Who will support the babies? - government vs. personal responsibility

[peacetraveler22]

For some people, having a child seems to be the only purpose in life, regardless of whether you can financially care for this creation, or provide a stable environment in which they can develop as a human being. I began to have an interesting discussion with a reader. He grew upset that I made a comment about a young Native American woman who kept having one baby after the other, when she did not have the financial capacity to care for them.

"Why do you feel sad about it? These kids are healthy (because their mom was young when she gave birth). They have enough food. They can play with each other. Why do you think elderly deserve welfare benefits, but children do not?"

First, the kids are not healthy because the mom was young when she gave birth. They are healthy because fellow citizens. and the government, foot the bill for their survival. We have no choice as to whether we are brought into this world, and I agree no child deserves to suffer because of negligent or poor parents. But my focus was not on the children! It was on the parents, who refuse to use any type of birth control and keep breeding like rabbits - with no stable income, future, or job.

In the reader's view, such behavior is perfectly acceptable. It's the government's responsibility to care for these children, and provide for them if the parents can't. Of course, the government does. In the U.S., and I assume in a lot of other countries. I have no idea how these public assistance programs work in Russia, or other ex-USSR countries. And I want to emphasize that I'm not against public or social benefits, as we never know when we ourselves may have to rely on them in the event we lose our job, become disabled, or face countless other hardships that can suddenly greet us in life. However, abuse of such benefits is unacceptable in my view, and rampant in my country. There is no excuse that you "can't afford" birth control, as there are numerous organizations in the U.S. that provide free contraception. If you're against condoms, birth control pills, or other protective measures for religious reasons - well, I don't know the answer to this dilemma quite honestly.

This attitude that "the government will support me", even when I act in a reckless manner, is a totally foreign mentality to me. Such people - leeches in my view. And, no, I do not believe having a child is the only way to contribute to the greater good of humanity, or future of the world. Accidents and unexpected pregnancies happen, of course. But after six or seven children, it can hardly be an "accident." I believe in personal responsibility, utilization of resources, and not sucking off the government's tit for an entire lifetime, contributing very little to society in return.

What do you think? Is it okay to keep having babies, and expect the government to pay for them? This is a completely irrational view from my perspective, on multiple levels! How do these social programs work in Russia, or the country in which you live?

Comments

[anna-sollanna.livejournal.com]

Completely agree with you!!
> If you're against condoms, birth control pills, or other protective measures for religious reasons
if you are against all these things - just don't have sex ;)
What surprises me is that it is necessary to gather lots of documents (and to have some income as well) to become foster parents, but nothing of the above mentioned is required at all to became a "normal" parent. And because of this such people as you mentioned in your post do exist. Something definitely should be done to improve the situation, but what? It's against human rights to sterilize people so we can't technically stop their reproduction. Stop giving them money - their children will suffer. Take children from them (if they can't provide the necessary level of comfort to their children) - they will conceive more children. This is a question to which I don't have a definite answer. It looks like the only way is to "persuade" people that have lots of children only to get money from government is something very shameful but I am not sure whether this will work...
> Such people - leeches in my view.
Bull's eye! I call such people just "parasite". Btw what do you think about a theory that only people who pay taxes should have a right to vote?

[peacetraveler22.livejournal.com]

"it is necessary to gather lots of documents (and to have some income as well) to become foster parents, but nothing of the above mentioned is required at all to became a "normal" parent..." Very good point! Many people have suggested forced sterilization, but I don't view this as a viable option, or even a moral one for many reasons. Plus, there are way too many complications about who should be subjected to the procedure, how will we monitor, after how many children should it sterilization be mandated, etc.? It requires too many resources to monitor, implement and do all this and most governments are already over-burdened and inefficient.

I think all people should have the right to vote. In the U.S., if you make below a certain amount of money, you don't need to pay taxes, but are still working. And stay at home moms, for instance, who don't work will have no reason to pay taxes. They should not be prohibited from voting. :)