Are we bound to an ethical duty to have $ to raise a child ere having one?

Or do people have a natural right to have as many children as they want, even if they can't afford them?

And no, this isn't an attack on welfare.

It is, however, a question about whether a person has a moral or ethical right to ask others to support a child that they knew they couldn't support before they had it. I'm disregarding situations in which a person had the money, but life's circumstances changed that.

I'm asking only about those who are having children in a situation in which they know that they cannot afford a child, whether it be teenagers having unprotected stupid sex, or out of control rutting idiots who have sex and damn the consequences, or those who simply decide that they want a child and go ahead with it even though they know they have no real means of support. Or, quite likely, any host of other situations.

I am on the side that the ONLY ethical choice is to wait to have a child/children until one is financially capable of properly caring for it/them. To do otherwise is immoral, in my opinion.

And this is off topic, but I know a bunch of the kneejerkers who refuse to read will want to chime in and hurl irrelevant and ignorant invective at me, so let me say this: no, this doesn't mean I think we should let the kids starve - obviously, we as a society have a moral obligation to take care of all life. I'm not sure how you jumped to the conclusion you did from what I said, but there, I've proactively answered you ahead of time.

No, you're not saying that someone should HAVE to have an abortion if they can't support a child should they become pregnant.... but if one is morally and ethically obligated to be sure of their financial means before having a child, what happens if the birth control fails?

Would a moral and ethical person be bound to having an abortion? Or give it up for adoption?

though I think I could say that the only ethical option is not even to have sex.

Otherwise, we'd be looking at either forced abortions or forced putting-up-for-adoption, and neither of those are sensible or moral, in my opinion.

But I do think it is a logical, and perhaps even okay, conclusion, given the premise that it is unethical to have children one cannot afford, that one cannot have sex ethically without having the means to support a child (unless one is willing to have an abortion or put a baby up for adoption).

Or are you? I mean, if someone has to be comfortable financially, do they also have to mentally stable? Is it ethical that Britney Spears is allowed to have a child while Poor Jane Doe the wonderful capable lady I'm making up is not?

And for all of these, I'd imagine that my idea of financially/emotionally stable differs from yours, etc. Morality is subjective, to a degree, IMO... so I guess I'd have to wonder whose code of ethics/morals we'd be going by.

But yes, certainly and absolutely worth asking - some people really shouldn't be allowed to have children. Part of me (the emotional, irrational part) would love to see licensing needed to be a parent; but the rational, sensible, better part of me realizes what a beyond-nazi fucking nightmare of awfulness that would be, and so I would never consider it seriously. But I will, at times, think it.

People can start out well-off and lose everything.

Alternately, you can have John and Jane Smith, who are both working on doctorates in making money. They're currently totally broke, but in a few years they will be able to support a child quite well, thank you very much.

There's also disagreement about how much it really takes to raise a child. Women in other parts of the world manage to raise happy, healthy children on a few dollars a day, while some women in the US find it difficult to raise children on upper-middle-class incomes.

I'd say it's unethical to have a child intending to have society or your relatives pay for said child, but even the best laid plans can go awry. :shrug:

those who start with the financial means and later lose those means.


"not having the money to raise the child" means exactly that - that one does not have the money to raise that child. Whatever that amount is, is irrelevant, because it will be different for different people. The results of that condition are what count.

with good child rearing.

Some of the most fucked up losers I know grew up really rich.

I would say no, it's not ethical. It's not fair to the child first, and to society (either extended family or taxpayers) second.

But people still have to make their own shitty choices, and there are myriad shitty choices that can be made around child rearing.

People have sex, driven by practically uncontrollable desire.

Don't even go there. It is terribly impracticable.

Humans cannot be held so accountable.

Sexual desire included. Anyone who says it cannot be controlled is a liar or just ignorant.

That said, I agree much that humans cannot be held so accountable. Ideally, sure. Practically, no way.

.

We should all be productive for ideal usage of our talents (aka "freedom"), but when times come that we need help, we should have it.

What I don't like is the notion that people will freely abuse the system. (the "reforms" going on don't help, neither does offshoring...) (And don't call me a freeper; I know social workers, who are very left-wing indeed, who say the same exact thing. They prefer to help people, but they also know slimy moochers when they see them.)

And the core problem with all this is EDUCATION. And those prices are way out of hand as well.

It's a dead end.

But the only difference between a CEO and a welfare pig is who the person knows. Why else is Donald Trump still famous? The guy declared bankruptcy - TWICE. And why should walmart, microsoft, or any other billion dollar company receive a penny of subsidy either? (corporate welfare being far, far, more vile and far, far more abused than human welfare.)

By "welfare," I sure as hell do not mean corporate welfare. :)

I was though as that's a choice I made for myself. I can't make that choice for anyone else.

I also made the choice to have only one child to reserve resources, again I can't make that choice for anyone else.

Like you said, we have a moral obligation to take care of all life. I don't understand how you could assume that I would come to another conclusion that that. Are you saying that people have children for financial benefit?

Hence, I could not accuse you of coming to any kind of conclusion.

And no, I am not saying that people have children for financial benefit. I'm not sure where you would read that from what I said, but it's a good question to ask, just to be sure and clarify.

It is, however, a question about whether a person has a moral or ethical right to ask others to support a child that they knew they couldn't support before they had it. I'm disregarding situations in which a person had the money, but life's circumstances changed that.

So it's okay for rich folks to have unprotected sex, but not the poor?

I think it's just the opposite; that people don't realise the real cost of parenthood.

Anybody who thinks having a child is going to benefit them financially is probably nuts.

that we should not help a person who is born into improverished situation? Or should we tell them that your daddy should have kept his dick in his pants?

I'm of the rather unpopular (around here) opinion that there are far too many North Americans as it is, and that our procreation is out of control. I subscribe to ZPG (zero population growth), and have had my plumbing adjusted accordingly.

I don't think we should punish any child born into poverty. I think, rather, that we should offer incentives for teens to not have children until they're financially and emotionally capable. Think of it as an investment in the future.

But understanding human nature says that we are going to have a lot of bastards growing up in the U.S.A.

Yeah sure. Tell the kids that condoms are cool. But if you have any understanding of the human condition you will know that things don't always end out the safe way.

financially stable, BUT my husband (then fiance) was working a decent job and had prospects, so it wasn't a completely out-of-left-field decision.

The thing is, if we were to live by this code of ethics, most people in the world would never get to have sex, lol. Because it stands to reason that if it is immoral to procreate without the resources to raise a child, then it is immoral to take the risk without those resources.

Most people find a way to feed and clothe their children. For those who need some extra help, I am more than happy to chip in my tax dollars for that purpose, but I also hope that it will someday go to education programs to teach these parents how to take care of themselves and their kids.

barely getting by from month to month. That year I earned $14,700. Why do I remember? Because by a mere $300 difference, I qualified for an infant and mother state program that paid for our pre-natal care and my labor and delivery. Had I worked one more job, I would not have qualified. I would have had an abortion. The decision was that cut and dry.

At about 5 months pregnant I landed a job with a city, and kept that job for almost 12 years. I started out making less than $20K per year and ended up earning more than $70K per year.

So, if I followed the guidelines that these judgemental people want to set out, by not getting pregnant while not well off, I'd not have such an amazing child; I'd not have had the incentive to get a great, progressive job; I'd not have had the incentive or the means to learn the stock market and make a killing; I'd not have had the incentive to take my earnings in the stock market and put it in real estate that has since become valued at and sold for more than 1 million cumulative dollars, which has enabled me to basically retire to the south of France and open my own little business here, with my daughter at a fabulous international school.

Shall I go on?

Feeding and caring for your family, albeit an unexpected one, can be a fantastic motivator.

I think that there is a difference between people who have children when they are not well-off (and let's be fair--this is MOST people, in the US and in the world) and people who are playing the system. Taking a little assistance (like yourself, I had healthcare for myself and my daughter because of our financial situation that I would not have had if we had more money) is not a sign of unworthiness.

Plenty of people with loads of money treat their kids like garbage... as long as your kids have food to eat and clothes to wear and a soft place to fall--you are doing your job.

:silly:

because I think it is racist, but I'll break my self-imposed rule right now. I know a whole LOT of very well-off rednecks and they are way more dangerous than Bubba in his trailer.

One that a freeper or two has posed upon me and I've not found the answer to.

But after much thinking... If the girl did not know the consequences, I would think the men would pay for their consequences.

Sorry for thinking in Maury minutes.

being realistic or having common sense about the entire situation? And therefore, the infant gets punished as well? What kind of human wants to punish and judge children? That's sick.

It's the same thing as a teen getting pregnant and wanting an abortion, and then denying that abortion. The TEEN is a KID. A CHILD, and not necessarily gifted with the adequate means to make GOOD decisions... so punishing that CHILD AND the child they didn't make a great decision about is morally right, because...? because? What gives YOU the right to judge anyone?

People, especially kids, are entitled to make "mistakes." Making mistakes is how people learn sometimes. Having a kid by accident shouldn't be a death sentence or be crafted into a moral judgement in perpetuity, and casting all involved into catastrophe and tragedy.

Luckily, these 'accidents' are very rare, but they're still human, they're still Americans, and they're still ALL OUR children and YES THEY ARE ENTITLED TO OUR HELP.

Figure out the average cost to the State of contributing to the raising of one child.

Say, for the sake of argument, it's $50,000 (probably not out of the question, considering the cost of schools, financial assistance for those in need, "baby bonus" tax credits for all parents regardless of income(do you have those in the USA?), medical costs, etc).

Then with that amount in mind, calculate the additional cost to the State of contributing to the raising of one child born to someone under 23. My admittedly simplistic view is that in our society, people under 23 are probably not best equipped, financially or emotionally, to be parents.

Say that works out to be another $20,000.

So start a programme that every woman under 23 gets a tax-free lump-sum gift of $15,000 on her 23rd birthday if she hasn't had a child. She can use that money to travel, pay off her student/consumer debt, put down on buying a home, give to charity, invest in the stock market, put on the daily double, or even invest in a college fund for the eventual Junior.

Society would save money, more young people would think twice before flirting with potential pregnancy, and there would be fewer unwanted children being born.

I ask a simple question, and then you go off accusing me of wanting to starve children to death.

This is precisely the kind of knee jerk accusative irrational unnecessary emotionalism that my final paragraph was designed to prevent. I knew it wouldn't, but I love to put those caveats in to embarrass the non-readers.

I said YES, we are entitled to support those children.

After all, what would the alternative be?

and it will filled accusations about stuff I didn't say.

"we are entitled to support those children" is not an answer to "do people have an ethical responsibility to ensure that they have the needed resources to care for a child before they have one".

Your entire post was an accusation that says basically that I think that children should be left to starve if their parents made a mistake, when I said precisely the opposite of that.

I will try again.

But first, what resources and what standards for those resources would you set as a measure?

Should they make a requisite amount of money?

Are they guaranteed a return to work within a number of years, as opposed to 8 weeks, in the USA?

Should they have housing of a specific size?

Will you be requiring standards in food and clothing, transport and conditions?

How about day care? Is affordable day care available?

See, this is the thing... people's standards vary. For some people, raising a child on social services, in public housing and with grandma babysitting is good enough.

For other people, raising a child without the benefit of $25,000 private pre-schools and 2 nannies isn't NEARLY good enough.

I say that if a woman wants a child enough to do what she has to do in order to provide for that child to the best of her abilities, that we as Americans are fortunate enough to be able to help her raise that child, if she needs our assistance. (Let's not forget that our last real president spent part of his childhood on welfare)

We really would have to know the parameters of such imposed responsibility, before we can declare that someone should adhere to those standards to begin with.

:D

I worked with someone who got pregnant at 17 and had the child. The father was about the same age and had major issues paying child support. So he goes and gets some other girl pregnant then marries her.

The person I work with then sleeps with some one else ends up pregnant again-has an abortion at age 19.

At 21 she again gets pregnant with a third man's baby and decides to have the kid.

All the while she was having accidents society was paying for WIC, child care, subsidized housing, health care.

Once is an accident-3 times is plain supidity!

well be that this IS the one thing she's good at, for the time being.

For some people it's better that they have their kids at an early age. For others, it's better to do it when they're older.

It's no crime or sin to have a family. Children aren't accidents. They're children. They're not a disease, they're little humans that are entitled to a decent life, especially in a nation supposedly as great as the USA.

I'd rather pay for some kids than for a war, or for some giant corporation's bogus tax breaks. Kids are very cool, and they need to be raised in far better conditions in the USA. It's a shame there is such a stigma on government provided assistance with raising families.

Families should be valued and assisted. I think day care should be state paid for; that housing should be much better than is provided; that there should be more education programs and better schools.

I'd rather pay for people than for giant, faceless' corporations CEOs to get more rich.

After all, our last President was raised for some time on welfare. He turned out pretty well.

I just don't get this whole judgemental poor-bashing. We should appreciate families and value them and they should be supported by us without judgement.

:thumbsup:

This is when I was in highschool, so this is 20+ years ago, but...

Each Grade 10 class had planned parenthood class. One of the assignments in the class was to prepare a family budget including all the costs of raising a child.

We had to list all the costs, and budget for them:

clothes, food, books, entertainment, presents, injury/medical, babysitters, school supplies, trips, treats, dentistry, gasoline to/from school/events/etc, etc, etc, etc...

It worked out to be about $250,000 to raise each child from birth to age 18.

It was a real eye-opener to many of us. Particularly as I grew up in a predominantly Mennonite area, so many of my classmates wew planning to marry and procreate right out of highschool.

I bet having a hard look at what a child really costs is the best birth control of all.

Next to Birkenstocks, of course.

Every family is different, and every child is different.

A child changes your life completely and there is no going back.. You will be a parent your whole life, so it's a good idea to be a grown-up before you take that leap...

You just take it one day at a time and hope for the best..

My parents, an attorney and an RN, were bankrupted in the 70's when my brother required multiple hospitalizations due to his seizure disorder and subsequent mental retardation and health issues. You have no guarantees of the the children you will get and even those most financially capable can have parenting-related financial problems.

they wouldn't ever procreate. (Or, at least, if they waited until they thought they were financially capable or until they were financially prepared.) I've known some parents who waited until they were financially set, and they have made good parents, and I have also known others who had surprise kids (surprises for a variety of reasons, including birth control failing and people having been told by medical professionals that they couldn't have children :eyes:)--anyway, most of them fared well as parents and raised great kids. Some were able to do it alone, some relied heavily on parents or friends (nothing wrong with using a village, imo), and some had the occasional WIC or welfare stint as well.

I'm not sure I'd consider any of their actions immoral or unethical. I think it's immoral to have children without regard for how to meet their needs (physical, emotional, etc.), but I don't think it's immoral to have a child without crunching all the numbers in advance or to have kids expecting that you might have to rely on others for help. I also guess I could make a distinction between someone who doesn't take any precautions and someone whose precautions fail.

I've also known many people who put off having kids for years, thinking they didn't have the financial resources for it, but often I think they would have been able to handle kids if they wanted to.

I was also once a young, poor mom (no longer), yet I will not choose to take the question and apply it personally, but look at it logically. I believe, in the strictest sense of the word, yes, a person has an ethical duty to wait until one can afford a child before one has it, but on the other hand, thinking people also know there are no absolutes. In an ideal world, every child would be wanted by two parents who love and are committed to one another as well. The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world and the danger of such Utopian ideas come into play when they begin to affect public policy. Conservatives, for instance, would largely agree with this and would (and has been) used as a reason to enact welfare reforms. Given the billions trillions of dollars spent by our military, social programs pale in comparison.

You may say that some of the things I mentioned weren't a part of your question, but the fact remains that having a child is not something that occurs in a vacuum. Related issues bring upon new questions. It's the nature of the beast. I agree with you very much in theory, but again it becomes irrelevant once a child is actually there. I do think that sexual responsibility should be taught in absence of the framework of "religious morality". I had sex a few times in my mid-teens, quite liked it, but then said, "I'm not ready to even risk pregnancy." I waited a few years until I was closer to 19 because I knew if birth control failed, I was mature enough to deal with the consequences in the event of pregnancy. As it turned out, that proved to be a responsible decision given my reproductive capacity.

However, I grew up in an environment where sexuality was taught as a health issue that was a normal part of adult life, rather than anything mysterious or "against Jesus". Not everyone is so fortunate and until the day comes where responsible sexual health can be taught in a normal context without the religious element making normal aspects of our sexuality "bad" (birth control and masturbation for instance), these are very careful waters we must tread in terms of applying these ethical concerns to public policy.

The answer is, of course and with little argument, yes. Yet when the same question is asked about children, people freak out. No, it's not about letting babies starve; it's about planning ahead! Things happen, but yes, if you're living in a homeless shelter, perhaps now is not the best time to have another baby. If you've lost your job and are facing eviction, maybe now is not the time to start a family. This is not the same as saying, "Tough shit - let them starve." It's merely stating the ovbious: parenting is a RESPONSIBILITY and should be treated as such, instead of as an entitlement by parents. As a rich society, we can well afford to feed, clothe and house the children of parents who fell on hard times, and those who made poor choices.

:thumbsup:

And you've used the words I wish I had used - reponsiblity versus entitlement.

pay for your kids to go to college, they just shouldn't go?

If we shouldn't support babies I don't see why we should support students who have had plenty of time to save for college.

... that it's unethical to take on any financial obligation that you know you can't afford, be it credit card debt or a child.

But so what? I certainly wouldn't make it illegal. We abolished debtors' prisons centuries ago. I have no desire to see them return. And I certainly wouldn't advocate punishing a child for its parents irresponsibility (and it seems you have no desire to do so either). I wouldn't advocate enforced sterilization or abortion, so I am unclear as to what the point of this discussion is, exactly.

Yes, it's unethical, but the government can't force people to be ethical, and any social program based upon the idea that we can stop sex by merely telling people "don't do it unless you can afford it" is laughably naive and doomed to failure.

-Laelth

How many children from wealthy families are unloved and deprived? *cough* arbusto *cough*

Poverty is never pleasant and it's tough for parents to struggle. I think it's advisable to have resources, but it's not a prerequisite to a good childhood. My parents both grew up dirt poor, but - talking with them - you'd see that they didn't really know how poor they were until they grew up.

Good parents can raise happy and healthy children, regardless of money. I think it's the stigma of not having the latest crap that would get to kids more than their parent's bank account.

I think it might be different, if the family was really starving or the parents were unable to care for the kids due to illness. However, that's were the social safety net should kick in - to help a family out with survival so it can pull itself up with dignity.

Think about it. If we all had access to unlimited resources, we'd breed like bunnies and end up with 1.5 billion here in America. Hell, America has been comparatively responsible in that regard and it's not helped... (of course, the countries doing all the software piracy are being rewarded with jobs, so what do I know?)

OTOH, until 1980, China didn't have much and they've done a lot more than I ever will... and India was havin' a real ball before its "economic boom" in 2000.

I don't disagree with you, especially for the "damn the consequences" folks... But it's all academic. I don't think those with money are not making the best decisions... but they're doing what they think (even if its results are worse than how America has become... cars and SUVs in China are becoming more popular, also proving that the claim "Who can afford it" is a total load and therefore the economy will not crash...). And I know my time will be coming. I've faced reality.

Begs the larger question of society's obligation to care for the vulnerable.

Should one live into old age if he/she is financially incapable of supporting him/herself.

First problem is what standardard of proper financial ability are you applying.

Petit bourgeois, grand bourgeois? Which class standard do you approve before ethically approving sex.

This is Republican personal responsibility bullshit masquerading as ethics.

The fact is all are dependent on others and no individual or family unit is capable of providing for its own offspring unaided.

Droopy's right. Bring this blather to GD.

Have you seen this website?

http://begthequestion.info/

Who am I to doubt that?

Jeez, I can't believe you're attacking welfare like this!



OK, really what you are saying is a thought I've had a few times myself, especially in reference to those people who know damn well that they don't have the means to support a child, but just decide to go ahead and have one anyway, because they think it's their moral duty to procreate, or they just think kids are cute, or for whatever reason. I tend to agree with you.

I don't know if the question comes down to wealth so much as resources, when we are talking about the means to raise a child. I mean, a skilled farmer or a hunter or something might be said to have the means to support a family, even with no tangible wealth at all. I don't know...it's a tricky question, but if I had to make a choice, I would say, yes, people have a moral duty to think before making babies. To do otherwise is irresponsible at best, if not truly immoral


What about this extension to the question: if resources are limited, do we in the larger sense, as a society, have a moral or ethical obligation to limit population growth accordingly? And how do you do that without being totalitarian?

It's a question I have often posited, and one of the reasons that I own't have kids - we have enough people already, and the world is already straining.

I would like to posit that we, as a society, do have an ethical obligation to limit population growth, to be better stewards of our resources, and to help ensure that one person's behavior has as little negative impact on all other people.

However, much as we have that obligation, I think it is entirely impossible to develop an ethical system of doing it that doesn't violate about a brazilion natural human rights.

Someone said up above in a mini-rant that we can't legislate morality, and that I believe fully in my heart. All we can do is try to presuade each other of what is right, and pick up the chips when they fall. Cuz let's be honest, ain't none of us perfect.

With the allowance for "accidents" etc. then, we the society should help out before some of these "accidents" wind up in prisons.

However, what constitutes enough $$$ is a good question. Here in Consumption Land, perhaps the better question would be:

"Do you have a moral obligation to lower your expectation for material wealth when you have kids?"

A very brilliant one. I think that instead of subsituting my question with yours, they really should go together.

And by enough $$$, I'm really talking about whatever resources are available - a family on a farm that grows its own food, and hunts or grows its own meat with a mom who makes clothing for the family (think the Amish, or some of those who intenionally choose poverty and/or green living) isn't going to need as much money as someone living in an urban center.

And is funding higher education part of properly caring for a child.

My first reaction is to agree with you, but I don't think the decision to have kids can be reduced to cost analysis, either.

If you choose to have children you must be able to feed, house and clothe them. Not being able to provide the basics is irresponsible. Of course accidents happen and sometimes people find themselves in situations that they did not choose. For example the pregnant 16 year old without a job. In this case she is the responsiblity of her parents since she is still a minor. Sometimes situations change. At the moment life is going well, you make the decision to get pregnant and then bam the job goes away, you then lose health insurance and you find yourself in a very bad situation and on top of that pregnant. Welfare was designed to be a short-term fix. Until you can get yourself back on your feet. It should not be a life long hand out.

However I take offense to the people out there who are currently on welfare, have a few kids and continue to breed even though they already know that can't afford the children they currently have let alone another.

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

First, I think if everyone 'waited' until they were financially able to have kids, a lot of kids wouldn't end up being born. We are comfortable, but we certainly aren't rich; however, we would be if we didn't choose to have three children. But if we had waited until we could have afforded them like we can now, two of them wouldn't have been born.

Additionally, how much of your 'wealth' are you ethically bound to share with your children? Just because you can afford to get them a new car, should you? I pose this question because I know of a couple who are extremely frugal with their children, to the point of being ridiculous. He retired at 40 and they make their kids pay for everything. I mean, everything. This area is pretty well-off, median income is about $75,000, and this hardship that is placed on these kids appears, at least to me, to be somewhat cruel. If a couple didn't have the money to spend, that is a different question all together. I wonder what people's thoughts are on this?

where you were only allowed to bring a child into the world if you had -10- employed adults to sign a contract agreeing to help support that child. I've always thought it was a good idea.

And yes, shit happens and fortunes can be reversed, jobs be lost and income reduced to zero. (We went through it for 2 years, so I KNOW). But why shouldn't parents of a human child be held to a higher responsibility than those adopting a pet? Take a look at puppy contracts or even shelter agreements sometime. If we did as well for our kids, we'd be in a lot better shape.

I would not impose that obligation on others.

tons of money if only kids whose parents could afford college went.

has been proposed that would preclude the non-wealthy from having children?

children unless you can afford to raise them. IF you consider paying for college part of raising a child. Which I do.

My parents did not save for college. I went to school on scholarships, loans, grants, work study, part-time jobs throughout my 4 years. I finished up my last year or so by working for a company who offered tuition reimbursement. It took me 10 years to pay off loans, during that time I did not have a new car, elaborate house or take major vacations.

This was my responsibility not my parents.

My parents didn't pay for my education (though they helped), and I thought that was fine. For parents who want to pay, all the power to 'em! I'm sure my parents wished that they could have paid for mine; but I also wanted to do it as much by myself as I could.

If I had children, I might be willing to pay up to half their college, but I would never feel obligated that I had to pay for all of it. I don't think any parent should be obligated. The parent's ethical responsibility ends when the child is out of high school. At that point, it's all extra gifting and good, but never morally essential.

Also, college itself is not an essential, like food, shelter, clothing. One can live quite well and fine without a college education.

There aren't many kids who want to go to college who have saved 4 years tuition by the time they've graduated HS - they are going to rely on someone, either their parents or society (via loans, grants etc.). I don't know what is so special about HS graduation that all of a sudden it's ok for society to help pick up the tab whereas if they were still babies it's a bad thing.

My parents didn't pay for my college (nor did my husband's parents pay for his) and maybe this is why we both feel that we should do whatever we can to get our kids through college (of course they have to perform or all bets are off).

That's what we have the government for- safety net.

I can see your opinion - as it is stated in just the few words you used - being used to give carte blanche license to the most irresponsible behavior, and that the government will always be there to pick up all the pieces, with no responsibility on the part of the one doing the behavior.

I'm not willing to go that far. I'm not willing to enact legislation requiring financial disclosures and signing of promisary notes before people are allowed to have children, either. I think there has to be a middle ground.

and what you want will never happen.

i've seen your posts for years and i know what an anti-children kind of guy you are. you seem to families with children and the tax breaks they get, etc.

so i see where your OP is coming from

Thanks for the lack of dialogue, smart-ass ridiculous comments, and ignorant attempts to read things that aren't there.

That's funny, me being anti-children, after years of teaching them and being a advocate for their right to exist and to have a voice in society.


:rofl:

You crack me up.

Anti-child, indeed.

you are not the one who made a thread a long time ago talking about how mad you were that married people with children get tax breaks that you don't?

breaks for having children, and I have said that here.

That doesn't make me anti-child. It makes me "anti-tax-break for having children".

Your logic is floundering.

are going to be paying your Social Security when they grow up, just in case your art work doesn't work out.

Your logic is floundering.

We've conversed on this board before and I've never once seen you as anti-child. I remember you praising me for a few of the things that I have done so far when it came to raising my own child.

If you were anti-child you would have immediately flamed me for having a child in the first place.

You are not anti-child.

which is why shitty parenting, irresponsible breeding, and negligent society piss me off so much, and why I get so angry when I see anyone stifling the creative energy of children or trying to dash their dreams (esp. the artists and creative ones :-)).

And I know you are pro-child, which is why you raised the question on this thread in the first place.


My opinion? It goes back and forth so much that I cannot make a clear and logical argument. In some ways I am too involved to make a rational argument, since I am a single mother who has had to have help from family members at times.

The problem is always going to be what is considered to be enough. Financial contribution isn't always the best contribution to a child's welfare in general. I've met large families that didn't have a pot to piss in and they have done fantastic jobs of raising their children to be intelligent, thoughtful, caring and active members of their society. I've also met families with one child who reside in their McMansions and use their child as a mere status symbol.

Financial contribution does help immensely but the emotional contribution, IMO, does more for a child's well-being than any amount of money.

I'd say we have the responsibility to wait until we are capable, both financially and psychologically, to care for a child. But that doesn't always happen.

There's that image of God as the happy seed sower, sowing seeds as liberally as he can, where ever he can. Some seeds fall in the perfect place to grow. They have enough water and light and warm weather to grow. They thrive. Other seeds fall in the cracks of rocks, but they do just as well because they learn to work with what they've got. Other seeds can't grow at all because they fall in dark corners, or there is no water around, etc. Same for people I think.

But as a society, we do have a collective responsiblity to care for the kids whose parents aren't able to, whatever the reason.

:popcorn:

which is nice. We actually have some dialogue going on in here, and trading of ideas. A few emotionalistic ones who aren't reading well, but for the most part, I'm quite happy with how this dialogue has been going on. Not that it might not devolve into a popcorn dialogue later on... but i hope not.

I love it when a thread like this DOESN'T go into popcorn mode. I've learned, and I think others have learned, and I've learned some new questions to ask.

Which is why I posited the question to begin with.

:7

Some of the yuppie types seem to think that they can't "afford" a child unless they can give it designer clothes, a nursery decorated by a well-known designer, a $10,000 a year pre-school at age three, a $20,000 a year K-12 school; their own TV, computer, stereo, iPod, and their own day planner to keep track of all the lessons and practices they're supposed to go to, along with the occasional "play date" with a suitably vetted little Prince/ss like themselves, a sports car for their 16th birthday, and spending every Christmas vacation skiing in some posh resort.

Children don't need all that Stuff and Lessons as long as they have enough to eat, functional clothes, a roof over their head, parents who are crazy about them but still have the sense to teach them morals, ethics, and proper behavior in public; a well-stocked library and intelligent discussion at home, and encouragement of their own talents and interests.

parents to be. This is to include having enough money to raise them.

But, here is a grand idea. How about promoting birth control? How about making Plan B, which is NOT ABORTION, more available to people?

I think the current line of Puritanical thought going on in the country now, led by *, that abstinence is the way is just off the rocker. People are going to have sex. To prevent unwanted pregnancies, there is birth control. To deal with the accidents which are going to happen, there is Plan B.

Here is an article from the 23rd about a county paying high-risk women not to get pregnant. It is an interesting thought.
http://www.newsnet5.com/family/8208509/detail.html

It is my thought that people need to be able to accept the full responsiblity of parenthood before having kids. This is why I don't want children. I feel that it would be unfair for the child, because I am wrapped up in my work. Outside of my work, I am a procrastinator, which you can't be as a parent.

I have also had thoughts that really some people just should not be parents. Abusive and negligent people should not put children through what they do. Then, when the kids grow into parents, they are the same with their children. It is an endless cycle.

I'd have a hard time telling a woman whose financial situation is less than rosy who finds herself pregnant that she has an ethical duty to abort her pregnancy or give her child for adoption.

Financial hardships can be temporary. It's pretty murky trying to figure out what is and is not ethical in that regard as far as having children goes.

Ideally, of course, everyone would be financially solvent before creating more people. I think we all know how that plays out in reality.

First, I had my first child at 21. I was married and had a job but no savings, my husband was in school, we were in debt. We were young, in love and rather stupid. But that baby grew us up very quickly because we were also rather spoiled. I was the baby in my family by 12 years and he was an only child of parents who just barely escaped the ovens in Germany. The responsibility of a baby took us right out of the "sleep til noon" set we were traveling in and Woodstock was but a vague memory. (well, I didn't remember much of it anyway but that's another thread all together) A baby propelled us into the world of routine, schedule, and thriftiness. It took us about 25 years to fully arrive there, and by that time they were gone. OUT of here! And we were only 40.

But...they came back. My daughter married at 21 and her husband was in management at a grocery store and he made a lot of money (50K +) but hated it. She was in retail and made about 30K. But they weren't happy. At the time we were in business together (florist) and were really putting out more than we were making and my son-in-law asked if we'd help him go back to school. We closed the shop and used the money to that end, and they moved in with us. He is in premed fulltime and almost done, has a 4.0 GPA. She got pregnant (pill failure) and at that point we said you might as well move in here and then you won't have to go out to work. For us, it works well. She has two young children, under 3. We converted the garage. She keeps the house and the kids. My husband and I bring home the money. My son in law does the yard work, fixes the cars and gets the good grades. We pool our money. They have help with the kids and the kids have the advantage of four adults. It is a bit crowded, but we are organized to the hilt. Kind of like living on a boat. Everything has a place.

So I guess what I'm getting at is the old model of the extended family has a lot to offer if you can work at it together.

The concept of somehow not allowing people to breed, while utopian, makes me uncomfortable because it is pretty much fascism in reverse. Or not so reversed.

And one last thing...as a teacher of 34 years, some of the biggest stinkers I have EVER taught were the children of older, well-off parents. While some of the lovliest kids are the product of five kids and struggling parents. Those kids "get" life and are not "entitled" in their attitudes towards things.

No one would have any children. Honestly. Who can afford kids, especially these days, with day care $100 a week or more per child, food costs through the roof, diapers, etc.

I'm one of those 'irresponsible' people who had a child before I could 'afford' it. I had to rely on my family to help out the first few years. But my son had a good childhood, and grew up to be a responsible, caring adult.

It's not always about money (although money does help). I was 20 when I had my son. My sister was 40 when she adopted her first child, when she could 'afford' it. I see how worn out she is all the time with two young kids (5 and 3). She's 44 (I'm 45). My son is 24. I couldn't imagine having young kids at my sister's age. So while it was a financial hardship to have my son when I did, I'm glad I did. I had the energy to keep up with him, and now, at a relatively young age, I am free to do as I please. My sister is going to be parenting into her 60s.

Making babies is our primary imperative, as a race.

is immoral according to me.

condition, has always been and will always be.

Redstone