Should all on gov't assistance be able to have more kids while society pays?
By wheel416
@wheel416 (1019)
Canada
December 9, 2008 1:55pm CST
I realize that this may be a very hot button topic for some people. I'm not really trying to start an argument but it is an issue that I have been thinking about for quite some time.
Here's my thinking and why I even bring this up as a topic for discussion, because I really want to know what the general public opinion is.
I believe, that the governments and or society in general should not be able to dictate what an individual does or does not do. I believe that as long as you are consenting adults, you should be able to do as you choose, of course within reasonable limits and boundaries set out by law etc. I also believe, that no one should be penalized because they are temporarily out of work, disabled or for some other reason are not able to take care of themselves finacially. I also believe, that everyone should have a right to have children, unless they have previously proven harmful to children.
So, those are my beliefs in general but here's the specifics, and why I ask all of you which side of the issue you come down on. I know of an individual. I will call him John. Here is John's story in a nutshell. John grew up in a very dysfunctional home. John was repeatedly in and out of child protective services throughout his childhood. As a result John developed severe psychological issues. John has an extensive psychiatric history involving frequent stays in a mental hospital. Then John, decided to try to change his life and his circumstances. John did in fact work very very hard. He got psychological counseling, met a stable partner and decided to have children.
Fast forward, a couple of years. John is still receiving financial assistance for his psychiatric problems. John and his wife have a very stable and loving relationship. They have two small children under the age of three. The kids are very well taken care of and are excelling in all areas. John's problems are not reflected in his children in any significant way, but John does require the assistance of respite workers, family and friends to help them meet his children's needs.
Now, for the meat of my question. For every child that john and his wife have, they are given an increase in financial assistance. Here is my question, should John and his wife be allowed to continue to have children and have society "foot the bill" so to speak?
Please consider the following facts when answering:
An individuals right to choice?
The costs to society
John's psychiatric history
The effect any future children may or could have on the already existing children?
John's stress level, and the possibility that a third or fourth child, may be too much for him to handle and therefore he may not be able to care for any of his children.
Because of Jones' history, his family is considered at high risk for abuse.
Should the gov't legislate these matters?
As well as any other issues you would like to throw into the mix. I would love to hear your comments and feedback as it is something that I have been chewing on for a few years now.
Thank you, in advance for your thoughtful responses to a very emotionally charged topic.
4 people like this
11 responses
@ravinskye (8237)
• United States
9 Dec 08
Well for his mental ability to handle more kids and the stress that comes with them, I think that his doctors should be the ones to determine if he can handle it. I think though that people on government assistance should be trying to better themselves and work. Being on government assistance has become this bad thing for some people that really need it because of the people who abuse it. My husband and I work hard. He has a good job and I stay at home with our kids because we can't afford to put them in daycare and pay for gas and all that goes with it. We need assistance paying our bills but we really can't get it because we barely qualify. But it was hard to get him to even consider it because he was worried about what people would think. His cousins are the reason for that. They don't work. They are both able to they just don't want to. They have three kids they don't take care of well. I think that they make people who really need the assistance look bad. I think people should have the right to choose how many kids they can take care of it they are actually taking care of them and doing their best to support them without government help. If they need government help in addition to actually working to earn their keep then that is fine
2 people like this
@oneosevennails (2)
• United States
11 Dec 08
I live in Illinois. Here, you are allowed to receive assistance for 3 years and the number of household memembers you include when you first apply you receive an amount for those individuals. If you continue to have children you will receive additional food allowance, but you will not receive anymore cash. I think they are absolutely right in doing such. Some individuals in the past have used the government as a means of life and they have children to cover their rent and expenses. So no, we should not continue to foot the bill. John and his wife can have as many children as they want but the government should not give them any more financial reward for having them. We have a social responsibility as taxpayers to feed the hungry, but the are going to have to get the housing they can afford and if they want to have a family of 10 in a studio apartment that's their choice.
@olivas (6)
• Armed Forces Canada, Europe, Middle East
9 Dec 08
Interesting topic.
This is a very very hot topic with some people, especially in this world today.
Think of it this way:
Does the good of the one out weigh the good of the many?
Substitute good for security, etc.
Governments, by their very nature, are supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people to ensure the safety/security, etc of those they govern.
And that is where the problem lies. You have two conflicting duties -- take care of the people and make sure the country you govern is strong, which will help you take care of the people better.
This logic invariably leads to two conclusions:
Everyone who needs assistance should get it, even if that means someone who (for lack of a better term) creates an additional requirement (i.e. new kid) which will increase their amount of assistance.
The needs for guidelines to control expenditures on programs, such as assistance, are needed.
But, then you run into the third problem in an open society-- who decides without taking away the freedom that has been the precedent so far?
You basically need to institute draconian measures in which the person is "penalized" for creating an extra burden and enforce them without prejudice, or let free will reign.
The problem with setting precedent, even if it wasn't intentional, is that is creates an expectation (albeit sometimes a false or detrimental one) that nobody wants to give up.
2 people like this
@wheel416 (1019)
• Canada
9 Dec 08
What a great response and welcome to Mylot! You have just articulated in a nutshell all of the world's problems! Perhaps you should run for office. Just joking!
Definitely lots of food for thought though, I may have to chew on it for a bit see what I come up with.
@dragonflyfli (5528)
• United States
10 Dec 08
Well, in China couples are only allowed to keep one child..
............
I know that some people dont worry about having multiple kids because they know they will get assistance anyway, but i dont think that's good. I think they should get a stable job before planning anymore children. It's just not fair to be in debt all the time and pull the kids into the financial instablility.
Another thing I think is that,,,,accidents happen, as they did to me. I wasnt prepared at all and I had to drop out of college and everything. I was young scared and had no clue waht I was getting into when I got pregnant. but I went with it... Then after his birth i had yet another accident because of my birthcontrol... But If i had the option I would have gotten an abortion.
I think first of all they should offer abortion in payments for those who cant offord it. Dont you think that those who cant offord even a simple abortion shouldnt be allowed to have a whole live baby to take care of?? It makes no sense right? Well, I had him by no choice then I had to get on WIC. It was helpful but So many people are so rude when a young woman goes into a grocery store and hands over the wic papers. I have been yelled at before by a disgruntled employee. She told me I was taking the taxpayers moeny! Can you beleive it?! It was only about $30 a week for milk eggs cheese.
Amnyways.. there's alot of issues that arent settled. I dont know about the mental health part but I have some opinions...
Sorry if i wandered off the subject a bit. lol
1 person likes this
@spoiled311 (5500)
• Philippines
9 Dec 08
hi wheel!
i don't think so wheel. i am not saying that they should be stopped from having kids. but like us here in the philippines, those who live in the tenements (squatter's area) have like an average of 12 kids per household in probably a 9 square meter hut. and sometimes, the oldest children get married and bring in their new family in the same hut. talk about being miserable. so i guess they should be made to understand what quality of life is. it is not just being merely able to eat a meal a day, it is also providing quality lifestyle to the family.
take care and God bles syou!
merry christmas!
@katsmeow1213 (28717)
• United States
16 Dec 08
Each situation is different. A person who recieves disability benefits, like "John" are unfortunatly going to be on assistance their entire life due to the fact that they're otherwise incapable of working. Should they be forced to never bear children due to that fact... in most situations I say no. It is not their fault they're disabled, they're doing the best that they can.
But for someone who is fully capable of working, or perhaps is working but still recieving benefits because they don't earn enough to survive, I don't believe they should have children. Reason being, it's their own fault they cannot afford to survive. They could, and should, find a better paying job, get an education, get another job... any number of things. Is it right for tax payers to raise their children while they are recieving assistance? No. Is it fair to the child to be raised in poverty and not given every opportunity to excell? No.
Case in point: My husband has a coworker... the man makes decent money, above minimum wage. His wife stays home to take care of their kids. When we met them they had 7 kids. They obviously recieve government assistance, and are doing the best they can. Due to the hours he works, she cannot find a job and take care of her kids at the same time. Knowing they're recieving government assistance, this family goes ahead and over the course of 4 years have 3 more kids. They now have 10 kids, and are still recieving benefits, obviously. So in essence the tax payers are raising their kids, not to mention, due to financial struggles, these kids eat cereal for dinner instead of a hot meal. The best meal they get is free lunch at school. Now does that seem fair to these kids who didn't choose to be born into this family? Does it seem fair to the tax payers who didn't choose for these children to be brought into the world?
1 person likes this
@PrincessKitten (790)
• United States
10 Dec 08
Hello Wheel416,
I understand your concern but try looking at this from a different angle:You never know if one of those children might be an extraordinary value to society. If they do suffer some sort of abuse, perhaps when they grow-up they can become an advocate for abused children, or maybe they'll start a foundation or something.
Oftentimes, the most disadvantaged children mature into the most normal and useful adults.
On the other hand, sometimes the most promising children mature to be drains on society.
Just because they seem to be a drain now doesn't mean that they will always be.
Happy MyLotting! 
1 person likes this
@ClassyCat (1214)
• United States
10 Dec 08
Society has to have some rules and regulations and
people need to learn to not be like spoiled brats
wanting their way, no matter the cost to that
society.
What's truely sad in "our" society, is that people
that really need the help get either none, or not
enough, and many others 'abuse' their priviledges.
There are not enough case workers to evaluate
cases either, so that is yet another problem.
I think John needs to be re-evaluated, and if he's now
considered well enough to make it without the mental
help, it should be stopped.
This could go on and on, so I'll quit here.
C.C.
1 person likes this
@onesiobhan (1327)
• Canada
16 Dec 08
I think it would be a huge violation of privacy for the government to tell people when they can and cannot have children. Being poor is not reason to think that somebody might not be a good parent. I have known many parents who are struggling but who are good parents and raise good children. I have also known people who have grown up with rich parents who are incredibly screwed up because their parents were neglectful or abusive.
@Monkeyrose (2840)
• Canada
10 Dec 08
WEll I think these people really shouldn't have more children. I don't really care so much about the economical drain on society but more about the negative upbringing these children might have.
However I think you can't force sterilization.. its against basic freedoms.
@Monkeyrose (2840)
• Canada
11 Dec 08
It is kinda funny to joke around about something like that. It must be really frustrating for people in your business because you get to see first hand how screwed up these kids can be. Some times I'm sure you wish you could force sterilization... and me too...
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
12 Dec 08
I am out of the business now, thank goodness!! It is sad when you start joking at others' expense like that, but funny is still funny!!
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
11 Dec 08
Suze Ormon is my favorite, she's the financial advisor who pretty much yells at people and tells them not to buy things. From time to time she will get a caller who says they want kids, but they aren't sure they can afford it. Suze will go through the budget, savings/income/mortgage/emergency funding, etc, and will flat out tell you whether or not you can afford kids. Most of the time, NO! If you are asking, you can't afford a kid!
However, I worked in welfare-to-work for a long time, and there are people out there (very small percentage) that view kids as income. There is currently a five year limit to TANF (TEMPORARY Assistance for Needy Families), and when you look at a family and see kids aged 1, 6, 11, 16, etc you can bet that the mother got nervous that her benefits would end and had another kid to maintain. The children of that parent never see the money, and probably are being cared for by a relative or enabler. It's terrible, and those kids should be taken away.
The case you present above, John, is certainly different. I think (no offense) he seems a little immature. I have to wonder what is the motivation to have more kids? Is he trying to fill a void of some kind?
For the most part, babies put people on assistance, and some women do just use the assistance to get out of a jam. But I agree, parents who continue to have kids while they can't afford to feed even themselves, should probably receive some very focused birth control seminars!
@wheel416 (1019)
• Canada
11 Dec 08
I think you're absolutely right! I think it is a selfish, and I do think that this person is also being selfish. I think there's something to, the idea that by juggling a highly stressful life, "John" is proving that he has overcome the past. For instance, "look at me, I'm just as good as you I can juggle not 1 or 2 children, but four. Look how great, I'm doing". And they're doing good, I just wonder where the breaking point will be.
Oh ya... and as outragous as it is, "John" nor his wife like birth control.
@mariposaman (2959)
• Canada
10 Dec 08
Unfortunately the people that seem the least capable of looking after children seem to have the most. Responsible people do not breed indiscriminately and this led to the eugenics movements in the last century. Unfortunately the cure was as bad as the disease and they sterilized a lot of temporarily mentally disturbed people and later the found out they were sterilized without their consent. Thus we have to err on the liberal side of this problem and allow people the freedom to have children.
I have two relatives that were born from a woman who was not capable of looking after herself let alone children. When my two relatives were born over the span of about 3 years, she had already had three children, all of whom were taken away from her because she was incapable of looking after them, and of course these last two were also taken away and put up for adoption. Luckily as brother and sister they were adopted by a super loving couple that could not have children. That was several years ago now and she has probably had a couple more by now who knows.
I think she likes the attention she gets when she is pregnant and also she gets more money when the baby is born. Unfortunately this is short lived as they never give you enough to live with dignity on welfare and although they give you more money each time you have a child it is never enough and you end up living under the poverty line. I think the child allowance increases should stop at two or three as that is an ample sized family these days, even for those securely working.
@nayanimuralidhar (93)
• India
10 Dec 08
hello mam its is a good issue on think this .but the each man or woman can think all about the society .it is not happenning.the govt can take the good decission.
