90 teens pregnant got me thinking

[ozarkmom]

On the front page of our local paper is a young couple that have the first baby in our county for the New Year. It's a big deal lots of stuff from local merchants. This couple is young I know the man he's 24 I don't know the exact age of his girlfriend/fiancee but she appears to be close to his age. In the picture there are four children. There's a nine year old that shares the same last name as the mother. Then a newborn, an 11 month old and a two year old that all have the father's last name. Oh and he has a little boy that's about six or seven with another mother. This bothers me and before you tell me it's none of my business I'll tell you why it bothers me. He doesn't have a very high paying job. She doesn't work and has all these kids. The hospital that was listed in the article is one of two local hospitals that accepts pregnant mothers on medicaid have babies. So guess what taxpayers are paying for these two to just keep reproducing. Along with the cost of the birth there's wic and probably foodstamps and she may even be living in low rent or a hud housing. I don't know the answer but this type of crap drives me nuts! We are paying for this. In this case this young woman had a child very young as did the young man and now they just keep on reproducing.

 

[Mermaid02]

On the front page of our local paper is a young couple that have the first baby in our county for the New Year. It's a big deal lots of stuff from local merchants. This couple is young I know the man he's 24 I don't know the exact age of his girlfriend/fiancee but she appears to be close to his age. In the picture there are four children. There's a nine year old that shares the same last name as the mother. Then a newborn, an 11 month old and a two year old that all have the father's last name. Oh and he has a little boy that's about six or seven with another mother. This bothers me and before you tell me it's none of my business I'll tell you why it bothers me. He doesn't have a very high paying job. She doesn't work and has all these kids. The hospital that was listed in the article is one of two local hospitals that accepts pregnant mothers on medicaid have babies. So guess what taxpayers are paying for these two to just keep reproducing. Along with the cost of the birth there's wic and probably foodstamps and she may even be living in low rent or a hud housing. I don't know the answer but this type of crap drives me nuts! We are paying for this. In this case this young woman had a child very young as did the young man and now they just keep on reproducing.

It drives most working folks nuts. But alas, there is nothing to do about it. The kids didn't ask to be here and now that they are, they need to be taken care of. Just hope they break the cycle.

 

[sbell111]

Even non-affluent people are allowed to have babies. News at 11.

How do you know that the father doesn't have a good job? I get that he might not have a high-paying job, but people raise families on modest incomes all the time. To suggest that people not raise a family if the father isn't a high wage earner is not a road we should travel down, in my opinion.

 

[SandrA9810]

It happens all the time... And chringes your stomach when its blasted in your face.

 

[Mermaid02]

Even non-affluent people are allowed to have babies. News at 11.

I know what the OP means. I was an only child and wanted a big family. We have 2 kids because realistically, we couldn't afford to have more. It's called being responsible for yourself.

 

[sbell111]

I know what the OP means. I was an only child and wanted a big family. We have 2 kids because realistically, we couldn't afford to have more. It's called being responsible for yourself.

There are many problems with the OP's position. The biggest one is that the OP is extrapolating from a family picture in a newspaper and the name of a hospital that this family is a huge drag on the economy. Another is that none of us ought to be the arbiter of how many children someone else can afford to raise.

 

[princesspiglet]

There are many problems with the OP's position. The biggest one is that the OP is extrapolating from a family picture in a newspaper and the name of a hospital that this family is a huge drag on the economy. Another is that none of us ought to be the arbiter of how many children someone else can afford to raise.

The problem is the bolded part above. If you are living in HUD housing, collect welfare and food stamps, then you do not have the money to raise a single child, let alone 6!

We, the taxpayers, are paying these people to raise their children. So yes, in that sense, we should most definitely have the right to tell someone how many children they can afford!

This irks me to no end. I have one child because that is what I can realistically afford to have and still give her a good life.

I despise people on welfare who keep popping out kids and I am not afraid to say it. I think they are trash.

 

[ozarkmom]

Even non-affluent people are allowed to have babies. News at 11.

How do you know that the father doesn't have a good job? I get that he might not have a high-paying job, but people raise families on modest incomes all the time. To suggest that people not raise a family if the father isn't a high wage earner is not a road we should travel down, in my opinion.

I know these people. I know where he works (fast food). Yes my husband and I have raised our children on a modest income. My point is that many people have discovered that you can have a baby for free. Then you can get food stamps and low rent housing. I see alot of it. My husband and I have to work for what we have. Then we have to work for other people to get all of this. These two didn't just each make a mistake in high school and try to do better. They've met up with each other and apparently have decided to have a baby a year!

 

[ozarkmom]

Okay for those of you who think I jumped to conclusions. I know the people in the picture. My daughter was friends with the father at one time and they still share some friends. He works at a fast food restaurant and no he's not a manager. The mother of his first child still talks to my daughter so I know her situation also. The new mom who is about 24 and has 4 children does not have a job. It's not rocket science. Have all the children you want but don't ask everyone else to foot the bill!!

 

[wdwmom0f3]

This is just one reason that we NEED a Welfare Reform Act. People get into the system and don't even try to get themselves out. I see it a lot in the area that I live in. It's really sad.

 

[bigbabyblues]

This is pretty common where I live. It's a cycle that needs to be broken, but some don't want to break it and some don't know how to get out of it if they wanted to. These kids grow up in this life and it's all they know.

 

[VAfamily1998]

So what's the solution? Mandatory sterilization for everyone under a certain income bracket?

 

[SandrA9810]

Some one once said to me, low income people like that (the high school drop out, never trying to move up in a job), they're just not smart enough to come up with better things to do with their time, so they go to the bedroom.
Smart people, do productive things with their time, even in the home. And are also smart enough to realize they can't afford to have more children.

It's all too easy when living on welfare to "increase your income" by popping one more out.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

It will not change until the money is gone. Our society will continue to get more of whatever behavior we subsidize. If we pay out more money for each child then we are encouraging that behavior. If we pay more money to a single parent then we get more single parents. Change how the money is paid out and it will change the behavior.

I am not saying we should not help the children but we can look at the unintended consequences and change the rules.

 

[Magpie]

Some one once said to me, low income people like that (the high school drop out, never trying to move up in a job), they're just not smart enough to come up with better things to do with their time, so they go to the bedroom.
Smart people, do productive things with their time, even in the home. And are also smart enough to realize they can't afford to have more children.

It's all too easy when living on welfare to "increase your income" by popping one more out.

Or, some people are smart enough to look around at their options in life, and realize that raising kids on welfare is the best choice out there.

When your schooling is substandard, when all you're looking forward to in life is a minimum wage job in the service industry, when all your "options" look like bad ones... Having a kid seems like a pretty good deal compared to all that. It's fun, and it's comparatively profitable. And young people are always optimistic that their kids will do better than they did. It's one more chance to get it right - which is really attractive when all of your life has been "wrong".

I wouldn't necessarily judge someone's intelligence by the number of children they have or their economic circumstances. Plenty of very stupid people have had the good fortune to be born into wealth. And plenty of very smart people find themselves stuck in impossible circumstances.

Did you know that gifted kids make up a disproportionate number of high school dropouts? So many smart kids were dropping out in my school district that they labeled "giftedness" as a special need and marked those kids as "at risk".

I'd recommend watching the "Up" series of documentaries from the UK for a very clear illustration of how class and wealth and even mental illness can affect a child's chances in life. Intelligence ultimately had relatively little to do with their successes and failures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

Some one once said to me, low income people like that (the high school drop out, never trying to move up in a job), they're just not smart enough to come up with better things to do with their time, so they go to the bedroom.
Smart people, do productive things with their time, even in the home. And are also smart enough to realize they can't afford to have more children.

It's all too easy when living on welfare to "increase your income" by popping one more out.

Yes, because we all know it's just the poor people who enjoy a good bonk.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

Yes, because we all know it's just the poor people who enjoy a good bonk.

I am gathering that smart people just don't have sex because they can come up with "better" things to do? I am wondering what those better things are that us middle class folks are supposed to be taking part in.

 

[dislaney]

At least he has a job!

 

[jacksonsmom]

I know what the OP is talking about.

I have a cousin who just had her 2nd kid, first one was by a different father. That has nothing to do with his child.
She doesn't have a job, she goes to school just so she can get grant money, her boyfriend (father of the 2nd baby) works a modest job (nothing wrong with that), but lives with my cousin and I am sure she isn't letting welfare know about that.

Now she got evicted out of their apartment and they are living in a hotel AGAIN!!!! They have lived in hotels before because of being evicted (not paying rent, etc), she has destroyed her credit, her mom's credit (that is totally different story) and NOW she recently said she wants another baby!!!

I mean why don't you take care of the ones you have first before bringing anymore into this world!

Yes, I would love another child but I only have one child because that is what we can afford and still give him what we want (sports lessons) or take him places we want (vacations)

I think welfare should be cut off when you are on it and you have a 2nd child!

 

[Magpie]

It will not change until the money is gone. Our society will continue to get more of whatever behavior we subsidize. If we pay out more money for each child then we are encouraging that behavior. If we pay more money to a single parent then we get more single parents. Change how the money is paid out and it will change the behavior.

I am not saying we should not help the children but we can look at the unintended consequences and change the rules.

The problem is, we're not willing to pay the consequences of removing the money. No one wants to see roaming gangs of parentless, unwanted children, such as they have in countries without social safety nets. No one wants our citizens living in the garbage dumps, picking through the trash to survive. No one wants to see the skyrocketing levels of disease and crime that would result from the elimination of welfare.

And you know what? Even with all that, people would keep on having children. The only thing that's ever stopped people from having children has been wealth, security, and a high level of education.

If privation worked to make people stop having kids, countries like Niger would have the lowest birthrate, not the highest.

Alternatively, we could always model our society after a country like China, where only one child per family is allowed. Or, if we're not as egalitarian about it as China was, we could always target our efforts specifically at poor people. We could force them onto birth control and penalize them for having children and put them in work camps. But that would still mean giving up the freedoms we cherish and giving the state a great deal of power over citizen's lives.

It's a difficult problem, but other than improving schools, making sure kids are well nourished, and giving people opportunities for meaningful employment and continuing education... I'm not sure what we can do. I think the solutions are likely to be worse than the problem!