commune/harem ?
5. In case of accidental pregnancy, should the woman be forced to abort/give the child up for adoption if the man does not wish to sign the papers ?
6. Are single parents allowed ?

Example: My mom has told me that when she was in her mid twenties she suddenly found herself wanting a baby more intensely than anything she'd ever wanted. It was like somebody flipped a switch, and all she could think about was wanting to have a baby.

But my father was not ready. He was terrified of being a father. He'd never even held a baby in his life. My parents were also still struggling students, in their first year or so of marriage, with a very unstable and uncertain life. They knew they were not ready to be parents.

So my mother waited. She waited for over five years, even though she describes how hard it was to cope with endless "baby fever." She felt the strongest drive she has personally experienced, but she also had the intelligence and the self-control to make a responsible choice.

My friends and I call them "baby urges." I've been having them (with varying but generally increasing strength) for almost four years now. My husband was terrified of the idea of ever having kids when we were first dating, but has begun to want a child as well. We're still waiting to start trying, for at least another year, most likely. We could probably support a child on our current income, but our current lifestyle wouldn't work, so we're wanting to wait to start trying until I've at least begun writing my thesis, as that will allow me to stay home more often and keep less of an odd schedule (not to mention allowing me to eat better).

But did you have children while not being able to afford it and then made no effort at all to improve your situation ?
Nope - you did not. You just stated that. The people this thread is about however did exactly that. And then did it again. And again. And again. And.. you get the point.


Hey I get that I never said that I didn't. That is not the point I am arguing.

The point is people who say that we should wait until we are able to afford kids before we have them are doing two things.

The first and not that important thing is simply underestimating the cost of haveing and bringing up a child.

i manintain that if we all did this, then only the insanly rich would have chilrden, which brings me to the second and more sinsiter point.

People who say this then advocate the ultimate evaporatiuon of a certian class of people. To say to a couple no, you cannot have kids, is facist.
To deny the this basic imperitve to the poor stinks up the room.

These people say that to do otherwise is ignorant, and irrational. I say some asspects of human life are indeed irrational, the biological need to presrve your genetic stock is such a thing.

It seems to me that this is a normal part of humanity, we can see people having kids before they are solvent all over the world, so ask yourself which POV is the normal one, and which abnormal?

I think the following would be pretty good basic requirements:

A) Written consent of man and woman to have a child.
B) No history of child abuse or child neglect convictions.
C) Both man and woman at least 20 years old.
D) Neither man nor woman married to someone other than each other (I would love to include that the couple be married but this might be too contraversial, however I think it is fair that they at least not be married to anyone else)
E) Be certified in first aid for infants.
F) Be certified in having completed a fundamentals of childcare class.
G) Be US citizens or lawful alien residents.
H) Not be receiving any form of welfare other than small business loans.
I) Not to have declared bankruptcy in the past 2 years.
J) Swear always to support and never abuse or neglect the child.

I had both my kids before I was 20, so I guess I am out. :(

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

Poor people, or indeed anyone, has the right to have children.
What you do not have the right to do is to demand I pay for them.

I believe in doing charitable works, but taking advantage of the charity of others, to the point of demanding they fund your future unsustainable choices, is morally reprehensible.


The problem is, once you get a job, the checks stop...no "workfare" so, you either sit and collect, or work, and can't pay your bills, or get healthcare, or buy groceries.
Ever hear of the Earned Income Tax Credit? It is by far the largest welfare program in the US.


Intruiging. All those things ARE counted in the social welfare state of the Netherlands. If your car for instance is worth a lot of money while you could make due with a simpler model (so not if it is expensive because it was adapted to allow your wheelchair to enter for instance) you are supposed to sell it. If you own real estate that makes you money than that IS counted as income. If you have a van Gogh on the wall- sell it or no welfare.

And the US calls us socialist ;)
There are provisions for the value of the car - you cannot exempt a high value item. Cars are allowed because, unless you live inside a major metropolitan area, you practically cannot survive in the US without one. Real estate which makes and income has that income counted, but while you have a mortgage or such you cannot be compelled to destroy your means of support. That would force people to be dependent upon government aid.

Apparently I am much mistaken about life in the Neatherlands. Impoverished people in the US do not have multi-million dollar assets like van Gogh paintings hanging on the wall. if

Hey I get that I never said that I didn't. That is not the point I am arguing.

The point is people who say that we should wait until we are able to afford kids before we have them are doing two things.

The first and not that important thing is simply underestimating the cost of haveing and bringing up a child.

i manintain that if we all did this, then only the insanly rich would have chilrden, which brings me to the second and more sinsiter point.

You can maintain that all you like, but it simply isn't true. I don't know anyone who is "insanely rich," but I know plenty of people who had the means to have and bring up children.

As I said before, I'm not talking about having 18 years worth of funds at your disposal when the child is born. I'm talking about having the level of income necessary to take care of yourself and the child you are bringing into the world. Children are expensive, but not so expensive that most people cannot handle them.

People who say this then advocate the ultimate evaporatiuon of a certian class of people. To say to a couple no, you cannot have kids, is facist.

To deny the this basic imperitve to the poor stinks up the room.

No one is forcibly preventing a couple from having kids. However, if they knowingly and intentionally have a child that they are not capable of supporting, I would advocate throwing their asses in jail for child neglect. The child's welfare comes before their "basic imperative."

These people say that to do otherwise is ignorant, and irrational. I say some asspects of human life are indeed irrational, the biological need to presrve your genetic stock is such a thing.

And the child's welfare means nothing? A person who cannot put aside their "biological need' in order to ensure a child's welfare is not worthy of consideration - and sure as hell isn't an adult.

It seems to me that this is a normal part of humanity, we can see people having kids before they are solvent all over the world, so ask yourself which POV is the normal one, and which abnormal?

We see children starving all over the world, too. We see children who can't get basic medical care and die of easily treatable infections. It happens very often all over the world. Does that make it right?

No one is forcibly preventing a couple from having kids. However, if they knowingly and intentionally have a child that they are not capable of supporting, I would advocate throwing their asses in jail for child neglect.

Jail sounds an awful lot like forcible prevention.





People make bad decisions. It's part of life. What would truly be child neglect would be if we were constantly throwing parents in jail because they were economically "unfit", leaving thousands of infants effectively orphaned. I would say it's a testament to the integrity of modern society that we provide for the welfare of our poorest families unconditionally.

People make bad decisions. It's part of life. What would truly be child neglect would be if we were constantly throwing parents in jail because they were economically "unfit", leaving thousands of infants effectively orphaned. I would say it's a testament to the integrity of modern society that we provide for the welfare of our poorest families unconditionally.
Let's not be so quite absurd. One child is one thing, so is two, but when you are poor and especially without a job, carrying third or more child to term is negligent.

Let's not be so quite absurd. One child is one thing, so is two, but when you are poor and especially without a job, carrying third or more child to term is negligent.

Of course it is. But some of the plans suggested in this thread are downright frightening.

I had both my kids before I was 20, so I guess I am out. :(

I would be too.

I think the following would be pretty good basic requirements:

D) Neither man nor woman married to someone other than each other (I would love to include that the couple be married but this might be too contraversial, however I think it is fair that they at least not be married to anyone else)
Well what if one is going through a long divorce?

J) Swear always to support and never abuse or neglect the child.

Haha..people can swear all they want..doesn't mean they will follow it.

Man...maybe we should prohibit people from having more children (As in, having additional children. Existing children are fine.) while on welfare...I know it sounds callous, but this is fucking nuts...

No. Just make it so that welfare is based on decreases in your financial position rather than increases in your expenses. If you're broke because you lost your job to cutbacks right after you bought your house you deserve a lot more help than if you're broke because you bought a yacht right after you lost your job.

Of course it is. But some of the plans suggested in this thread are downright frightening.

Which doesn't make them wrong.

Which doesn't make them wrong.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.
Society deems? When you have 3+ kids on no job or a single minimum wage job, society doesn't have to deem shit, you are struggling to make ends meet if you are able to at all. And you have another kid? Child endangerment.
Medical care for even a single person isn't peanuts, much less more than 2, and especially for kids who are sick more often than adults. Then let's take into account the greater amount of room needed (that they won't have because they can't afford), clothes and shoes needed replaced at a rapid rate, food for that many people, etc.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.

Well, if they can afford them without society's money, I see no reason to object.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.
Dude, we're not talking about what "society deems."

Whether or not you can feed your kids is an objective reality. Society doesn't magically create the phenomenon of malnutrition.

Whether or not your kids have shoes in the winter is an external fact. Society doesn't magically create frostbite.

Society can notice that, hey, you're completely failing to even try to provide fundamental necessities for your many offspring! Society can then decide that you're an abusive, negligent fucker, and your children shouldn't pay the price for your lazy, selfish, idiotic attitudes.

And thank heavens for that.

Remember, this thread is about people who are receiving money from the government. This means money from the taxpayers. They are being PAID by we the people.

If I'm paying to rear a child, I think I get some say in how it's reared. If I'm the one paying for its housing, I think I get to say where it is housed.

If these parents want the government and the people out of their family decisions, they're welcome to quit taking our money.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.

Is there any possibility of justification for this?

Society deems? When you have 3+ kids on no job or a single minimum wage job, society doesn't have to deem shit, you are struggling to make ends meet if you are able to at all. And you have another kid? Child endangerment.

If they're getting their basic needs satisfied I don't see a problem. Obviously if they can't afford to feed and cloth their children there is a problem though

I've known a couple of families that had six kids and no job. One of them survived entirely on welfare, and the three youngest were taken away from the family when the mother was declared neglectful. (The father of this family was handicapped). The other family was headed by the mother, but the older children were old enough to have jobs. They did okay. So I don't think that having a certain number of children should be automatically a violation of some kind of law, but agree that it should be a factor in starting up a child neglect case.

If they're getting their basic needs satisfied I don't see a problem.
They are.

...BY THE TAXPAYERS.

Dude, we're not talking about what "society deems."

Whether or not you can feed your kids is an objective reality. Society doesn't magically create the phenomenon of malnutrition.

Whether or not your kids have shoes in the winter is an external fact. Society doesn't magically create frostbite.

Society can notice that, hey, you're completely failing to even try to provide fundamental necessities for your many offspring! Society can then decide that you're an abusive, negligent fucker, and your children shouldn't pay the price for your lazy, selfish, idiotic attitudes.

And thank heavens for that.

Remember, this thread is about people who are receiving money from the government. This means money from the taxpayers. They are being PAID by we the people.

If I'm paying to rear a child, I think I get some say in how it's reared. If I'm the one paying for its housing, I think I get to say where it is housed.

If these parents want the government and the people out of their family decisions, they're welcome to quit taking our money.
I agree,but with a contingency - regardless of whether or not they are taking government money, it is not their right to keep children in semi-poverty because they have more than they can afford to have and keep producing more. You can't do that shit with animals, why kids? Then again, there is alot of shit you can't do with animals that you can do with kids because screwing with kids is attacking the family structure, whine whine.

I agree,but with a contingency - regardless of whether or not they are taking government money, it is not their right to keep children in semi-poverty because they have more than they can afford to have and keep producing more. You can't do that shit with animals, why kids? Then again, there is alot of shit you can't do with animals that you can do with kids because screwing with kids is attacking the family structure, whine whine.
I certainly agree that children should be removed from abusive/neglectful homes, regardless of the parents' wealth status.

It's just that I'm particularly annoyed when people whine about how wrong it is for the government to interfere with families WHO ARE RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM.

Can't have it both ways, jackasses.