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.
I think the point needs to be made that no one is objecting to large families on a smaller income. People during the depression had large families. The difference was they took responsibility for them. They also didn't feel the need to provide more than food, clothing, some kind of shelter, and if they were decent parents , love. It is the parents who now want everyone else to pay for their children, while also wanting to give their children the goodies that people who have made wise financial decisions cannot afford to give their own children.
If the trends among middle and higher-class 20-30 year olds continue, in 10 or 15 years you'll be grateful that at least someone is still having children.
The birth rate among wealthy young people is declining at a rapid rate - not just here, but in pretty much every highly developed nation. IMO I think that decline is going to continue growing, even if the economy continues to recover. There's growing support for the "child-free" couples movement, and a growing population of people in their late 20's to mid 30's who still have no desire to stop partying/settle down/"grow up", as you might say.
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,768,812 times
Reputation: 2610
It is very irresponsible for the parents to do so.
No matter what; bringing children to financially precarious life setting is irresponsible. Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of people with limited financial resource have babies. But they are being responsible parents raising the child/ren so that they can get out off their current living conditions and strive. I RESPECT those parents.
Now based on your story, the parents have that leech mentality. I do not trust them to raise ANY KIDS - I am sure that their parental skills are questionable.
And finally, I am a gay man. Me and my partner, as taxpayers, might not have the same federal privilege / benefits if we move to certain states in this country related to our marriage status. So why should I even help this welfare parents to "claim their rights" if we could not claim ours if we were say in Texas or Alabama?
Since 2008, birth rates have slowed because many people became conscious of the costs. One of the biggest problems I see is when ever you have the larger families like my fathers. He only had 5 sibilings. Compare that to the Romneys, Octomom (is she even a thing still?) and the 21 & Counting size families and even that seems small. The point is through medical breakthroughs, death rates have dropped and life expectancy is increasing. Before you hoped for kids so that you could hedge your bet if one died after birth, now you don't have to.
How you can get the Octomom and the Romneys in the same thought is a mystery to me......
There is a lot of overlap between the group that is completely pro life/anti abortion, and the group that says hard and fast, it is wrong to have kids if you need assistance. But you KNOW that despite people's efforts, women are going to conceive.
99% birth control success amongst millions of poor women still means hundreds of accidental babies.
So what then? It is "wrong" to abort the baby, but it is "wrong" to have it if she can't care for it herself. Where is the give and take? This is real life. What should she do?
These scenarios are where I start to sympthize with the leftist claims that right leaners "hate poor people." Well, we don't. We want everything doing the very best that they can, and know that many aren't. But with a large population, there will always be thousands who DID do the right things, and are still in a bad situation.
Can you honestly just ignore that?
And yet another perspective:
It doesn't "take a village" to raise a child, it takes a family.
People of lesser means can do an admirable job of raising children if they have a good support structure around them to help.
Namely a mother and a father to start with as well as willing and able grandparents, aunts, uncles etc can help provide for kids without the need for government assistance.
My grandparents raised 5 kids this way during the Great Depression.
So then what do we do, forced adoption, forced abortion or forced sterilization? And where would it end? I hate to bring the slippery slope in but at what point do we stop?
As for the original question. It's not morally wrong, it's irresponsibility. I honestly don't know where to go because we do off birth control but it seems like the poor don't use it. I could be wrong.
I don't believe in forced adoption or sterilization all but I think we should use finacal disincentives.
For starters stop giving deductions for every child if you are on any type of public assistance.
The problem is the healthiest prime years for a woman to have offspring are also the years spent in college and career development. There was a time where the woman could stay home with the child instead of dumping it into daycare while the father worked. But no more.
a lot of religious people believe they should have as many kids as God allows, and somehow God will cover them. . .by these people's religion they are being very morale by having kids. If the society chooses to support them that is basically a reflection in their God's will.
That would be a "morale" person.
One day while driving I was scanning stations when I came on a black Christian channel and he was talking about a family (dad, mother, kids) who couldn't pay their heating bill. And the dad was praying about it. Then out of the blue a friend came to the door and gave him enough to pay it.
I couldn't believe how this reverend was teaching that someone would come along and pay for it. This is nothing like what we were taught in church.
Lots of people I know have lots of children but make very little money. When I asked them why they had so many children when neither the mother or father made much money, they basically told me that money and income should not be a consideration when deciding how large your family is. They say children are a gift from God and if the children are born everyone should welcome them to the world and society will help support them. They believe that even though they are poor financially they have just as much right to bring lots of babies into the world as someone who is rich.
If you are parents would you agree that society (taxpayers) have a obligation to help bring up your children because our country needs a younger generation from all kinds of people (rich and poor)? Would your financial situation impact your decision to have a larger family? In other words, should only rich parents be able to have a very large family?
(* The other side would say that it is wrong to have babies if they know the taxpayer is going to support them)
I stopped reading right there at the red part.
Let God provide the food, clothing and the education while the rest of us wash our hands of these azzhats!
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.
to me but
