And it’s all about irresponsible motherhood. Only the last two babies have a father. :rolleyes:
Just because the mother takes the baby home from the hospital doesn’t mean that the father is less financially responsible for that child. That is where exactly half of the irresponsibility is. But I only hear about “welfare mothers.”
Despite the recent trend toward dismantling the civil rights and protections afforded adults in this country, we haven’t yet gotten to the point where the government can require the use of birth control regardless of religious conviction or medical advice. But hey, what’s one more intrusion into our privacy?
With the job market like it is now, anybody* can end up on welfare for a time.
Why are you all so hard on poor people? What have you done to help them?
Of those of you who have posted, how many of you have volunteered to take food to the poor and serve it to them within the last month? Do you sit down and talk with them about their dreams for the future? Do you encourage them? Do you show them how to use a computer or teach them how to read? Do you get to know them as individuals? Do you talk with them about parenting? Do you talk with them about finding a job and handling finances?
That’s a relief. I was starting to think I’d entered some alternate universe where involuntary sterilization sounded like a good idea all around. Now I know that I’m not the only one who thinks this is wrong.
I don’t know who they fathers of her five other children are, or what their circumstances are. I do know that whether they’re paying child support or deadbeats or just dead, she knew that she already had five kids and decided to have sex again. The news article doesn’t mention them, but it mentions her. And I covered my opinion of the current dad in my OP.
I try not to be hard on poor people because they’re poor, I criticize them when they make poor decisions which are unlikely to help and likely to hurt their ability to become not-poor in the future. I do this with non-poor people too. However, the same decisions might have different outcomes for poor and non-poor people. For example, there’s a family in my hometown which owns a restaurant which is doing quite well and has been around longer than I have. The family is Catholic, and includes about 10 or so children, and most of them have worked at the restaurant (which is how I know them, and how I know they’re not just scraping by). If they had another kid or two, I probably wouldn’t criticize them, because that decision is not likely to significantly affect their welfare.
Sorry, I’ve just finished up a paid internship, and will be finishing up a degree within a year or so. I’ve got college classes, another unpaid internship and one job lined up for the summer already, and I’m waiting for a callback on an application for another job. I’m trying to ensure that in the future maybe I can give that help, rather than needing it myself.
I don’t think that involuntary sterilization was on the table. I believe the idea of the argument was that if they wanted free government money then they would have to guarantee us taxpayers who funded it that they would stop having so many damn kids. No one said they had to accept the funding. Keep having kids, no money. Seems like a great plan to me.
I didn’t say they “should be denied” anything. I’m not one of the folks advocating shoving a syringe full of Depo-Provera in someone’s arm when they pick up a check (haven’t actually thought all the way through it, so I’m not going to support for or against until I have), and I’m also not advocating chaining her legs together and keeping the key down at the welfare office.
I’m saying she had five kids, no job and no husband at the age of 20, and she decided to have sex again. And the guy had no job, and (presumably) knew she already had five kids, and he decided to have sex too. And maybe that was a bad decision on both their parts. Maybe it would even be a bad decision if it was protected sex (hey, maybe it was…we don’t really know, do we?). Just maybe. After all, “the pleasures of sexual intercourse” aren’t going to put food on the table. Not legally, anyway.
You people are really advocating letting poor people choose between sterilization and starvation? And you wonder why America has a reputation for being slightly unhinged?
Here is an idea. Mandatory classes on safe sex, birth control and all that jazz in all schools, no matter how bible-addled the comunity, and free birth control as a part of welfare. Free, not mandatory. Maybe some mandatary birth-control info for teenage parents on welfare, for those who didn’t catch it first time around. Mandatory INFORMATION, and FREE, VOLUNTARY birth control. It might not eliminate the problem, but judging from what I hear from across the pond, it just might help.
Sterilization seems a bit over the top to me. Tying welfare to birth control (i.e. not permanent) seems more reasonable. And I’m not sure if I can say most, but a lot of communities already offer free birth control through the local health department.
I think you have a very good point…and if there is a father who can be tracked down and forced to pay support for children so they don’t have to go on welfare, that should certainly be the first option.
The government can’t “require” the use of birth control, and no one here has suggested that they can.
Well, not anybody. But to your point, anyone who DOES end up on welfare “for a time” would be crazy to have additional children during that time.
This isn’t relevant to the discussion. But I’ll bet it made you feel like a good person to write it.
And do you ever wonder why Oslo has a reputation for sanctimonious judgmental prickery?
PunditLisa mentioned that she felt society would be justified in sterlizing the parents. She has gotten zero support on that issue. The rest of us are talking about mandatory birth control - temporary, not permanent.
So there’s no “You people”, there’s “her” get it? Had you taken the time to quote her (as I’ve taken the time to quote you), you would have realized that you could only find one advocate for sterilization and not made your mistake. Live and learn.
Reading - it’s not just exercise for the eyeballs.
I think I was the first person to mention tying birth control (NOT sterilization) to receiving welfare money in this thread, and I stand by it. If your life is in such a state that you can’t support yourself and the children you already have, more children is just anvils tossed into your sinking ship. Deal with the realities of the life you already have; figure out what isn’t working, and try to fix that up. Maybe you wait a little while, your children get a little older, they get into school, and you are now available in the day to work a job or take GED classes or some kind of technical training or something, and you become self-supporting - NOW you start thinking about if you want any more kids or not. Note - one of the key words in that sentence is THINKING about more kids, and PLANNING for them, not just having all the unprotected sex you want and crossing your fingers that you don’t get pregnant again. Accidents do happen, but if you really want to avoid them, there are ways that are pretty effective these days.
I really like the ideas of mandatory sex education, safe sex education and birth control education classes, free birth control, free daycare for working welfare moms, and not reducing the welfare if extra money is earned at a job too. My opinions on what should be done with welfare mothers is coming from a position of what is best for the families, not about what is best for my hypothetical tax dollars. Having unlimited babies is not the best thing for people in that position.
And yeah, the fathers should be involved and should be looking after what they have caused, but the reality is that they very often aren’t, and there isn’t much a single mom can do about it.
Oslo is a city. If you refer to Norway, the country, I can see where such a reputation is coming from. Don’t know if I agree with you, provide examples/cites and we’ll see (hell, I could probably top any one of yours…)
Ok. Unconditional apology for “you people”. It’s an ugly phrase, I’ll try to stop using it.
The rest of it was not not meant it as a response to PunditLisa, but as a generall response to anyone who said that recieving werlfare should be linked to mandatory sterilization, temporary or otherwise. It was the mandatory part that shocked me, not the permanent part. I’m sorry for making that unclear in my post.
Oh, and when I am responding to a particular poster, I do quote them. Do a search on my name if you don’t believe me.
Again, I don’t think anyone on here has advocated letting children starve. It is just fairly obvious that the system we have is not working.
Birth control (in Columbus at least) is readily available at the Health Department. That is where I went for mine while unemployed. I know some of these mothers know where the Health Department is, because that is where the moms take the kids for free vaccinations. When you see a pregnant woman with four kids in the Health Department you have to wonder about her decision making abilities. Is she incapable of using birth control properly? Does she just “want lots of kids”? Wanting lots of kids is not wrong - if you can support them. I don’t think it is in any way right - no matter what the mother’s religion - to expect the overburdened social welfare of this country to support more children when the mother has already shown she cannot support the ones she has.
And yes the fathers are to blame - but that often goes back to the poor judgement of the mothers. If the man you are sleeping with already has children he doesn’t support, you and your children are not going to be any different. When I was a bartender, on more than one occasion I heard guys talking about quitting jobs to work for under the table wages so “that bitch can’t get her hands on my money”. Fathers do have a responsibility, but mothers are going to be living with it for at least 18 years. After the first time a guy has run out on you and left you with a child to support - don’t be so fucking trusting the next time…and the next time…and the next time… .
It would make things much clearer if you indicated who you were quoting. It’s a royal pain in the ass to scroll back through a thread looking for the source of an unattributed quote. The quote tag has a built-in feature for making this easy:
Which looks like this:
You can also get this by clicking the Reply with Quote button which is in the lower right-hand corner of every post. You can then cut out those parts you do not wish to include in the quote.
Guinastasia, I’m trying very hard to determine what I’ve said in here that could lead you to the conclusion that I believe that welfare programs use a larger percentage of the budget than the military does, or are a poorer use of funds. Perhaps you can help me out?
Just a little sarcasm, don’t read too much into it.
Thanks!
So you think that birth control = sterilization. Okay, seems a little odd, but okay.
If you’re on welfare, you have already demonstrated that you are not (for whatever reason) capable of supporting yourself and family without assistance. This is no longer a hypothetical. You can’t do it. The rest of us (via our state & federal governments) offer you some assistance to get back on your feet. Is it too much to ask that you be required to demonstrate that you’re willing to take a simple step to ensure that things don’t get worse? And if you aren’t willing to take such a step, why should we offer the assistance?
Whoops. Again, i usually do, for exactly that reason. Sorry :o
Ok, I can see the problem. No I don’t, I’m just using the wrong word. Forgive me, I’m not a native speaker. Lets see, is there a word for “making someone infertile” that doesn’t indicicate if its permanent?
I’ll rephrase: It’s icky if the government is alowed to make birth-control mandatory in exchange for food etc. I think only a small percentage would choose that life, if they had a better understanding of how birth control works and easy acces to it.
The term “birth control” usually refers (IMO) to methods that are not permanent; methods such as pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera injections, etc.
And if my city is any example, no one over the age of 18 has the excuse of “not understanding how birth control works” or not having “easy access to it”. It is available free at the local Health Department.