Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A pretty simple question..in this country do you think we should limit the amount of children a couple can have? Some other countries have laws that do limit the amount of kids you can have.

When I first heard about this years ago I thought it was strange. Then I saw the recent reality show with the family with 20 kids and thought "yeah, I could see why some people would want to limit this".

Do you think there should be a limit? I'm not even asking if you think there should be a limit specifically because of resources, but just..I don't know, is there such a thing as too many children?

Originally posted by Surtur
A pretty simple question..in this country do you think we should limit the amount of children a couple can have? Some other countries have laws that do limit the amount of kids you can have.

When I first heard about this years ago I thought it was strange. Then I saw the recent reality show with the family with 20 kids and thought "yeah, I could see why some people would want to limit this".

Do you think there should be a limit? I'm not even asking if you think there should be a limit specifically because of resources, but just..I don't know, is there such a thing as too many children?

There should be a law that you can't have more children while on public assistance

^^^Thats a good one.
I dont think it'd fly, but it should.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Thats a good one.
I dont think it'd fly, but it should.

it wouldn't fly but isn't it logical?

It didn't work out for China that well. It's a proven that more educated people have less kids. So I wouldn't make laws to prohibit the amount of kids someone could have, I need a fast way to judge them.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
It didn't work out for China that well. It's a proven that more educated people have less kids. So I wouldn't make laws to prohibit the amount of kids someone could have, I need a fast way to judge them.

such as?

Only as many as you can support.

How would one enforce such a law? Too lazy to google what China does, but I imagine that their method is probably too draconian for Americans to ever go for it.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How would one enforce such a law? Too lazy to google what China does, but I imagine that their method is probably too draconian for Americans to ever go for it.
i agree with adam.

have as many as you can support. if you are on public assistance then you can't have more until you are off

No

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Only as many as you can support.

I agree with as many as you can support. I have 4 and require no more assistance than the military already provides (which is admittedly pretty good).

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
It's a proven that more educated people have less kids. So I wouldn't make laws to prohibit the amount of kids someone could have, I need a fast way to judge them.

While I don't feel I am less intelligent than people with less children, I guess I can see this generally being the case.

Originally posted by Raisen
it wouldn't fly but isn't it logical?
Oh its totally logical.
But i believe in a lot of things that wouldnt fly.
I think there should be mandatory military service.
I think voting should be a privilege not a right, maybe tied into the above; if you as a citizen dont want to serve at 18, you dont get to vote, or enjoy certain other perks, things like that.

Originally posted by Surtur
A pretty simple question..in this country do you think we should limit the amount of children a couple can have? Some other countries have laws that do limit the amount of kids you can have.

When I first heard about this years ago I thought it was strange. Then I saw the recent reality show with the family with 20 kids and thought "yeah, I could see why some people would want to limit this".

Do you think there should be a limit? I'm not even asking if you think there should be a limit specifically because of resources, but just..I don't know, is there such a thing as too many children?

There are a bunch of reasons why I think it might be a good idea to restrict stuff like that. Genuinely. But for me, it comes down to whether I think any governing body should have THAT much power over people's lives, and for me the answer to that is no. No government is responsible enough, or impartial enough, to enforce something like that fairly, assuming that was even possible.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to them structuring things like Child Allowance so that people can't abuse the system. You can only apply for assistance for x amount of kids. Any more than that, and you're on your own.

Originally posted by -Pr-

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to them structuring things like Child Allowance so that people can't abuse the system. You can only apply for assistance for x amount of kids. Any more than that, and you're on your own.

The problem with those kinds of things is that it harms the children in question, which isn't really fair.

Originally posted by riv6672
Oh its totally logical.
But i believe in a lot of things that wouldnt fly.
I think there should be mandatory military service.
I think voting should be a privilege not a right, maybe tied into the above; if you as a citizen dont want to serve at 18, you dont get to vote, or enjoy certain other perks, things like that.
Read Heinlein much?

Nope, there is always a need for more trashmen and dishwashers.

Well, I'll start out by noting we don't have an overpopulation problem, like, at all.

Then I'll note the 'do it by whether they can afford it' suggested nicely is going to hit poor people, and due to the economic balance, minorities, while meanwhile ignoring those 'Quiverfull' types that Surtur mentioned in the op entirely.

Plus, of course, you can be pretty sure this is mostly going to be targeted at women in terms of enforcement... i.e. a guy who has multiple kids with multiple people is unlikely to be affected.



So we're talking, most likely, a very invasive limitation of liberties targeted at, by the sounds of it, women minorities and the poor. Just think about how that's going to go over politically for a second.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, I'll start out by noting we don't have an overpopulation problem, like, at all.



I'm not sure where you live but the world has an overpopulation problem.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, I'll start out by noting we don't have an overpopulation problem, like, at all.


The world has an overpopulation problem though. Now far be it from me to say that the US should solve that problem, but since you guys have a knack for thinking you should do that anyway, I say, go for it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem with those kinds of things is that it harms the children in question, which isn't really fair.

What would be your alternative?

Originally posted by -Pr-
What would be your alternative?

The system we have now. Everyone can have children without government limit, and children in need are financially supported regardless of the amount of siblings they have.

^^^Thats not a great system. It doesnt encourage anyone to change, or better themselves.

Originally posted by Slay
Read Heinlein much?
He had many good ideas.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Nope, there is always a need for more trashmen and dishwashers.
People who look down on those who do honest work usually have never done any themselves. Click.

Originally posted by Raisen
i

have as many as you can support. if you are on public assistance then you can't have more until you are off

So you get fined for not practising safe sex?
You legally have to have an abortion if you're on public assistance & fall pregnant?

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Thats not a great system. It doesnt encourage anyone to change, or better themselves.

Perhaps, but we have to weigh the options, and I think we should not sacrifice personal freedom or child safety for it, which seems to be what the ideas put forth in this thread would do. For example I think things like open and extensive sex ed can help with the issue. And so can economic programs aimed at supporting job growth in high poverty areas.

I'm all for ideas that facilitate personal improvement, but not at the expense of creating a police state or the development of the children in question.

I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.

Originally posted by riv6672
I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.

Well, we already take children that aren't cared for from their parents, no? I mean I suppose we could do a better job at finding children that aren't cared for. On the other hand, people on government assistance can still be good parents, so just a general "We'll take your children" doesn't seem of service to these children either.

I mean the foster system does its best, but it's not ideal either.

How would that even be managed?

"Congratulations ma'am, it's a girl! I see here that the legal documents state that you already have two children. So this one is going to have to be put to death and harvested of its organs. So don't get too attached."

Originally posted by Raisen
There should be a law that you can't have more children while on public assistance
And if you get anymore they should have to starve to death.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, we already take children that aren't cared for from their parents, no? I mean I suppose we could do a better job at finding children that aren't cared for. On the other hand, people on government assistance can still be good parents, so just a general "We'll take your children" doesn't seem of service to these children either.

I mean the foster system does its best, but it's not ideal either.
Not what i was getting at.
We're theorizing here, so, putting them into already established systems isnt what i was talking about.
If under the law you cant have more children (while on PA) and do, the children become wards, and while adoption is still on the table, the foster system is re-tooled to a more military/boarding school environment where the children are raised to be physically and mentally fit, and yes, patriotic.
These children are given aptitude tests throughout and encouraged to pursue those aptitudes.
This wouldnt be cheap.
But if we end up with a generation of young men and women contributing to the work force, being everything from trash men to doctors, instead of having been raised to themselves go on PA and have more children they cant afford, it will have been worth it.

Originally posted by riv6672
Not what i was getting at.
We're theorizing here, so, putting them into already established systems isnt what i was talking about.
If under the law you cant have more children (while on PA) and do, the children become wards, and while adoption is still on the table, the foster system is re-tooled to a more military/boarding school environment where the children are raised to be physically and mentally fit, and yes, patriotic.
These children are given aptitude tests throughout and encouraged to pursue those aptitudes.
This wouldnt be cheap.
But if we end up with a generation of young men and women contributing to the work force, being everything from trash men to doctors, instead of having been raised to themselves go on PA and have more children they cant afford, it will have been worth it.

Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.

I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.

I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.

Dystopia is a hungry abused neglected child on the street.
So yeah, we do see things differently. I have no problem with that. You seem like someone who cares about the system and those its meant to serve.
You and i are of a kind...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/7c/b3/f57cb316e85eea1acd43f139e5acd1fb.jpg

I don't think there should be a limit on the number of kids you can have, but if you are on government assistance I think there should be a cap on the amount of financial aid you receive. I'd say you max out at 3 children for financial aid, but you'd receive shipments of prepackaged generic food and clothing for each additional child.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.

I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.

Let's call spade a spade: this is fascism we're talking about. Heinlein wrote damn good sci-fi, but he was also a dumb prick who advocated for a military-worshipping fascist state. May he rot.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
So you get fined for not practising safe sex?
You legally have to have an abortion if you're on public assistance & fall pregnant?
No. You are denied public assistance.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I don't think there should be a limit on the number of kids you can have, but if you are on government assistance I think there should be a cap on the amount of financial aid you receive. I'd say you max out at 3 children for financial aid, but you'd receive shipments of prepackaged generic food and clothing for each additional child.
Good idea

I think riv is a closet conservative

Originally posted by Raisen
There should be a law that you can't have more children while on public assistance

I'm actually surprised this isn't a law already. Or rather if you have a kid while on public assistance you shouldn't get an increase in the money you get. For me it would be crazy if we would increase the amount of aid we give someone because they decided to have a kid even though they know they can't support one. It's not fair to the people whose money is used to give aid and it's not fair to the other people on aid.

I remember also seeing people complain when some state tried to make it so if your kid missed school you would not get your welfare. Parents complained, and keep in mind this wasn't like "if your kid misses a few days due to an illness" this was only for kids who didn't show up for a long period of time.

Let's just encourage anti social behavior and ensure the stupid dramatically out breed the smart.
Yep, increase Democrat voters until nobody contributes anything

Yeah I have to say I think if someone wasn't allowed to have a child because they legitimately can't afford to take care of one why would that be bad?

One would think the quality of life of the child would take precedence over the fact that some poor people who can't afford it still want to bring a life into this world.

So then pretty much the only way to not end up on the street would be to get government assistance. To which should we really assist people who knew they couldn't afford to raise a child, but went ahead and had one anyways? After all having a kid is a choice. As opposed to if someone has kids and has a job and then gets laid off and needs government assistance. That person wasn't bringing a child into the world knowing they couldn't care for it.

If you know ahead of time you can't afford a kid then it's time to use condoms, right?

They aren't allowed to keep the children if they legitimately can't afford to take care of them.

How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?

With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?

Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.

And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.

Originally posted by cdtm
How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?

With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?

Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.

And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.

Yeah, tbh, all the ideas here really sound like a Great Leap Forward...

Originally posted by krisblaze
They aren't allowed to keep the children if they legitimately can't afford to take care of them.

Which I believe is a policy that already exists.

Giving anyone the power to force someone else to gst fixed, though (Because there aren't a lot of other ways to make sure someone doesn't breed), is a different story. That's one slippery slope we don't want to go down, as history proves.

Originally posted by cdtm
Which I believe is a policy that already exists.
It is, in most countries.

That was my point.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Let's call spade a spade: this is fascism we're talking about. Heinlein wrote damn good sci-fi, but he was also a dumb prick who advocated for a military-worshipping fascist state. May he rot.
You know, AS a spade, i find this reaction quite...interesting.

This is all just theories (on my part anyway). Nothing is going to be accomplished
If you answer "yes" to the OP, without the government having a hand in things, to one degree or another.
The honor system isnt going to cut it.

In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.

In order for something like this to work properly, the government would have to keep strict tabs on the population. People would have to castrate themselves like they do to their pets, and then we would have to factor in all of the people that die on a daily basis. I don't think that people should go around having 7-10 children because of how expensive it is to raise just one, but placing hard restrictions on people would be horrible. If this came to be, I'd be waiting for the thought police to be enlisted next. However I have no doubts that our world could soon be run under an iron fist due to our irresponsible natures.

Originally posted by Astner
How would that even be managed?

"Congratulations ma'am, it's a girl! I see here that the legal documents state that you already have two children. So this one is going to have to be put to death and harvested of its organs. So don't get too attached."


And if you get anymore they should have to starve to death.
WTF?
Anyway, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea. We are in need of fresh organs.

Can you even harvest baby organs or would you need them to grow a little before you demolished them?

What could you use babies for besides stem cells?

@Astner

They're put into foster care

Real talk:
Limiting the amount of kids per family isn't a real issue. As more countries become more civilized, rich and educated, people have less kids per home.

The current trend is that all notions are becoming more rich, civilized, and educated. To say otherwise is the same as saying the world isn't what it used to be. This is to say things are getting worse( which is absolutely not true).

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Can you even harvest baby organs or would you need them to grow a little before you demolished them?

What could you use babies for besides stem cells?
The organs would be highly undeveloped, lol, so it wouldn't work. But on part of Astner (what he was actually trying to convey) it was a great exaggeration for the purpose of disagreeing with the notion proposed and on my part, I thought it was a good joke.

Originally posted by krisblaze
They're put into foster care
What if no foster family is available?

There's no limit that makes sense, so I'd say no. Very, very, very few families in America have more than 5 kids, and putting some arbitrary limit on family size wouldn't stop unfit parents from having kids than child protective services does now.

Originally posted by Astner
What if no foster family is available?
Then that means we need more gay people. You kill two birds with one stone.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
The organs would be highly undeveloped, lol, so it wouldn't work. But on part of Astner (what he was actually trying to convey) it was a great exaggeration for the purpose of disagreeing with the notion proposed and on my part, I thought it was a good joke. Me and Astner were thinking of opening up an organ clinic and we were wondering if you could actually harvest babies.

We have the funds, building, and tools already but we just need some sort of marketing. Not sure "We harvest babies" would fly.

There's small rural towns in Australia that suffer from under population or simply not enough of the younger generation to sustain the various trades needed.

Sometimes the government or rural council will offer subsidies to encourage folk with families (ideally with a trade background) to relocate to the town to maintain its growth.

Real estates have been known to offer $1/wk rent to attract people to move in.

I'm just saying this could be an incentive if you have more children & are on public assistance.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.
Thats good spitballing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.

I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

how about you get substantially less support for each subsequent child after three.

There should be a limit only for overpopulated places. Most countries from North America and Europe do not have this problem. In fact, it's the opposite. Most European countries have a problem where there are more older people than young people. Too many are using contraceptives and/or having buttsex.

Originally posted by Astner
What if no foster family is available?
Group homes.

How do you not know about this?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

Actually, I believe the opposite might be true.

With a solid educational and (again, just spitballing here, REALLY not for this at all) indoctrination program, the government can essentially instill the proper values, understanding of both the law and the basic requirements of being a proper citizen of the state.

With a solid compulsory (strengthened by an indoctrination program) educational and fitness program (to prepare them for military life) they would be disciplined, physically fit, educated and born with basic survival and life skills.

They would essentially earn their citizenship and all the tools they need to become productive citizens at a very early age.

They would be seen as children of the state, no longer children of parents.

At a later time, once their service (and debt to the state has been paid off by said service) they could choose to incorporate into society as a whole and meet their birth parents (and rescue said parents from their current situation if they want to).

And from a purely utilitarian sense, why send the soldiers who you've trained, spent money on and molded to be the perfect soldier/citizen as fodder? These would actually most likely become elite soldiers or officers.

The parents themselves (who violated law for birthing more children than they can support) would be the second class citizens with much of their citizenry rights/benefits revoked. This is, however, far better than being poor/destitute (you'd be a 2nd class citizen anyway, plus you and your kids would be starving).

Again, spitballing here. I can already see potential for abuse for any repressive government (I hope China doesn't get this idea TBH).

Originally posted by Raisen
how about you get substantially less support for each subsequent child after three.

So all the children suffer or just the ones after three?

Unemployment & child support benefits are common in Australia.
Regardless of how many children you have & you're unemployed doesn't effect the quality of life you give your children.
Parents with special needs kids get a little more to cover health & medical issues.
If you're employed & need to send your children to daycare, there's subsidies for that too.
Even our public schools will feed & clothe the kids if for whatever reason it can't be done at home.

There used to be a Baby Bonus of about $2000 for each child born to an unemployed parent. However this was easily abused by more "undesirable" people who shouldn't have been parents in the 1st place.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Group homes.

How do you not know about this?

I'm not arguing for or against this by the way

I'm just saying that this is a thing and has been in place for over 150 years.

I'm with the general notion that I can see the benefits of limiting children but I don't want the government to have that kind of power over the people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The system we have now. Everyone can have children without government limit, and children in need are financially supported regardless of the amount of siblings they have.

And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.

Originally posted by riv6672
I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.

The state has done a pretty shitty job of raising a lot of kids, though.

I'm okay with a Militocracy like you people are describing. However, children need affection and one on one attention to develop properly. What you gents describe would create a shitload of psychopaths.


You'll need to figure out how to get a system in place where you have static parental figures in the children's lives. And these figures will need to hug the children, hold them, tuck them into bed, etc. You know, what real parents do to raise proper children.

You'd need tons and tons of people to run this school. Probably one adult per 3 children.




Also, Slay, the world is not overpopulated. We have a goods distribution problem, not an overpopulation problem. When you eat today, feel smug because the food you have access to is due to rather unfair distribution of wealth and food.

Here's an article about the overpopulation myth from PRI:

https://www.pop.org/content/debunking-myth-overpopulation


Originally posted by -Pr-
And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.



The state has done a pretty shitty job of raising a lot of kids, though.

Originally posted by -Pr-
And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.

Yeah, maybe, I just don't know exactly how to improve it, and the ideas put forth do border on fascism really. Like severe limitations to personal freedom and punishment ideas that hits the children in question by far the hardest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, maybe, I just don't know exactly how to improve it, and the ideas put forth do border on fascism really. Like severe limitations to personal freedom and punishment ideas that hits the children in question by far the hardest.

Outside of sex-ed, there would need to be, imo, something to discourage people from having loads of children under the assumption the state will pay for it.

There has to be a middle ground between "you can't tell me how many kids I can have" and "if I have another one I can get x assistance so let's do it".

Is this having children for welfare checks actually a problem though? I mean I hear it repeated a lot, but are there studies how prevalent it is, and what it actually costs that you know about?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Outside of sex-ed, there would need to be, imo, something to discourage people from having loads of children under the assumption the state will pay for it.

There has to be a middle ground between "you can't tell me how many kids I can have" and "if I have another one I can get x assistance so let's do it". What you're talking about seems more like a culture change to me.

Teaching better sex education, teaching kids that having a family should always come after finishing school and securing your own financial needs first, and that having a family isn't mandatory.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is this having children for welfare checks actually a problem though? I mean I hear it repeated a lot, but are there studies how prevalent it is, and what it actually costs that you know about? Some people would say any parents having children while being in poverty is trying to abuse the system.

In actual terms though I don't there has ever been a longer term trend of abuse. over half of people that go on welfare are off of it within a year as of 2014 data and most are off of it within 5 years.

Most families with children also working while being on welfare so it's not like they are just collecting money as far as a I know.

But the ability to abuse the system does exist and I do know people that do so.

people who aren't aware of welfare recipients purposely having more children for additional benefits must be coddled and rich. if you were EVER poor then you know people do this all the time. my brother had a girlfriend who tried talking him into this. she is an ex now.
my god, these rich coddled people just don't know. and they vote democrat and keep this shit going on

Originally posted by Raisen
people who aren't aware of welfare recipients purposely having more children for additional benefits must be coddled and rich. if you were EVER poor then you know people do this all the time. my brother had a girlfriend who tried talking him into this. she is an ex now.
my god, these rich coddled people just don't know. and they vote democrat and keep this shit going on Data shows that you are wrong though.

Keep in mind this article is from 2013 and therefore some of the data has most likely changed but I doubt it would have been that drastic.

Please pay particular notice about the fact that family sizes for those on benefits vs those that aren't are the same. If they were trying to have more children to be free loaders than you would think that average would be greater.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/

newjak. data can be skewed. i lived it. i've seen people all around me do this in several communities. i won't ignore what i've seen

Originally posted by Raisen
newjak. data can be skewed. i lived it. i've seen people all around me do this in several communities. i won't ignore what i've seen The problem is what you've seen could be the exception instead of the rule.

Like I said the system allows for the abuse but at the end of the day what is more important to me is the actual number of people that are abusing the system. Which all data seems to show is very small.

So for me it almost seems like a none issue. I would rather deal with a few morons trying to abuse the system as long we are helping the people that really need it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Most families with children also working while being on welfare so it's not like they are just collecting money as far as a I know.

But the ability to abuse the system does exist and I do know people that do so. Isn't working while being on welfare literally abusing the system and collecting extra money for no reason?

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to work while being on welfare too since it defeats the purpose of the free money.

Originally posted by cdtm
How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?

With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?

Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.

And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.

This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it.

The only excuse that flies is if you use a condom and it turns out to be faulty, since that isn't your fault. Otherwise why would you want to bring a child into this world if the child is going to be born into a shitty life?

But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy?

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Isn't working while being on welfare literally abusing the system and collecting extra money for no reason?

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to work while being on welfare too since it defeats the purpose of the free money. They are on welfare because even while working they are still below the poverty line and thus still qualify for welfare.

I've known families that are working full time jobs but still qualify for assistance because they make so little.

This holds especially true for single parent households with kids under 5.

Originally posted by Surtur
This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it. There is some truth to this but accidents happen. People that have taken precautions can still have babies. And those people that end up in that situation can be punished for it for the rest of their lives without assistance. Which can lead to a child growing up in poverty and without help which greatly decreases that child's chances of being successful.


I also have a problem with this statement being that if you take it to its logical conclusion then essentially you're saying the poor should never have children.

Originally posted by Surtur
This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it.

The only excuse that flies is if you use a condom and it turns out to be faulty, since that isn't your fault. Otherwise why would you want to bring a child into this world if the child is going to be born into a shitty life?

But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy? They can't stop you from boning, so I'm guessing if you had more then the limit of kids you would be penalized somehow.

at one time the chinese were killing their children if they had a girl. they needed boys to help work.
this situation sucks. somebody has to lose, but i can personally attest that the system is abused greatly and data that says otherwise can and is skewed for political purposes

Originally posted by Newjak
There is some truth to this but accidents happen. People that have taken precautions can still have babies. And those people that end up in that situation can be punished for it for the rest of their lives without assistance. Which can lead to a child growing up in poverty and without help which greatly decreases that child's chances of being successful.


I also have a problem with this statement being that if you take it to its logical conclusion then essentially you're saying the poor should never have children.

I'm saying you should never have children if you can't afford to take care of them. The rights of the child supersede the desire to have a baby even though you can't take care of it.

Plus I will counter with this: isn't it a sick person who will bring a child into this world knowing they can't afford to care for it? Just because that person has their mind set on having a child they can just ignore all the factors that make it a bad idea?

Originally posted by Surtur

But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy? In Draconic fashion most of the time. There is a reason why there is a large gender disparity in China.

Also those laws are apparently beginning to be eased up on and even on the verge of being gotten away with entirely.

http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-fraud.html

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/whos-on-welfare-9-shocking-stats-about-public-assistance.html/?a=viewall

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Originally posted by Newjak
In Draconic fashion most of the time. There is a reason why there is a large gender disparity in China.

Also those laws are apparently beginning to be eased up on and even on the verge of being gotten away with entirely.

So let me ask this, let us say you have a woman on Welfare named Mary. After a year of being on welfare Mary gets pregnant. What should happen when it comes to her welfare? Should it be increased? Stay the same?

http://thefga.org/press/for-immediate-release-5-crazy-examples-of-welfare-fraud-and-the-3-step-solution-for-states-to-stop-the-scam/

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/fraud/PG270.htm

Originally posted by Raisen
http://thefga.org/press/for-immediate-release-5-crazy-examples-of-welfare-fraud-and-the-3-step-solution-for-states-to-stop-the-scam/

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/fraud/PG270.htm

This makes me sick, especially that Pennsylvania paid out welfare to people who had won millions in the lottery.

Or the Chicago man who used all those link cards to make money. How the hell do you get multiple link cards?

Originally posted by Surtur
So let me ask this, let us say you have a woman on Welfare named Mary. After a year of being on welfare Mary gets pregnant. What should happen when it comes to her welfare? Should it be increased? Stay the same?

I think if she has a child to take care of and can't find a job, her welfare should be adjusted to be able to support herself and the child.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm saying you should never have children if you can't afford to take care of them. The rights of the child supersede the desire to have a baby even though you can't take care of it.

Plus I will counter with this: isn't it a sick person who will bring a child into this world knowing they can't afford to care for it? Just because that person has their mind set on having a child they can just ignore all the factors that make it a bad idea? And in the case of accidental pregnancies which is what I think account for most late teen early 20s pregnancies?

You add in the religious stigma around abortions for many in this country and you have a recipe for a lot of unwanted children before the parents are ready to take care of them.

I would also point out in a country where people can work full time jobs but still fall below the poverty line that somehow forcing them to not be able to have children seems kind of shitty.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think if she has a child to take care off and can't find a job, her welfare should be adjusted to be able to support herself and the child.

Why should she be given more money because she was irresponsible and got pregnant knowing she couldn't afford it? Seems like that is rewarding people for stupid behavior.

But okay, let us take it a step further. After the first kid she gets pregnant again and has another kid. Does she deserve a further increase?

Originally posted by Surtur
This makes me sick, especially that Pennsylvania paid out welfare to people who had won millions in the lottery.

Or the Chicago man who used all those link cards to make money. How the hell do you get multiple link cards?

i'm wondering how many of these supporters have been on welfare and how many people do they know have been. the abuse is sick. there are stats all over the place with varying results. don't believe the numbers. you need to live this to know

Originally posted by Surtur
Why should she be given more money because she was irresponsible and got pregnant knowing she couldn't afford it? Seems like that is rewarding people for stupid behavior.

But okay, let us take it a step further. After the first kid she gets pregnant again and has another kid. Does she deserve a further increase?

The money is not for her, but for the child that needs support.

Originally posted by Newjak
And in the case of accidental pregnancies which is what I think account for most late teen early 20s pregnancies?

You add in the religious stigma around abortions for many in this country and you have a recipe for a lot of unwanted children before the parents are ready to take care of them.

I would also point out in a country where people can work full time jobs but still fall below the poverty line that somehow forcing them to not be able to have children seems kind of shitty.

pretty much only hispanics have the religious stigma and they only account for 15 percent. you are reaching newjak. you are trying too hard to find excuses

Originally posted by Bardock42
The money is not for her, but for the child that needs support.

So then where is the cut off line? How many children can she have before she stops getting increases? 2? 4?

Originally posted by Surtur
So then where is the cut off line? How many children can she have before she stops getting increases? 2? 4?

he won't have a legitimate answer.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then where is the cut off line? How many children can she have before she stops getting increases? 2? 4?

If she is a good mother for the children and doesn't neglect or abuse them she should be able to get as many children as she wants, and the children should get government support if they need it, imo.

Originally posted by Newjak
And in the case of accidental pregnancies which is what I think account for most late teen early 20s pregnancies?

You add in the religious stigma around abortions for many in this country and you have a recipe for a lot of unwanted children before the parents are ready to take care of them.

I would also point out in a country where people can work full time jobs but still fall below the poverty line that somehow forcing them to not be able to have children seems kind of shitty.

An accidental pregnancy is one thing. Oh and btw to me an accidental pregnancy is if you use a type of birth control and it fails you. It is not an accident if you willing bang someone and choose not to wear a condom.

Plus to me it's even shittier to let people bring children they can't take care of into this world. Since you know who then foots the bill so these people can continually pop out kids? Us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If she is a good mother for the children and doesn't neglect or abuse them she should be able to get as many children as she wants, and the children should get government support if they need it, imo.

A good mother wouldn't bring children into the world she can't take care of.

see what i mean. must be nice being a rich white guy.

Originally posted by Raisen
http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-fraud.html

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/whos-on-welfare-9-shocking-stats-about-public-assistance.html/?a=viewall

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ That doesn't showcase widespread fraud. The first article you post even says so. All it says is that funds can have a high error rate. This can range from giving the benefits to the wrong person or underpaying/overpaying some people.

This seems less like welfare abuse and more like a need to make sure the system handling the funds isupdated and redone.

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm wondering how many of these supporters have been on welfare and how many people do they know have been. the abuse is sick. there are stats all over the place with varying results. don't believe the numbers. you need to live this to know So what you're saying is we need to rely on biased opinions from people whose perception on welfare could be totally different and wrong instead of looking at actual statistical data?

Originally posted by Raisen
pretty much only hispanics have the religious stigma and they only account for 15 percent. you are reaching newjak. you are trying too hard to find excuses I'm sorry but that religious stigma is not limited to just latinos. There are a number of Caucasian religion demographics that also frown upon abortion.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then where is the cut off line? How many children can she have before she stops getting increases? 2? 4? Let me ask you something Surtur. Why do you think this is a problem if most people don't even abuse the system and the abusers account for so little of the pie that it almost seems like peanuts compared to the rest of our budget?

this world will turn into idiocracy soon enough. it will be "kindness" and pc that leads us there

I think it's a problem even if just 1 person is doing it. That is still them taking away money from someone who might actually deserve it..as opposed to an irresponsible adult expecting the tax payers to clean up their mistakes.

You shouldn't get to continually pop out kids and then continually have your hand out. It just shouldn't work that way.

Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't showcase widespread fraud. The first article you post even says so. All it says is that funds can have a high error rate. This can range from giving the benefits to the wrong person or underpaying/overpaying some people.

This seems less like welfare abuse and more like a need to make sure the system handling the funds isupdated and redone.

So what you're saying is we need to rely on biased opinions from people whose perception on welfare could be totally different and wrong instead of looking at actual statistical data?

I'm sorry but that religious stigma is not limited to just latinos. There are a number of Caucasian religion demographics that also frown upon abortion.

Let me ask you something Surtur. Why do you think this is a problem if most people don't even abuse the system and the abusers account for so little of the pie that it almost seems like peanuts compared to the rest of our budget?

true. there are a lot of whites that hold that stigma also.

regarding the numbers. everything adds up and the numbers keep increasing.

Originally posted by Surtur
A good mother wouldn't bring children into the world she can't take care of.

Hmm, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think the skillset to be a good parent doesn't necessarily mean that you have a skillset that will be well paid, and I think it is an important good for a society to have well adjusted children growing up, so I don't see much of a problem there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think the skillset to be a good parent doesn't necessarily mean that you have a skillset that will be well paid, and I think it is an important good for a society to have well adjusted children growing up, so I don't see much of a problem there.

A good mother would be worried about the childs welfare. Doesn't matter if she's super good at telling bed time stories or any of the other shit parents do.

A good mother makes sure she can put food on the table. She doesn't continually have children knowing she can't afford it.

Originally posted by Surtur
An accidental pregnancy is one thing. Oh and btw to me an accidental pregnancy is if you use a type of birth control and it fails you. It is not an accident if you willing bang someone and choose not to wear a condom.

Plus to me it's even shittier to let people bring children they can't take care of into this world. Since you know who then foots the bill so these people can continually pop out kids? Us. Accidental pregnancies to me result primarily from poor sex education along with accidental mishaps like condoms breaking or being defective.

You know most of this is only a problem because minimum wage jobs can not support people you have children.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it's a problem even if just 1 person is doing it. That is still them taking away money from someone who might actually deserve it..as opposed to an irresponsible adult expecting the tax payers to clean up their mistakes.

You shouldn't get to continually pop out kids and then continually have your hand out. It just shouldn't work that way. I think that is too simplistic of a view to have on complex scenarios. The world is never going to perfect. What is more important to you. Having a system that legitmately helps the people it needs with little abuse or a system that doesn't tolerate any abuse but hurts a huge portion of people for things that may have resulted from an accident beyond their control? Which can lead to even further generations of impoverished and desperate people.

Originally posted by Newjak
Accidental pregnancies to me result primarily from poor sex education along with accidental mishaps like condoms breaking or being defective.

All circles around to the parents doesn't it? Ladies and gentlemen: teach your damn kids about sex, do not expect a school to do it.



But this logic is faulty because if we simply made it so we didn't give increases in money to people who have kids on welfare..why does that hurt the people who need legitimate help? Since you see if you are on welfare and decide to have a kid? That is a problem YOU created, that's not someone who needs legit help. That is someone who needs to be sat down and explained to them they shouldn't be doing what they are doing unless they can afford it.

So if we enacted that..explain to me how anyone who legitimately needs welfare would suffer?

Originally posted by Surtur
All circles around to the parents doesn't it? Ladies and gentlemen: teach your damn kids about sex, do not expect a school to do it.



But this logic is faulty because if we simply made it so we didn't give increases in money to people who have kids on welfare..why does that hurt the people who need legitimate help? Since you see if you are on welfare and decide to have a kid? That is a problem YOU created. Once again if the parents grew up with a poor sex education themselves and pass on that then that can lead to a continuation of that poor knowledge base.

I actually think having a proper sec ed class is important.

Because the people with kids and the kids themselves legitimately need that help. Also not all circumstances fall under the control of the person with the kids. Heck most people don't just decide to have kids because they are poor. Most children are legitimately accidents for young parents. Also there are circumstances where people have already had kids while they could afford it but outside circumstances have changed their economic status. For instance losing a job, being laid off, a death in the family.

Also I would ask who do you believe legitimately deserves help?

Schools could do a much better job of sex ed as well though. Especially in the US, where some teach the unrealistic "abstinence only" methods.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Schools could do a much better job of sex ed as well though. Especially in the US, where some teach the unrealistic "abstinence only" methods. Oh I agree with this completely.

Originally posted by Newjak
Oh I agree with this completely. Yeah, I think we posted at the same time, I meant it as a reply to Surtur

so blame everyone else except the adults who bear children they cannot support. this is treating grown people like they are children. in a way, this is treating them like they are inferior.

Of course schools could be better, but then so could parents. Do not expect schools to parent your children. If you do you shouldn't be a parent. With this day and age, sex education is just a google search away for a parent. There is little to no excuse.

As for people who deserve help? Simple: anyone who isn't actively behaving in a way that makes your situation worse. So for example if you are on welfare because you got laid off, alright. But then if you begin spending part of the welfare money on drugs..well, most jobs drug test and you aren't ever likely to get a job while on drugs. So such a person no longer deserves help.

Or like this situation: if you know you are already in bad shape and can't afford to live then do not have a child. Use protection when you bone and if you don't use protection you surely shouldn't be expecting to get even more money because you are an utterly irresponsible adult. It's not fair to all the people who are on welfare that act responsible and don't act like they should continually be given hand outs.

Just reminds me of the woman with 15 kids living in a hotel room screaming "someone got to take care of my kids". Yeah lady, that "someone" is you.

Plus if we are going to talk about taking this to it's extremes think about what Bardock said. A woman should be able to pop out as many children as she wants even if she can't take care of them as long as she is a "good" mother. There is no accountability, no responsibility, just doing whatever you want and expecting others to foot the bill.

So under that situation you could literally have 12-15 kids while on welfare and continually get increases.

Originally posted by Surtur
Of course schools could be better, but then so could parents. Do not expect schools to parent your children. If you do you shouldn't be a parent. With this day and age, sex education is just a google search away for a parent. There is little to no excuse.

As for people who deserve help? Simple: anyone who isn't actively behaving in a way that makes your situation worse. So for example if you are on welfare because you got laid off, alright. But then if you begin spending part of the welfare money on drugs..well, most jobs drug test and you aren't ever likely to get a job while on drugs. So such a person no longer deserves help.

Or like this situation: if you know you are already in bad shape and can't afford to live then do not have a child. Use protection when you bone and if you don't use protection you surely shouldn't be expecting to get even more money because you are an utterly irresponsible adult. It's not fair to all the people who are on welfare that act responsible and don't act like they should continually be given hand outs.

Just reminds me of the woman with 15 kids living in a hotel room "someone got to take care of my kids". Yeah lady, that "someone" is you. The drugs and welfare talk is another discussion to me. One I would be okay having because I'm assuming you mean make sure we test for drug users right?

Anyways so it seems more like you're upset with people that are already on welfare and pop out another child while on benefits. I honestly think that is an absurdly low amount of people actually. Also like I said most people that go on benefits are off of it with in 5 years. Of course new people get on it as well so it always seems like the same amount of people are on welfare.

To me the biggest problem is that people working full time job schedules still can not afford to take care of a child or two.

Originally posted by Surtur
Plus if we are going to talk about taking this to it's extremes think about what Bardock said. A woman should be able to pop out as many children as she wants even if she can't take care of them as long as she is a "good" mother. There is no accountability, no responsibility, just doing whatever you want and expecting others to foot the bill.

So under that situation you could literally have 12-15 kids while on welfare and continually get increases. The problem with this line of thinking is it requires the person to make that decision to have that many kids. Most people don't want to have more than 2 maybe three tops. So most women aren't even going to contemplate or want to do this option because of all the time sinks they will have to put into raising the children.

Originally posted by Raisen
so blame everyone else except the adults who bear children they cannot support. this is treating grown people like they are children. in a way, this is treating them like they are inferior. I see it more as realizing most people in that situation are not there by choice. It's not trying to create blame but trying to create usable solutions to existing problems that don't leave a generation to grow up and become more impoverished than their folks.

Originally posted by Surtur
Plus if we are going to talk about taking this to it's extremes think about what Bardock said. A woman should be able to pop out as many children as she wants even if she can't take care of them as long as she is a "good" mother. There is no accountability, no responsibility, just doing whatever you want and expecting others to foot the bill.

So under that situation you could literally have 12-15 kids while on welfare and continually get increases.

Well, except for the responsibility to raise and take care of 15 children...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, except for the responsibility to raise and take care of 15 children...

Nah, because she's not being responsible in taking care of the kids if she is living in a hotel and screaming for people to pay for her kids. She's not responsible if there are several different men that are the fathers instead of all just one father(indeed, it's more then one guy) and not a single father was in the picture either. So it's not responsible to bang men who have no interest in fathering children, at least not without a condom. Before you ask yep, the men who fathered these various kids and then ditched them with a crazy lady sure are irresponsible as well.

She is the opposite of responsible if she is living in a hotel and was too stupid to stop getting pregnant after her 4th kid, let another 15th. Please don't dress up such a person as being a responsible person.

I also want to make one thing crystal clear: I actually wouldn't really want to make a law that would prevent poor people from having kids. I think it would be highly irresponsible to bring a child into this world if you do not have the means to take care of it. If a person knows that and decides to do it anyways well okay, but what should happen is if they decide to have a child while they are on welfare...they do not get a single extra cent because of that.

So have your kids whilst on welfare, you just shouldn't get another penny because of that. Having kids is not a right and we are not living in a "Children of Men" type of situation.

Basically bottom line: if you know you can't afford a kid? Then wrap your shit up. Or do whatever the female equivalent would be. Birth control your shit up. If you lack the intelligence to do this then do not expect others to foot the bill for your kid, and always remember that it is you and only you who are punishing this child by bringing them into the world without the means to care for them.

Quoted for over usage of common sense. Cut that out, you.

Originally posted by Newjak
I see it more as realizing most people in that situation are not there by choice. It's not trying to create blame but trying to create usable solutions to existing problems that don't leave a generation to grow up and become more impoverished than their folks.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Believing society should not bear the burden of stupid people is fine, on principle. But pragmatically, kids do need to be cared for.. And refusing to help on principle is pretty heartless, imo.

@Surtur...I get the sense you're not a parent yourself?

What if your partner turned to you with happy news that she was pregnant...
Would you weigh up the pros & cons...decide your studies is too important or you're not making enough with your current job & then tell your missus, the pregnancy is inconvenient & she should abort...?

Or would you be the happiest man on the planet & regardless of your study commitments or your low paying job, you still make that promise to be the best parent, raising a child no matter how bad your circumstances were?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why should she be given more money because she was irresponsible and got pregnant knowing she couldn't afford it? Seems like that is rewarding people for stupid behavior.

But okay, let us take it a step further. After the first kid she gets pregnant again and has another kid. Does she deserve a further increase?

I know a woman who has raised 6 children on welfare.
She had 3 different partners who were all abusive but fathered 2 children each to her before ending/leaving the relationship & the burden of raising all
6 kids to her own.

Was she being irresponsible?
No. She just had bad (or maybe dumb) luck at picking partners.

Is she getting welfare for all 6 kids?
Yes.
Is she abusing the system?
No.
Is she still struggling to make ends meet?
Yes.

And you know what, the 3 eldest kids have excelled in their studies & are choosing careers in medicine & law.

The mother has unknowingly raised good kids on welfare & now these kids want to give it back to society & help others.

Originally posted by Surtur
I also want to make one thing crystal clear: I actually wouldn't really want to make a law that would prevent poor people from having kids. I think it would be highly irresponsible to bring a child into this world if you do not have the means to take care of it. If a person knows that and decides to do it anyways well okay, but what should happen is if they decide to have a child while they are on welfare...they do not get a single extra cent because of that.

So have your kids whilst on welfare, you just shouldn't get another penny because of that. Having kids is not a right and we are not living in a "Children of Men" type of situation.

Basically bottom line: if you know you can't afford a kid? Then wrap your shit up. Or do whatever the female equivalent would be. Birth control your shit up. If you lack the intelligence to do this then do not expect others to foot the bill for your kid, and always remember that it is you and only you who are punishing this child by bringing them into the world without the means to care for them. So you're okay if someone getting extra money if they had children while not on welfare but then go on it?

You're just not okay with people having children while on welfare and getting more money?

What about if the pregnancy was truly an accident? Like they were on birth control? Should they still not get extra money?

An issue related to this I think is also who gets custody of the kid in cases of divorce(or if you are never married in the first place) and the problems with the child support system, etc. For instance I've never heard of a woman being put in prison due to not paying child support. I have heard plenty of instances of it happening to men though. On top of that look at all the problems fathers can face in this country when it comes to their rights as a father.


Originally posted by Newjak
So you're okay if someone getting extra money if they had children while not on welfare but then go on it?

I wouldn't call it extra money. If you have a kid and have a job and are supporting yourself and then something happens and you lose your income and need welfare..then I think when you first go on welfare they'd take your current situation into account. So you wouldn't be getting extra money, just the money your specific situation requires.



I'm not saying if you are on Welfare and then decide to have a kid you shouldn't get money anymore, rather that you just shouldn't get extra money. Since the whole thing of being on welfare..the person should know they can't afford to take care of a kid. So it just shouldn't happen barring a true accident. So if you're getting $100 a week(I know that is too small a figure) and then you get pregnant and it's not an accident you shouldn't be bumped up to $200 a week. Or even to $101 a week.

Some might say that punishes the kid, but the one punishing the kid is the irresponsible parent that apparently thinks money just grows on tree's.



I would say if they can prove it was an accident and that they were taking precautions to prevent a pregnancy then sure because it is not their fault. But if you just decide to bang a dude and not use protection and you end up pregnant? Well that is a result of your own poor choices and thus no I really don't feel such a person should be given even more money when they have just proven how utterly irresponsible they are.

I guess the issue I see is how exactly would you prove this?

And how can they prove it was an accident?

Exactly, how?

I think that by birth, yes

Originally posted by Surtur
An issue related to this I think is also who gets custody of the kid in cases of divorce(or if you are never married in the first place) and the problems with the child support system, etc. For instance I've never heard of a woman being put in prison due to not paying child support. I have heard plenty of instances of it happening to men though. On top of that look at all the problems fathers can face in this country when it comes to their rights as a father.




I wouldn't call it extra money. If you have a kid and have a job and are supporting yourself and then something happens and you lose your income and need welfare..then I think when you first go on welfare they'd take your current situation into account. So you wouldn't be getting extra money, just the money your specific situation requires.



I'm not saying if you are on Welfare and then decide to have a kid you shouldn't get money anymore, rather that you just shouldn't get extra money. Since the whole thing of being on welfare..the person should know they can't afford to take care of a kid. So it just shouldn't happen barring a true accident. So if you're getting $100 a week(I know that is too small a figure) and then you get pregnant and it's not an accident you shouldn't be bumped up to $200 a week. Or even to $101 a week.

Some might say that punishes the kid, but the one punishing the kid is the irresponsible parent that apparently thinks money just grows on tree's.



I would say if they can prove it was an accident and that they were taking precautions to prevent a pregnancy then sure because it is not their fault. But if you just decide to bang a dude and not use protection and you end up pregnant? Well that is a result of your own poor choices and thus no I really don't feel such a person should be given even more money when they have just proven how utterly irresponsible they are.

I guess the issue I see is how exactly would you prove this?

I understood what you said by more money vs no more money. I must have not been clear with that sentence.

Anyways so you're okay if it was accidental but not if it wasn't.

What do you think the odds are it being accidental vs not accidental?

Also I'm not sold on your counter argument of the it punishes the child.

You maybe correct in saying that the parent that brought that child into the world knowingly was a dick but that doesn't change the child's situation. I ask you this what is the better scenario. The government paying a little bit now to help raise that kid to a functioning member of society or possibly paying way more money dealing the ramifications of a child in a poor, resource drained environment?