[Brie85]

I find many different parts of this thread offensive.

While I understand the frustration with people bringing children into the world they cannot care for, sterilization is a very bad idea. Deciding who is worthy to reproduce is eugenics, and many atrocities have occurred in its name. Reproduction rights are incredibly personal and central to our own liberty. Even when forced sterilization is couched as a “choice,” it is unconscionable. It is clear that holding out money to some of the most desperate people in society is quite coercive. If someone was starving and you told him you would give him an apple but only if he followed your instructions, would you consider his compliance a choice? Even forcing use of temporary birth control is too intrusive upon liberty. These suggestions are also problematic because many birth control methods have medical risks and they may intrude upon one’s freedom to practice a religion that does not believe in birth control.

The post also makes many faulty assumptions. Some people do abuse Welfare but the majority of recipients are not abusing the system. Also, not all impoverished families abuse or neglect their children. Economic status does not equal fitness as a parent. Finally, many people need public assistance temporarily. Just because someone is on public assistance now does not mean that they could not support children later on. Sterilization is permanent, and takes away future options.

What I have heard of, and what I would support, is having a cap on benefits and clearly explaining to recipients that the amount they receive will not increase even if they have more children. In addition to this, I support offering free birth control.

I was also offended by many of the responses. Society’s problems stem from mothers working outside the home? Are we still in the 1950’s? Staying at home or working outside the home does not determine if someone is a good parent. And it is wrong to assume that a woman who chooses to work outside the home prioritizes money or material things over her children. Funny thing how I don’t see anyone up in arms that working fathers… Also, women are supposed to stop “spreading their legs”? What about the moral obligations of men? It takes two to make a child. Also, abstinence is not a practical solution. The reality is that many people (married or unmarried) have sex without wanting to procreate.

Additionally, single parents can be just as good of parents as two-parent households. And morality is not necessarily linked to adherence to organized religion. Lastly, I agree that the 90% tax bracket idea removes incentives for innovation and hard work.

[Coldjensens]

There is a difference between deciding who gets to reproduce and financially encouraging those who cannot afford children to not have children. If you cannot feed and shelter your children, or you are too tempermental or emotionally unstable (or in many cases if you have substance abuse problems), then it is better not to have children. While I would never advocate taking the choice away from such people, I certainly see nothing wrong with offering free sterilization, or even a financial incentive.

[tjay]

Originally Posted by Brie85

I find many different parts of this thread offensive.

While I understand the frustration with people bringing children into the world they cannot care for, sterilization is a very bad idea. Deciding who is worthy to reproduce is eugenics, and many atrocities have occurred in its name. Reproduction rights are incredibly personal and central to our own liberty. Even when forced sterilization is couched as a “choice,” it is unconscionable. It is clear that holding out money to some of the most desperate people in society is quite coercive. If someone was starving and you told him you would give him an apple but only if he followed your instructions, would you consider his compliance a choice? Even forcing use of temporary birth control is too intrusive upon liberty. These suggestions are also problematic because many birth control methods have medical risks and they may intrude upon one’s freedom to practice a religion that does not believe in birth control.

The post also makes many faulty assumptions. Some people do abuse Welfare but the majority of recipients are not abusing the system. Also, not all impoverished families abuse or neglect their children. Economic status does not equal fitness as a parent. Finally, many people need public assistance temporarily. Just because someone is on public assistance now does not mean that they could not support children later on. Sterilization is permanent, and takes away future options.

What I have heard of, and what I would support, is having a cap on benefits and clearly explaining to recipients that the amount they receive will not increase even if they have more children. In addition to this, I support offering free birth control.

I was also offended by many of the responses. Society’s problems stem from mothers working outside the home? Are we still in the 1950’s? Staying at home or working outside the home does not determine if someone is a good parent. And it is wrong to assume that a woman who chooses to work outside the home prioritizes money or material things over her children. Funny thing how I don’t see anyone up in arms that working fathers… Also, women are supposed to stop “spreading their legs”? What about the moral obligations of men? It takes two to make a child. Also, abstinence is not a practical solution. The reality is that many people (married or unmarried) have sex without wanting to procreate.

Additionally, single parents can be just as good of parents as two-parent households. And morality is not necessarily linked to adherence to organized religion. Lastly, I agree that the 90% tax bracket idea removes incentives for innovation and hard work.

First off, the decision is made by the individual. If somebody would like children, they do not have to be sterilized. If dangling money at the poor like a carrot is immoral, I would choose that anyday over watching babies being abused, neglected and violated. As a baby does not have a choice. Would you choose to not give a baby a choice, or an adult? This idea is for anyone, rich or poor. Plenty of rich that should not be having children either. The plan doesn’t discriminate. I’m also not suggesting taking away public assistance.

I on the otherhand find your 1950’s comment highly offensive.
The way motherhood is treated in this society completely disturbs me. starting with the delivery of the baby, which is not at all valued in our society but made to be feared and treated to the equivalent of cars being put together on an assembly line. Pump the mother full of drugs, get the baby out, send them on their way. 6 weeks maternity leave is standard in this country….are you kidding me? that is a JOKE. Babies need their mothers. The design of the female body is proof. The physical, emotional and mental needs of a baby does not stop at 6 weeks. Try 3 years. The most important years of every human life. Its grown to the point where we can’t tolerate ‘inconvenience’, and children are viewed as such. Having a baby means less freedom, it means not being able to look ‘pretty’ everyday, it means putting someone else first, someone other than yourself. You call a stay at home mother something from the 50’s? like its some sort of insult. Raising a child is a full time job, to pawn that responsibility off on someone else is selfish. I’m not saying a mother could not work part time (as a mother does need some balance in her life), but a baby needs to be with their mother MOST of the time. Even just today my 15 month old demonstrated physical needs that would never have been met at a daycare (she’s teething). To deny children of these needs breeds insecurity, amongst other things. The consistency and love shown by a stay at home mother is so very important and not even seen in this country. I have several friends who ship their children off to daycare 5 days a week for 9-10 hours a day. these children are sleep deprived, not eating well, and guess what? Are already demonstrating behavior problems because they miss mom. they do not get enough attention. For what? The almighty dollar. People have to have their $300,000 dollar homes, their new vehicles every 4 years, their cable tv. Can’t give that up for a human life. God forbid the modern day family actually live by their means. Babies are like little seeds. When you take the time to nurture them, water them and give them sunlight, they bloom. Mom’s are like the sun to babies. yet so many babies do not see their mothers. And in some unfortunate cases, its better they don’t. if you can’t grasp the concept of babies needing their mothers, and needing GOOD mothers at that, then go live in a warzone. Buy a house in one of the drug neighborhoods in Saginaw, mi and let us know how that turns out for you. its easy for you to preach when you’re not living it. both those neighborhoods and the people who live in them affect us all. They can affect entire cities….

Babies need their mothers. If you cannot commit to your baby most of the time for the first 3 years of their lives, don’t have children. Just my opinion.

[Brie85]

I believe you misunderstood my comment. I never said that being a stay-at-home mom was 1950's. I said blaming women who work outside the home for society's problems was 1950's. There is a huge difference. I also never devalued stay-at-home mothers. I said that one's status as a stay-at-home mom or working outside the home mom does not determine whether one is a good parent. There are good working moms, good stay-at-home moms, bad working moms and bad stay-at-home moms.

You are also making assumptions that working moms are selfish, materialistic, and that their children are suffering. Those are huge generalizations. You also assume that your child would not be attended the same if you weren't the care provider. How could you possibly know? I am glad that you are happy with your choices and that are in the position to be able to stay home if you so desire. But it is sad that you have decided that your way is the only correct way to raise children. I know some excellent parents who both work outside the home. Every family is different and they will choose what situation works best for them. There isn't always one "right" way.

I never said that having good parents isn't important. Of course it's important. I truly wish that every child brought into the world had responsible, caring and attentive parents. It is very unfortunate when this doesn't happen. So I really don't understand your warzone or drug neighborhood comments?

[tjay]

i never claimed that a working mother isn't a 'good parent'. i'm saying its in the best interest of the baby to be with his/her mother. plenty of good parents work. but babies need their mothers. you're missing my point.

i'm saying if you choose to have a child, and then choose to leave that child for money, then you are selfish. if you choose to have a child and have no other way to support yourself, maybe you're not selfish but its not in the best interest of the child. i'm sorry, but why have a child if you cannot raise the child? if you can't actually BE WITH the child? what's the point? can you explain that to me please?

and this isn't 'my way'....this was the way nature intended. hence breastmilk, hence the oxytocin that is released during breastfeeding and touch of the mother, hence carrying the fetus in your stomach for 9 months while it gets to know his/her mother's voice, hence the separation anxiety and emotional distress when baby is separated from mother (for both)......again, why are you arguing with science? because modern day society has selfishly convinced us that we can have babies then dump them off for someone else to nurture while we pursue a career?

there are many babies living in war and drug zones because welfare isn't working, because state paid birth control isn't working....if the idea is so awful, then put yourself smack dab in these areas and tell me what should be done.

[Brie85]

I have worked with people from child services. I have seen children in awful situations. I still don't support eugenics.

I am glad that you think that working moms can still be good parents but the things that you said about working moms were all very negative. I can see that you are passionate about mothers staying home, to the point that you view mothers working outside the home as unnatural and feel that those working outside the home maybe shouldn't even have children in the first place. Working parents are still raising their children; working parents still spend time with their children. Deciding to pursue a career outside the home isn't selfish, even if the woman has the option to stay-at-home.

The stay-at-home v. working moms debate can get ugly so quickly. It has made a lot of women feel guilty and inadequate. I wish that women could support one another's decisions, whatever those decisions may be, instead of judging one another so harshly.

[wanderer74]

Honestly I am just shocked and kind of disgusted by this entire thread. You know what my solution is for lowering welfare in Michigan? JOBS. People won't see having more babies as a good option if they can actually get jobs. It's easy to make a mistake and have one child, but once you do, good luck ever trying to get ahead. I'm college educated, have a husband, and more than one child, and I can say that it has been extremely hard to find jobs, period, and even harder to find child care that I can actually afford. I can't imagine having only a high school education (or even less), trying to find a minimum wage job and having a couple of kids already. If I can't find a full-time job and affordable daycare with a bachelor's degree, how can they? I mean seriously, I can understand why having another kid and getting welfare would look like a good option to them. If they went out looking for a job they would probably get 15-20 hours a week working fast food (about $500 a month) which would pay them LESS than they're making on welfare. Nobody could support themselves, let alone a couple of kids, on $500 a month. They could get two fast food jobs and make $1000 a month - which is still being in poverty - but right now there aren't enough fast food jobs to hire them. I work with low-income people in my community and several people have been looking for fast food work for months and can't find it. The people who do have those kinds of jobs are more likely to be working 10 hours a week, which is just enough to get them cut from most of their assistance but is nowhere near enough to live on.

I mean seriously, it's easy to say "just sterilize them" (which is a sickening view in itself) but it's not going to solve the problem. If you cut off welfare, how are people are going to take care of themselves when there are no jobs? I have a bachelor's degree and am working 18 hours a week. Luckily I have a husband but he's not making a whole lot of money either. If those of us who are middle class and educated are barely making enough to support ourselves why do we expect people who have so much less education to be able to do it?

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Brie85

I find many different parts of this thread offensive.

While I understand the frustration with people bringing children into the world they cannot care for, sterilization is a very bad idea. Deciding who is worthy to reproduce is eugenics, and many atrocities have occurred in its name. Reproduction rights are incredibly personal and central to our own liberty. Even when forced sterilization is couched as a “choice,” it is unconscionable. It is clear that holding out money to some of the most desperate people in society is quite coercive. If someone was starving and you told him you would give him an apple but only if he followed your instructions, would you consider his compliance a choice? Even forcing use of temporary birth control is too intrusive upon liberty. These suggestions are also problematic because many birth control methods have medical risks and they may intrude upon one’s freedom to practice a religion that does not believe in birth control.

The post also makes many faulty assumptions. Some people do abuse Welfare but the majority of recipients are not abusing the system. Also, not all impoverished families abuse or neglect their children. Economic status does not equal fitness as a parent. Finally, many people need public assistance temporarily. Just because someone is on public assistance now does not mean that they could not support children later on. Sterilization is permanent, and takes away future options.

What I have heard of, and what I would support, is having a cap on benefits and clearly explaining to recipients that the amount they receive will not increase even if they have more children. In addition to this, I support offering free birth control.

I was also offended by many of the responses. Society’s problems stem from mothers working outside the home? Are we still in the 1950’s? Staying at home or working outside the home does not determine if someone is a good parent. And it is wrong to assume that a woman who chooses to work outside the home prioritizes money or material things over her children. Funny thing how I don’t see anyone up in arms that working fathers… Also, women are supposed to stop “spreading their legs”? What about the moral obligations of men? It takes two to make a child. Also, abstinence is not a practical solution. The reality is that many people (married or unmarried) have sex without wanting to procreate.

Additionally, single parents can be just as good of parents as two-parent households. And morality is not necessarily linked to adherence to organized religion. Lastly, I agree that the 90% tax bracket idea removes incentives for innovation and hard work.

First of all welfare means having children the parents cannot support, cannot feed. They have no business having baby after baby expecting others to support their children and you do them no favor to allow them to go on having children they cannot afford and that make it impossible for them to ever find a job and get off welfare.

The last thing that some woman on welfare needs is more children by more men who have no interest in supporting them.

It's not even close to eugenics, there would be no force, no coercion. Offer a cash incentive for welfare types to be sterilized but if they don't want it, they have the option of getting a job.

It is not liberty to demand that you can be as irresponsible as you please but will have the government confiscate the wages of others to pay for your pleasures.

And no one mentioned morality but you. It only makes sense to help the welfare crowd limit the size of their families, families they cannot afford to have.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by tjay

First off, the decision is made by the individual. If somebody would like children, they do not have to be sterilized. If dangling money at the poor like a carrot is immoral, I would choose that anyday over watching babies being abused, neglected and violated. As a baby does not have a choice. Would you choose to not give a baby a choice, or an adult? This idea is for anyone, rich or poor. Plenty of rich that should not be having children either. The plan doesn’t discriminate. I’m also not suggesting taking away public assistance.

Exactly. That's why a cash incentive to be sterilized would work because no one would force someone to take it, but a drug addict very likely would go for the money, or anyone who cares about $400 or whatever more than they care about having children.

Too many children are neglected, horribly abused and too many are born to drug addicts, often born with drug addictions themselves. The current way is very bad because there are financial incentives for the welfare class to have babies they really cannot care for.

[kcam213]

Originally Posted by tjay

Babies are like little seeds. When you take the time to nurture them, water them and give them sunlight, they bloom. Mom’s are like the sun to babies. yet so many babies do not see their mothers.

Not all women who bear children are "moms". Sometimes, "Grandma" at the day care center (especially the home day care centers) are more attentive than the new breed of Ashley Simpson, Nicole Ritchie type mothers.

(Disclaimer: not knocking either of these new moms.. just using as a reference that not all moms are the PB&J with mom wearing overalls that the you are conjuring up. Some moms are the tanning both, French manicure jet set wannabes)