Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 6221 Location: London, England
Thanks: 0
Thanked:7
Should There Be a Limit to the Amount of Kids You Can Have? Posted: 06-27-07 12:12pm
should people on low incomes only be
allowed a set number of children if it is
proven they cannot finanically support
them?
is love all a child needs?
is it fair to have lots of children and
not be able to dedicate lots of individual
attention to each one?
should people who have given up their
children be allowed to have more?
can you think of situations where people
shouldn't be allowed more children?
is it immoral to forcibly make someone get
sterilised or have an iud?
opinions please!
|
HcoBrunette06
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 8006 Location: Missouri, United States
Thanks: 2
Thanked:1
Posted: 06-27-07 12:26pm
good question.
yes i do think people who give up one
child or more should be able to have more,
i think giving a child up for adoption is
a great sacrafice and shows how much you
love your child.
about the low income families. it's not
for me to decide, but yesterday we were at
the doctors office and a family came in,
they were really scrubby looking, and you
could smell them and htey had two kids and
a baby. the baby was 3 weeks old they said
and it was sooooo skinny, she had formula
but she was feeding it a bottle of water
for some reason. anyway, i dont think they
should have had more kids.
no money isnt everything, but you should
be able to bathe your kids and put good
clothes on them and if you can't do that
then no you souldn't have more kids.
materialistic things aren't everything,
but you can buy nice clothes at a garage
sale for a few dollars.. these kids were
seriously dirty and i don't think they
should have had another baby, but that was
their choice.
unfortunately there are people all over
the world having babies whent hey
shouldnt.
|
mc4ever02
Supporter
Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 3636 Location: Orlando, FL Usa
Thanks: 5
Thanked:2
Re: Should There Be a Limit to the Amount of Kids You Can Ha Posted: 06-27-07 12:27pm
should
people on low incomes only be allowed a
set number of children if it is proven
they cannot finanically support
them? Yes, I think that if a person
is in a long term unstable financial
situation which would make them unable to
provide for their children, that they
should not continue to have children until
they are able to support them on thier
own.
is love
all a child needs? Nope. While,
that is great in theory and love is
important, it is not all a child needs to
survive. What about diapers, clothes, a
roof to live under?
should
people who have given up their children be
allowed to have more?I think this
depends. If they had a child where they
were in a situation that they could not
offer the best for their child and gave
them up to a loving home, and now are in a
situation to provide for a child, then
yes, they should be allowed to have more
children. If they were taken away due to
neglect or abuse, then no absolutely not.
it immoral
to forcibly make someone get sterilized or
have an iud? As much as I wish we
could dictate who can have children and
who can not. I do believe that it is
immoral to forcibly make someone get
sterilized. Though abortion would not be
the right choice for me, I still believe
in the womans choice.
|
Becky
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 6221 Location: London, England
Thanks: 0
Thanked:7
Posted: 06-27-07 13:52pm
thanks for your opinions- keep them coming
ladies!
|
Mommy35
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 Posts: 3165 Location: Vacationland, USA,
Posted: 06-27-07 14:00pm
Should people on low incomes only be
allowed a set number of children if it is
proven they cannot finanically support
them?
Yes
Is love all a child needs?
As important as love is, No, they need
diapers, food, clothes, baths, and a warm
place to sleep. They don't need to wear
name brands or have silver spoons hanging
out of their mouths, but it takes more
than hugs and kisses to raise a child.
Is it fair to have lots of children and
not be able to dedicate lots of individual
attention to each one?
no, this isn't fair to the kids
Should people who have given up their
children be allowed to have more?
If a person chooses adoption than they are
showing a child that they loved them
enough to put them in a situation that is
better than they personally could provide.
If that person gave up their children
because they chose a man over their kids,
they should be forced to attend parenting
classes and possibly get some counseling
before having more.
If that person chooses to be with a
man/woman that can not be around children
because they have committed a crime
against a child, and that person gives
their child to be with that person, they
should attend parenting classes
Can you think of situations where people
shouldn't be allowed more children?
If their children are taken away because
of something they were proven to have done
to a child. Example: they were convicted
of a crime against a child (abuse,
neglect, etc)
Is it immoral to forcibly make someone get
sterilised or have an iud?
I have always said that someone who has
been without a doubt proven to have
committed a crime against a child should
be sterilized. They shouldn't have the
chance to do it again.
|
Carifairy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 2608 Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0
Posted: 06-27-07 14:32pm
Should people on low incomes only be
allowed a set number of children if it is
proven they cannot finanically support
them?
YES.
Love is important, but it does not buy
food, clothes, shelter, or pay for dr
visits.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 120
Thanked:12
Posted: 06-27-07 14:43pm
What a great question, beckster! You keep
coming up w/ great topics.
Should
people on low incomes only be allowed a
set number of children if it is proven
they cannot finanically support
them?
While I personally think yes, I cannot
imagine how it would be determined that
the income is, and how this is enforced,
and what to do about unwanted pregnancies,
and if birth control should be required,
and how this is not discrimination against
class and minorities (as they are the
folks with income disparities).
|
OctoberBaby06
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 4612 Location: , US
Thanks: 2
Thanked:2
Posted: 06-27-07 14:55pm
Should people on low incomes only be
allowed a set number of children if it is
proven they cannot finanically support
them?
Definately
Is love all a child needs?
Love is important but love doesn't buy
formula, diapers, doctors visits, clothes,
etc..
Is it fair to have lots of children and
not be able to dedicate lots of individual
attention to each one?
No
Should people who have given up their
children be allowed to have more?
Yes... giving up children for adoption
is a completely different story than if a
child or children were taken away for
whatever reason. If the kids are .Taken
away, then no, they shouldn't be allowed
to have more.
Can you think of situations where people
shouldn't be allowed more children?
Not financially stable.. If there was
something against that person for doing
harm to children..
|
Jude-Love
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 727 Location: Williamstown, Kentucky USA
Posted: 06-27-07 16:36pm
I wouldn't support any legislation that
would affect someone's bodily rights or
personal autonomy. Ever. It is
definitely immoral and disgustingly
unethical to force anything like that.
It isn't fair to have lots of children (or
one child, for that matter) when you can't
give them your undivided attention daily.
Love is not all a child needs. But some
things are just going too far in my
opinion. There are better ways to deal
with these things.
|
Idony
Supporter
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 Posts: 1611 Location: virginia beach, va usa
Thanks: 11
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-07-07 13:58pm
people who abuse or neglact the children
they already have
i have known a few cases of trhis
personally
somone i had known from the trime i was 4
years old had her first baby at 15 and she
was a wonderful mother, then a few years
later sdhe met someone else and had
another kid and then another and forced
her older daughter to take care of the
younger ones so she could go out partying,
all 3 kids were oftern dropped off with me
to care for them, then the mother lost her
house and lived on the streets (thankfully
she had the intelligence not to make her
kids live on the streets too) she gave her
oldest to her mother her middle to her
sister in law and yer youngest to me to
watch, then got pregnant again and ended
up goin gto jail, she was let out and we
took her in so she could have the baby in
a safe place, once she was off house
arrest she left with her husband and left
the baby with me and only came back every
other weekend to show her off to family,
the baby was taken away when she was 8
monthes old because teh mum sent her to
daycare after she had her for the weekend
doped up on medication so bad she started
having sesures....she should have never
had more kids
another one an illegal immigrent to lives
in a 2 bedroom house with 4 other adults
and her 2 kids (2 years and 1.5 monthes)
neither of the children have ever been to
a doctor and neither have proper nutition,
she wakes up at 12 or later and doesnt go
to bed until at least 2 am and expects the
2 year old to sleep from 7pm until 12
noon, they have beat the 2 year old so bad
he had cuts and blisters on his but and
thighs just for not going to bed, and she
just had another baby who is never held,
his crys are ignored, he is changed
probaby 3 or 4 times a day (hes had diaper
rash so bad the first layer of his skin
peeled off, his bottles get propped
up...they cant spend time away from their
computers to actualy take care of these
children, and she wants to have at least
one more if not 2....she should not have
more children
i have known at least 2 others who should
not have had more but these 2 are the
worse
~alicia~
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2690
Thanks: 4
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-07-07 14:23pm
Idony, those are such terrible tales I
want to cry.
I am another one who should not have more
children. I can't go through another
pregnancy due to terrible issues with post
partum. Unless I adopted, but I think I
have my hands full as it is!
I went to school with a family of 13 kids
(catholic) and they were all polite,
intelligent, athletic, musical, and
all-around great kids. Their mom did it
all herself, because a year after the
youngest was born, their father was killed
in a traffic accident. I have no idea how
she did it, but they were a great family.
If you think about it, though, if every
set of parents had 13 children,
overpopulation would be a huge issue. The
International population summit
reccommends that we reproduce at no
greater than replacement value, ie: 2
children per family. There is, of course
room for variant, in that some people
choose to have no children.
This may sound terribly harsh, but I think
that anyone who has abused or neglected
their children to the point of having them
removed from custody and having their
parental rights terminated should be
sterilized.
|
kaerbear
Most Diplomatic Poster
Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1557 Location: ,
Posted: 07-07-07 15:39pm
it's an interesting issue when you talk
about it in terms of money. you are then
saying that people with money deserve to
have family while people who are poor do
not. it's just another case of the haves
and the have nots. i grew up poor and i
turned out okay. we struggled a lot but
those struggles taught me not to judge
people who are less fortunate than i am.
if there were laws like that i guess i
wouldn't exist and supposedly the world
would be a better place.
as for population, there is at least one
country i know of where the government
dictates how many children you can have.
in china there is the one child rule. you
are fined if you have more than one child.
they had to create laws to prevent people
from aborting all the female babies
because everyone wanted to have a boy if
they were only allowed one try at it. now
there are more boys than girls. that is a
communist country so i don't know what the
implications would be to advocate for
something like that in a so called free
society. (the land of the free?)
i think it's a moral issue and one that
the government shouldn't need to be
regulating. there are already laws to
fight and prevent child abuse and neglect
and there are many agencies that are doing
their best to deal with children's
welfare. i believe that people who are
abusive or unable to parent their children
should not be having more children but
it's a pretty touchy subject when it comes
to human rights. it's like the abortion
debate, whose rights take precedence? the
parent or the unborn child? and also, if
you were to go around sterilizing people,
would it only be the women or would
someone put in the time and money to find
the fathers of these children and make
them responsible and sterilise them as
well? we can't even get them to pay child
support as it stands. it's all well and
good to moralize but it's a pretty murky
issue when it comes to human rights and
living in a free country.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-07-07 16:35pm
There's a difference between being poor,
and literally being unable to feed your
child. I do not think anyone rich or poor
"deserves" to have children. It is not a
right. It is something that should be
earned, by being in the proper mindset to
care for a child. If you truly care,
you're going to make sure you have enough
money to feed your baby.
|
kaerbear
Most Diplomatic Poster
Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1557 Location: ,
Posted: 07-07-07 17:56pm
you don't feed money to a baby. if it's a
matter of having enough food to eat there
should be more than enough to go around in
a country like the united states where
food is wasted on a vast scale every
single day. people who are unable to feed
their children in the states have the
option to give them up or to find help
through food banks and other social
networks. who is to say that their
situation isn't temporary? are you
seriously advocating sterilizing someone
because of their economic status? if
someone fails to find the resources
through neglect, that is a different story
because neglect is the same as abuse and,
like i said before, there are also
agencies in place whose mandate it is to
deal with that. i don't really get this
argument. who is going to judge who can
and can't afford to have children? how
would you enforce it? forced
sterilization? i could see there being a
basis for an argument on the grounds of
abuse but i also believe that some abusers
can be rehabilitated so how do you know
which to sterilize and which to give
another chance to? i also think it would
be stupid to even consider it if you
aren't going after the fathers as well.
but the situation is the same; who will
pay to enforce it? if people are whining
about the social welfare system costing
them too much (which i believe is what
this argument is really about), are they
going to be willing to add on to that
price tag and pay for the process of
finding, judging and sterilizing not only
mothers but fathers who are accused of
being unfit? and where do we draw the
line? people who have had too many
children? people who are having six
children at a time and risking defects
because they are taking fertility
treatment? people who are deemed too old
to give birth? or are they allowed as
long as they have the economic status to
back it up? should women in africa all be
sterilized?
* i just want to add that i'm not arguing
just for arguments sake. there is a
precedent for forced sterlization in the
states. there are a literally thousands
of native women and men who were ordered
sterilized in the 70's. there were women
who were given hysterectomies without
their consent or even knowledge during
other procedures. if we are going to
start talking about eugenics, why not just
become facists and get it over with.
let's breed out the poor and minorities.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 120
Thanked:12
Posted: 07-07-07 19:07pm
Idony
wrote:
...
another one an illegal immigrent to lives
in a 2 bedroom house with 4 other adults
and her 2 kids (2 years and 1.5 monthes)
neither of the children have ever been to
a doctor and neither have proper nutition,
she wakes up at 12 or later and doesnt go
to bed until at least 2 am and expects the
2 year old to sleep from 7pm until 12
noon, they have beat the 2 year old so bad
he had cuts and blisters on his but and
thighs just for not going to bed, and she
just had another baby who is never held,
his crys are ignored, he is changed
probaby 3 or 4 times a day (hes had diaper
rash so bad the first layer of his skin
peeled off, his bottles get propped
up...they cant spend time away from their
computers to actualy take care of these
children, and she wants to have at least
one more if not 2....she should not have
more children
i have known at least 2 others who should
not have had more but these 2 are the
worse
~alicia~
Have you called CPS? Please please please
do!!!
I'm with you, kaerbear- forced
sterilization delves way too deep into a
quagmire of civil rights issues. While I
think that many people should not have
children, a lack of financial resources is
not the top reasons on my list. A lack of
intellectual resources is.
Eiri
wrote:
If you truly care, you're
going to make sure you have enough money
to feed your
baby.
Sh*t happens. This isn't always the case.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-07-07 22:02pm
kaerbear
wrote:
you don't feed money to a
baby.
Duh. You use the money to buy food.
Quote:
if it's a matter
of having enough food to eat there should
be more than enough to go around in a
country like the united states where food
is wasted on a vast scale every single
day.
You'd think. But there's not. People are
not benevolent as they should be. So
either you have the money to buy food, or
your child starves. Should our country be
fixed? Yes. But for now, you need money to
feed mouths.
Quote:
people who are
unable to feed their children in the
states have the option to give them up
This is not about giving up a child you
cannot feed.
This is about not even giving birth in the
first place if you can't feed the child.
That's true responsibility. Not giving up
your child for someone else to deal with
or, leeching of of other people.
Quote:
who is to say
that their situation isn't
temporary?
If it's temporary then that's a completely
different situation. Even my parents used
food stamps when I was a baby. But again,
that is a completely different situation
from someone who is below the poverty line
and who has no way or no intention of
rising above it.
Quote:
are you
seriously advocating sterilizing someone
because of their economic status?
Absolutely not!! I never said that!! Where
the heck did you get that idea from!? Dear
god... o.o
Quote:
i don't really
get this argument. who is going to judge
who can and can't afford to have children?
how would you enforce it? forced
sterilization?
No. It's all idealism. Duh. This is a
hypothetical discussion... Don't get tied
up in such knots about it!
Quote:
i could see
there being a basis for an argument on the
grounds of abuse but i also believe that
some abusers can be rehabilitated so how
do you know which to sterilize and which
to give another chance to?
In the case of abusers and child
molestors, none of them get a second
chance. It has been shown time and again
that rehabilitation almost never works.
I'm not making that up. That's why
pedophiles have to have signs on their
front lawns and the neighborhood is
alerted of their presence.
They don't get better, period.
Quote:
i also think it
would be stupid to even consider it if you
aren't going after the fathers as well.
I certainly would. It's not just about the
mother, and I never thought it was...
Quote:
but the
situation is the same; who will pay to
enforce it?
Again, it's just hypothetical idealistic
thinking. It's not gong to happen.
Quote:
if people are
whining about the social welfare system
costing them too much (which i believe is
what this argument is really about),
No, it's not.
Quote:
* i just want to add that i'm not arguing
just for arguments sake. there is a
precedent for forced sterlization in the
states. there are a literally thousands
of native women and men who were ordered
sterilized in the 70's. there were women
who were given hysterectomies without
their consent or even knowledge during
other procedures. if we are going to
start talking about eugenics, why not just
become facists and get it over with.
let's breed out the poor and
minorities.
I'd never heard of that, but I think it's
horrible. No one deserves to have their
body mutilated.
|
kaerbear
Most Diplomatic Poster
Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1557 Location: ,
Posted: 07-07-07 22:12pm
sigh. why does everyone think that you
means you specifically. if everyone else
is talking hypotheticals and rhetoricals
why pick apart everything i have said?
several people agreed that people who
"can't afford" to have children shouldn't
be "allowed". i am asking the questions
that just naturally progress from
statements like that. like i said, it's
one thing to preach and moralize but this
is a debate forum and there are plenty of
things to debate on a topic like this.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-07-07 22:54pm
You cannot sterilize someone who is poor
just like you can't force them to give
birth or abort. However, in the case of
criminals I believe there is precedence.
We kill them, so why not sterilize them?
Chopping of a pedophile's nads ought to
get rid of any desire he has to rape
children, and I think it's a fitting
punishment.
|
kaerbear
Most Diplomatic Poster
Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1557 Location: ,
Posted: 07-07-07 23:01pm
it would be nice but it probably wouldn't
stop them. pedophilia is a sickness in
the mind not in the nads. there are other
ways to rape someone, unfortunately. i
know, it's sick, but it's true. still,
some of them deserve it anyway.
|
Mommy35
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 Posts: 3165 Location: Vacationland, USA,
Posted: 07-08-07 07:39am
I took a sexual abuse and trauma class in
college and the prison where they housed
the rapists and pedophiles gave them shots
of depo prevera, the same shot that women
get for birth control. It caused them to
not be able to get an erection.
I am with you .Erie. Kill them. There is
no cure or therapy that is successful for
a sexual offender, so death is certainly
the answer.
