Can someone explain this to me?

Question

I've asked several questions this morning about what happens to impoverished children in this country. The only answer I've gotten is, "Their mother is a whore who can't take personal responsibility."

Who is thinking about the children? Anyone?

And if the answer is, "no one," then what right do pro-lifers think they have to tell me I have to give birth to a child if they're not willing to continue to take responsibility for the child once it's born?

And Japhson, yes, I know, you think I'm a whore with eighty children, even though I've never gotten pregnant in my life. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you've made that clear and actually have you, I don't know, ANSWER a question instead of deflecting it.

WHO TAKES CARE OF THE CHILDREN WHO DO NOT GET ADOPTED?

And how does the attitude that these children should be taken away by the government and put up for adoption fit into the conservative desire for "smaller government"?

matt S: Because people like you want to force women to give birth to children they don't want, that's why. If it's your business before it's born, it's your responsibility afterward. You can't have it both ways.

Pfo: GOOD POINT. So that means the choice of whether or not to give birth is MINE, and not YOURS. Thank you for making my point.

For those who talk about welfare... in most states, women cannot get welfare benefits for any child born after she is on welfare. Nice try.

mystery me: Ah, yes, the old "you don't understand how cute and cuddly babies are because you've never been pregnant" argument. Because I've never seen a baby, right? Somehow I've managed to get through more than thirty years of life with NO exposure to babies, and that's why I couldn't possibly understand.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

The beliefs of a Republican are rife with hypocrisy. They don't really care what happens to that baby as long as it isnt aborted. Of course there is a good chance that baby will grow up to sell drugs in the ghetto because it has a single mother who works three jobs just to survive. These people cry for "smaller government" yet endorse the Patriot Act.

Answer 2

You keep getting that answer because what you're looking for is a way to fix a problem without fixing the problem. If more people would take the future-child's life into consideration, instead of going ahead and acting like it's just a growth as the result of sex, then we wouldn't have such an issue.

You want to put a band-aid on the dam instead of fixing the crack.

So let's assume that we come up with this Utopian solution (because in all honesty, I don't know what kind of an answer you're looking for) where all children who are born are guaranteed food, shelter and health if they're not kept by their parents....ok, so now what? You think that the trend is just going to stagnate at the current numbers? More and more people will feel that their irresponsibility has been validated by the government, and they'll continue to bring unwanted life into this world.

How would you feel if you were told that you were not someone's planned child. You weren't 9 months of anticipation, 9 months of careful planning, 9 months as a part of a woman who loved you enough without meeting you to go through with labor, all so that they can raise you and give you the best life possible? How would you feel if you were told that you were just the result of some guy and girl meeting in a bar, having gross, drunken, sloppy stranger sex and that the mother and father never intended on keeping you? How would you feel knowing that the most influence you had on your "parents'" life was some drunk joe-schmoe going...."I didn't wear a condom....maybe I should try and avoid this girl, just in case".

Honestly....this isn't a black and white issue in terms of what's the right answer and what's wrong. Are there a lot of "unwanted" children out there? Yes. But is ignoring the reason for all of these "unwanted" children EVER going to fix the problem, or at least contribute to the solution?

And as far as the smaller government comment....you have no idea what you;re talking about. That's apples and oranges. Putting children up for adoption doesn't eqaute to thousands more goverment employees, a lessening of civil liberties and the avoidance of an overly policed state. In fact, that question just made me feel stupid for bothering to answer you.

Answer 3

I will give it a shot not having read the previous posts. The government was not created to provide a safety net for anyone. I know this is contrary to what people think, but there is nothing in the original founding fathers documentation to support this idea.

Having said that – a little history: prior to the 20th century the church (that bastion that people love to hate) had the responsibility for taking care of those unwanted or even unloved whatever the age. Most sanitariums and foster homes in local communities were run by various religious organizations.

Skipping forward to today – the church has been run out of the business for the most part in favor of the government because some people felt an obligation to the church and that is “bad”. The government now runs or I should say attempts to manage a program for unwanted and unloved children in a secular setting under the foster home series of local programs. As is the case with most of the things the government does – it is done poorly at best. Some of this mandate is little more than paying someone to “care” about the child.

I submit that the government should not be involved and it should revert back to the local level (churches, families, and local groups).

Not sure this is everything you wanted, but without the prior posts, this is the best I can do with your current question.

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein

Answer 4

As our socialized government digresses to aid "the needy" you might take note that while "Aiding" it is actually enabling by removing personal responsibility and accountability from the equation. Why work to support yourself when the government will pay you to sit at home? Why try and gain privilege through work when you can do little more than demand it while sitting at home doing nothing?
I've been thinking for some time now, about what to do. It all falls back to parenting and the education system. Both appear to be greatly flawed. My wife's ex-husband's wife (got that?) is a classic example. Raised poorly herself, she got pregnant when she was 16 and gave her baby over to her alcoholic mother who then took said baby to the local watering hole. She taught the child to dance on the tables. Child ended up in juvenile (?sp) and ultimately in jail. Young mother and daughter at one point were ordered into conselling. When they tried to address her poor parenting skills, she insisted that she's not the problem and refused to continue. She's had three more children and all are turning out just as messed up as the first.
Our education system produces only two products, those that are college bound and those that are not. The latter, come away with no marketable skill that will allow them to support themselves. Our tax dollars are not being well spent.
Abortion? How about instead, we men become REAL men and start owning up to our responsibility. We all love "getting some," but where are we when it's time to pay for our actions? If she's not someone we can see ourselves spending the rest of our lives with, then why take the chance of getting her pregnant? Abortion is a lousy answer for personal responsibility and an even worse answer for birth control.
Who takes care of the unwanted children? My wife and I. Of course, this means that the parties responsible are not held accountable AND, my life long dreams will never be acheived, but what the h_ll? Someone has to step up. And for the record, I am a conservative, a republican, and I probably make less money than you AND I get nothing from the government for this. What have you done?

Answer 5

The state takes care of the children that do not get adopted. They are shuffled from foster home to foster home, and when they become a troubled teenager due to the lack of consistency and stability in their lives they are put in a group home until they age out of the system. At the age of 18 they are given a small amount of money, a pat on the shoulder and a good luck.

Those who try to sell adoption as a solution are completely naive. Unless you are a healthy white infant adoption probably isn't in the cards for you. It sounds harsh, however it is the reality of the situation.

Those who are adamantly pro life are also going to be the same people who are trying to limit adoptive rights by stating that a man or woman who happens to be gay should also have no right to raise a child. They would prefer a child grow up in the uncertainty an instability of the children's aid system than in a stable same sex home.

The children's aid system is a necessity, however it is under funded an over worked. It should only be used as a temporary safe place for children in need. Family services was not designed to raise children and does not have the resources to do it effectively. However as long as we continue to try to put restriction on the reproductive rights of others it is going to be put in that position, the only people who will suffer are the children.

Answer 6

Now it all makes sense. You have never been pregnant. Once you understand that a little baby has the right to live it will make sense to you. And to answer the question again, we take care of the children. WELFARE MEDICAID FOOD STAMPS FREE LUNCH AT SCHOOL TAX BREAKS. What more can we possibly do to take care of these kids whose parents refuse to take responsibility for their own actions???


You said it yourself you have never been pregnant. You can pretend all you want that because you have seen or held babies in your life that you have an understanding of what it is like to be a parent, but you are just wrong. I am not saying that it is a good/bad thing, I am just saying, once you have had the experience of being a parent, the world becomes a very different place. I am still pro-choice, I just think it is horrid practice.

Answer 7

In this country, children who do not get adopted are placed in foster care until they are 18. This can be individual families who take the children in, or group homes, depending on the needs of the child.
Your question regarding smaller government is one I don't quite understand. If you are asking why children are taken away from parents who are addicts or who abuse them, to be put up for adoption, this is better for the children than living in an addictive and abusive environment. Although not all adoptive or foster care families are necessarily safe.

Answer 8

As Mother Teresa said, "Give me the child"

Your conclusions about huge numbers of people based on your cherry picking the few expected abusive answers here reflect rather poor judgment.

Answer 9

WHO TAKES CARE OF THE CHILDREN WHO DO NOT GET ADOPTED?
These children end up in the DHS, all "swell" program.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/2616673/detail.html

Answer 10

It is the parents responsibility it is their child, tell me why I should do something.
This again comes down to if you do not want a child/ afford to care for one why are you putting your self in that situation?
If you cannot face the consequences dont have sex.