If you can't feed them, don't breed them.
 

First off, IF anyone thinks I am being elitist, I live partly on umeployment payments myself and partly from my salary. I would not consider a child unless I made more money. I would not consider bringing a child into my life unless I could provide at least the basics from my own salary/.

I am also waiting patiently ( impatiently?) for a planned dog.
Since my new job last spring did not pay nearly as much as I'd hoped for, I stopped my dog plans. I would like a dog very much as a single asexual who has difficulty getting a relationship and is very cuddle/intimacy deprived. This stuff just makes sense to me, I will bring a dog home when my income hits a certain level.

When a person gets a companion animal, they are expected to be able to feed and care for said companion animal. Why should having a child be any different?.
Do you think that a person that has a child should have at the least same criteria that is expected of getting a companion animal if not more?. I do think if anything, society have higher expectations of someone adding a child to their lives then a companion animal.

And yet it seems perfectly acceptable in our society to have children one cannot afford and then and then expect taxpayers to foot the bill. Don't worry, society will take care of it...Yeah, the hard working taxpayers...Who cares if it makes their lives harder?.
Even as a non tax payer ( I don't earn enough to pay taxes) I still care about other people working their butts off. Maybe because I know not too far down the road, I might be one of them or maybe just because I care about others in that way.

It upsets me because they are basically exploiting the public. Using a service that was meant for responsible people who fell on hard times.
Now, to make myself clear, I have nothing against people who fall on hard times and already have children. These children should be supported by the government/taxes. They were being responsible and then things changed.
LIke to give an example:
Someone who has a dog and loses their job VS someone who is unemployed and decided to adopt a new dog.

So...comments...? what do you think?...

i think this is a good subject to bring up. i think you are totally and 100% right on this one. cause if you decide to have sex, and you get pregnant, than that kid is your responsibility. some keep having them and keep giving them away, i dont understand how they could do that to their own kids. so dont have them. or some will get pregnant and have a abortion. it was their choice why should the baby have to suffer the consequences weather it is not eating hardly anything for weeks or living not knowing who their real parents are or dying. its not fair.

@kayy~I agree one hundred and fifty percent with you. Some women decide to have sex, knowing quite well that they are more than likely to get pregnant if they are not using some kind of birth control or using protection when having sex, yet they still continue to have sex, get pregnant and either kill the child or put it up for adoption, heck some women don't even have the courtesy to actually put the child up for adoption but instead hide the child somewhere off in a bush or in the garbage bin. I was watching the new one day and it said that they found a baby inside of a trash can behind the woman's house and the baby was still alive and crying. Some people should just try to be a little more careful of how they have sex.

Accidental pregnancies can at least partially be prevented if perhaps forms of birth control were more readily available to people, and sex education as well. I live in south Louisiana, we have one of the highest amounts of teen pregnancy and 'wedlock' pregnancy in the country. But here we also have the biggest push for abstinence only programs. Teaching abstinence is okay, but teaching that as the only thing ever, and not teaching sexual safety at all, is irresponsible. But I do agree with that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for people who keep having children with no means to support them. And not pregnancies are accidental. Didn't the 'Octomom' have her babies by being artificially inseminated? That woman does not have a job, and hasn't had one in several years, but she still had eight children. And there are women out there who have children simply as meal tickets, they know they will get a government stipend if they have children, so they do not care if they are careful or not, because they'll get a check from the government anyway. I understand if you were trying to be careful and it happened anyway, that's life, but the people I just described are taking blatant advantage of the system - and it's wrong.

Lilikka, Sounds like this situation fits under changing circumstances since you didn't just go have a kid without having someone to support them.
Furthermore, I have more sympathy for folks who are unable to work then able bodied/healthy people who have more options. In fact, I'd say this arguement doesn't apply for disabled people since they need public assistance even without having children. If you are disabled, you aren't being irresponsible, you can't work.

Yes, accidental pregancy is an issue, though it should be a rare one in developed countries as we have a wide availibility of birth control.

I fully support family planning and think handing out free condoms is a good idea, esepcially for folks who might be at risk for finanical hardship. If taxpayers are going to support them, might as support them at the prevention stage then after they have an unwanted pregnancy.

Promoting abstinence only campaigns is riducious sp?. I can't believe some places still use this system. I don't think these people live in reality. It's fine to promote abstinence, as long as you realize that not everyone will agree and unfortunately some individuals will be getting sexually active younger then some people might think is acceptable.
It's not a good place to be making moral judgments about other people when reality proves otherwise.

Having children as "meal tickets" just makes me furious.
This is fully taking advantage of the system which was supposed to support children in bad situations, not be a tool for encouraging overpopulation by having extra children.
I have a feeling some folks around here are doing the children as "meal tickets" thing. They have quite a lot of children for this being a lower middle class neighborhood.

Sadly, I know of one person who is going to keep having kids, 'as many as God allows'.
He's an elementary school teacher. His wife doesn't work. And he's had four kids in five years. Oh, and did I mention he's also going to college? They seem to be doing fine now...but no doubt they'll get some sort of government assistance.

I feel if you can support them without assistance then go ahead and have as many as you want. But if you cant support them you have no buisness having them. I can see that young people make mistakes and everyone is entitled to a mistake but not over and over then let taxpayers like me foot the bill.

Ugh. This so hits home with me. And from a retail point of view.

I work in a Walgreens and my state has a plan that allows low income families to reccieve benifit money on a debit type card. For stuff like milk, cheese, bread- the stuff you supposedly need to survive.

Half the people I see coming in with these cards are blowing state money on candy, soda and other junk they don't need. And they are rather well dressed, like designer clothes type stuff.

Most of them run around with hoards of screaming children in the stores. The taxpayers shouldn't be supporting those kinds of people who squander the money on things they really don't need.

This is a good subject, I sold a dog here reicently that I needed to find a home for. The girl that bought him from me said that he would be staying at her grandparents house and they would be caring for him. I met with them and the grandparents seemed very nice. They had a good sized truck, that looked fairly expensive. And sounded suited for the dog. Yet when I sold the poor guy to them, the girl emailed me like 3 days later saying that she was pissed that she had to spend almost $200 on the vet bill. I asked her why she had to take him to the vet. He was up to date on his shots. She said she got his shots all over again to make sure I wasnt lieing about having him up to date. And that she got him treated for fleas. Which he didnt even have any fleas cause I had been keeping a tropical flea and tick treatment on him, on top of bathing him often in flea shampoo for puppies. He was a very small dog.
Anyways, she was angry that she had to spend money on the dog and I told her that comes with the territory of owning a pet. If she wanted to give the dog back to me then she could if ever became too much for her to handle. But she wanted her money back that she paid for him and the vet bill paid by me too and that was out of the question. Im by no means a dog breeder. He was the only dog I had at the time and I sold him cause I was starting back to work and wanted him to have someone around full time. (He had panic attacks when left alone). But any breeder would never accept those terms. Once you buy it, if there's not something wrong with it and you simply do not want it any more, then you cant expect to get your money back.

My parents had me both in poverty and the projects. Luckily, they worked themselves out of it so well, that I can't even get financial aid for college. Yay! :O

No, I'm happy we are financially well off to know I'll never starve again. I never did, even in poverty, because welfare was good, and I'm glad to know my parents never abused it. Instead, they worked hard to get off of it, to be independent. My mom became a nurse, my dad still low pay (this was West Virginia after all), but we were okay.

I want to have kids some day, I also want to adopt. But, I would be really saddened if, because I choose to pursue a lesser degree, I wouldn't be able to have one. I decided unless me and my hubby earned 40K a year or very close to it, we wouldn't even consider a child. If we hit 30K, we may consider a pet outside of anyones we had from childhood that continue on with us.

Oh god, I hope I earn 40K a year on my own, should anything ever happen to that future hubby or divorce. D: But if I pursue an English Major, financial options may be limited for quite some time. And I WANT to adopt a child too. D:

Actually, everything I'm considering has the potential for low pay.

But I totally agree, you SHOULD be financially independent to have a kid. And those who already have kids and are not, steps should be made to ensure that they will be able to be independent.

Welfare should never be permanent if you are an able-bodied individual.

I completely agree with you. Some people want children so badly that they are so blind to what the child really needs. There are a lot of parents out there who want to have the child so they can have a companion and they won't be lonely. (I believe that's why OctoMom said she wanted kids or something) It's pretty unfair to the child who is going to have to live in poor conditions and probably be poorly nutritioned if no one calls child services or something. Children should be given a fair chance, so if you can't take care of one, you shouldn't have one.

I was an unplanned child of a teenager.
For most of my life, I lived in an apartment in downtown Nashville where we only got food if we had gotten food stamps, and we didn't have school supplies, or small luxuries like TV, internet, etc. We did have welfare, and we did have food stamps. If you hate it when families like mine are food stamps, what do you want to happen to us? For us to starve? I don't think that food stamps going to a family who needs it to be able to eat, whether or not the parent is working, is a waste. I'd much rather see the money go there than to kill people in the Middle East.

So many of you posting act as though no matter what the person does, they're wrong. All wrong. The first reply was talking about how they're wrong if they get an abortion. They're wrong if the child is "given away" (wtf do you think children are? Puppies?). They're wrong if they keep the child. If a young woman gets pregnant, when can she be right? If she's wrong all three of those times, what can she do to appease you people?

It hurts to be called a burden on society, I won't lie. No one ever thinks when they call unwanted children burdens, pests, or when people talk about how children of teenage parents ruin their kids lives. But, perhaps those who have never been above hard times are a burden on society. But you know what is a whole lot better than letting these "burdens", like my family used to be, starve and be homeless? Letting them live in a crap home and eating a bit of food from their own crap home every now and then.

- Herman Melville

I can see where you are coming from Kris. But tell me. Why couldnt your mother work. Was she disabled? I work with many woman that are single and have children and they are not on welfare. What is the problem with having people work for what they need. What business does a woman have, having multiple children and she cant support the first one. I can understand you not having much growing up. But why couldnt your mother have worked. Would she have worked if she had free childcare. Wouldnt your life have been better if she had worked. Dont blame society because you didnt have much growing up. I too was on welfare a couple of times when I was young and I had two kids. But I went out an found jobs and got off. Later I did find a man and got married and we raised them together. I breed them and I worked and raised them. I am raising one of my daughters children now and I didnt breed that one. So Guess what. I have been there done that. And did the right thing.

She did work.

I think there is a lot more aspects on this, than just the money. I agree with you that you shouldn't get a baby if you can't afford it, but where you are argueing about the tax system, I think this way, because, it's a whole new life you are creating, and if you already know, that the little baby will have to go through hell, why on earth do you have the conscience to get a baby.

I think, that people are often selfish, unfortunately (not saying you are), and they forget to think about the enormous responsibility it is to have just one child.

So I am of the strong opinion, that if you can't handle a child you shouldn't be allowed to get one.... this might sound extreme, but I had an encounter with a girl who had parents who was too young, poor, irresponsible, violent and they had no idea in general how to rais a child.
The result wasn't pretty >_>

HEY I'm in WV O: I know all about that low pay.
Anyway

My cousin is a friggin BABY MACHINE. She keeps popping them out to get more welfare checks.. Every time I see her, she's pregnant, or just recently gave birth. No joke. She refuses to get off welfare so she can "take care of her kids". Bull. She has a man on her arm, he can either get a decent job and let her take care of the spawn, or he can take care of them all while she works.

It angers me.

Any of you who enjoy to bring up how everyone on welfare are corrupt, evil people guilty of theft have yet to bring up statistics about it. :roll:

Welfare : a temporary assistance. Not a lifestyle. How bout this for statistics. The majority are woman with 2 or more children on welfare longer than 5 years between the ages of 20-39 years old. Ummm isnt that prime working age. Hmmmmmmmmm I rest my case.



Sorry folks. Still learning and forgot the quotes. Thanks.

Firstly, I have a question I would like to ask you. Why is it that you do not seem to classify the raising of children as work? As I am in a nice mood, I will give you a heads up. Think carefully about which group in society is more commonly found in such a position and what impact any answer to that question has in either subordinating them to second class citizens or acknowledging that they are equal to their counterparts.

I find your choice of statistics presented to be quite interesting. Would you care to explain?

What if they typed them out manually? ;)