posted on September 26, 2002 01:19:16 PM new
I have two kids and I am proud to say- that is my limit! I heard "mom I need money" this morning before school from both of them. I dug in my purse and grabbed my wallet and when I was done giving out the money for this,that or the other thing- I had about a $1.00 and quarter left. Kids are expensive and it is days like this I am glad I don't have a whole pack of kids- I couldn't afford it.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:25:33 PM new
I went to a baby shower last Saturday for a neighbor. It is girl number 3 for them. They are going to keep "trying" till they get a boy. If they didn't get a boy the first time the second time or the third time-why must they try a a fourth time.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:59:37 PM new
Hi Linda! You make some great points. I also like living in a free country where you can choose to do whatever you want. If I was super rich, and I wanted 11 kids, I'd have them. The thing is, most people that have more than 2 children, can't afford them. Some people that have 2 can't afford them, which is my main beef... people that can't afford them.
As for religion, women are allowed to say no. If you know that sex leads to pregnancy and the more children you have the more it costs, then fine, you have the necessary tools there to make a responsible decision. But how do you get through to the ones that don't understand this and keep having babies? If women are having more babies now than in the past 30 years, and the number of children in poverty keeps growing, there must be some correlation.
Linda, I've only asked once and was yelled at (almost!). Like I said, I would just like to know why people choose to have more kids than 2, but it's such a touchy subject. I'd like to find out WHY it's a touchy subject. I'd like to talk to that mother who had 8 babies at once. They weren't well off to begin with but still went ahead with drugs that cause multiple births. I'd like to know what they were thinking. Do you know how much money that family alone costs per year? Cripes, University is $200,000.00 per person. Did they discuss this? Divorce? Medical bills? Food? Housing? etc., etc. Saying "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" doesn't cut it with me. I don't look at these multiple births as being a joy... I see them as a disgrace because this couple barely had enough money to raise the one child they had. What's the mindset????
posted on September 26, 2002 02:18:28 PM new
Kraftdinner, you almost sound like you are saying that only people with money should be able to have children. Frankly I've always thought that if most couples waited until they "thought they could afford it", they would never have children at all. As for multiple births, what would you have those women do? Force them to selectively abort the extras? What happens in those cases is that multiple embryos are implanted because the odds (if the couple are lucky) is that only one will survive. Sometimes, more than one survives, thus the multiple pregnancies. Whether all the fetuses are brought to term is really a matter between the woman, her doctor, and nature. As it should be.
My husband is a twin. Naturally occuring, no fertility drugs, but what you are implying is that his mother should have stopped with the one pregnancy because she got two for the price of one.
posted on September 26, 2002 02:35:06 PM new
The way I'm posting doesn't seem to be going so well today, so please don't take this in the wrong way. Okay? I don't mean to offend.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But because you, or others who agree, think no one should have more than 2 babies...it's not your place to decide for them. It's their choice. It's also no one else's choice to decide exactly what is meant by 'they can't afford them'. What one set of parents may feel is more than adequate to support the children they have, others may think it's no where near enough. It's a individual value.
Of course, if you're speaking about the ones who turn to welfare to support their life-long decision, then I agree. But still we can disagree, but it's not our choice to choose for them.
The WHY? you ask. Because they love, want and enjoy lots of children. Maybe it's hard for your or I to understand this, but it's not our choice. I've known many Catholic families and a couple of JW who have very large families. A lot of my childhood friends were one of 7 - 8 - 9. Non-religious, Catholics and Jews...my family of three children was small compared to most in the area I grew up in. Money wasn't the deciding factor in whether to have larger families, lack of birthcontrol, religion and love of children were..mostly.
Were these families on welfare? Not one of them. Did they struggle to meet their expenses, yes. Clothes that were long since worn out, no money for all the 'special' things most parents would like to give their children. But you know what? They had lots of love and consideration for one another. The sharing of chores and of material items would put to shame many of todays - got to have the latest electronic toy - kids.
Another WHY? IMO would be that many get tired of having to explain their reasons, or to become defensive of their choices. They don't owe an explanation to anyone.
How do you get through to the ones who don't get this and keep having babies? You accept that it is their choice. Just as it is a personal choice for those who choose not to have any children. Should we try to 'get through' to them because others might not agree?
posted on September 26, 2002 03:04:18 PM new
Agreed on some points.
I don't want to tell anyone what to do when it comes to having their kids but I also do not want to support their lifestyle choice with my tax dollars. I chose at the age of twenty-three to have my tubes tied. Not because I didn't want anymore kids but because it seems like the right thing to do in this world which is fast becoming so overpopulated. That was my choice and I have never regreted it. I do not want to pay for those that have no social conscience to breed like rabbits. That's all. Two is enough for anyone of us to have to help support after that the parents had better get busy and do it themselves.That really doesn't seem like too much to expect. Not to me...
Linda, I think we are all having our posting taken wrong today...just go with the flow I guess....that's all we can do! Must be something in the air.
posted on September 26, 2002 03:20:58 PM new
Sorry to sound that way... I get way too emotional sometimes.
In a way Katy, I do feel that you need to be wealthy to have more than 2 children because it's so expensive. A lot of this is me. I'm an only child and most of my relatives didn't have children or had 1 also. Having said that, I'm sure that's why I don't understand the logistics in having something you can't afford. Like, if I could hardly afford to feed myself, but decided I wanted 5 or 6 Ferrari's, people would think I'm nuts, right? What's the difference, besides a Ferrari costing less than a child? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Don't get me wrong either. Multiple births are amazing to me. The fact that they can be kept alive with low birth weights is amazing. What's not amazing is women who can't afford multiple births that spend what little savings they do have on fertility drugs & in vitro, knowing they will probably end up with more than 2 at once. This lady had 10 or 12 eggs implanted and 8 'took'. Her excuse for keeping them all was that it was God's will and God will provide type thing. I thought God's will was providing each of us with a working brain to make responsible choices for ourselves and the earth... I still don't get it. (??)
posted on September 26, 2002 03:43:13 PM newwomen who can't afford multiple births that spend what little savings they do have on fertility drugs & in vitro, knowing they will probably end up with more than 2 at once.
Actually, I don't think this is the case. Most of the time, women who go this route end up with only one baby. But of course, these aren't the ones that are covered in the news media, so I can see where you might get the impression that women who use in vitro to get pregnant end up with multiple births.
I think, like LindaK pointed out, that "affording" children is a matter of personal perspective. My idea of "affording" a child, might not be your idea.
Am I the only one who sees the irony that many of those who think it would be a good idea to "regulate" or "license" child bearing, also are outraged over the percieved perception of "loss of civil rights" under the Republican administration. Weird!
posted on September 26, 2002 03:56:50 PM new
Unfortunately, even wealthy people who decide to have more than two children are asking the rest of us to subsidize them - if those children attend public school. My county has the highest property tax in the state and 51% ( I believe) goes to the school system. That is money that is not going elsewhere. As I said, I believe in education. But I also believe in the arts, libraries, bike paths, public transportation, etc. The other areas are shorted because there are so many students in the school system here. I get no tax break for dependents. My family rate for health insurance is disproportionately higher also. It simply isn't a matter of family X having enough money to feed and clothe four or five children. The rest of us without children are supporting this family's lifestyle and because they've chosen to have more than two children, I sit in more traffic, have shorter library hours, and fewer recreational facilities mainly because our government is struggling to keep up with the school population.
posted on September 26, 2002 03:56:57 PM new
I wonder how a limit could be enforced.
For example would anybody be opposed to involuntary abortions. For example if the law allowed only 2 children, any other pregnancies would be illegal and require forced abortions. Who would vote for this?
posted on September 26, 2002 03:59:36 PM new
When people support their own children without any assistance, they can and should have as many as they choose. However, This welfare (and foodstamp) state has gotten out of hand.
I still remember the day I stood in line behind a woman with three unruly children. She had the cashier ring up each item and sub total it until it reaches the number she wanted. She then left the rest of the items in the cart for the store to return to the shelves.
As she paid for her purchases with foodstamps, it was quite noticable that she had gold rings on each finger, including her thumbs, and three gold bracelets on one arm.
posted on September 26, 2002 04:01:44 PM new
Helen, I'd try ecomonic sanctions first.
Do away with any tax break for the third child. I'd be willing to support exceptions for adopted children.
[ edited by saabsister on Sep 26, 2002 04:02 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 05:21:35 PM new
KatyD, my earlier post was more facetious than anything else, but it does have a small aha! factor for me. After seeing what I have in 2 decades of working with babies and kids, I have come to the conclusion that some people really should be prohibited from having children. But each question I have brings up more questions. Should the government have a say in what should be private? No, but in reality, they do. Do the state governments do a good job in their child protective services? Some, but many are dealing with understaffing for the case loads they have. With some state governments trying to privatize some state services, will child protective services be one of them? And so on. How to decide which of two evils is worst? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 26, 2002 05:44:34 PM new
snowyegret, my sister works for CPS. I asked her what could make a difference for the children in her care - education for their parents? employment? Her answer is "nothing". I don't know whether she's become jaded after working in that field for twenty years or whether she has seen the cycle of problems repeated so many times that hers is a realistic view.
posted on September 26, 2002 05:48:26 PM newWith some state governments trying to privatize some state services, will child protective services be one of them?
Well, that would be going backwards...to the days of "orphanges". Neither here no there, but I know someone who was brought up in one of those "old time" orphanages. He turned out fine, a great parent, and very successful in his profession. This was one of those "privatized" orphanages, back in the days where children weren't placed in "foster care" or simply left where they were and given a case number. But I digress...
I certainly am acquainted with certain people that I feel should not be parents. In fact, at one time, I came very close to taking one of these children in and raising with my own. But the fact is, that in a free society, child bearing is a basic human right, and I do believe this is in the Constitution. (I will have to look that up).
I believe in a woman's right to choose. That works both ways. If we guarantee a women the right to abort an unwanted child, we can't deny that same woman the right to bear that child. It's so simple!
Yes, Snowy. There are alot of evils. Sometime we have no choice but to choose the "lesser evil" to prevent the "greater evil". Nothing to be done about it.
posted on September 26, 2002 05:58:41 PM new
Katy, beside in vitro, this woman used fertility drugs, which usually always results in multiple births. Her doctor warned her against carrying more than 3 because of health reasons. Her and her husband decided to keep the 8 that had implanted because it was God's will... that was her reasoning. Neither of them work, so who's paying for them?
As far as a limit, could things really get so out of hand that there would need to be rules put in place? Are we that out of control that we need more rules? What more needs to be done to get the message out there that if you can't afford children, don't have any?
I agree saabsister. There should be big tax breaks for people who adopt!
posted on September 26, 2002 06:04:40 PM newHer and her husband decided to keep the 8 that had implanted because it was God's will... that was her reasoning.
It's pretty simple, kraftdinner. She made a choice to bring those babie to term, no matter what her reasoning. That is her natural right. It is HER body. HER choice. Or don't you believe in a woman's right to choose? Or is it that you believe that a woman only has the right to choose abortion, but not life? Pro-choice means just that...pro-choice.
posted on September 26, 2002 06:47:43 PM new
If every man and woman of child bearing age paired up, took no other partners, and had 2 children together, the population would, over time, dwindle, even assuming that everyone was fertile. A certain percentage of children will die before reaching child-bearing age.
This might seem good to you now, while you're waiting in a traffic jam on a highway filled with other peoples' children, or when you can't pedal your bike for another 5 minutes because the path has run out across from an elementary school. While you might want a longer bike path, you need other peoples' children.
It sounds trite to say it, but children really are an investment in our future. Not only our own children, but other peoples' children as well. When I'm a geezerly 80 year old (God willing) and I fall down and break my hip, who do I want to call for help? Some other 80 year old geezer or the child of the child of someone else?
To see children as a liability and a drain on our tax dollars is foolish and short-sighted. Children are an investment, the benefit of which will be reaped not only by their own parents, but by all people who never had children. Grouse now about having to "subsidize" other peoples' chlidren, it interferes with with your bike path riding. Bah.
posted on September 26, 2002 07:08:11 PM new
Donny, I've heard your argument before and it's not without valid points, but what portion of my tax dollar do you think should be spent for schools? Is 51% fair? Is mom in her gas guzzling SUV more important than bike paths?
As far as assistance in my geezerdom goes - around here it will come probably not from a US resident's kid but from a recent immigrant to the US.
[ edited by saabsister on Sep 26, 2002 07:14 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 07:27:07 PM new
The portion of your tax dollars that should be spent on schools or other moneys for the cultivation of those future strong backs and minds that you and I are both going to need is - whatever is necessary. If it's 51%, that's what it is.
As for her SUV and your bike path, I couldn't care less about either. As far as I'm concerned, they can both go. There is a much greater chance that you'll one day reap a benefit from my children than the chance that I'll ever reap a benefit from your bike path, even if I lived where you lived. The last time I rode a bike I put my partner into paroxysms of evil laugher when I nearly rode right off a bridge. I never could ride a bike properly, when I was a kid I ran full-tilt into our neighborhood "muttering man." It didn't do either of us a bit of good at the time, and I haven't improved with age.
In their present state, children are a liability, yes, they take more than they can give back now. They're like anything else that grows. We don't plant a vegetable seed in soil for the return of having a dirty seed. We give the seed resources so it can develop into something we will get more benefit from later than the total of the resources we've put into it. If you look at a seed in the soil and all you see is a dirty seed, you're not looking far enough ahead. Same with children.
I live a life of priveledge that's made possible on the backs of others. Don't you?
posted on September 26, 2002 07:31:40 PM new
I'm all for pro-choice for anything. I'm just not pro-stupidchoice. Yes, this lady & her husband decided to go with the 8... her choice, her free will BUT they can't afford them. Smart choice or stupid choice?
posted on September 26, 2002 07:47:46 PM new
Donny, I suppose my grouse is with the parents who aren't involved enough in their children's education that the schools have to take 51% of my tax dollar. We continually pump money into our schools (I'm talking about my local schools) and too many children still don't excel. We can debate ad infinitum why this occurs. ( I never cease to marvel at the energy and potential of young children. But the primary responsibilty for their success rests with their parents. They, the parents, have to make that commitment to water as well as plant that seed.)
