Originally posted by RaisenI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 SurturSo you're okay if someone getting extra money if they had children while not on welfare but then go on it?
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.
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.
You're just not okay with people having children while on welfare and getting more money?
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.
What about if the pregnancy was truly an accident? Like they were on birth control? Should they still not get extra money?
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?
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?