Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because some people will NEVER be "rich enough for children," even those who work hard - including parents who are fighting for our country, most of whom qualify for WIC and/or food stamps. Should these folks never be allowed to procreate, and if so, what would happen to our population?
Just because you want something doesn't mean you should be able to get it at everyone elses expense and consider it to be an OK thing to do. I am for safety nets, but not for people planning their lives with the idea in mind of living on handouts. You don't have to be rich to have children and support them yourselves. Most of the poor families I know don't have one or two they have 5 or 6 kids. Where do you draw the line?
The problem with Aero is, he seems to think if you cut off funding that poor people will all of sudden stop having kids. Its not like obama will announce the end of WIC today and in two years there won't be any poor people with kids under the age of 5. We agree that poor people shouldnt have kids they can't afford, but we understand and accept that there will alaways be unplanned pregnancies by poor people and we want to make sure kids are able to eat. We all are going to pay taxes, so we'd rather our tax dollars go to programs that helps kids who either have crappy parents or parents who fell into an unforunante circumstance. Aero also seems to think everybody on WIC wants to be poor and have the government take care of them. That is simply not the case. I refuse to believe all 9 million people on WIC enjoy being poor.
Ok, if this is your perception of my thoughts, then riddle me this.
Tell me why you think that cutting off funding won't reduce the number of poor people who have children?
When the spigot is turned off, tell me why you don't think that this will have a positive effect on those who normally think in the back of their minds that the government will be there to subsidize their bad decisions?
If the money/benefits are not there, why would you think that most would keep making bad decisions?
If you're going to twist and contort my assertion, i'd prefer that you be able to back them up.
Until we have a way of forcing sterilzation/BC on those under the poverty line, then I'll support WIC.
It's not the children's fault their parents are poor, and they shouldn't have to suffer as a result of it.
But the kids DO suffer, even with programs like WIC. Government sponsored assistance isn't a substitute for a decent family life. The problems kids have from single parent families are well known. They tend to not do as well in school, are more likely to end up in jail, and to become single parents themselves who repeat the cycle. This is not rhetoric from right wing nut jobs. Centrist and left leaning folks are (finally) starting to admit the same thing:
.....modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children. Some researchers identify out-of-wedlock births as the chief cause for the increasing stratification and inequality of American life, the first step that casts children into an ever more rigid caste system. Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.
good try though. I gave up on posting facts and evidence as they were immediately called "false" by the OP with zero explanation on why they were....
You provided 2 links and all of sudden your the Fact Queen? LOL
I dismissed your entire post because from the outset....the very first sentences of your rant......were fallacies and I told you WHY they were fallacies.. So why should I give credence to the rest of your post? I shouldn't and I didn't.
You don't get your way that easy on my threads. Come forth and bring it, or take your ball and go home.
Check out the Bible Belt, were abstinence only programs are often the only form of sex education some kids have.
It's also very, very hard for people to get the Pill b/c that requires a trip to the doctor, something many people can't afford. Of course, they could go to Planned Parenthood, but many conservatives would like to see these places shut down b/c they call them "abortion mills" even though most people go there for BC, family planning help, and exams (and of course, you have a few crazies that will bomb a PP. Not sure I'd want to go to PP is there's a risk of violence or if I have to go through a gauntlet of people calling me a "baby killer" even if I'm just there to get the Pill).
Oh, and let's not forget all these "personhood" bills trying to be passed by the looniest of the conservatives that WOULD make contraceptives illegal.
Limit people's access to proper, all encompassing sex education, limit their access to affordable, easy to acquire birth control, limit their access to the Morning After pill in case something goes wrong, limit their access to abortion, limit their access to government aid that exist to help pregnant women and their children get the best nutrition possible, and watch the horrific results build up.
Just because some conservatives don't like planned parenthood, doesn't mean anything. Planned parenthood exists and it is there to give people access to birth control. So what about what some extreme people think. There will always be people like that, but I don't think that there is any real threat of these kinds of services being taken away. The point is, it is available and the people that should use it don't.
Ok, if this is your perception of my thoughts, then riddle me this.
Tell me why you think that cutting off funding won't reduce the number of poor people who have children?
When the spigot is turned off, tell me why you don't think that this will have a positive effect on those who normally think in the back of their minds that the government will be there to subsidize their bad decisions?
If the money/benefits are not there, why would you think that most would keep making bad decisions?
If you're going to twist and contort my assertion, i'd prefer that you be able to back them up.
We teach teenagers everyday about the dangers of having sex and yet we still have teen pregnancies. We have the death penalty and yet people are killed every day. There are people who try to protect themselves with condoms, birth control, tubes tied, vasectomy, and yet pregnancies still happen. Its called human nature. People are not going to stop having sex because WIC has been eliminated. Also, sh*t happens, like a recession, and all of sudden, a two-income family becomes a 1 or no-income family. We create laws everyday in this country to prevent people from making bad decisions and yet people continue to make bad decisions. This is the real world, not La-la land like you seem to be living in.
I would think the majority didn't PLAN on getting pregnant when they were so impoverished. So are you really saying that poor people shouldn't have sex? And if so, is your advice simply an admonishment that most people will ignore, or are you advocating for a way to stop poor people from having sex?
I can't speak for Aero, but if they don't have any birth control than I think they shouldn't have sex. It really is that simple. And if you are too poor or not smart enough to take a walk to the store and buy a condom, then you absolutely shouldn't have kids.
We teach teenagers everyday about the dangers of having sex and yet we still have teen pregnancies. We have the death penalty and yet people are killed every day. There are people who try to protect themselves with condoms, birth control, tubes tied, vasectomy, and yet pregnancies still happen. Its called human nature. People are not going to stop having sex because WIC has been eliminated. Also, sh*t happens, like a recession, and all of sudden, a two-income family becomes a 1 or no-income family. We create laws everyday in this country to prevent people from making bad decisions and yet people continue to make bad decisions. This is the real world, not La-la land like you seem to be living in.
So, using your theory, we could realistically get rid of sex ed because teen pregnancies still happen....we could get rid of the death penalty since crimes still happen....we could get rid of all laws that try to prevent bad decisions because bad decisions still happen.
We could do away with everything that deals with human nature because its going to happen anyway.
Right?
So why do we need WIC? Why not let these people live and die on their own bad decisions? Bad decisions are going to happen anyway, right?
So why throw money at it? If nothing will stop these bad decisions....whether it be personal responsibility or WIC....why do we need to have government involved at all?
My mother worked as an RN and my step father in construction, yet still had to have WIC to afford food for me and my brother. We lived in a house owned by my step father's parents, so the rent was low. But I guess they're irresponsible because they can't get higher paying jobs?
I think it all depends on what their house hold expenses are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
