Is it unethical to have children if you are poor?

Question

I was just pondering this. We as a country seem to look down on teen pregnancy and nearly force them to drop out of high school and go on welfare. But I've notice that even if a woman is 20-40 years of age and on welfare (married or not) some people think that woman shouldn't have kids. And I've heard of people complaining about the "big" families who are poor and/or have to cut corners, etc. So is it now unethical for a poor (not working class) person to have even one child? Why or why not?

True oreo, but I'm speaking about people who are already in those situations (either permanently or temporarily) but in the midst of it have a child or two. I know everyone is against poor people having as many children as they want or a child at all. But I guess due to some abuses of the welfare systems done by some unwed mothers; the idea of a young, poor mother (married or not) is given a bad rep. I mean most women grow up wanting children but what if that woman wants a child but finds herself on gov't assistance for much of her life?

Answer 1

Not unethical but a poor choice. There are alot of questions or pleas on this site for help. Many of them say something on the order that, " I have 3 kids and another on the way, I need help". I can speak from personal experience with a relative. Kids by 3 different men, married to none and all are gone now.

Once, an accident, 2 and 3 times, a bad habit. Of course there is no child support and work is kinda spotty since this person also has a disability "Du Jour".

The next generation is now established as well as more handouts from Uncle Sam. You can get FREE birth control. Have kids when you are ready. Not because it makes you feel important or needed or viable.

Answer 2

I don't really think its a question of ethics, but of entitlement. For each child you have, your welfare check goes up. Thats so you can support the additional child, but for someone who is uneducated and lives paycheck to paycheck this seems like a great idea. Plus, if you are a single mother, the gov't is basically paying you to take care of your kids. This is good because if used honestly, the kids at least have a chance to be cared for properly.

The other part of welfare I take issue with is that poor people don't understand that it is everyone else's tax dollars that support welfare programs. If someone loaned you money to start a business, would it be unethical to use that money for cigarettes, booze, and other material things that have nothing to do with the business?

Answer 3

I don't know! Is it unethical for these rich and working class people to have kids?? It doesn't make a bit of difference if you're rich or poor, why have kids at all? Maybe they should start a community where the head of the community decides for you who can and can't have kids! Read some of these questions, fool! For instance, I met this guy a week ago, I think he likes me, should I let him go down on me? I've been sleeping around and have unprotected sex, do you think I'm pregnant! Every day this junk is on here, where are these kids parents? Or there Is I love a married man, his wife doesn't sleep with him but I do, He doesn't want to marry me , but his wife doesn't understand him. Damn girls come to earth for awhile. In any of this crap where do you find blame with anyone trying to force these kids into quitting school and going on welfare??There are many programs out there to keep them in schools, and thousands of good people waiting to adopt, but if they adopt their kids out, they'll lose their welfare, so they have more kids to keep the money coning in!! No way are they prepared to raise these kids even the rich, but they have them anyway!

Answer 4

I have visited many countries around the world where the misery Index is pretty high. Children don't have to be rich but they do require a minimal standard of living to have a strong sense of self worth. I think it is a natural right to have A (1) child but I lack empathy for people who have multiple children when they can't give them a standard of living median to their nation. Further, NGOs that perpetuate the aid safety net to people in poor countries that bring life into this world knowing they have no access to food or other basic sustenance is the wrong approach. They should be aiding those people with contraception and not aid in bringing more life into a miserable existence. Such a backwards approach to solving a problem.

Answer 5

I don't believe it is unethical for a struggling family to have children. They have the right the same as anyone else.
People also often use the welfare system when they need it and once they are on their feet they get off of it.
Sometimes children give people a reason to work harder to get off the system, or to do better. I am not saying this is always the case, but sometimes it is.
I just don't believe anyone has the right to say whether another can have kids or not.

Answer 6

Thats the republican way, anybody who cannot find a job is a lazy piece of garbage and does not deserve to live. Now as for the Spanish thing, I will actually defend Newt because whenever I drive through center city or the ghetto, whatever you want to call it, all I hear is spanish. I cannot stand it. And yes I am a liberal. I do not hate the people, just the language. Then again I get annoyed when anybody is speaking a language I do not understand.

Answer 7

There are already rules in place to discourage too many children in poor families. Government handouts to the poor are limited to maximum amounts per family.

I personally think it's none of our business how many children someone else has. If we don't want to give them welfare per child, that's fine, and that's how it already works. But that's a rule, not an inquisition.

Making it our business to know how many children people have is like making it our business to know how many calories they consume or how many weeds they have in their back yard or whether their car has leather seats. None of those are anybody's business, just private details of private lives.

Answer 8

It is a mark of good ethics and values to have only the children you know you can support. If this means cutting corners, fine. No one needs to have even half of what the media tells us we should expect as a right simply because we exist. If one can support one's children by economizing, that's great. Kids don't truly need their own rooms, own TV, computer, iPod, video game systmes, etc.

If one has children he or she knows he or she won't be able to support, that's different. Having children -- especially when you know you can't fully support them -- and then insisting the government or other agencies assist you in supporting them is nothing short of irresponsible.

Answer 9

The problem is, you can be financially stable, have a couple of kids, and then a catastrophe strikes. It doesn't take long to be wiped out, and find yourself in need of government assistance just to survive. I've seen it happen. So you never know what your future will be.

Answer 10

From my humanist perspective, it is the poverty itself that is unethical, not the fact that women living in poverty are reproducing.

But to answer your question directly, I think it is unethical when a woman who cannot support her first child has a second, or third or more children. We must overcome the mindset that human services will provide for repeated poor decision-making. Poverty is *not* an excuse for irresponsible behavior, although irresponsible behavior does lead to poverty in many cases.