I’ll take it to another thread.
PeeQueue
Well, I think taking a child away from its parents because they are poor is wrong.
Holly – I understand you trained as a nurse, but the reality of the situation is, keeping what I just said above in mind, it takes a villiage to raise a child. You couldn’t possibly be expected to grow all your own food and cotton and knit all your own diapers. The fact that you as an individual can only provide so much economic worth to society shouldn’t make you feel bad for relying on the charity of others to make up the difference in your extrenuating circumstances.
Well, that saddens the part of me that still cares. I don’t know where you were when I was arguing on another thread that the lack of charity inherent in the capitalist system harms others and could get no one to believe me. But here it is: a child who may never walk because there is only so much charity to go around.
There’s nothing wrong with going on the dole when it is a matter of life and death. That is why we pay our taxes towards these govermental bandaids.
Yes, but not, under all circumstances, directly. There is nothing wrong with providing for the child indirectly by aid of the labors of others as is plainly most often the case.
So it’s ok to have a kid and simply allow society to provide? There’s nothing immoral or unethical about that?
No there isn’t. There may be something shortsighted about bringing a child into the world with no means to support it, but there is no immorality in reproduction.
A better question: Is there something immoral or unethical about a society not providing for it’s children?
Nope, nothing immortal or unethical about a society not providing for its children at all. 'Course, if the children don’t get any outside support at all for at least the first few years, there ain’t gonna be a human population left to worry about.
John Corrado writes:
> In response to the OP- $200. At least, that’s what the
> girls on M street keep telling me.
M Street? Well, that’s my problem. I thought it was K Street. I could never figure out why, when I would go up to those women on K Street and ask how much they cost per hour, they would say something like “My firm charges $150 an hour for my services.” Your firm? Wow, I didn’t know you people were so organized. And I could never figure out why they were so conservatively dressed. I guess there are lots of weird guys out there who dig chicks in dress-for-success clothes. And what did they mean when they said, “I don’t think you’re really looking for legal services.”? Look, if we get caught by the police, then we’ll worry about getting a lawyer.
I agree with Holly’s comments about the OP: this question is implicitly embedded in the abortion-rights controversy, and in the underlying attitudes of a certain contingent within the right-to-life movement. In other words, there is an attitude-thread amongst SOME right-to-life social conservatives (Randall Terry, for instance) that SEX should be reserved for those who have earned it, not from their partner but from those running society; women should not work for a living or, if they must, should not receive equal wages, and should be dependent on a man for sufficient income to do more than just barely survive BECAUSE in that way they will be forced to understand that sex is an asset that they should make available only to BREADWINNER males, who in turn should have no access to sex unless they please some employer-type sufficiently and often enough to fall into that category; and there not only should be no abortion but also no birth control AND premarital sex and pregnancy out of wedlock should be a horrible scandal and should ruin a girl’s reputation, etc etc.
So how did “society” survive before “society” provided “outside support” for “its” children? I mean, given the proposition that “civilization” is a fairly modern invention, and the welfare state even more modern, how did the human population make it even this far? How do non-First World countries make it today?
Just how does one impregnate society, anyway?
Well, specifically, you really weren’t looking for legal services. At least, not until the District makes such services legal.
(BTW- great post.)
I think that the issue is not how much you have saved or earned, but how much you are willing to invest. If you are not willing to invest the time and money that it takes to raise a child, and if you are unwilling to make a commitment to the person you are having sex with on this basis, then you should think before you act, and at least use birth control (though I myself would prefer abstinence).
When people complain about having to raise other people’s children, they are not just complaining about money. They are complaining about the lack of emotional investment on the part of the parents. Many people feel that a child is not a compelling reason to settle down, get a job, get married, etc.
I feel this is a result of the “if it feels good, do it” mentality of most of our society. Generations of children are being raised with the belief that they need not take responsibility for anything. I know that I was raised this way, my parents refused to teach me that there was a difference between right and wrong. I had to learn this as an adult.
Once, it was automatically understood that two parents were needed to raise a child. Once that child was conceived, it’s needs took precedence over the desires of it’s parents (in society’s view). Now we believe in the rights of the adult, with the child lost in the shuffle.
amberly:
With all due respect, please spare me the likes of:
and
You will not get an argument that we don’t have a ton of crappy parents out there. I feel it is the main reason we have problems in our society.
However, your first quote is attributing causation of this to some mentality that does NOT exist en masse, and the latter is meaningless since a loving one-parent household is WAY more beneficial than having two shitty parents.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, four weeks, 14 hours, 31 minutes and 9 seconds.
6024 cigarettes not smoked, saving $753.02.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 0 minutes.
Hey, I hear all the time about how society is screwed by businesses.
Perhaps a broader pricipal should be followed here than merely calculating if you can afford a kid.
How about: Don’t engage in any behavior unless you are willing to deal with the consequences.
If you engage in a behavior and suffer the logical outcome, do not expect the government to force others to bail you out.
you makes your decisions, you lives with the consequences.
How many consequences should the engagers consider before engaging? The consequences of having sex range from nothing at all (it’s possible to have sex without becoming pregnant, catching a disease, or becoming mentally scarred for life) to having a set of quadruplets with an assortment of birth defects.
Each time you have sex with your spouse (I suppose I’m getting personal here) do you stop and discuss how you will cope financially and emotionally with deformed quadruplets?
I guess I could tell my husband I will no longer have marital relations with him because I am not prepared to cope with that responsibility. Even though I’ve been spayed, it isn’t impossible for me to conceive. I do believe it’s unrealistic to expect married couples to remain celibate, and only slightly less unrealistic to expect all single people to always remain celibate.
Also, since very few people are financially or emotionally capable of raising a passle of severely deformed children, apparently very few should ever have sex.
Fortunately, my son’s medical care has largely been provided from voluntary donations, though I suppose that the Scottish Rite hospital gets some tax breaks, thereby forcing others to bail me out.
It’s not my problems that concern me, however. If I could sacrifice my own life to take away my son’s pain and disability, I would gladly do so. The sad thing is this: my son is innocent. I had sex with my husband and I did not consume anything as unhealthy as a Tylenol during that pregnancy, and now my son must pay the price for the rest of his life. I can understand the opinion that women who cannot adequately provide for their children should be punished, but I can’t agree that the innocent children should be forced to bear that punishment, too.
My mom told me it has something to do with watermelon seeds.
I cannot speak for Mr. Z., but I do in fact do this every time I have sex with his spouse. 
:eek:
Having just come through a very expensive birth that was paid for by insurance thankfully but would have broken us financially if it had not been for excellent insurance, I do not mind as a tax payer having money go to help those that have medical needs that reach beyond normal circumstances.
I am by no means heartless and I do not think that the children should be punished, but how many times do we have a woman (I must go with woman here because they are the ones that get pregnant, I blame the males too, but it can be hard to figure out who the father is) who gets pregnant time and again and relies on welfare to support her. What would she have done before welfare? She would have either had to get a job, or marry the father, or rely on relatives or the town to provide for her. She likely would have quit having children after the first one or two. But now we have welfare and she can have all the children her body can produce.
There is no easy answer, but I hate to see my tax money being spent on women and men that do not care for their children.
Jeffery
Jeffrey, you’re a reasonable guy. While I am certainly against this kind of situation, do you know exactly how RARE this is? How few people are spitting out babies with no regard for who the dad is, raising them and are content to sit on Welfare?
While I have no doubt you can find me a case or two (just as I have no doubt you can find a person or two who has had a dozen abortions, which the far right likes to say is not abnormal even though it is quite unusual), are you aware how statisticly insignificant the number is here?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, four weeks, 21 hours, 2 minutes and 0 seconds.
6035 cigarettes not smoked, saving $754.38.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes.
Look up the statistics. A woman on welfare is no more likely to have a child than a woman not on welfare.
What time and place are you talking about?
Apparently, you are falling into the trap of rose-colored nostalgia.