Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:54 pm

This guy has instantly become my idol for saying exactly what I've been saying all along.

Oh wait....he's white....and therefore.....racist.  Insane

http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=76872§ion=COMMENTARY&subsection=ORANGE_GROVE&year=2004&month=1&day=22

Irresponsible - and selfish - parents

If you have kids heedlessly, don't demand that society pay for your mistake

By TIBOR MACHAN
Ethics professor at Chapman University and adviser on libertarian issues to Freedom Communications


Coming to America from abroad as a kid and leaving the home of a brutal father, I started off penniless, working as a short-order cook and living at first in what used to be called a ghetto in Cleveland. Slowly I got myself out of this spot, first by working at better jobs, then by enlisting (since the U.S. Army would have conscripted me), and later by going to college at night and eventually full time while working 30 hours a week as a draftsman and at other jobs all through my undergraduate and graduate studies.

I was no less interested in finding the right mate and beginning a family than were most other people, but I clearly had no means for this. Not until I was 40 years old did I finally have the financial base that made it possible to raise a child. This was when I realized that my chosen career had reasonable prospects. I mention all this because I need to contrast how some people embark upon family life with how others do - especially given the complaints aired by many young parents in light of the impending budget cuts in California, cuts that will reduce or completely eliminate certain programs that essentially subsidize parenting for millions of people who shouldn't have embarked on raising children.

After the cuts were announced, some of these parents were, of course, promptly paraded before us on television news. I was privy to such an offering on the San Jose ABC-TV affiliate. The broadcast featured one young mother nearly in tears about the fact that the support she is getting now from the California government could well be reduced. Another held her baby in her arms while complaining about a similar fate. And the reporter was, naturally, intoning with earnest concern - learned, no doubt, from Peter Jennings, who is a master at such body and ordinary language - about how the projected cuts in funding for various programs will harm thousands of children. And Gov. Schwarzenegger was, of course, featured prominently as the bad guy who is insisting on some measure of fiscal responsibility in California on the backs of these unfortunate parents and children.

No one, as you might expect, said anything at all about why at least some of these parents and children are facing possible dire straits. No one said anything about irresponsible parenting. No one aired even a murmur about how many of these parents embarked upon putting children into the world without serious preparation for taking care of them, expecting simply to just dump the kids on the rest of society. These parents have no compunction at all about demanding that government force the rest of us to fund their morally vile conduct.

There are alternatives, of course, including, first, to wait to have kids until one can afford to raise them. In cases where such efforts don't manage to produce sufficient support, the parents could appeal to voluntary charities. Or they could put their children up for adoption, a perfectly honorable option.

But in no case do these parents and their sentimental backers have any moral justification for expecting others in society to be forced to take care of the children the parents alone have brought into the world. The issues here don't involve whether the budget cuts are wise or not. I do know, however, that many of the parents who complain have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, there are some who did everything they could and still ended up needing help. They ought to appeal to us to help them, not enlist the government to coerce us to serve them.

But the others, the irresponsible ones, should admit their irresponsibility and seek help and forgiveness - not demand to be taken care of.



I wonder what the pro-illegal immigration crowd would have to say about this. Because you goddamn know what's going to happen if this "guest worker" plan becomes policy: The same thing that's been happeing all along. These illegals come over here, drop a kid or six on American soil, the kids are citizens by default, and of course, mommy and daddy get to stay with the kids; you can't break up a family and deport the illegals.



 
csavel
Posts: 1407
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:47 am

You make some good points. As in why should society have to pay for an individual's stupid mistake. How being a parent is such an awesome job that you need to take stock and decide if you are mentally and financially ready to do it for two decades.

A counter-argument to that is that the child, who didn't ask to be born, will be screwed because of the idiotic irresponsibility of the parent. A hard nut to crack. The libertarian in me agrees with you - which is why, even though I think seat-belt laws are one small step to totalitarianism, if a person is stupid enough not to wear them and gets in an accident, the ambulance should demand payment up front. The other side of me, says well why should a kid be screwed because mom screwed? What's the answer?

Bring back orphanages?
Take care of the kid but make the adult a ward of the state and have the adult work (not punitively or inhumanely, but just because that is what responsible adults do)?
Decide that we as a community just have to take care of things like this? Just like we would take care of schizophrenics, or quadraplegics?

I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
airways1
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 1999 3:05 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 1:30 am

Solution: Introduce licenses for kids. Prove you can take care of the kid = get a license.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15801
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 1:40 am

Solution: Introduce licenses for kids. Prove you can take care of the kid = get a license.

Which is about as likely as mandatory birth control until age 21....which sounds like a great idea personally...but again, it violates civil liberties.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 1:56 am

Solution: Introduce licenses for kids. Prove you can take care of the kid = get a license.

Say by some lucky fluke of legislation that such a requirement becomes law... imagine sitting back and watching them try to enforce such a requirement.

I dont think there's enough popcorn and 3D glasses in the world for that level of entertainment  Sad
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:15 am

What does the fact that he is white have to do with this, other than your own phobias? The last time I checked white folks, and brown folks, and black folks were all churning out babies at an alarming rate. As a percentage of all folks on welfare, blacks and hispanics are disproportionately represented, but white folk with kids on welfare still make up 40% of all AFDC cases.

The author is leaving out one important issue: while the mothers and fathers who churn out these brats may be a useless, stupid lot, it still leaves a bunch of helpless innocent kids who have no one to turn to. In the absence of providing for them in some minimal way (because many of their parents are too stupid or unskilled to work in a meaningful job), what does he suggest? Nothing.

Its easy to rant, but hard to provide a solution.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:21 am

Easy solution: Drown them at birth.

Kids born to useless parents are typically going to grow up to be useless themselves perpetuating the problem. The orphanage idea is not all bad, gives society someplace to dump the kids they do not want rather than make all of society carry the dead weight they will become.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:28 am

As Jaysit points out, there are issues of concern with this piece, but I certainly concur with the spirit of it. Welfare is not a right or a career. Being a parent is THE highest responsibility one can ever have in my opinion (which is why I do not want to be one). This country's priorities are so out of whack its totally disgusting. For example, there's uproar over gay marriage and abortion and politicians having affairs, yet as the author points out, there's no similar type of uproar over the amount of kids that are carelessly brought into this world. Sad, very sad.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
csavel
Posts: 1407
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:35 am

Startvlave, great solution. Even better is to turn their bodies into Soylent Green and provide famine relief to the world. The wonders of recycling biosolids!
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15778
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:46 am

The last time I checked white folks, and brown folks, and black folks were all churning out babies at an alarming rate.

Not true. Whites in the US (indeed, everywere in the Western world) are not replacing themselves. The average # of babies by white women has been well below the replacement level of 2.1 for decades now. All minority groups in the Western world have higher birth rates than the white majorities. Hence the reproduction rate for whites is indeed alarming......alarmingly low. I suppose I will labelled a racist for saying this of course. Only a racist would say that whites are not reproducing enough.  Insane

I fully agree with the premise that social services etc should not be geared to encourage (or facilitate) out of wedlock births or births to below-poverty level segments of society.







I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:53 am

Easy solution: Drown them at birth.

What a waste! Shame on you.

I have some other solutions to propose.

First, instead of drowning those babies and throw their bodies away, we could use them to feed meat eating animals in public zoos. That would save those hard-working taxpayers even more money each year. And that would probably be a welcome change in the diet of the lions, tigers, bears, etc.

Second, we could use them as live targets for the US soldiers. See it as a desensitizing program for the soldiers, so that when they are sent abroad to invade countries, it would make it easier for them to slaughter more men, women and children. Do you know how many US soldiers have committed suicide or deserted in Iraq? Thousands! And it's a shame! How many soldiers would have been able to perform their job more professionally had they been given the chance to go through such a desensitizing program? Think about it.

Third, we could sell them as slave to China. China would then use them to assemble toys, that would be sold to us at an even cheaper price. But I would also agree to sell them as slave to make Nike shoes or Levi's jeans, I mean, I'm open to any valid and reasonable suggestion. Between civilized people, we can certainly negotiate something.

Fourth, why don't we use these babies as land-mine sniffer. You send them crawling over a field of land-mines and boom! One less land-mine, which make the fields in Afghanistan even safer for the soldiers that are located there. And if we're lucky, the baby will only lose an arm or a leg, so that he/she could explode another land-mine. But I want to manage your expectations here: I don't believe a baby could explode more than two mines.

So, you see, there are many ways we could use those babies born from irresponsible parents. And it's a win-win: the hard-working taxpayers don't have to pay for those babies and these babies are put to good use to save even more money for taxpayers. What a great system! Why didn't I think of it before?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:03 am

Or, they could simply be immediately aborted as soon as the welfare baby-making machines are aware of their 17th pregnancy, and this problem will cease to exist.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
sr117
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 2:00 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:06 am

Oh me oh my, white people aren't reproducing enough, let's start a crusade to save the white race ! No, argumenting that white people don't reproduce enough isn't racist, it's merely pointless, so, what do? give tax breaks to white families to have kids? Differential tax brackets by race? Nope, sillyness !

That said I definitley agree that if you can't afford a child you shouldn't have it, but in practice it seems that things go the other way around, people who can afford them don't have them and people who can't afford them have them. While it's tempting to come out with smarty pants answers like, "send them to adoption" or "let's not encourage births for low income people", to my personal favorite, forced castrations for welfare moms and crack addicts. These also bring out a plethora of unwelcome ethical issues, sure, some of these sound like fast easy solutions for the problem, but are they the right thing to do? absolutley not. In an ideal world, and in fact, the ideal solution for this pickle is education, educated people, wether they be black, brown or white, tend to have less children. Of course, education is not easy, it takes time and money, and a solution that takes time and money is never popular.

Oh and how could I forget, my personal favorite for the overpopulation problem is the china approach, but of course, to implement it you need a mega police state, and that's just not fun at all.

There is no easy answer for this problem, but life would be no fun if it were easy, people wouldn't have things to bitch about !
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:12 am

Some of the sicker comments aside, I think there should be consideration given to obligatory orphanages for those children born to parents who are on Welfare. There are literally millions of people on waiting lists who want to adopt and have the means to take good care of a kid. They often have to wait for years without success.

I would propose that if an unwed mother-to-be is on the dole, she should be offered a choice: 1) the state will pay for an abortion, or 2), if she is still on welfare when the child is born, he will be imediately be placed in an orphanage. If she manages to get off of welfare before the child is adopted, she can have him back, otherwise, it is permenant.

Needless to say, I would discontinue entirely all welfare allowances based on how many kids you have. Companies don't increase your salary because you had another kid, why should the government?

Orphanages would have to be created, of course. Special care would have to be taken in how these are structured, in order not to make the kids (if they are still there at a cognative age) feel like they are the unwanted dregs of society.

In the long term, I think this might help significantly to reduce the ghetto youth population by moving them into families that actually care (adoptive parents are frequently much more loving and caring than normal parents, because they had to go so far out of their way in order to have the priviledge of having a child).

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:37 am

Cfalk,

Of course, I was being ironic. I hope you are too, otherwise, your proposals are, simply put, sicker than mine.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:41 am

I would discontinue entirely all welfare allowances based on how many kids you have. Companies don't increase your salary because you had another kid, why should the government?

What is sick about this?

I think it's spot-on.

I would even take this a step further and say NO welfare......at all.

Period.

 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:53 am

"Whites in the US (indeed, everywere in the Western world) are not replacing themselves."

That is true. But that is not the gist of the article or the response. The representation of whites on AFDC rolls has stayed relatively constant over the past 20 years, with hispanics rising, and blacks falling slightly.

Furthermore, birth rates are directly correlated to income and educational levels. Higher income and education results in fewer kids. Black women with college degrees have the same birthrate as white women with similar educational levels.

"There are literally millions of people on waiting lists who want to adopt and have the means to take good care of a kid. They often have to wait for years without success."

Again, true. Lots of takers for white kids, and Asian babies. Relatively few takers for black kids. Also, foster care systems are notoriously overburdened. Kids are shunted from one foster care family to the next.

"Needless to say, I would discontinue entirely all welfare allowances based on how many kids you have. Companies don't increase your salary because you had another kid, why should the government?"

Again, the financial output is geared to the child, not the welfare mom. Theoretically at least, the state doesnt want a child to suffer the sins of the parent.

I hate to sound a pessimist, but unless we get educational institutions in this country to crack down on how they administer the three Rs, we will forever be saddled with an underclass.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:11 am

Definitely on Matt D's side here. We need some kind of control system, whether it be the licenses, mandatory orphanages, etc. We can't have people having a baby every time they can while they don't have a job. It just overburdens welfare. I think that we should give these types of families an attempt to pull above the poverty line. If you can do it within, say, 2 years, you can keep the kids. If you can't, take the kids away and put them up for permanent adoption. Taking kids at birth may be a good idea as well, perhaps put them in foster care for 2 years with visits by the real parents. If the real parents can't crack the poverty line in 2 years, put the kid(s) up for permanent adoption.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:12 am

I would discontinue entirely all welfare allowances based on how many kids you have. Companies don't increase your salary because you had another kid, why should the government?

But the state lowers the rate of the income tax you have to pay with every child a family has, right? At least it's the way it works here.

Welfare is a very complicated issue, and simplistic, social-Darwinian solutions are bound to fail. A society that doesn't take care of its poor and its needy is doomed.

The number of welfare recipients here, in Quebec, has diminished drastically in recent years. There are numerous factors to explain that phenomenon, including a better economy. But one of the main factor is also a national day care program put in place by the Quebec government. The idea is to take away from parents the excuse that minimum wage revenue minus day care costs equals less than welfare. Now, even at minimum wage, it pays more to work than to be on welfare. So there are now way less people on welfare. And the day care program is universal, which is key to its success.

And kids born in a poor family don't have to be taken away from their parents, which is the sickest idea. That and sending kids crawling over a land-mine field...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:13 am

There are literally millions of people on waiting lists who want to adopt and have the means to take good care of a kid. They often have to wait for years without success.

That's not because of a lack of available adoptee children. It's because there are literally millions of people waiting to adopt a JonBenet Ramsey. How many people with the means to do so are lining up to adopt black kids from broken homes?
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:42 am

How many people with the means to do so are lining up to adopt black kids from broken homes?

If the child is only a baby, I don't see a problem. Now if it's an older kid already with a gangsta attitude, baggy clothes and a baseball cap worn backwards, I can see why no decent people would want him. I wouldn't either, to be honest. I'd be worried that he would run away within a week, taking all the valuables in the house with him, no matter how well we treat him.

It's because there are literally millions of people waiting to adopt a JonBenet Ramsey.

Unfortunately, there is still a fundemental human desire of adoptive parents that the kid should at least look kinda like them, although I think that's dying down. It will take more time before it disappears completely (but I think it will).

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:26 am

there should be consideration given to obligatory orphanages for those children born to parents who are on Welfare.

Huh? Welcome to modern life. We've moved beyond orphanages, thank God, and we're even moving beyond the foster system. These days the response to child dependency is something called family preservation -- an attempt to improve family functioning by helping families with daily living and problem- solving skills. This ultimately keeps everyone together. It's been proven that this approach is not only healthier for the children, but it actually decreases the cost of child protective services. This is a rare social policy that appeals to both liberals and conservatives. Liberals favor family preservation because it emphasizes a belief in someone's capacity to change and their desire to do so; conservatives like it because it shortens the time gov't is involved in their lives, it focuses on family values, it's viewed as potentially more cost-effective, etc.

Don't even think of removing kids from their parents because they're impoverished. Sick.

As far as doing away with welfare, I don't know what some of you are smoking. I agree with Qb001 -- if we don't care of our needy we're in trouble. All of us are *this* close to being welfare recipients as well.
A friend of mine, who at one time opposed welfare, sustained a traumatic brain injury in a ski accident. Thanks to U.S. welfare policy he can live with his wife and kids and avoid institutionalization.
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:31 am

Forgot to add that I think we should strive, though, to find better ways to help people become less dependent on welfare, and that's why policies like Welfare to Work and the family preservation model are important. I think things are gradually getting better for everyone involved. AnsettAW
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:55 am

This is all crap. How do you know ahead of time you may not be able to "afford" children? And why wait until you are 50 to determine if you are financially stable enough?

Having children is a natural biological function. It is really demeaning to turn it into distill it into its financial or political impact.

Perhaps its the state's fault it mishandles social welfare or even education. Obviously there are circumstances when people shouldn't be encouraged to have children, but it should never be legislated. Nor should there be talk about "replenishing" a race. Diversity is important in preserving the human race.

I wonder how many people here actually have children...and how many are committed to not having them and just consider them nuciances? If this is the case, don't bother getting up on the soap box....
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:00 pm

That is why I bought a snowblower two years ago.

I was tired of shoveling the driveway and figured that it would be cheaper then having kids.


I stand by my decision  Big thumbs up
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:21 pm

Is paying people to crank out babies really taking care of our poor/needy? Shouldn't we be doing something to get them out of the pockets of those of us who bother to work? If we give these people a fish we feed them for a day. If we teach them to fish we could feed them for life. We already offer zillions in incentives to go to college for the underprivileged, sure they have to finish high school first but we also offer programs to do that. All it takes is a little motivation but why bother going to school when you can sit in front of your big screen, make babies all day and watch Springer? Think about the choice these people have: Fuck all day and get paid for doing nothing, or hard work in school or at a real job. Its a pretty clear which option is the path of least resistance so that is what many people take.

Welfare needs to be less of a vacation. In order to get benefits they should be required to have some sort of job rather than discouraged from it. No matter what the unemployment figures McDonalds is always hiring. Welfare recipients benefits should be decreased the more babies they crank out but the further they advance in a career, college or trade school they should be rewarded with more money, until they go out and get a real job and can start paying back what they were paid. The problem as I see it is welfare has this unconscious negative reinforcement program set up so that we pay people for increasing their drain on the system.

Some say orphanages were bad. Are they any worse than the current situation of 15 year old gangstas making babies who become gangstas and have more babies at age 15? With the current situation people are having babies that do not want the kid, do not or cannot care for the kid and this leads to the problem snowballing. Also on the medical side of things people that do not care they are pregnant do not stop drinking, smoking, using drugs during the pregnancy and they do not seek any form of pre-natal care so on top of the system being loaded down with a welfare baby the system often times gets blessed with a medical disaster that could have been averted.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:54 pm

Exactly what's needed; a 20 years old who understands everything about poverty and has the solution to fix it. And the solution is summed up in 3 paragraphs.

If that does not impress you, then nothing will.

To say I'm impressed is an understatement. Startvalve really deserves a Nobel prize for his contribution to the science of getting poors out of poverty.

Wow...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
b747ca
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2001 9:30 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:43 am

Couldn't agree with you more.......
ma va funk ulo
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:43 am

IMO this underscores the fact that until personal responsibility becomes the cornerstone of our country, nothing (no amount of government spending, no amount of regulations, no amount of attention, nothing) will ever serve as anything more than a band aid to these sorts of problems.

As a 14 year old, you can't legally smoke, drink, drive, vote, hold elected office, go to an R rated movie or buy certain video games at Wal-Mart. You can however be a parent.

The day my wife gave birth to our daughter, 5 other mothers gave birth at our hospital. We were the only married parents there. You can say what you want about what role the government has in establishing "family values" and all the other stuff the right wants to support, but answer me this question, jumping forward 30 years from now, is it more likely that those other 4 kids will be supporting my daughter or that my daughter's taxes will be supporting those kids?

I completely support the notion that people should be free to pursue the type of lifestyle they want --> however, that choice shouldn't come at my expense.

Having a child is the hardest thing I've ever done in my life and the most rewarding. I can't imagine how a teen aged parent can handle it. I can't imagine how single parent families handle it.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:59 am

FYI I am 23 and I don't see you offering any insights.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:19 am

I don't see you offering any insights

At 23 you should know how to read better cause in reply #18 I explained a real-life experience that is taking place here and that is working very well.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:27 am

You can talk of band-aids covering up problems but it's good to know that there are actually real people on the front lines who are working to offer real solutions to problems, not making huge generalizations about welfare recipients being 15-yr old gangstas, as our award-winning startvalve did. (Startvalve, stick to your comedic posts and not your "real" ones.) If only it were as easy as "go out and get a job and be responsible!" It doesn't work. Some individuals born into a cycle of poverty do NOT have the job skills, social skills, etc., to maintain gainful employment. Who's going to train them? Thankfully there are social workers, employment specialists, etc. who are willing to be paid next to nothing, while others sit in the comfort of an office, home, or plane, griping about their own privileged lives.
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:02 am

At 23 I have better things to do than read the ENTIRE thread every time I come in to post
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:08 am

This is all crap. How do you know ahead of time you may not be able to "afford" children? And why wait until you are 50 to determine if you are financially stable enough?

Having children is a natural biological function. It is really demeaning to turn it into distill it into its financial or political impact.


And one doesn't need to be "rich" to have kids...but I see an awful lot of "parents" who put the party first and the kids second. You try to give them birth control, but it's "too inconvenient" to stop by a clinic and get a free pack or condoms or birth control pills, so rather than abstain for a weekend, they go ahead and take the risk of getting pregnant. But having a toddler around also interferes with the party time, so the poor kids are at best, dumped off with a grandparent, or often times, put to bed early and the parents go party. For folks like that (and they come in every color of the rainbow), the welfare checks only go to support the party...not the kid. The really sad part is that those kids will most likely grow up to be just like "mom" and "dad", only by the time that they have their kids, "mom" and "dad" won't want anything to do with the grandbaby.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15778
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:47 am

Having children is a natural biological function.

Maybe for salamanders, bees and goats. Humans however have the intelligent & ability to control their reproduction.

Having sex is a natural biological function...having children is a financial decision (or should be).

Obviously there are circumstances when people shouldn't be encouraged to have children, but it should never be legislated.

I agree. However, welfare benefits for unwed mothers "encourages" more unwed births.

I completely support the notion that people should be free to pursue the type of lifestyle they want --> however, that choice shouldn't come at my expense.

I agree completely.....if you have kids, you should cover the cost.







I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:45 am

I find it alarming that I read in local papers around the country interviews with high school kids who say "oh, I can't wait to have a baby! they're so precious!" it's not a toy....

I do not see why I must forfeit some of my hard-earned money just to fund the latest toy (which is what a baby is for many of them) for some young, poor parents who are too stupid to use a condom...

I'm sorry, but I'm bright enough to use controls to prevent a pregnancy from occurring, and do not see why it should be my problem that others dont....
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:12 am

Flygirlhels,

I read you 5/5. You don't like to pay taxes, and you don't like to see your money going to the poors.

But then what? A baby is born: should we let him/her die, because their parents are on welfare? What do you suggest we should do?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:13 am

It's going to be your problem, Flygirlhels. One way or another, it's going to be all of our problem.

Startvalve, as long as we're making up characters instead of talking about real people, What happens when the out-of-work single mother, herself raised by an out-of-work single mother, like all her friends, gets that job at McDonalds, then faces the dilemma of the government money that provides food for her kid gets cut because she has a minimum-wage job? Oh, by the way, has anyone ever tried to pay for an apartment, health care, food, clothing, and transportation on minimum wage? Hardly a vacation.

I don't like the idea of welfare and the possibility of its abuse any more than the next guy, but until there's an infrastructure in place to break the poverty cycle (which we'll pay for), we'll be paying for the babies of unwed mothers.

"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:16 am

I suggested that there should be dillema could be fixed by offering incentives to work rather than offering incentives to fuck in front of the TV all day.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:15 am

there should be more education that this type of thing is unacceptable, rather than embracing it and encouraging it.... high schools with daycares and the like....
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:28 am

I'm sorry, but I'm bright enough to use controls to prevent a pregnancy from occurring

"Bright" enought to use controls like, what, an abortion.....(?)
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:34 am

It doesn't take a genius to swallow a pill every day. I suppose even AA61hvy has figured out how a condom works, they are really not complicated pieces of equipment.

If you or your girlfriend are in fact too dumb for either of those methods there is the birth control patch, the shot and I think the implants are still done. If the guy is really too stupid to put a condom on maybe he should consider getting his nuts snipped, thats a pretty effective means of birth control. There is also always abstinence but teaching that to high schoolers is about as effective as trying to herd cats.

Yes all these methods have drawbacks but if one is not idiot proof enough for you there is one for people even dumber. Honestly abortions should not be nearly as necessary as they are. Somehow we still get unwanted kids though... Think maybe there are some rewards in the US for being stupid?
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:36 am

I suggested that there should be dillema could be fixed by offering incentives to work rather than offering incentives to fuck in front of the TV all day.

Well, duh, that's what welfare reform IS, Startvalve. Not a novel concept.
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:42 am

Startvalve

It doesn't take a genius to swallow a pill every day.

Oh wise one, where do they get the money to pay for the
perscription?
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:47 am

It is actually not all that expensive. Planned parenthood can hook you up with generic orth tri cyclen for about $10 a month. Go to a real doctor and its about $25..... if you are determined to have sex its a small price to pay..

I think the shots are even cheaper but the side effects are worse
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:52 am

"Bright" enought to use controls like, what, an abortion.....(?)

Bright enough to use simple controls like the birth control pill, condoms, etc.... I am not opposed to abortion though, but would only do so as a last resort...
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:10 am

Startvalve

It doesn't take a genius to swallow a pill every day.

Oh wise one, where do they get the money to pay for the
perscription?


I work in public health. They don't have to have money to get the prescription. Most states or counties will GIVE them the pills or condoms. Hell, we even GIVE them Depo shots. It don't get any less expensive than free. But sometimes it's "inconvenient" to stop by the local health department for a box of trojans. We had one woman who wanted her birth control pills refilled and DEMANDED that someone be there on Saturday for her. I told the person handling the call that she should have told her to abstain for sex for the weekend, or maybe just stick to a blowjob for him.

The problem is...no matter how much you try to GIVE them something that can help them to avoid pregnancy, in an awful lot of cases, they find it too much to ask for them to come by an office to pick up the birth control. And yes... a lot of those folks feel that they are "entitled" to everything we give them. It pisses me off to no end to watch people drive up in newer cars with all the latest bling bling on them, yakking on their cell phone and wearing their official NFL Starter jackets come in for FREE MEDICAL CARE...and bitch because they have to wait an hour. And the person waiting on them has to pay their insurance, pay a copay at the doctors office, and STILL wait an hour. When I see crap like that, I just want to tell them the only thing we're willing to do for free is tie their tubes or give them a vasectomy so that they can't breed.
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:17 am

there should be more education that this type of thing is unacceptable, rather than embracing it and encouraging it.... high schools with daycares and the like....

I fully agree with you. In other words, we must accept to invest money so that we break the poverty cycle. But this takes years, even generations, to break.

I don't suggest we give up and cut a check to all welfare recipients blindly. In fact, I simply suggest we don't give up...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
Guest

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:18 am

It pisses me off to no end to watch people drive up in newer cars with all the latest bling bling on them, yakking on their cell phone and wearing their official NFL Starter jackets come in for FREE MEDICAL CARE...

and they go home to enjoy frozen pizza cooked in a new convection oven while watching satellite TV in their leather la-z-boy....
 
AnsettAW
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 am

RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them

Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:11 pm

Goingboeing: My point is that if they're getting services, then someone has to pay for it. Condoms don't grow on trees. You might want to reconsider the public health thing.

Flygirlhels: When your life consists of more than "oh my gawd, I love to dance dance dance with my girlfriends!" then maybe your opinions will be taken seriously.

All I've attempted to say is that strides are being made to reduce dependency in the U.S. -- do you think I actually want to support a segment of the pop. who are fully taking advantage of the system? -- and policies are currently being studied and implemented. But it's not as easy as "I dunno why I have use all my hard eerned monie to pay for peeple to be a babie facotry!" It's a complicated issue that will only get worse when ignorance gets in the way.
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alfa164, B777LRF, FGITD, Francoflier, Tiredofhumanity, VMCA787 and 73 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos