I am VERY pro-life, and I have no problem with the idea of welfare, but you have to remember:
We give mothers a bigger check every time they have a baby. This leads them to having more and more babies, therefore getting larger checks.
Many people just "don't want" a job. These should not get a dime from the government. Welfare is designed for those who CAN'T GET a job.
Also, your question makes it sound like society is to blame for the mother's mistakes. How could she not have access to birth control? All she has to do is walk to the corner gas station? And if this IS the case, why do single mothers often have more than one child? Wouldn't they learn the problems of motherhood after one child?
2006-12-20 08:48:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
I hate hippies is an idiot. The government gives people more money when they have more babies, that's true, but it is barely enough to cover the cost of those babies, they're not going to live the good life for having 12 babies. Almost nobody chooses to live off the government and doesn't want a job to earn their own way... when they are earning their own way, they get a feeling that they might be able to improve their situation, even if for many that's not true. Living off the government means your life is going nowhere.. nobody CHOOSES to live like this. And by the way, single mothers should be given enough money to raise their children without having to work, at least until they reach school age, because it is more important that they have a mother than that this woman contributes to some corporation and puts her child in day care that she can't afford. Grow up. These programs are around to keep people from starving, and they represent little of our expenses, and we were paying just as much into welfare when we had a budget surplus as we do now with a budget deficit.
2006-12-20 17:03:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Aleksandr 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Mothers do receive more aid when they have a child but all parents do. When a person who has a job has a child they get a an additional tax exemptions that equal what a woman on welfare receives. So I have to ask the people who have children and work, does the tax savings received cover the expense of caring for a child? I believe if we are not going to support a woman who chooses to have a child but is on welfare then we need to be fair and do the same for women who are not on welfare. If a women that has a job and has a child we should raise her taxes to pay for the cost of schooling the child, she should not receive any tax exemptions for children, we need to stop giving her children money for college, there should be no in state tuition as it is tax dollars paying for the reaming tuition costs and it is the wealthy that attend college in greater numbers.
All people get money for having children not just the poor. If you do not want to give to the poor I do not want to give to children because I did not choose to have one so why should I pay? I say we should do what they do in many other countries and put the children to work instead of paying to put them into school.
This is what a person sounds like when they harm a poor child for being born without any choice. If we pay for the child when the child is a child we will not have to pay for the adult when they end up being a burden on society in prison.
2006-12-20 17:03:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by in2320 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
First and foremost, while I don't like the idea of abortions, the choice should be up to the expectant mother. Making abortion illegal would only put women with unwanted pregnancies at the mercy of back alley abortion clinics, or cause unwanted tax increases to support these children.
However, everyone has access to the most effective form of birth control, and it is FREE. It is called abstinence. If you can not afford conventional methods, you will not be able to support the ensuing child, abstain from sex until you can afford alternative birth control methods.
As for sex education, if parents can not handle that, they should be held accountable for that lack of action to the tune of supporting the child that they, through their lack of initiative, are partially responsible for the conception of.
Finally, I am not anti welfare, but I believe it should be administered with great prudence. My mother was a "single mom" due to divorce, but raised my brother and I with no government support, despite her earning little more than minimum wage. That just goes to show that a motivated individual can support their family without welfare.
2006-12-20 17:18:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ron H 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Whoa, sister! You have some serious anger issues here. Take a few deep breaths, please.
Who turns on her? Welfare, as it was intended, is a very good program. I have absolutely NO problem giving someone a hand UP. But a hand OUT? No damned way. Who FORCES these women to become pregnant? If they weren't raped, they were an active participant in the process and therefore, need to deal with the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with it.
My problem isn't with welfare at all. My problem is with heifers who pop out kids like puppies just to avoid getting off their lazy asses and getting a job like the rest of us. Look - I have enough health problems that several of my friends just can't understand why I don't go on disability. Why don't I? Because it's BULLSHIT. I am perfectly capable of holding a job and taking care of myself. I wouldn't WANT to rely on the government to take care of me. Short-term, maybe...but long-term?? I have more pride than that.
2006-12-20 17:41:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jadis 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Good point. Many Pro-Lifers are really just Anti-Poor people, Anti-Minorities, Anti-Women and Anti-anyone who is not a rich white male.
Abortion bans and restrictions hurt poor people, minorities and women alot more than anyone else and, more importantly, they make it much more difficult for those classes of people to "catch-up" in society to the rich white male. It is a way for him to remain in power.
The Abstinence thing. COME ON. Can we give up on that delusion. Have you seen television or movies or music video's now-a-days? It's just not realistic. KIDS HAVE SEX...that's what they do. It's not gonna change. Any money put into abstinence programs is as much of a waste as any money put into the Iraq war. Give it up.
Gaia Princess. Wake-Up. I can flip through the Bible and get any message I want out of there. I can find you a quote somewhere that means that a Goat will one day rule the earth. Lets look at your little qoute (the undisputed proof that God is Anti-Abortion). "if you cause a woman to lose her fetus, you should pay a fine determined by a judge" WOW. Sounds to me like God was the first Personal Injury attorney. Yeah,if someone kicked my pregnant wife in the stomach causing a miscarriage, I would file a suit and seek monetary compensation as well. If God believed the fetus to be a person then wouldn't this be a murder? Back in those days, I'm pretty sure the sentencing guidelines were alot harsher than a "fine" for murder. I'm sure you were put to death for committing murder as well.
2006-12-20 16:54:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by orzoff 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Thats an excellent point but most people will not agree with you. They will argue that there are programs in place from many charities or churches that will aid in that young pregnant girl so that she doesn't end up in a life of poverty.
Truth is, young mothers don't want a hand out, they want a hand up (yes its corny, but its true). The best kind of birth control is abstinence (even though I never abided by it). I think the best way to curb teenage pregnancy is to show the end results of what can happen and the life it can lead to.
2006-12-20 16:51:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Fries 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
I am pro-life but against welfare. To start, people should not have sex before marriage. If you do and you get pregnant you should stay with your family or friends and get them to help you out a bit. If you are alone go to your church and they will offer you help. What I don't get is why hardworking people should have their tax money given to a system that promotes having children out of wedlock.
2006-12-20 22:44:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by caballero5792 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
There's a difference between not wanting someone to be aborted and not wanting someone to be getting hand outs from the govt.
Unfortunately, too many people abuse the system and see "welfare recipient' as their career. People may be more receptive of those truly needing assistance if it wasn't for the many that are free loading off the rest of us.
2006-12-20 16:55:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by glibby3 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Hypocracy strikes once again. Talk is cheap - supporting the young mothers you persauded into keeping their child is FAR more expensive. You might even have to pay a whole CENT more each time the tax man comes a-calling, and we can't have that can we? It's strange that most people who are pro-choice also support more welfare for poorer people isn't it?
2006-12-20 16:50:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mordent 7
·
2⤊
2⤋