If a woman takes fertility drugs to have children, should she ever be allowed to go on welfare if she has 6 or 7 kids? Consider the facts that the known side effect of fertility drugs are multiple births. If a woman becomes pregnant with that many children the chances of the kids being born with birth defects goes up significantly, leading to huge medical bills, and developmental problems. The odds of the mother needing assistance from the state are great. Since she knew the risk when she took the drugs, should we have to pay for her gamble?
2007-07-08 07:45:49 · 16 answers · asked by SABADO GIGANTE 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Pregnancy
I remember a few years ago some states passed a law that they will not support more than two children on welfare, but I don't think it went over very well because I have not heard anything about it resently, I do know in the state of Florida every child is allowed 12 months of medicare, which for many also means foodstamps and a monthy check, believe it or not it is a computer glitch, the computer automatically gives benifits, and people use it to their advatage. So many women will have babies ever 12 months to keep the cycle going. What you are saying is genuinly a moral wrong but it may not be a legal wrong. Part of the problem is this, some women believe it is their right to bring babies into the world even if they cannot support them. I beleive this is a little irresponsible. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing when families run into trouble, it isn't supposed to be a way of living. So sadly you have multiple issues here. The only saving grace I see is this; most women who choose to take fertility drugs are women who can afford it to begin with. I would hope doctors treating welfare recipients would be intelligent enough to help prevent this. I also believe that women shouldn't be allowed fertility drugs to begin with because they shouldn't play with God just like women shouldn't have abortions. But God isn't part of your question either, it is just my beliefs. If God didn't want me to have a child I would't be able to have one. I wouldn't be so sefish to try to force a child. There is adoption for people who cannot have children. But then there is the quesion should people who adopt be allowed to go on welfare after the fact? Welfare definately needs reform because the way it is now, many people can take advantage of it, not just someone who had children via fertility drugs.
2007-07-08 08:03:33 · answer #1 · answered by NANCY J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A very good question. I don't know that I have an opinion. You stated valid reasons for saying no, she should not be entitled to welfare but if you say that, you have to decide where you would draw the line. A family who chooses to have 8-10 kids without the help of fertility drugs for instance..... they made the choice should they not be entitled? A couple with ANY kids for that matter? I guess I wouldnt' be prepared to start putting people in categories of "deserve or don't" like that. On one hand I think that people who undergo fertility treatments are more responsible in some ways because they have to make a lot of financial decisions, and have time to plan it, so the fact that something unforseen happens 5 years down the road shouldn't be held against them anymore than it should anyone else. KWIM?
Love questions like this, thanks!
Kat-Certified hospital doula
2007-07-08 14:50:29 · answer #2 · answered by Kathleen E 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The world needs to adopt China's solution- 1 kid. Although, in a humane way, unlike China, the world needs to accept the child either boy or girl.
Fertility is expensive. It also takes many attempts. I would think that at the time the "woman" who choose in-vitro was in a "good" state economically, socially, job, etc.. I would say she should be able to go on welfare, It probably wasn't her intention ever to go on welfare, especially coming from the money it takes to complete child birth through the fertility process.
There are many people that have numerous children that have a far less "excusable" answer that many people that try fertility drugs have. Unprotected sex, bad relationships, etc.
Family violence, crime, drugs, lack of educational or employment resources, ..... cost the system more than the few people, respectively, that are taking fertility drugs.
Please use birth control and think before you............
2007-07-08 14:59:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If she has 6 or 7 kids, why is she gonna be on fertility drugs? Welfare only covers her kids now that are not in her womb. And only for a limited amount of time. Welfare is not forever. She won't be getting welfare money for the babies she might be pregnant with. And in order to have welfare she needs to be in school or looking for a job to keep getting the welfare for up to five years. In California if she makes less than a certain amount depending on the family size then she will get extra money and food stamps but if she makes more she will not get anything. Eventhough she might have just barely enough
2007-07-08 14:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a good question. Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter what we think is ethical or right. If she takes fertility treatments and ends up with sextuplets and some of them are developmentally challenged, the government will help her without a doubt.
There are lots of things about the welfare system that aggravate me, and this is one of them, but whether I agree or not isn't going to stop the government from paying for her insurance, housing, and food. I'm totally with you on this one.
2007-07-08 14:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by still waiting 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, I dont think this situation would come into play often because the cost of fertility treatments are very high- and you have to meet certain requirements to have them. But in the unfortunate event that she becomes unable to provide for her family, why should she be treated any different than any other mother in the same situation?
2007-07-08 14:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by artist9120 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If she has that amount of children she won't be allowed fertility treatment on the NHS for a start. So how is she going to pay for it?
No I don't think that the State should pay for her.
2007-07-08 14:49:57 · answer #7 · answered by stinkypinkyteddybear 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I completely understand your position and would tend to agree with you. But then we would have to stop treating alcoholics and drug addicts and everybody else who makes poor choices. While many people will ALSO agree with that, it's not likely to happen. The assistance is for the children, not the parents.
2007-07-08 14:53:37 · answer #8 · answered by TotalRecipeHound 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO i think they should not be allowed to get welfare for that and also i think that all the peeps on welfare should be drug tested before they are allowed to get it as well due to the fact that half the peeps on it use it for drugs or alcohol not there kids lol
2007-07-08 14:49:47 · answer #9 · answered by arg314 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think if they hit a rough spot down the road and need help the community should help them... not by taxpayer force but by community charity..
Welfare its not a lifestyle as many have come to believe..
I also do not think if you are currently on assistance you should be trying to concieve
2007-07-08 14:51:22 · answer #10 · answered by TheyCallMeMom 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋