Should those who have more children than they can afford be helped?

Dont u think if help is given, it will set a bad precedent for others and even next generation? And the kind of help u have mentioned is not objectionable. Expectations are much higher. Like adopt my daughter, or take over the responsibility of the elder one. Relatives feel at liberty to think like that.

Oftentimes, relatives use devious means to pull out monies. Like approaching some family elder, or other respected member of society. U said that limits would be known to the hand which gives. When it comes to such social pressures, the limits are trespassed. People dont understand u need to save for ur own children's education, as they think the relative's need for food today is more important. Mind u they themselves wont shell down a penny but have no compunction in asking such help be rendered. Not everybody finds it easy to ask. When the money is indeed required for children's education, there will be compromises, which would not have been necessitated in the first place. I often think relatives receive help because of these social compulsions, and not out of love. At times it may just be because we ourselves are scared that some day we might need the help of that relative. I wish it was more out of genuine love and concern, rather than all such things.

Yes it may raise expectations. Only the very pushy or desperate would start demanding. But the hand that gives also knows the limit. So as long as things are under control, I would still do it.

Thank you for the best response. Really appreciate it. The sad thing about these situations is there are many people out there who would love these unwanted or unneeded children if the parents would be unselfish for a moment and give them up for adoption.

Couldnt agree more. :-) U said it. It is unfair to children. :-)

We cant do much, can we? Except enlighten such parents, at the risk of being termed mad, selfish, and what nots. :( I liked the way u put it. All points so briefly, and with focus on children, which is what it is all about though the question does not mention it. U deserved the best comment. :-)

Some ladies get pregnant a second time when they didn't plan to. I know some ladies that have twins and a few with triplets. These days a couple with one child might get divorced and the wife might remarry in the future and have a second child.

Hello maximax8, I agree with u. I stand corrected in so far as divorced ladies are concerned. And also those who get twins, and triplets and so on. It is difficult to think of a solution. One solution is what I came up in the discussion with I_LUV_U. I must admit it came to my mind after reading ur views. Please let me know what u think of it.

So far this is the best response. I think there should be a law, one woman one child. This law should be there for about 25 to 30 years, or may be 40 years, till the world has adequate land remaining for growing food, and living, to pass a new rule, one woman two children. :-) At present, the way we are going, we might have to wage wars for food supplies.

Hi Maximax8, U have enlightened me. I thought most people dont adopt because they are not capable of loving another woman's child. In the case u r referring, it is genuine helplessness as it is law that is stopping u. I apologize if I have caused any pain. As to intention or lack of it for getting pregnant, I beg to differ. I think we get thrown out of jobs if we make a blunder that costs company a big loss. I think that level of responsibility should also be there in home sphere. After all, a child needs food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and education. And all these are expensive. And this has to be given for almost 15 years, it is as good as retirement planning. Would u be able to spare monies for elderly folks who do not have enough for their old age? Then why the laxity here?

Hello Maximax8, I would love to have a friend like u. Every word u write makes me feel that u r a good soul. Thank u for responding to this discussion. U have indeed given me something to think about and revise the beliefs I have held so far. May be there is a way that doesnt hurt either the giver, or taker. We just have to find it. :-)

Ok Hatley that is true but what about the people who the economy has whittled away their savings and then they lose a job? Is it wrong to help them until they get a new job? (not indefinitely of coarse) Many people in our area first had not received raises in years (we have not seen raises in over 3 years ourselves not even cost of living)then lost hours, then their jobs. Many of these people have had to dip continuously into their savings while trying to tread the proverbial water. When these folks lose their jobs it is most of the time devastating. Many have been on job searches for months (though most of our friends took low earning jobs until they can find what they need) and savings are gone, is it wrong to help these folks? i just am curious where the lines are since nothing is black and white.

Thank u. U make me feel so sane. :-)

Octomom is a joke when it comes to the aid given. Fertility treatments should not be given to people who are living off the government period.

If there is a stable loving home, could they not consider adopting a child who is rendered homeless by some natural disaster like Katrina, rather than relieve a mother who has been irresponsible enough to have five children? Who would u help, if it was u?

Hello I_LUV_U. :-) The response is what I expected from a young person like u. :-) But can u come up with slightly humanistic approach, keeping in mind that they are selfish, and if I might add careless, irresponsible, and what nots. :-) We are seeking a solution here. For example, each family has a safety net to which every member contributes initially, and it is managed with consent of every head of the family - democratically. Only part of the returns from it are used to help any family member who is in a mess, and there are ceilings upto which such funds will be available. Rest of the funds are ploughed back. Just like some trust or insurance. And once the person who took this help comes to a decent position, he or she repays the debt with some agreed amount of interest to the trust. This is just an example. I was looking at solutions of this sort. Since there will be ceilings built in, such irresponsibility would automatically be curtailed by the stipulations as everybody would want to be eligible for it. Thanks anyways. If it makes u feel any better, I felt that way when I was young. But doing that is not a solution, is it? :-)

If the lady was willing to work, she wouldnt be bringing that many children in the world in the first place. Generally, it is laziness to take precautions. Thanks anyway, for admitting that it is difficult to plan for another family and indirectly admitting that the lady should take up responsibility, at least by working. People generally tend to pity a woman who cries, especially when she is crying for her children. They dont question why on earth she had one if she couldnt feed the child. Not very motherly thought, isn't it?

Yes, I too feel the same way. Soon there will be no land to grow food. And we are not yet sure how our rains and hurricanes work, how can we study it on other planets. I also feel that more children means more felling of trees, and more felling of trees means more green house effect, what are we really leaving the next generation with...

You've got guts. :-) I too think it is irresponsible enjoyment.

It is not only poorer section of society. :( Even those in higher brackets are doing it without any care for tommorow. I once heard a most funny reason. The population of other religion is increasing so let us also increase ours. When food will not be there sufficiently, I suppose they will be fighting over it. Unfortunately, it is the kids who suffer, and others be they relatives and friends, are forced to forego some of their pleasures for such irresponsibility. I would under normal circumstances suggest that such irresponsible parents should be looked down upon. However, it would again be the child who would be ridiculed.

Exactly my sentiment. Thanx. I appreciate ur efforts to back me. :-)

Is it so difficult for politicians to crunch numbers and realize that the people who will be hurt most are those who are struggling to make two ends meet. The rich dont even have to cut down on their additional set of clothes, and the poor is anyway being fed by the government. The hardworking person struggles and struggles, and struggles, as if he or she is the slave of the nation. I agree with u this is thoroughly objectionable. Given as a loan on lesser interest rate for a short while is acceptable. Long term assistance for having children is not acceptable.

Yes. Then why dont u all raise a voice on this. U do that and may be we Indians will copy that. Right now, we just believe in aping western humanistic policies, which I am afraid are not that human as they rob hard working people, and deny the person really entitled to assistance. And India does need to see some stricter policies across seas, otherwise Indian politicians will do nothing about it. And it is a time bomb in a way which will hurt not only Indians but rest of the people on the globe. China has taken stern measures, when will Indians do.

I agree, provided it is both ways. In general, however, if the relative who is slightly better off, refuses to help or has some luxury, he/she gets branded as selfish, because the poorer relative approaches everybody in town, especially some rivals of the better off relatives, and has interesting stories to tell for receiving some financial help. It is a kind of social blackmail. I think nobody should question how much help is given, and why only this much. In fact, I think in these days of population explosion, governments should have a criteria for having each child so that later on the burden is not on government or the relatives.