If A Family Requires WIC Assistance, Then They Shouldn't Have Children. Period. (wage, Reagan)

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by James420

Hell I'm a democrat and I agree with AeroGuyDC. People shouldn't keep having kids while on WIC, foodstamps or welfare. The problem is try stopping it.

KEEP having, no... but what about the single mother with one child, who was married at the time of her child's birth, but later divorced or widowed and is now facing hard times? Should her child be left to starve, just because some people are irresponsible? Or what about the family who used to be financially secure, but both parents lost their jobs in the recession? Those are more typical stories, and having lived/worked in low-income neighborhoods myself, I can tell you the "Imma keep having babies to get welfare" types are much less common.

[bobtn]

It might be better to set up neighborhood locations where the children ONLY are served 3 meals per day. 1 or 2 can be done at school, 1 at supper.

But the adults should have to work in return for their meals if they wish to be on the dole long-term.

[buzzards27]

Good luck with all that, but I don't think you can take basic rights away or criminalize procreation because you don't think they're entitled to have kids. China does it and I think they kill girl babies.

I local judge tried to order a father not to procreate because he wasn't paying child support for the kids he had, he was quickly overruled.

[Emeraldmaiden]

Originally Posted by James420

Hell I'm a democrat and I agree with AeroGuyDC. People shouldn't keep having kids while on WIC, foodstamps or welfare. The problem is try stopping it.

Actually, James, if you reread the OP, you will see that Aero thinks people shouldn't have children at all if they might need assistance once it arrives. Not even one child, but they should not have an abortion if they can't afford the kid, even in the case of birth control failure. I'm not exactly sure what his solution is, since he's pretty much against everything. <shrug> Perhaps he will enlighten us with his considered opinion.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by natalayjones

How can you talk about the WIC program without talking about children? Are you saying we should hold children responsible for their parents actions?

Personal Irresponsibility on the part of the parents has nothing to do with the children.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Personal Irresponsibility on the part of the parents has nothing to do with the children.

Which is why we should keep WIC alive.

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

In 2011, approximately 8.9 MILLION families received WIC assistance.

WIC is intended to help pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age 5.

The following foods are available to assisted families:


Frequently Asked Questions

Common sense and personal responsibility dictates that you do NOT have children when you can't afford the most basic necessities, such as food. We're not talking hi-tech nurseries, the lastest stroller, or name-brand diapers. We're talking FOOD!!

Someone, anyone tell me: How can 8.9 million people (men and women) be so amazingly irresponsible to bring children in the world and then have to immediately get in line for FOOD assistance??!

Abortion is not the answer either, for the obtuse who might spew pro-abortion tripe. We're talking about NOT creating the child in the first place.

This is the height of Personal Irresponsibility in America. And it's disgusting!

NEWS FLASH: Not every woman on the planet can breastfeed and not every human on the planet is as lucky as you are and has all the money in the world at their fingertips.

There are things in life that happen like, divorce, death, job loss, illness; I guess you would not know this because I'm sure your silver platter has never hit the ground because your servant that I'm sure makes minimum wage and cannot "afford" children never drops it.

What is disgusting is that humans like you actually exist, your parents should be slapped for their "Personal Irresponsibility" in allowing you to be born.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

I'm saying that we shouldn't make the children suffer because of their parent's income.

YOu can spin that however you want, but that's literally all I'm saying.

This is not about children. This about holding American's accountable for their personal irresponsibility. What is your opinion of 9 million American's being so irresponsible that they'd bring children into the world without being able to afford the basic necessities? Any opinion on that?

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden

Actually, James, if you reread the OP, you will see that Aero thinks people shouldn't have children at all if they might need assistance once it arrives. Not even one child, but they should not have an abortion if they can't afford the kid, even in the case of birth control failure. I'm not exactly sure what his solution is, since he's pretty much against everything. <shrug> Perhaps he will enlighten us with his considered opinion.

I'm for personal responsibility on the front end........which is the topic of the thread.

[nat_at772]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Personal Irresponsibility on the part of the parents has nothing to do with the children.

But the children are the ones who benefit from the program....not the irresponsible parent.