Look, I consider myself to be a liberal on most issues, and I have a lot of compassion for the needy people (and animals) of the world.
But doesn't it bother you when you see people who are destitute cranking out one baby after another and letting the babies and children suffer and die and then blame everyone else for not taking care of their kids?
Where do you draw the line?
(P.S. I don't have kids and this was a conscious moral choice on my part.)
2007-02-05 15:44:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I understand your question. I do think people should consider if they can afford a baby & completely care for it. Having large families into poverty does seem irresponsible. Like you, I realize it is their choice to make but education on the cost & care of babies with easy birth control access could have millions of children not only from hunger & cold but also the life of crime that is more common in poverty. (no I do not think the poor are all the evils of life but it has been proven they are more likely to go to prison than middle class Americans). Everyone has a right to children but rewarding a woman by giving her a "pay raise" for having yet another baby she can not afford is not a solution to children's poverty.
2007-02-05 15:57:33 · answer #1 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I don't think they should. It is not just about the money it is worse when they don't parent them. Don't teach them right from wrong or give them the love and attention they need. It would scare me to death to know I had kids I could not afford to feed and get medical help for. That is what I cannot wrap my brain around even if they are getting help from parents or the government do they not think one day they might stop helping me so maybe I better not have the third or forth child. I draw the line here if you have one child and someone other than you or your spouse is helping in any way take care of that child don't have another.
2007-02-06 00:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by puzzled 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't have kids for the same reason. And no, I don't think they should be having children that they can't afford to take care of. I think it all boils down to responsibility. And I also think the answer directly above mine is TOTALLY ridiculous. I don't think pregnant teens are the majority of the problem here. When I worked at the welfare department, most of the unwed Moms were over 21 and had more than one child. Totally irresponsible.
Surprised by your viewpoint, since most Democrats argue this with me to the death...on the other hand, as a Republican, I am also pro-choice. Go figure??
2007-02-05 23:49:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, not if they want the best for them. The children often suffer when born into poverty. No health insurance is a big factor right now. I want kids, but would'nt be able to support them the way i'd like to, so I'll wait till (if) I can. But that's my choice and sadly alot of people don't look at it that way. I think people don't worry about getting pregnant, because they know they can allways fall back on wellfare. And that's sad, What kind of life is that for your kids? Too many people have too many kids, which they cannot support, and then get mad because they cannot afford healthcare and noone will help them...
2007-02-06 00:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by mistalina 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have 4 kids because that is as many as we could afford to give the life we want to give them.
We pay for ALL their expenses (except FUN money after they turn 18) until they graduate college...and then some.
I am sick of all the Moms cranking out 10 kids with 10 different dads and expecting society to cover the cost. You know she isn't feeding them or clothing them. She is home having sex with random men and making MORE babies. I think there should be a limit if you can't afford them.
2007-02-06 00:00:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why would you say " I consider myself to be a liberal on most issues." Do liberals think that having children they cant afford to take care of a good idea. I do not think so.
2007-02-06 18:55:33 · answer #6 · answered by gaahgasjhagshjkgahksjaghjks 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, of course nobody condones child abuse or death.
But everything today has gone of the way of "My body, my rights". You go and try to strip a liberal woman of her right to choose.
You can't legislate a body's natural function.
/I'd wear some protection first, if I was you
//a cup and a helmet come to mind
2007-02-05 23:51:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can't draw a line, and most Democrats think the answer is
A: welfare
B: abortion
C: somebody else worry about it, they are too busy doing whatever they think is more important... It's a mess and
a dismal cycle of failure because consequences are removed
from the equation.
2007-02-05 23:52:40 · answer #8 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There should be mandatory sterilization for all fathers with children on welfare, after 2. Same with mothers with children on welfare. Most of us cannot afford more than that, why should we keep paying for them to have more?
2007-02-06 00:23:25 · answer #9 · answered by Shrink 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Well maybe everyone should be sterilized at birth and then when they DECIDE they want to have a child they can apply for approval to have the sterilization reversed!
They need to apply for approval like when you buy a house or a car!
A preset criteria for proving you are parent material!
2007-02-05 23:56:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋