A license to have children [W:81]

ChrisL said:

Or if someone goes off their mandatory BC and gets pregnant, then take the child.

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty Fascistic to me. No thanks.

Josie said:

Sounds pretty Fascistic to me. No thanks.

Click to expand...

Why? What exactly is your problem with that? Do you think it's appropriate to have someone collect services because they cannot care for themselves financially to continue to have MORE children? That is abusive to children.

If you can't afford the child/children you already have, then you have no business bringing more children into such a situation. That is not a RIGHT nor should it be.

Hmmm. Interesting that no one wants to answer this question.

Do you think it is appropriate for someone who cannot afford the child/children that he/she currently has to continue to have MORE children and CONTINUE the cycle of poverty, dependence and neediness?

Nope, instead it's things like "that's fascist" and run away. :lol: Kind of amusing actually.

minnie616 said:

Seems to me that one important stat was left out.

Number of children in welfare families. 1.9

Compare that to the number of children families have who are not on welfare....

Yep it is the same 1.9

Click to expand...

Another BIG difference here Minnie is that those who are NOT on welfare are paying for and providing for their OWN. Those who are collecting welfare are not paying for and providing for their own. They are relying on taxpayers for that.

Where is the logic to allowing people who are collecting public services to continue to have children that they cannot afford to support? It is NOT unreasonable to ask that those people stop procreating while they are receiving services until they can provide for their own.

I didn't "run away", Chris. It's morning. I'm getting ready to leave. I'm sorry you're so impatient.

No, I don't think it's appropriate for people to have children they cannot afford. Many things are inappropriate, but I'm not going to support laws against them. I think we need to have a temporary solution for people who are out of work and a permanent solution for those who aren't physically able to work. I'm not against welfare as a whole. I'm against constantly giving handouts to people who won't help themselves or people who come here illegally. I'm very much against a government who takes away children from their parents simply because the parents are poor. If this were true in the 80s, I would've been taken away from my parents.

Josie said:

I didn't "run away", Chris. It's morning. I'm getting ready to leave. I'm sorry you're so impatient.

No, I don't think it's appropriate for people to have children they cannot afford. I think we need to have a temporary solution for people who are out of work and a permanent solution for those who aren't physically able to work. I'm not against welfare as a whole. I'm against constantly giving handouts to people who won't help themselves or people who come here illegally. I'm very much against a government who takes away children from their parents simply because the parents are poor. If this were true in the 80s, I would've been taken away from my parents.

Click to expand...

It's not about taking away children of people who are poor. It is about taking away children of people who willfully and ignorantly continue to bring children into a bad situation, either because they don't know any better or they are just irresponsible.

I am thinking of the country as a whole and of the children who are brought into these kinds of situations through their parent's irresponsible behaviors, or because the parents just don't care.

Now, are things like the below just limited to the poor? Of course not! But being poor and on the welfare system and the stress of that is CERTAINLY a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Child NeglectChronic Child Neglect

Child neglect is the most prevalent form of child maltreatment in the United States. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), of the approximately 899,000 children in the United States who were victims of abuse and neglect in 2005, 62.8 percent (564,765 children) suffered from neglect alone, including medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). According to NCANDS, 42.2 percent of child maltreatment fatalities in the United States in 2005 occurred as a result of neglect only, 24.1 percent as a result of physical abuse and neglect, and 27.3 percent as a result of multiple maltreatment types (USDHHS, 2007). In an independent study, Prevent Child Abuse America estimated that 1,291 children in the United States died in 2000 as a result of maltreatment, and that 45 percent of these child maltreatment fatalities were attributable to neglect (Peddle et al., 2002). NCANDS reported an increase of approximately 20,000 victims between 2004 and 2005. This is largely due to the inclusion of data from Alaska and Puerto Rico in the 2005 dataset (USDHHS, 2007).

We already have laws on child neglect. Children are taken away from their parents in those cases. Being on welfare isn't child abuse.

Josie said:

We already have laws on child neglect. Children are taken away from their parents in those cases. Being on welfare isn't child abuse.

Click to expand...

My proposal is simple. When someone comes to claim welfare because they cannot support themselves or their children, then they should agree to long-term birth control methods, sign a form and have to see a physician regularly to be sure they are in compliance. If they are not in compliance, then they lose their services.

Now, are you going to blame society for that person's choice to not use the BC in order to receive the services? Is that somebody else's fault somehow, or is the person who willfully CHOOSES to continue to have children he or she cannot afford at fault?

Individuals may have "reproductive rights," but they CERTAINLY don't have the "right" to continue having children and relying on the taxpayers to pay for these children. That is NOT a right.

And should the BC fail? Depo has failed on me, my friend got pregnant on mirena and emded up losing her son because the mirena was implanted partially into her placenta. Would those kids just be aborted? Put up to foster care if they werent adopted? Would she lose her benefits if while in compliance she got pregnant? And what about BC for absentee fathers? Generally theyre not punished for leaving their child/children desolate and the mother already has the overwhelming burden of raising said child/children alone.

Alyssa said:

Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.

Click to expand...

Nazi Germany comes to mind......
I do not think that we, as yet, have the quality of people to administer such a thing..
Nor would I wish to live in a nation where the government or anyone has control of the people as to who can breed and who cannot...
But, as to our government doing a lousy job .....
any proof, or is this straight from "right wing" extremist" radio talk shows ??

ChrisL said:

Individuals may have "reproductive rights," but they CERTAINLY don't have the "right" to continue having children and relying on the taxpayers to pay for these children. That is NOT a right.

Click to expand...

NO
In our nation, people do have the "right" to be irresponsible.
Maybe it should not be this way...
At one time, when much younger, I favored sterilization of those who were "irresponsible"...but there must be a better method... a more humane way.

Chelsea said:

And should the BC fail? Depo has failed on me, my friend got pregnant on mirena and emded up losing her son because the mirena was implanted partially into her placenta. Would those kids just be aborted? Put up to foster care if they werent adopted? Would she lose her benefits if while in compliance she got pregnant? And what about BC for absentee fathers? Generally theyre not punished for leaving their child/children desolate and the mother already has the overwhelming burden of raising said child/children alone.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, since it is the mothers who most of the time have to pay the consequences for unwanted pregnancy, they are the ones who have to be responsible for their "sexual sovereignty." Another point I would like to make is that it is not "body sovereignty" when you LACK control over what is happening to your own body (that is directed at some who claim these "reproductive rights" points). Am I happy that a lot of times the man gets away from his responsibility sometimes? No, I'm not, but that is how it is since the woman is the one who has to carry the child inside of her body.

As long as they were in compliance, then they could continue services. Everyone knows that BC is not 100% effective, but it would certainly cut down on pregnancies and births/abortions, none of which are "cheap." Then, another method of BC could be attempted.

It's a matter of NOT punishing everyone for the ignorance/irresponsibility of some.

earthworm said:

NO
In our nation, people do have the "right" to be irresponsible.
Maybe it should not be this way...
At one time, when much younger, I favored sterilization of those who were "irresponsible"...but there must be a better method... a more humane way.

Click to expand...

Yes, long-term birth control options. Those are not permanent.

ChrisL said:

Another BIG difference here Minnie is that those who are NOT on welfare are paying for and providing for their OWN. Those who are collecting welfare are not paying for and providing for their own. They are relying on taxpayers for that.

Where is the logic to allowing people who are collecting public services to continue to have children that they cannot afford to support? It is NOT unreasonable to ask that those people stop procreating while they are receiving services until they can provide for their own.

Click to expand...

It is NOT unreasonable to ask peopleto stop procreating while they are receiving services until they can provide for their own

However , making it mandatory is taking away thier right to privacy.

Josie said:

We already have laws on child neglect. Children are taken away from their parents in those cases. Being on welfare isn't child abuse.

Click to expand...

Obviously, the "child protect" laws need to be improved.

minnie616 said:

It is NOT unreasonable to ask peopleto stop procreating while they are receiving services until they can provide for their own

However , making it mandatory is taking away their right to privacy.

Click to expand...

Then, which takes precedence ?
The tax payers money
The welfare of children
Or "privacy".
IMO, one's "privacy" is out the window when they are living off government dole..

minnie616 said:

It is NOT unreasonable to ask peopleto stop procreating while they are receiving services until they can provide for their own

However , making it mandatory is taking away thier right to privacy.

Click to expand...

If they want privacy, they should get jobs. So long as I, as a taxpayer, am paying their way, I get a say in what they do.

Alyssa said:

Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.

Click to expand...

If instituted would probably be a line create that would potentially make me think that a revolt is in order.

What is to stop someone who is on welfare - but wants a baby - from going off welfare, having the baby and then going back on it?

And what is to stop her doing this over and over again?

Or are you people actually forcing women to be permanently sterilized to be eligible for welfare?

Cephus said:

If they want privacy, they should get jobs. So long as I, as a taxpayer, am paying their way, I get a say in what they do.

Click to expand...

Actually, no you dont. Im also a taxpayer or rather my husband is now, You are not reaching into your pockets and handing me money... in fact for the most part China is! You're not paying a dime towards welfare in all likelihood. You probably paid for some nonsensical mealworm experiment. Who are you to control anything pertaining to my life, especially anything pertaining to my health or natural rights? BC can have horrible side effects. Depo causes blood clots, osteoporosis and BMD loss, migraines and can increase breast cancer risks. IUDs can cause cervical cancer and become imbeded i the uterus requiring surgery. Most progesterone BC in pill form cause risls for blood clots, pulmonary and other embolisms, problems with the liver and kidneys, along with the ever present risk of allergic reaction and life threatening ectopic pregnancies. If taken too long into the first trimester some raise risks of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. And tubal ligation is much more dangerous than a vasectomy.

Why should whatever minute contribution your personal taxes might make to welfare funding give you any right to control or coerce me into possible health risks?

Neomalthusian said:

This person should be OK to have kids, eh?



I lot of liberals don't seem to care if all the welfare help out there enables people to devote more resources toward their drug habit. To my mind, welfare does at least as much harm to active addicts as this charity, except this charity prevents harm in the process as well, whereas welfare doesn't.

How would you feel if you saw a mother injecting its baby with heroin or force-feeding it alcohol? Would that mother's reproductive rights be more important than the baby's right not to have that harm done it it?



I know your view. Reproduction is sacrosanct. FASD, substance-induced static encephalopathy, babies born addicted to drugs, etc. are all less important than people's fertility.

I sincerely hope Project Prevention is promulgated and replicated all over the world. I plan to donate.

Click to expand...

We cannot prejudge what a person will do. It's been said many times in this thread, being on welfare is not a crime. Taking advantage, exploiting a person's desperation is immoral.

The mother that injects drugs, feeds a baby alcohol or in any way harms the child is going to jail for abuse. They've committed a crime and should be punished.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is the right for us not to have the government assault our bodies and how dangerous a precedent that sets. You think you and yours would always be in a "protected" class so it's good and proper to target other classes of people you pre-judge to be unworthy with a permanent answer to a problem not all welfare recipients will have. Especially in these times, when millions of our fellows lost jobs and homes and lives they worked diligently to earn and now must count on welfare until they can find a way to rebuild what they lost.

ChrisL said:

Welfare as it is now has been tried and abused as well. Time for a different tactic.

Click to expand...

The abuse of taxpayer's money cannot be considered equal to the abuse of of our most vulnerable citizens, Chris. It just can't.

While I agree we need to keep trying to find new and better solutions to poverty, allowing the government this power over our bodies is not the answer.

earthworm said:

Then, which takes precedence ?
The tax payers money
The welfare of children
Or "privacy".
IMO, one's "privacy" is out the window when they are living off government dole..

Click to expand...

I understand your opinion but opinion aside a mandate against a person's privacy will not hold up in court.

We have the right to privacy, which was extrapolated from language in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here are three well known cases which set the" privacy" precedent .
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),the Eisenstadt v. Baird case(1972) ,
and in Roe v. Wade (1973).