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 (21-30):
Peanutx3
by Ruby Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Radarma:

 

Quoting Peanutx3:

It is not my place to tell another person what they can or can't do with their body.

 Hey we got more than a sigh here. **woot woot**

;)

Okay then, if YOU could not provide for your child, food clothing shelter, would you have child and another?

Me personally no.  I find it irresponsible to keep having children you can't pay for or shelter but it is not my place to tell anyone else they can't.

Radarma
by "OneDar" on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting siorraidhe:

 i have no right to tell others what they can do with their body.  i do think that when you are unable, by your own design, to care for your children that is a problem.  that could be because your partner wants more kids than you, because you are unable to support them (one or both partners), don't beleive in use of birth control, are michelle duggar (sp?), or various other reasons (which i cannot think of). 

sometimes, accidents happen when it comes to kids and the having of them.  once, maybe twice, is an accident.  more than that is willfull ignorance.  you shouldn't continue to have children that you cannot care for.  there are some exceptions (birth control failure is one), but on the whole...no. 

 I agree, and I think these two perspectives can co exist within us.

 

SWasson
by Bronze Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I'm never going to support the idea that the government should have control over a woman's body.

siorraidhe
by Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM
3 moms liked this

 i would also like to add this. 

it used to be functional to have large families.  my great grandfather had 21 siblings.  they grew up on a farm.  children are no longer a "functional" part of the family.  there is a good reason that the number of children has decreased.  children no longer work with their parents, they no longer travel no farther than the county they live in.  birth control is readily available.   we've become a globally aware community/county/country/society, therefore less children makes sense.  children used to be free labor (i do not mean that in a bad way), and in absence of any reliable or known birth control...they happen...quite often. 

see above.  can you imagine having 22 children?  right now.  you'd have to own a damn grocery store!  imagine the markup for customers, you'd better live in BFE, like north pole BFE.  wow. 

UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting Radarma:

 

Quoting UpSheRises:

I think poor people have the same rights to bear children as the rest of us.

So if someone has a child and cannot feed child and said child dies, that is the parent's right? And is it still their right, if it happens more than once, twice?

:/

You didn't ask about a parent starving their children, you asked about finances.

Now you asking if it's okay for a parent to starve multiple children to death...that is a different question and most reasonable people understand the difference.

Comparing an actual value, like believing that money shouldn't impact reproductive rights, to a hypothetical anecdote is pretty stupid.

SunshneDaydream
by Silver Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM
1 mom liked this

Should they be *allowed to?  Of course.  *Should they?  No.  Unfortunately, no one has come up with a fair way to make laws against stupid without making people feel oppressed...

JakeandEmmasMom
by Platinum Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM
I do not think that purposely having a child that you know ahead of time that you can't feed or clothe is a responsible choice. However, at the end of the day it really isn't my business.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Goodwoman614
by Satan on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM

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. 


Why should it 'pain' you? Ohhhh, nevermind. You are talking about your own feelings. 

slashteddy
by Bronze Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM
I voted yes. While I definitely don't think that's a good idea, the idea of someone else being able to have a say in when/how/how many doesn't fly with me. Not that that's exactly what you're getting at, just the way I took it being "Should there be restrictions."
The_Doodle
by Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Yes. A woman should be able to have a child if she so chooses. Is it smart to have a child when it's obvious the woman can't afford it? Hell no. But she should always have that right.

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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN