Is it ok having babies you can't afford ?

[Light Travelling]

Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies?.

What on earth are you talking about… Do you presume that it is preferable to watch tv or play xbox than have sex….. and it is only in situations of extreme poverty that couples resort to sex for enjoyment?

Most normal well adjusted couples, enjoy sex on a regular basis whether they are rich, comfortable or poor.

 

[jpappl]

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.

I agree with this.

And that is precisely the problem we face. Too many having children they can't afford but can't force them to stop.

Also, history is full of examples of dirt poor children growing up to be great additions to the society and children of the rich failing.

But I think we all will agree that having extra money can help eliminate many of the difficult choices for parents who lack the funds.

 

[keith1]

Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.

A difficult question.
Universal factors of Local conditions of life expectancy, Parental IQ level, Adoption needs of financially stable, yet infertile couples, etc., come into play.

The healthy child may not come from the wealthy genetic progeny. Factors of middle-class stability, over time, is hard to sustain in present economic environs. Etc.

 

[Giambattista]

What on earth are you talking about… Do you presume that it is preferable to watch tv or play xbox than have sex….. and it is only in situations of extreme poverty that couples resort to sex for enjoyment?

Most normal well adjusted couples, enjoy sex on a regular basis whether they are rich, comfortable or poor.

Pronatalist seems to enjoy the notion of very poor people in a one room hut enjoying procreation as their only recreation.

And the only drawback to this is apparently naysayers and dictators who won't automatically support those children after they are born.

Pronatalist has a fetish.

 

[Cowboy]

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.

The problem here is that you're telling Person A that he or she is responsible Person B's behavior, but has no right to tell Person B how to behave.

If people want freedom, they have to accept full responsibility for their actions.

 

[Light Travelling]

If people want freedom, they have to accept full responsibility for their actions.

And If we want freedom, we have to allow others to accept full responsibility for their actions. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch people starve in the streets to ‘teach them a lesson”.

 

[visceral_instinct]

It's not ok to have babies, period

Unless they are for eating.

 

[Cowboy]

And If we want freedom, we have to allow others to accept full responsibility for their actions. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch people starve in the streets to ‘teach them a lesson”.

It also doesn't mean that we have to redistribute wealth to shield people from the consequences of their actions.

Here in the Western world, we're basically being told, "It's your duty to clean up our messes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, but don't you dare try to keep us from making those messes in the first place!"

 

[atheist]

if a couple wants to have a kid so they can get government support then they are selfish because they are putting their own needs before their child. you need to beable to support your child and not your child supporting you, this is why we are told to wait before we have kids, wait till you are 100% certain that u can give him/her the best life that you can.

 

[joepistole]

The sad part of this, I have wittnessed this first hand. People having babies for the weffare money and not because they love the kid or even want to take care of the kid. It is pretty sad, but the Clinton welfare reforms were supposed to take care of this kind of problem. So we no longer have career welfare families.

This also touches on the issue of he perpetual under class in society....people for what ever reason lack the ability or desire to hold down a job. What do you do with them? Do you want to see them in the streets? Some of them are constantly going in and out of prison. This is a problem for society. How society should deal with it is a bit elusive.

 

[Light Travelling]

It also doesn't mean that we have to redistribute wealth to shield people from the consequences of their actions.

Here in the Western world, we're basically being told, "It's your duty to clean up our messes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, but don't you dare try to keep us from making those messes in the first place!"

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

 

[jpappl]

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

 

[Light Travelling]

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

Education, definately. Is there a current eduction programme though for this purpose.Whether in schools or in the community?

 

[jpappl]

Education, definately. Is there a current eduction programme though for this purpose.Whether in schools or in the community?

Well I mean't education in general.

The more educated people are the fewer children they tend to have and they have the financial means to take care of them. This is universal.

The key to solving all of these issues is education.

Better educated have lower incarceration rates
Better educated make more money
Better educated have fewer children
Better educated use contraceptives

it goes on and on.

So the real solution is to shut off the tap.

So instead of having to pay for all of these problems downstream, we invest up front and save in the end.

Here:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost04/EducationPays2004.pdf

http://www.prb.org/pdf07/powerfulpartners.pdf

 

[Light Travelling]

Well I mean't education in general.
The more educated people are the fewer children they tend to have and they have the financial means to take care of them. This is universal.
The key to solving all of these issues is education.
Better educated have lower incarceration rates
Better educated make more money
Better educated have fewer children
Better educated use contraceptives

Ah yes, I see what you mean and I do agree in principle. I can only see one problem though, that of free market economics. Whilst I totally agree that the better educated will earn more and have fewer children, any economy will only support a certain percentage to higher level education, why, because there are only so many jobs that require this type of education. Already in western countries we find graduates working in basic jobs because there aren’t enough high level jobs on the market. Also education costs and an economy can only support so many through to a high level of education.

 

[jpappl]

Ah yes, I see what you mean and I do agree in principle. I can only see one problem though, that of free market economics. Whilst I totally agree that the better educated will earn more and have fewer children, any economy will only support a certain percentage to higher level education, why, because there are only so many jobs that require this type of education. Already in western countries we find graduates working in basic jobs because there aren’t enough high level jobs on the market. Also education costs and an economy can only support so many through to a high level of education.

This is an issue of course. However, better educated is relative.

The bottom line is, the more education and better quality of education they get, the less likely all of these other negatives will occur.

We have people who are having sex that don't know how babies are made.
We have people who can't get a job because they can't read and write.

Imagine the difference in choices being made from someone who graduated high school and went to a trade school compared to someone who dropped out at 15.

The first person has something to look forward to, a way to make it on his own. The second has very few choices, one of them is crime.

He fathers a few kids and then isn't around to raise them and can't contribute financially. This is a scene that is repeated over and over and over again and we are paying through the nose to keep a max exodus on the street with family after family who would literally have nothing but the local soup kitchens to look to for the basics of life.

So yes, it's going to take a massive sustained investment to turn it around.

What are the chances of that ?

 

[Cowboy]

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

I'd rather get rid of welfare and deal with any negative repercussions rather than allow people to continue to abuse taxpayers. Helping people in need is one thing, but enabling those who wish to screw over the taxpayers is another.

 

[Cowboy]

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

So either way the taxpayers are expected to clean up the messes of the irresponsible. :shrug:

 

[joepistole]

I'd rather get rid of welfare and deal with any negative repercussions rather than allow people to continue to abuse taxpayers. Helping people in need is one thing, but enabling those who wish to screw over the taxpayers is another.

Getting rid of welfare might create more crime. If you get rid of welfare these people are going to have to do something to survive. You will be putting people in jail and warehousing them instead of paying welfare. The jail option costs a whole lot more than the welfare option.

 

[Cowboy]

Getting rid of welfare might create more crime. If you get rid of welfare these people are going to have to do something to survive. You will be putting people in jail and warehousing them instead of paying welfare. The jail option costs a whole lot more than the welfare option.

Maybe so, but at least it will be punishing them rather than just us.