Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

True, so what are you doing to change that? ;)


If I had my way? Birth control for every person who collects welfare (is there a male shot out yet?). Mandatory sterilization for child abusers and these who sexually abuse children.

No free ride. You receive welfare? You get your butt outta bed every morning, drop your child off at daycare (provided by the state) and go do a service job (garbage pick up?).

So much more. I am sure I would be flamed;)
 
I am pro-choice.

I think it is a personal and private decision and people should have any amount of children they wish, or not.

We should not judge persons as worthy or unworthy to have children by their economical status or lack thereof.

Many people came from underprivileged homes, grew up in poverty, and became respectable people who have added great things to the world.
Who are we to judge?

A woman should have her choice, thats what the Supreme Court says.
 
If I had my way? Birth control for every person who collects welfare (is there a male shot out yet?). Mandatory sterilization for child abusers and these who sexually abuse children.

No free ride. You receive welfare? You get your butt outta bed every morning, drop your child off at daycare (provided by the state) and go do a service job (garbage pick up?).

So much more. I am sure I would be flamed;)

Many assistance recipients already receive free daycare and work minimum wage jobs. The daycare is being paid their weekly rate by the government, sometimes $200-$300 a week for what? So these people can go work for $7.00 an hour? That just doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense does it?
 
If I had my way? Birth control for every person who collects welfare (is there a male shot out yet?). Mandatory sterilization for child abusers and these who sexually abuse children.

No free ride. You receive welfare? You get your butt outta bed every morning, drop your child off at daycare (provided by the state) and go do a service job (garbage pick up?).

So much more. I am sure I would be flamed;)

Again, what are you doing to make the changes that you want? If you want your way, you have to "get your butt outta bed" and make changes. ;)
 

If some woman refers to her child as "the boy" and fails to provide any apparent support emotionally, that is abusive. And abusive parents that scar emotionally are just as depraved as those that scar physically, perhaps more so. Parents that abuse should not have more children, and it is disgusting that they expect others to pay them to do so.

Sharon
 
I have nothing against helping people in need who are doing all they can to help themselves. However, continuing to have children while receiving assistance of any kind is completely irresponsible IMO.

I agree 100% with this statement!
 
If some woman refers to her child as "the boy" and fails to provide any apparent support emotionally, that is abusive. And abusive parents that scar emotionally are just as depraved as those that scar physically, perhaps more so. Parents that abuse should not have more children, and it is disgusting that they expect others to pay them to do so.

Sharon

So if she isn't capable of nurturing, but she ensures that they receive it from another source, she shouldn't have her children. :confused3
 
/
Again, what are you doing to make the changes that you want? If you want your way, you have to "get your butt outta bed" and make changes. ;)


Ah, but I am too busy when I get "my butt outta bed" raising my children in a loving, clean, self sufficient home;) It would have been nice to have more, but I can only afford the ones that I have;)

One day, when I have the time, I will lobby until my face turns blue. But, ya know what--it doesn't help:sad2:

I currently live a few miles from Hazleton, PA. You know...The place that is trying to make people take responsibility for being ILLEGAL. For breaking the law. Thousands, if not MILLIONS of people have supported this town and what they are trying to do.

Shot down. Why? Well, the illegal folks have rights, of course:rolleyes:

So, can you imagine trying to fight people who live here legally and want to practice their right to live off of my taxes? :lmao: While spewing out their babies that they cannot feed or clothe or shelter without MY money:guilty:

Uphill battle.
 
No, if she cannot emotionally care for children, she should not be in a parental role, at all. A child needs maternal or paternal care more than "another source" can provide. If a woman gives birth once and feels no maternal love, it is inconcievable, unless she is totally self-absorbed, that she would have additional children. Having children you do not love is cruel and heartless.
Sharon
 
So if she isn't capable of nurturing, but she ensures that they receive it from another source, she shouldn't have her children. :confused3

How many hours a day does this "source" give love and nurturing? If it isn't 24 hours a day--It is NOT enough:thumbsup2 So, um, no. She should not have her children if she doesn't love and nurture them.
 
Op, I share your frustration. I cannot fathom why anyone in those circumstances continues to have additional children.

At work today, I had a mother of 3 children who is pregnant with her fourth. Her mother has custody of the 3 through Family Court. Before we into the courtroom, I went to speak to the mom about services I could ask the judge to order CPS to provide for her. I specifically wanted to talk to her about the possibility of attending a job skills program while she is pregnant so that she could seek employment following the birth of this child. Not only was she not interested, she was personally offended by my suggestion. She has never held a job and clearly has no desire to do so.

I WANT to penalize her in some way. I WANT her to be held financially accountable for caring for her own children. I resent that my tax dollars are being spent toward caring for the children of someone who is so irresponsible. The Welfare to Work program was supposed to address this very problem. It is not being implemented.

Cutting all of these offenders off from AFDC, food stamps and WIC is not the answer. You and I would find an alternate source to feed our children. We would not allow them to go hungry. Many of these mothers will simply not do that.

Who among us is really prepared to say we should withhold food from hungry children whose own mothers sometimes have less concern for their child's pain than we do?
 
Many people read on the Budget Board (how to feed your family on $10./day) about people receiving WIC for each of their children and they are pregnant again (we are talking 3+ children). In the meantime, readers have discovered the individuals receiving WIC:

a) Sit home and do not work; they will argue that being a SAHM is a job but if you require public assistance, you need to get out in the job market.

b) Have Disney trips planned (if you are receiving a hand-out on the taxpayers dime, the taxpayer is not going to be receptive to your plans of going to WDW during Free Dining nor do we want to suggest the best places for you to eat while we stay at home working and providing for our families)

c) Have $50. to blow on a diet drug

Yeah, I can see why people are heated about it.
 
I feel about this issue the same way I feel about abortion. The government should stay out of it. Choosing to reproduce or not is totally private matter. I want my privacy guaranteed.
 
So if she isn't capable of nurturing, but she ensures that they receive it from another source, she shouldn't have her children.

children are not puppies that you can stick in a cardboard box to take up to the grocery store on a Saturday afternoon

"Free to a Good Home!"

No, she shouldn't have more children if she is not mentally, physically, or financially capable of caring for them. If she wants more, then she should work to get herself to the point where she IS mentally, physically, and financially capable. Then she can spit out as many as she desires. If she doesn't want to nurture her children, then she should just bop on down to the nearest County Health Clinic and get her birth control. I'm ALL ABOUT paying for that.

As for the answers, I don't have them.

BUT when I see people taking unneeded money from other people so that they can use their own money to buy cigarettes and alcohol, or when they post about their WIC food allowance with a Disney Trip counter in the bottom of their signature, I don't respect their decisions very much.
 
No, if she cannot emotionally care for children, she should not be in a parental role, at all. A child needs maternal or paternal care more than "another source" can provide. If a woman gives birth once and feels no maternal love, it is inconcievable, unless she is totally self-absorbed, that having additional children you also would not love is cruel and heartless.
Sharon

How many hours a day does this "source" give love and nurturing? If it isn't 24 hours a day--It is NOT enough:thumbsup2

This thread has gone waaaaaaaay off topic. I apologize OP. Instead of bashing this woman for the choices she's made, I'm in there, week after week, teaching her parenting skills, and doing what I can to make sure these kids get what they need. Again, I see what you guys are saying. I wish you had attempted to see my side. Obviously that's not happening. And this changes nothing. I welcome any and all of you to get more involved, and make changes. Even if I don't agree with the changes you would like to make, we can all agree that what's happening now isn't working. And who knows, I'm not arrogant enough to say that I am right and you are wrong. It's an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. You could very well be absolutely on the money. I don't happen to think you are. But if the changes you would like to see happen were put into place, and there were no more children going hungry or living in gang ridden apartments where they can't go outside to play, I would be the first person here eating crow.
 
just some info. to clarify-

public assistance (as in cash/tanf) does have a lifetime limit for adults-when they hit the end of their 'clock' which keeps track of every time they are/have been on aide they no longer receive assistance. children are exempt from this. there has not been a financial incentive to have additional children while on aide for several years-with only a couple of exceptions (rape or the failure of certain types of medicaly monitored birth control) additional children do not result in an increased grant.

food stamps operate totaly differently-they are not based on familial relationships. strictly income/household size-and they no way come near to providing for an additonal 'mouth' what it costs to feed it (maybe the fs go up $50 per month, but not much more-and less if the household is larger). since rent and household expenses are used in the budgeting process, if a person receives subsidized or free housing their food stamps are greatly reduced.

wic eligibility is based on income, age of the child-and medical necessity. no longer is just meeting the income criteria going to make someone eligible-they have to have a doctor who has said the nutrition supplementation is medicaly necessary.

immigrants-if they are legal citizens, then yes they are eligible to public assistance and food stamps. if they are illegal they are not-only their u.s. born minor children would be aided. and to be honest, the 'undoc's' (welfare term) that my unit handled were probably the most honest and forthcoming about their income. they reported it, they were if an employer was not paying them illegaly under the table paid taxes on it-and often had the fastest rate of getting off aide by virtue of pooling resources and moving up the economic ladder.

'welfare to work' requires that an adult be in an approved and overseen work placement or VERY LIMITED job training program for a flat number of hours per week (used to be 30 but it was edging up when i retired). if the adult fails to do so then their needs are removed from the cash and food stamp grants (so both go down). the county i worked for if paying jobs were not available had recipeints working picking up trash or at the county recycling center.

in the years i administered welfare i saw that more often than not it was'nt an economic choice on a woman's part to become pregnant-it came down to (more often than not) either being remiss about taking birth control seriously or MUCH MORE OFTEN viewing a pregnancy as a means to 'eternaly' link her to the current man in her life. there was some kind of screwy desire on these woman's (and teens) parts to 'prove' themselves to be women by virtue of 'giving' their man a baby-and to be able to refer to a man as 'my babydaddy' (i heard this term years before it was ever said on tv or in the media:sad2: ).
 
I feel about this issue the same way I feel about abortion. The government should stay out of it. Choosing to reproduce or not is totally private matter. I want my privacy guaranteed.

Well, then the government can "stay out of it" with our money too.

Works for me:thumbsup2
 
It isn't a simple problem to solve but instead of addressing the cultural issues that keep people in these situations we would rather complain about it. Just cutting off the assistance won't do it. Those babies will still be born but they will be growing up in deep, deep poverty. I DETEST paying people for making bad choices but if it were as simple as cutting off aid, it would be fixed by now.


I think people in this nation might be surprised how few kids are born into households getting aid once it's clear there isn't any chance of an increase.
 
I don't think people on assistance should continue to have more babies. It is irresponsible. My ex SIL just had her 5th baby. She works about 5 hours a week when she works. She's been on assistance since she had her 1st baby 13 years ago. She gets free housing, in fact, now she'll probably get a 5 bedroom house b/c she has 5 kids. That is, if she wins the custody battle with my brother. She's got 2 kids with him and he's fighting her tooth and nail for them so she may only end up with 3 kids. And does she watch them? Nope. The 13 year old is missing half the time, the poor girl, no one ever knows where she is. My brother has his 2 kids all the time. The 2 babies are left with their dad all the time so Mommy has all the time she wants to sleep and go out partying. It's sickening. She's a known druggie, has committed numerous offenses and my brother's lawyer told him she still has a good chance to get custody of the kids b/c she's a mom and he's only the dad.

How about this? My cousin's wife couldn't get pregnant due to a medical condition. She's on government assistance and her husband is a felon (manslaughter). He is working right now b/c he has to according to his parole officer. They live in my aunt's house for free, totally live off her for everything b/c they "can't afford" things. They couldn't get approved for adoption so we were thinking, "Thank goodness-these people shouldn't reproduce. My aunt inherited a ton of money and paid for them to have invitro. They now have a new born baby and Aunt is willing to pay for invitro again so she can have more grandchildren. My mom was livid and asked "Is it ethical for a doctor to impregnate someone who is on assistance and can't afford to raise a child?" It goes along with the OP's original question. Is it right to do that? I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just taking the question one step further.
 
I feel about this issue the same way I feel about abortion. The government should stay out of it. Choosing to reproduce or not is totally private matter. I want my privacy guaranteed.

How exactly would anybody get help unless they somebody invades their privacy and inventories the situation?
 





New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top