Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Hmmm. Something important to remember too is that some people who collect services are not actually single. They are gaming the system. I've seen it multiple times where a woman actually does have a man residing with her but lies about it in order to continue to collect services. I believe that another poster brought this point up earlier in the thread. So I don't know how reliable these "single-parenting" issues are, and on top of that are multiple other contributing factors IMO.
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.I think forced sterilization is bad, but I also think that subsidizing poor choices and planning is bad, as well.
I think there should be a set of consequences for relying on state aid and having more than 1 child, that you require state aid to support.
If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.To me, needing state aid to support a child, is child abuse.
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.
If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.
If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.
By that logic, poor people who require gov. assistance should never have children and all poor people who require gov. assistance and who have children are irresponsible. That doesn't make any sense. Not only does such an argument cement society as a place where only middle and upper class people reproduce; it prevents significant class mobility. Some of the greatest contributors to society were born into poor families who required gov. assistance and I would say the vast majority of people are happy that they were born and wouldn't consider their childhoods "abusive" just because of a lack of money.I disagree. I think that if you continually and willingly bring children into a world where they are most assured of a life of poverty unless they get some kind of governmental assistance is a type of abuse and also shows that this particular person is irresponsible. That could be a measure of what kind of parent they might be.
I disagree. I think that if you continually and willingly bring children into a world where they are most assured of a life of poverty unless they get some kind of governmental assistance is a type of abuse and also shows that this particular person is irresponsible. That could be a measure of what kind of parent they might be.
Right...So we're in deep trouble, and have been for decades developing a support system that mitigates the symptoms while ignoring the cause. I wish I hadn't gone here with this, but I don't know how to avoid it. I'm certain this has been addressed profusely earlier here. I haven't read all the comments, so I'll probably just shut up and go back and read.They already do.
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.
Yeah. When the state started providing lunch andbreakfast at school, I quit teaching. That was a long time ago. I knew back then that the state was enabling parents to shuck their responsibilities, and believe me, it showed with the children.In a way, many parents have already done this, even middle and upper income people.
By using the public school system.
That sounds better a lot of ideas I've heard and it's something to consider. What would happen, though, for parents who can't ever work because of genuine disability?I'd make it an interest free loan, with repayments based on the parents income at that time, which can be adjust based on job loss.
No more than 5% of net income.
That depends on the parent. Some parents work and get state money, using both sets of funds to provide for the kid. In any case, my point was that if the child's needs are being met, there isn't any child abuse. If a rich uncle provides money to non-working parents, is that child abuse as well since it's the uncle, not the parents, who are providing for the kid.If the parent is using state money, they really aren't providing for their kid.
Their having the state provide for their kid.
I think people just have different ways of solving the problem of children being raised in undesirable environments. You advocate focusing on getting parents to live up to perceived "duties" while others (including me) focus more on how how the government offset the problems kids bring from home through school programs and the like. I do, however, think that there isn't enough focus on mental health, addiction and other programs for parents in at risk neighborhoods.I'm pretty serious about raising children in the best manner possible.
Doing this poorly has long term social costs, to everyone.
I think we've focused too much on reproductive rights and not enough of duties, after you've reproduced.
I didn't say they don't. That the government does such things is after the causal fact, and while that will always be the case to some extent, we've never before seen it in such numbers outside of war zones or natural disasters. What we have now is the product of what is considered a normally functioning society.You think they don't? There are countless cases of the government taking children away from parents who neglect and/or abuse them. They only get the kids back by straightening themselves out.
Yeah. When the state started providing lunch andbreakfast at school, I quit teaching. That was a long time ago. I knew back then that the state was enabling parents to shuck their responsibilities, and believe me, it showed with the children.
I didn't say they don't. That the government does such things is after the causal fact, and while that will always be the case to some extent, we've never before seen it in such numbers outside of war zones or natural disasters. What we have now is the product of what is considered a normally functioning society.
That sounds better a lot of ideas I've heard and it's something to consider. What would happen, though, for parents who can't ever work because of genuine disability?
That depends on the parent. Some parents work and get state money, using both sets of funds to provide for the kid. In any case, my point was that if the child's needs are being met, there isn't any child abuse. If a rich uncle provides money to non-working parents, is that child abuse as well since it's the uncle, not the parents, who are providing for the kid.
I think people just have different ways of solving the problem of children being raised in undesirable environments. You advocate focusing on getting parents to live up to perceived "duties" while others (including me) focus more on how how the government offset the problems kids bring from home through school programs and the like. I do, however, think that there isn't enough focus on mental health, addiction and other programs for parents in at risk neighborhoods.
That's your job, and I have no doubt you do the responsible thing. I'm not specifically addressing the psychologically distressed or the addicted or the intelligence challenged. I have no doubt we have plenty of that to deal with. I'm talking about the rest who don't have such problems, and it's not the exclusive domain of the poor. As a society, we do not engender the notion that parental responsibility is primary. That is the causal fact that precedes all the rest.My point in the earlier post was that it doesn't have to be after the fact. Medical people are under a duty to report abuse and neglect. They don't have to wait until after the fact. The OBGYN can involve DCS in the pregnancy if he just will. A crack addicted pregnant woman is ALREADY abusing the child/fetus. You don't have to send the baby home with her. You just don't. I've gotten children's services involved in more than one pregnancy.
People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health.
That's your job, and I have no doubt you do the responsible thing. I'm not specifically addressing the psychologically distressed or the addicted or the intelligence challenged. I have no doubt we have plenty of that to deal with. I'm talking about the rest who don't have such problems, and it's not the exclusive domain of the poor. As a society, we do not engender the notion that parental responsibility is primary. That is the causal fact that precedes all the rest.
By that logic, poor people who require gov. assistance should never have children and all poor people who require gov. assistance and who have children are irresponsible. That doesn't make any sense. Not only does such an argument cement society as a place where only middle and upper class people reproduce; it prevents significant class mobility. Some of the greatest contributors to society were born into poor families who required gov. assistance and I would say the vast majority of people are happy that they were born and wouldn't consider their childhoods "abusive" just because of a lack of money.
I don't see this situation as being the same thing at all. This isn't dictating how to spend money or military conflicts or anything like that. This is about people who are unable or unwilling to support their own families who keep adding to their family and relying on others to support them for all of their needs. Logistically, this would be a benefit not only to the taxpayer but also to the welfare recipient and to the "potential" child that would be born into a cycle of poverty.
Your opposition is based upon moral grounds and nothing more.
1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.
Thousands upon thousands. Go to a public school, almost any public school, when the children arrive in the morning and take a look. Ask a veteran teacher. It's all around you.Can you give an example of such a person?
Actually "the average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average."
From this article titled: Five Media Myths About Welfare
Five Media Myths About Welfare
all I asked for in return is her companionship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?