[QueenAngie]

Was reading an article recently about
government support to single parents and children.

Should the government (where ever you live) be
allowed to limit the # of children you have?

If a parent goes into the government funding with 1 or 2 children,
should the government be allowed to state, no more funding
if you have a 3rd one? Or no additional funding for the 3rd one?

Or 2? Or 4?

Should the government have any say at all with the # of children a parent has/bears, if if that adult gets any kind of state funding?

What are your thoughts on this topic?

[mcmama]

So what are they going to do if you have more? Force you to have an abortion? And pay for it? Don't see that happening.

Reduce benefits? Likely a possibility. Except that they already do that if you do things like get a job.

I have no problem with benefits overall being reduced - maybe people should know that for baby 1 you get a certain amount, baby 2 a bit less and so on. All that changes though when there are disabilites.

Its also not so gender neutral. Men can make babies all over the place, and if they are with different mothers, those are considered different families on different sets of applications. So we are talking about limiting women's child bearing - and men still do what they want.

I'd rather see the government save itself a bundle by catching up with the children's fathers and forcing them to pay. Now that would be birth control.

[twinzplus3]

Originally Posted by mcmama

I'd rather see the government save itself a bundle by catching up with the children's fathers and forcing them to pay. Now that would be birth control.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I would never favor something like this. It would do nothing but create a mess. . .

[QueenAngie]

Originally Posted by mcmama

I'd rather see the government save itself a bundle by catching up with the children's fathers and forcing them to pay. Now that would be birth control.

I have to agree - make the deadbeat fathers pay child support.

[fostermommy]

Hi,
I'm a bit new to this site. I am a foster parent. Two of the foster children currently in my care have MANY siblings, and the birth parents just keep making more...........and the foster care system just keeps taking them away. And the children just LINGER in the system. And taxpayers just keep supporting them. The cost to taxpayers for the formula, food, daycare, and my monthly stipend is astronomical. (about $2000 per month per child) In addition, there is cost for medical care, special therapies, the child's lawyer, social workers, etc. That is money that we all worked hard to earn and should be in our pockets to support our own families. Yes - the children certainly benefit from it and deserve it, but the parents must be stopped from continuing to burden the system. Maybe if we didn't have to pay so much to support other people's children, we could actually afford to have more of our own children. My youngest foster baby is one of four children - the oldest is 3 yo - and none are twins. All babies were born prematurely with abundant medical needs. (No prenatal care) He's only 11 months old and is already a big brother. The children are divided among 3 foster homes. And the dad has at least one other baby with another woman. Neither parent works. This is a very common scenario among the foster children who have come through my home. I say - when children are removed from a home due to abuse or neglect, the birth parents should be required to participate in medically supervised birth control (not the pill or condoms) free of charge until the children are returned to their care and the parents can care for them. I believe that most taxpayers would be happy to support birth control (not abortion) in these circumstances. If the parents refuse, put 'em in jail or house arrest - alone.

[PennySteed]

FosterMommy - I could not agree with you more. My Dad use to always joke that if you wanted a raise while on welfare, simply have another child. Once I was aware of the welfare system and how it works, I also became aware as to how some of those in the "system" lived and worked. You have those that actually need an extra hand and are trying to get themselves off of welfare. But to the others, the subject of the debate, they often times do little to nothing. I would fully support sometime of birthcontrol for those people who do nothing but have children/or make children. I commend you on what you do, once I am out of the military I am going to try to talk my DH into adopting a child. One less out of the system and into a loving home.

[mcmama]

I think that any compulsory birth control would meet a lot of legal challenges. And assuming that the birth control was not sterilization, well, sometimes birth control fails. So I don't see forcing birth control as an option.

I think the incentives have to be economic. It just shouldn't pay to keep having kids that you cannot support any other way. Or you have a cutoff point for aid.

[jadis]

I'm a big believer in social services. I have no problem that I pay higher taxes in Canada so that more people have access to it, and truly believe that it is part of what makes our country a fairly decent place to live. However, it isn't intended as a way of life, only as a means to get yourself out of a rough spot. Not only is it not really enough to make a life on, but irresponsible people are taxing the system to the point that help isn't always available for those who need it.

Yes, I believe it's completely irresponsible for someone to PLAN to have a child that they don't have the means to support. I don't think that someone needs to have a lot of money to support a child- they don't need every toy or material possession, but they do need food, clothing, and shelter. We live paycheck to paycheck around here for the time being (being a student mommy isn't fun), and realize that, that was our choice since we made the decision to not be completely foolproof about birth control. It really grinds my gears when someone plans to have a child they can't support with the idea that "it doesn't matter, the government will bail me out".

Yes, absent fathers and lack of child support is a massive problem- but there are tons of women who plan on becoming pregnant, even though they know that neither she or the father have the adequate means to support the child.

[jadis]

Oh yeah, to answer the original question:

Yes, I would like it if the government could prevent people from having kids they can't support......but there isn't a way that it can be done without totally overriding individual rights. Not to mention it brings up the whole can of worms called eugenics.

[twinzplus3]

In reading this thread. . .I have to point out that public assistance goes well beyond 'getting money'. There is health insurance (in the US), there's WIC, there's food stamps. In the city (and I imagine in other major cities too) there's Section 8. . .money towards rent. Not all people who get public assistance of any type are like what has been described. In fact, within my church, which granted is a small population, many, many woman are on Section 8 at least if not WIC as well. . .bc the baby daddys won't step up and do what they need to do. Some of these are women who made bad choices when they were young and some made good choices w/ the wrong men. . .but I have to say again, before I'm willing to pay for birth control (which by the way I'm morally opposed to equally as much as abortion) I'd much rather see the money spent on going after the dead beat dads.

It is unfair that irresponsible people become parents. (And by unfair--I mean to the children.) It stinks and yes, lots of foster care kids come from homes by which you've described. I understand that and think it's horrible. But there's no way to 'medically supervise' birth control w/o committing someone or permanently sterilizing them. Unfortunately, there's no qualification degree to become a parent. But there are far reaching implications for making birth control mandatory that would include a serious invasion of privacy and personal rights. Sadly, life is just unfair sometimes.