Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

 

Poll

Question: Do you think a woman should be able to have as many children as she wishes to have, irrespective of whether or not she can afford to take care of them?

Options:

YES

NO


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 75

View Results

 Do you think a woman should be able to have as many children as she wishes to have, irrespective of whether or not she can afford to take care of them?

I really want YES or NO.

If you say "yes", feel free to offer your logic.

If you say "no", please do the same.

If you do not vote and want to say "other", please do.

And it pains me to feel that I HAVE TO SAY THIS, but...this post is in no way intended to bash single or partnered parents.

Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

by on Nov. 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Replies (101-102):
Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Nov. 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I don't think anyone has a right to make that sort of decision for others ~

but ~

I do believe that those who are expected to pay for the decisions that others make have a right to state whether or not they want to, as well as a right to vote so they don't have to.

Right now the government actively encourages women to have babies they can't afford. It pays them to have babies they can't afford (by paying for prenatal care, delivery, doctors, hospital expenses, food, formula, housing, etc.).

If it were up to me I'd stop those payments, and if there were children not being fed, it would become a legal matter.

We allow people to have pets, and if they don't take care of them (feed them, provide water, shelter, vet care) they are arrested, fined, and/or go to jail. The gov't. doesn't 'pay' for pets, unplanned puppies, etc., but owners can (and should) be punished for not providing at least the minimum care.

I think we should treat parenthood the same way. Let people have babies ~ but if they neglect them, abuse them, or can't afford them (without gov't. asst. which should stopped entirely/be limited to a year or less) then let the law treat them the same way they do irresponsible pet owners. I'd rather end welfare entirely for anyone who isn't 100% disabled or at/older than retirement age.

Young people really need to figure out that just because they 'want' things, they aren't entitled to them unless they earn the money to buy them. Young parents need to figure out that having babies is expensive, and even more than 'things' requires a job, a home, and a lot of hard work on top of the job. If the government keeps handing them welfare, they won't learn.

If the government says we'll stick you in a jail cell if you don't feed your children they will work ~ or stop having babies they can't afford. Even an oops baby can be provided for without welfare ... but young parents won't as long as the welfare is available.

annabl1970
by Platinum Member on Nov. 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I think is everyone's  moral obligation to have kids ONLY when they can afford them. But I don't think there should some kind of legal regulation KWIM/?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)