posted on July 15, 2001 09:35:09 PM
It seems like there's always this idea that that the root cause of there being poverty-stricken people is that there's too many of these people, not that there's too much poverty. And so, for various issues connected with the problem of poverty, the solution offered, in slightly different words tailored to fit each situation, is to eradicate poverty by selective breeding, as if poor people were wrinkled peas. If we could just get rid of that poverty gene, by controlled breeding, in a couple of generations they'd be all gone, no more poor people, problem solved.
posted on July 15, 2001 09:37:44 PMIt is my opinion that the focus should be on education and birth control.
If this father hasn't figured out the cause of pregnancies after 9 kids what education program do you recommend? I'm for education and birth control. I made sure all of my United Way donation was directed to Planned Parenthood. I'm pro-choice and a very strong supporter of planned parenthood.
This father needs special attention, which is what he got.
posted on July 15, 2001 09:50:32 PM
Another type of deadbeat parent is the one who has them but never spends time with them. I was a licensed day care provider for 15 years. You would not believe how little time a lot of parents spent with their children. I was the daytime sitter for a lot of kids and at night or as soon as they left my house they went to another sitter because I didn't do nights. I understand that parents have to work or have a night out once in awhile but if they have children they need to at least spend time with them. Kids need their parents. They grow up way to fast!
posted on July 15, 2001 10:01:27 PM
I had a friend whose boyfriend left and refused to pay child support for his daughter, who was planned. They had another child who lived for a mere 6 days and then died. The idiot did not want to sign the birth certificate - he did not want to be held liable for child support for the dead baby. Then this same "wonderful" father threatened to desecrate the baby's grave because the child's mother had given the baby her last name - they were not married so the child could legally have either last name. The baby's mother chose her last name because that was the same last name as the other child - and she did not want the surviving child to feel that the dead baby meant more to their father (by sharing a last name) than she did.
posted on July 15, 2001 10:05:05 PM
Donny - I guess I'm one of these people who has that idea. If I'm understanding your statement: It seems like there's always this idea that that the root cause of there being poverty-stricken people is that there's too many of these people, not that there's too much poverty correctly.
If a person cannot support one child but continues to have more then that, to me, produces more who will live in poverty. While a poor family/person who (themselves) limit the amount of children they produce would have a more likely chance of being able to better themselves.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
posted on July 16, 2001 12:03:25 AM
Linda_K, I think you are understanding what I'm trying to say. But, since you've twisted my arm, I'll expound a bit
Over here, you have, say, 5 people, with 95% of the resources. Over there, you have 95 people, with 5% of the resources. Instead of looking over there at that crowd of resource-poor people and saying - Geez, you people need to decrease your numbers! Why not say - Let's move some of these resources over to the other side. If you've ever heard what percentage of wealth is held by what percentage of people (the real figures of which escape me now), you've got an idea of what I'm getting at. For example, there's a common misperception that hunger is an over population problem. It's not, it's a resource-allocation problem. There's plenty to go around.. but it doesn't go around.
Instead of coming from the position of saying - Let's figure out a way to make sure that people who can't support children don't have them, why not come from a position of saying - Let's figure out a way to make sure that people can support their children?
An adult can work 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job, and work hard at that, and not be able to afford basic housing, clothing, food, medical insurance and treatment, and transportation for himself, let alone a dependant. It shouldn't be that way.
And, for the past few years, people are comparatively lucky in that minimum wage jobs are at least relatively plentiful, to the extent that not only can you probably find one, but can also find another part-time minimum wage job to work at the same time... But how long can you keep that up? Minimum wage jobs are typically pretty physically demanding. And, if you can keep it up, who looks after your children while you're working 7 days a week, 60+ hours? And, in a recession, it may be difficult to find even one full time minimum wage job. And, while you may be able to scrape by like this in one area of the country, it might be impossible to do so in another.
Granted, expecting that every wage earner, or pair of wage earners, should be able to support 9 children seems a bit extreme, but I think 9 children is atypical of all but a small percentage of adults, regardless of income. This particular story grabs our attention, but, as the development of this thread shows, the perception that there is a problem with parents not being able to afford their children isn't limited to supporting 9 children, but to supporting a child or children of any amount.
posted on July 16, 2001 01:01:42 AM
The sentence for the guy who has 9 kids will not pass muster with the US Supreme Ct. Procreation is a fundemental right, and the state can not reach the level of scrutiny to over ride that fundemental right.
They can jail him for non-supprot, but not for participating in having children.
I mentioned education and birth control as a more immediate and resonable reaction to this particular case rather than the radical solutions that you were offering. Donny has very clearly identified the real problem in his previous post.
A more equitable distribution of wealth in this country is the answer.
The ramifications of this ruling, which violates basic human rights are mind-boggling and undoubtedly will be reversed by the US supreme Court.
posted on July 16, 2001 07:02:05 AM
Donny-Social Services pays day care providers pretty well or at least they used to as long as you have a minimum wage job. You can also get food stamps, medicaid, free school lunches, comodities or W.I.C. and low income housing. But watch out if you get a raise it can all be taken from you. And it doesn't take that much to not qualify for our government handouts.
It's amazing how some people learn to play the game. I know of incidents where people pretend like they are living alone with their kids to get all of these free benefits. In reality there is another adult or two living there with a high paying job.
Here's another form of deadbeat parents passing on to the next generation how to take advantage of the system.
posted on July 16, 2001 08:20:30 AM
Does the Constitution mention the right to procreate?
I don't have any solutions here. But, I applaud the judge who took a stand. I have a neighbor who's had three children and eleven abortions. During her pregnancy with the second child, the courts had to put her in a lock-down rehab facility because she wouldn't/couldn't stop drinking. Her second child is a little developmentally slow, but it looks like he'll be ok. No one intervened during this last pregnancy of hers.
So, this woman is 34, and has been pregnant 14 times. I think she should be stopped. The problem is, I don't necessarily trust judges, or child services to make the decisions.
It's a very tough call. I can't say I'd lose any sleep at night if forced sterilization was imposed on individuals who keep having children and then tossing them on to society. But then again, I'm getting older, and procreation isn't as close to my heart as it used to be. Perhaps younger folks are more afraid of the slippery slope of this kind of ruling.
posted on July 16, 2001 08:43:10 AM
Helen I believe education is the answer, but some of these people 'just don't seem to get it'. You can educate them and educate them, but there are some that will keep getting pregnant. Some use abortion as birth control. I have a friend, who, between the age of 17-29 used abortion as birth control. I know, I went with her to about 5 of them.
I tried talking to her about it, me, who didn't know sh*t about much at 18. Her last one, I swear almost killed her. She went alone. I get a phone call in the middle of the night that she was hemmoraging. All we could do was take her to the hospital. I thought then that she would never be able to have children, she was about 29 then. Today, she has 2 healthy children, married and all, working.
Another thing is the Social Services sometimes gets a little too involved. I'm sure you've heard of cases that get really screwed up. Some neighbor called them because a child has a bruise, and next thing you know the kids are gone from the family... doesn't mean the parents abused them. (of course some investigations prove the parents have of course)
There was a talk show on this very subject last night, and I didn't hear it all. I heard one guy call in..... he said, 'the gov't is already making descions like this.' He was comparing adoption to this. As he had one adopted child, they were trying to adopt another, and were waiting years, and jumping through hoops to prove to these adoption agencies that they would be good parents. They made decent money and all, but they had to do more than that.
What happens to all those children waiting to be adopted? There are I'm sure, a lot of good homes that would love to take them, but do not meet the 'criteria' set by these places.
So isn't the gov't or their 'subsidarys' getting into our lives this way?
I don't know what the answer is. I would hate to see our country become another 'China' where the gov't uses forced abortion and punishment by getting pregnant a second time.
