Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Children and Financial Security.

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 11:55:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Some people think that only those who are "financially secure" should be able to reproduce, and even go so far as to suggest that this be a legally implemented policy. Ignoring the fact that it might be difficult to define such a status - and the fact that such a law would never fly - what are some of your opinions on the issue?

I personally believe that it's a good idea; however, I wouldn't be opposed to those who don't qualify as "secure" reproducing so long as they are prohibited from receiving government aid. Of course you then run into the problem of poor children being neglected or uncared for as a result of their parents being broke and them not qualifying to receive help from the government. Hmm.
President of DDO
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 12:16:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/19/2009 11:55:11 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Some people think that only those who are "financially secure" should be able to reproduce, and even go so far as to suggest that this be a legally implemented policy. Ignoring the fact that it might be difficult to define such a status - and the fact that such a law would never fly - what are some of your opinions on the issue?

I personally believe that it's a good idea; however, I wouldn't be opposed to those who don't qualify as "secure" reproducing so long as they are prohibited from receiving government aid. Of course you then run into the problem of poor children being neglected or uncared for as a result of their parents being broke and them not qualifying to receive help from the government. Hmm.

I think it's an awful idea. What if the value system is just different, and they value family more than money? Now, I'm on the fence about welfare and I don't think people should have children they can't afford. But if they really can't afford the children, and they keep having them, social services will probably scoop those children up and send them to foster care, which works for me.

Also, not everyone who would be considered 'financially insecure' is on welfare ... I think that might have to be defined more carefully. Is someone who is poor but only spends money on his or her children really a worse parent than someone who is rich but keeps his or her children locked in their rooms with minimal provisions?

Now, providing a tax credit of some kind for individuals who agree to have surgery to prevent reproduction might work for me, although the credit would have to be carefully tailored to meet its ends (value goes down for each child had before surgery, not valid after past the age of reproduction). That's a nice, non-authoritarian way of encouraging reductions in reproduction.
Certainly, at the very least, doctors providing reproductive services should be limited so that there is no repeat of the Suleman case.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 1:52:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 12:16:17 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:

I think it's an awful idea. What if the value system is just different, and they value family more than money? Now, I'm on the fence about welfare and I don't think people should have children they can't afford.

People are entitled to their own values. The problem lies within the State being forced to pay for those values via social programs like Welfare. These statements of yours almost seem contradictory, IMO.

But if they really can't afford the children, and they keep having them, social services will probably scoop those children up and send them to foster care, which works for me.

Lol I'm glad it works for YOU. But what about the kids? This doesn't seem logical or fair at all. It places an unnecessary burden and expense on the State (tax payers) and probably causes a great deal of mental and emotional harm to the kids.

Also, not everyone who would be considered 'financially insecure' is on welfare ... I think that might have to be defined more carefully. Is someone who is poor but only spends money on his or her children really a worse parent than someone who is rich but keeps his or her children locked in their rooms with minimal provisions?

Like I said, deciding what is and isn't "secure" would be subjective. Additionally, I mentioned that I wouldn't be opposed to those who were deemed "insecure" being able to have kids, so long as they did not receive government aid.

Now, providing a tax credit of some kind for individuals who agree to have surgery to prevent reproduction might work for me, although the credit would have to be carefully tailored to meet its ends (value goes down for each child had before surgery, not valid after past the age of reproduction). That's a nice, non-authoritarian way of encouraging reductions in reproduction.

There are problems with this idea. First, this surgery is sometimes reversible (depending on the situation, differences between males and females, etc.). Second, this may raise ethical concerns on whether or not this practice discourages procreation. I personally don't agree or care; however, I'd imagine a bunch of Christians and other religious enthusiasts would have a huge problem with this. Not to mention that tax payers would have to fund this practice.

Certainly, at the very least, doctors providing reproductive services should be limited so that there is no repeat of the Suleman case.

Admittedly, I have no clue what you're talking about : )

And finally, we cannot forget the obvious fact that monitoring who has children or not is near impossible (without infringing on too many rights and/or being cost effective).
President of DDO
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 1:52:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/19/2009 11:55:11 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Some people think that only those who are "financially secure" should be able to reproduce, and even go so far as to suggest that this be a legally implemented policy.

Who are these people? Members of the Toffs, Snobs and Posh Personages Society? I can't believe any sane person would make such an outrageous suggestion!

True, some people have kids solely so that they can live on state handouts rather than go out and get a job and this problem should be addressed, but to airbrush underprivileged kids out of the picture would be a social engineering project that would make Hitler blush with shame!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:06:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that restricting breeding based on financial status would be social eugenics and morally questionable.

I think it is in a state's best interest to ensure the basic wellbeing of it's future citizens.

But as Michael Jackson (someone who probably should not be allowed to have kids despite being financially secure) said, or sang:
"If you can't feed your baby, [yeh,yeh], don't have a baby, [yeh'yeh]."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:09:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 1:52:04 AM, theLwerd wrote:

People are entitled to their own values. The problem lies within the State being forced to pay for those values via social programs like Welfare. These statements of yours almost seem contradictory, IMO.

The state pays for the well-being of the children, not the particular values. Yes, it's not ideal, but if the children are already there, there is little to do about it. I know -- this leaves me open to the argument that we should therefore see to it that the children aren't there in the first place. The problem with that is that is that limiting procreation, as you've mentioned, "is near impossible (without infringing on too many rights and/or being cost effective)."

Lol I'm glad it works for YOU. But what about the kids? This doesn't seem logical or fair at all. It places an unnecessary burden and expense on the State (tax payers) and probably causes a great deal of mental and emotional harm to the kids.

I'm sure the kids, if asked, would rather be alive with a little 'emotional harm' than never exist. Or, at least, they would feel that way after they got over their teen angst. As for State burdens ... technically just about every burden the State takes up is discretionary. I could ask why the state provides business credits when the businesses need only be more competitive, or why it provides law enforcement when people could just monitor each other, or why it provides disaster relief when the dispossessed could just stay in a hotel and use insurance to relieve their strain. The State provides welfare support for the children because the children otherwise might not be able to make it, and that would harm too many members/future members of society at once for the society to be stable. If you want to cut welfare disbursements to parents, or reform welfare to more quickly get people working, fine. But put the onus on the parents (cut their personal welfare disbursements), not the children.

Like I said, deciding what is and isn't "secure" would be subjective. Additionally, I mentioned that I wouldn't be opposed to those who were deemed "insecure" being able to have kids, so long as they did not receive government aid.

If it's that subjective, I would rather the state not decide. Do the "secure" get access to government aid if needed? It's possible from the way you've phrased your valuation. If you mean to say that no one should receive government aid, okay ... but now you probably have a lot more orphans and starving children. Better result?

There are problems with this idea. First, this surgery is sometimes reversible (depending on the situation, differences between males and females, etc.). Second, this may raise ethical concerns on whether or not this practice discourages procreation. I personally don't agree or care; however, I'd imagine a bunch of Christians and other religious enthusiasts would have a huge problem with this. Not to mention that tax payers would have to fund this practice.

1. If the surgery is reversed, demand a refund on the credit, with interest.
2. Your suggestion is just as discouraging of procreation, or if people aren't discouraged, then it is encouraging of allowing children to live in squalor.
3. Christians would also have a problem with someone acting uncharitably (cutting welfare).
4. If we're positing this as a replacement method, taxpayers are paying either way, but they only pay once this way.

Admittedly, I have no clue what you're talking about : )

Octomom. Though I prefer not to use vulgar epithets for people I have not met.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.