Do poor women have a right to have children

a reply to: SeaWorthy

OK. So what's your solution without controlling peoples lives?

a reply to: Nyiah

hat'll be a jarring crash back to Earth, but they'll need some sweet, sweet Medicaid or Medicare help (depending on their ages) And maybe charity & government help to meet other expenses that can't be met because medical black holes adore wallets and government help alike.

You do realize you have compared choice to circumstance?

I doubt anyone wants aid to people in need dropped and we pay for the programs as an insurance you are speaking of.
those are not welfare.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: SeaWorthy

OK. So what's your solution without controlling peoples lives?

I like that you asked and I think we should all ask.
Many countries have left people to bread until the poor filthy little beggars they produce are simply used, as a tool for various people. Do we want that kind of nation? When do we say, no another child will not equal higher checks that you get angry over if it is a day late on "payday".

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JAGStorm

I can't believe you actually authored this thread, I had no idea you were an advocate for eugenics....yowsers

the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

How does asking People to WAIT to have a child until they can support the child have anything at all to do with this?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

If someone can have a child and not love and care for them the best they can then yes they truly have something wrong with them. Being poor which the OP about has nothing to do with it!

a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't think these people you distain intended to be in this situation as you seem to imply.

Are you saying you don't know or have never seen people have kids willing get pregnant knowing they don't have any money? Even the costs of the births are paid by strangers because you want another staring little one at home?

a reply to: SeaWorthy

The constitution allows people to have more children, and capitalists know this. Keep pumping them out!
It doesn't matter if immigration comes to a full on halt. There will be a push for a working class to make consumer crap and poor people will still be allowed have children. Do you not see that the system of capitalism in the states is nothing more then a modern version of feudalism?

Remember, slavery was within' the constitutional rights, what makes other forms of economic suppression any different? The welfare state is real, very real.

originally posted by: rom12345
Do Rich people have the right to decide who breeds ?

Rich and poor make the laws. Many poor people who planned their kids care too.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: JAGStorm

@Do poor women have a right to have children


Was the mother of JESUS CHRIST rich

You must realize what a silly question that is? Mary married a man with decent income but she also knew god would not let her kid starve.!Lol really!

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: JAGStorm

Most single mothers I know already work. Govt provides free childcare places so they are able to work, at taxpayers' expense. They have paying jobs but still need to claim working benefits and housing subsidies too, at taxpayers' expense.

Here's what I think. If bosses didn't pay themselves and their shareholders so much bonus and instead increase the wages of their low-paid workers, then everyone else wouldn't have to pay for the govt subsidies and benefits.

It's wealthy people's fault there are poor people. Their 'take more than you need' attitude is the problem. The more they take for just themselves, the less there is left for all the rest that also spend their time, energy, and life, contributing to the success.

That is very true, just look at the bailout money that went to CEO's.

The point is no one is talking about Mothers who became single or ran into life circumstances or are working and doing what they can, it is about ones in that position that decide to get pregnant again.

How many or you know someone with a bunch of kids with all different Fathers and on welfare?

a reply to: BiffWellington

Would things have been any different at all if you hadn’t had family to take care of your kids for you? Weren’t you relying on others to do your duty as a parent? Hardly sounds entirely independent.

Very true, but what if she has decided to get pregnant by a boyfriend at that time? or stayed on welfare for the rest of the kids growing years?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: sine.nomine

Most of us don't mind.
We live the golden rule.

You never know when you might be in the same boat.

For some reason people are talking like the OP is saying all poor people should not have kids.

How about they should not purposely have a kid when their other kids are hungry and have no place to live how do you feel about that?

Does the "golden rule" cover assisting people to cause harm?

Do you think everyone should be allowed to let their pets breed without care? What happens then?


Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats). The number of dogs and cats euthanized in U.S. shelters annually has declined from approximately 2.6 million in 2011.

You see the change in that number? That is because people started to care and passed laws.

Well, I think a person should have a Social Credit Score of 90 or above to have a child!

How's that?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Well, I think a person should have a Social Credit Score of 90 or above to have a child!

How's that?

Might not feed a hungry mouth.

Personally I think every female should be restricted to two children, until the global population is more sustainable... regardless of status
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I have thought about this issue before. Should prospective parents have to meet specific minimum standards in order to have children?

You have to pass a test and prove financial responsibility (insurance) to drive a car. If you fail to provide the minimum required insurance or prove to be inadequate as a driver you can be fined or lose the privilege altogether.

Anyone capable of having children can do so with no demonstration of the ability or desire to care for them properly. Yet you can have your children taken away from you if you fail to provide basic necessities or for them.

Why are we proactive on driving a car but reactive on protecting children? Why do we wait until after the children are suffering before we act?

If we treated having children and driving a car the same, we would wait until after a driver had an accident to make sure they had insurance. That doesn't make sense, does it? Of course not. So why do we do it with children?

I hear what you’re saying but how would you go about means testing for the right to have children? I’m sure you appreciate the fact that you can be rich and still be a bad parent and likewise you can be poor and good parent. What children need most is love from there parents and money doesn’t buy that. This means testing is a slippery slope to Eugenics.

Besides we already screen our potential partners and lovers so much so in the west that many are opting for a single childless life.

I agree with you entirely. The 'how' is the tricky part. Sure, its easy enough to set a minimum financial capacity per child based on the cost of living. But of course, as you noted, parenting is much more than just paying the bills. That having been said, if the financial part is the only part we can use as a measure of parental worthiness, should we do it?

I know this falls clearly in the slippery slope category, but there is a small part of me that thinks in some cases it might be worthwhile. The problem is how to enforce the rule once you determine someone is financially unfit to have children. Or when they have reached the limit of how many children they can provide for. Maybe they have two children and are able to care for them properly but three or more will mean making sacrifices the children should not have to endure.

A slippery slope indeed. Unenforceable in real world terms without draconian measures taken. And probably a violation of nearly ever liberty we enjoy as a free nation. And the cost of avoiding this issue is a long line of children living in abject poverty with no end in sight.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Then that burden falls on everyone else. It falls on people that have been responsible their entire lives.

Why is it a burden?

This burden falls on no one , you accept this particular burden, it doesn't fall on you........if you don't want to accept it....then don't.


Carry on with your responsible life, no one is going to judge you.

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: JAGStorm

Then that burden falls on everyone else. It falls on people that have been responsible their entire lives.

Why is it a burden?

This burden falls on no one , you accept this particular burden, it doesn't fall on you........if you don't want to accept it....then don't.


Carry on with your responsible life, no one is going to judge you.

VERY naive to say the burden doesn't fall on everyone else, especially the few people left paying taxes.

health.wusf.usf.edu.../0

Chavez: We have a lot of student bodies high in poverty. The number of students eligible for free lunch has gone up each year since. And the percentage on free and reduced lunch has increased, even accounting for enrollment growth. In 2008, nearly 50 percent of OCPS students were on free or reduced lunch. Now 73 percent of all students in the district are on the program.

This small example is what I'm talking about.. Look at this number 73%%%%%%%%, only 27% of parents can feed their damn kids? People are OK with that??? We are just talking about food, what about clothing, shelter, medical, dental? On and on.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

That is very true, just look at the bailout money that went to CEO's. The point is no one is talking about Mothers who became single or ran into life circumstances or are working and doing what they can, it is about ones in that position that decide to get pregnant again. How many or you know someone with a bunch of kids with all different Fathers and on welfare?

I'm not talking about people down on their luck. Those people are a very small %. Those people rarely want help and when they do get it they get out of it quick.

What I'm talking about are people that have zero desire to work or better themselves. The people that continue to have kid after kid even though there is nothing they can give them. These are the people that are perfectly healthy yet still scream when they are asked to even look for work in order to get welfare. That is not right.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: sine.nomine

Most of us don't mind.
We live the golden rule.

You never know when you might be in the same boat.

For some reason people are talking like the OP is saying all poor people should not have kids.

How about they should not purposely have a kid when their other kids are hungry and have no place to live how do you feel about that?

Does the "golden rule" cover assisting people to cause harm?

Do you think everyone should be allowed to let their pets breed without care? What happens then?


Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats). The number of dogs and cats euthanized in U.S. shelters annually has declined from approximately 2.6 million in 2011.

You see the change in that number? That is because people started to care and passed laws.

I didn't want to use that example, but I too thought of pets. We require more of pet owners than actual humans and that is sad!