California Considers Ending Rule That Penalizes Low-Income Women For Having Kids
Options
Comments
-
I ain't even gon speak my piece in this thread
I'm just gon continue to lurk................and laugh at this continual endorsement of irresponsible adults
-
stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »Why is society so hell bent on helping the sorry dumb ? who constantly make horrible life decisions...WHY!!!!! (I know why I'm just venting)
yall ? me
its not about absolving people of personal responsibility or rewarding risky behavior, it's about building a strong, vibrant economy/country by investing in every citizen, even the down trodden..
the better these women and other lower income people do, many of whom use public assistance as a ladder out of poverty, the stronger our economy grows...when the lower and middle classes spend their money locally and local businesses prosper and in turn poor neighborhoods will proper. it also costs less to police the nation as everyone has housing
but if it bothers you so bad go to a country absent of any social welfare programs. let me know how you like dodging bullets and stepping over dead bodies on the way to work
take for example, japan. japan has one of the toughest social welfare systems in the world. where people are dying by literally starving to death due by not having money to buy food.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/lonely-starvation-deaths-prompt-soul-searching-in-japan/
remember most of us are a medical emergency, disease, layoff, death away from poverty
Niggaplease...miss me with that titan graph of ? ...you sound like a weak ass ? and you can speak for yourself with that last ? sentence. Maybe if them ? weren't.....wait for it.....? ? they wouldn't be in that position in the first place...but I know that's too much like right....nah ? you weak ? ? me lol try again ? .
damn, don't tell me you mad... i'm just stating facts bruh... lol
smh
quite telling that you can't refute anything i said with anything other than insults and a profanity laden rant though
anyways don't respond to any of my posts, well at least until you can provide a substantive counter argument
? WHAT facts lmao??? the fact that you one dumb/weak ? lol...let me guess you were raised by a single mother cause ain't no way a ? who had a dad in his life would say some ? ? like the dumb ? you been saying this entire thread. I won't even get into the incorrect grammar you used and the illogical ass statements but you want me to take you seriously as an intelligent ? lmao...niggaplese when you display some knowledge beyond a GED ? I'll think about talking to you like a intelligent person ...try again ? you 0-2. I'm gone to bed u ? crazy lol...I hope you think of something intelligent to say by the morning.
@stilldat_dude
@desertrain10 is a female.
Not using that as an excuse to explain her illogical views or anything.
Just saying.....that should give you a better understanding of her "logic."
Yo.....did you ever catch up with Fundz?
how am i the illogical one?
not one person has come in to substantively refute anything i've said ... all i've gotten is insults and feelings
if we don't invest in the poor and low income the economy will eventually suffer, crime rate will rise, etc...so the ? will affect everyone...the ? is common sense ...
and the money some many countries spend on social programs dwarfs what america spends, and in return they have strong economies and low poverty rates ...so miss me with the whole "well we already do enough...." argument
but w/e..... should've known i couldn't have an intelligent, adult conversation on the IC if women are the topic at hand
smh...
-
It's funny how y'all care so much about mothers with kids living off of welfare, yet give no ? about companies getting bailouts and tax cuts and ? . So the wealthy CEOs and executives deserve more help than mothers in poverty?
So living off of welfare is some kind of luxurious lifestyle now?
There will ALWAYS be people who abuse the system, but at the end of the day the system does work. Btw I know a few people in the burbs who abuse the system. Their thought process is, "I pay into it, so why not use it." -
Can somebody please explain why low income women keep having babies?
That's just poor decision making. If you barely taking care of yourself and you choose to get pregnant, YOU the ? that's "making the child suffer". It's the fault of the two dummies that decided not to use protection.
I'm sick of this ? . People got a million and one excuses for why dumb ? get pregnant and ? the blame from them but quick to say ? need to keep it in their pants.
The same one making excuses for these dumb broads poppin out kid after kid that they can't take care, but get their panties in a bunch when they see a dumb ? with 14 kids and 12 BM's
How do you address poverty when people keep contributing to it by having more babies they can't afford who will likely grow up to have babies they can't afford either?
First of all, birth control is extremely expensive for low income women. Blame an inefficient health care system in the United States. With Obamacare, hopefully, younger women will able to have greater access to birth control. Also, poor people are no less likely to use condoms than other people, but because they don't have the money for the best birth control, it's not 100% effective.
Second of all, telling poor women to stop having children is not the answer to solving poverty. Instead of attacking conservative economic policies, the sequester budget cuts, or the erosion of social welfare, men attack women for being "irresponsible" with their bodies.
These are the same excuse people use over and over and over.
*sigh*
How much is a pack of condoms? Last I checked, medicaid covers bc. There's a wide range of options. Excuse denied
#2
So the next time a thread gets posted about a ? ? with more kids than common sense and means, I expect you to throw that cape on with this same excuse. I don't wanna here no ? bashin from you.
Read this article about how expensive birth control is. And condoms aren't 100% effective.
"The high cost of birth control has prompted 25% of women who make less than $75,000 per year to put off going to the doctor. About 29% of women in the same income range have used their birth control method incorrectly in an attempt to try to make it last longer. And half of women haven't used their method as directed because it's cost-prohibitive."
http://jezebel.com/5885368/actually-birth-controls-pretty-expensive
C'mon you quoting stats from a feminist site? Yeah there's no bias and twisting of stats and figures there.
Again, you still making excuses. Let's look at the real world. Funny how some of these chicks have money to spend on weave, cell phones, shoes, clubbin etc but can't afford birth control
"b-b-but that's only SOME women". Yeah some way too ? many.
According to yall logic, we should pay ? back child support right? I mean after all, the kids are suffering and lecturing people and trying to hold them accountable does nothing right? Yall want ? locked up for not payin but never think that doesn't help the child huh?
So when ? don't pay child support, moms gotta rely on welfare. That obviously ain't enough because poverty still so damn high. Oh and in no way is a lotta that due to the fact a lotta women bein irresponsible right? So what we need to do, is cut that child support check on behave of ? ain't ? daddy so the kids can eat. Cuz we need to be humane and not let the children suffer.
You have stats to refute the information from the site or nah?
You don't believe that birth control is expensive?
Here's another article stating that Black women have lower access to birth control services in the context of abortion.
"Our high abortion rate reflects our high rate of unintended pregnancy -- which in turn reflects poverty and a lack of accessible, affordable health care. Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended -- a far higher proportion than you would find in most other developed countries -- and the risk isn't distributed equally. African-American women experience unintended pregnancy at more than twice the rate of white women, often because they black affordable birth control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/veronica-byrd/african-americans-abortion-rights_b_920288.html
So Planned Parenthood doesn't exist? How long that ? been around offering free birth control but yet here we are with all these kids running around that people can't afford. So what went wrong there?
So women can afford abortions but can't afford birth control? Got that new Galaxy S4, but can't cop those pills or that patch or that IUD, or that shot, or that ? ring, or that female condom, or that box of trojans and keeping your legs closed until you can afford it it totally out of the question.
? ? need to keep it in their pants but ? ? should be free to let that ? pop huh?
I don't get yall
Yall wanna talk girl power, but then play poor little helpless girl that has to have everything provided for her and she shouldn't be held to and sort of responsibility.
As Desert Rain has said, not everyone has access to Planned Parenthood. And there is a constant attack on women by the right to defund those services, such as in Texas and Colorado where PP have closed.
And ? , I'm poor myself. I can't afford a Galaxy S4 and birth control on top of that is expensive. I think you have issues with women and poor people in general.
#1. You got internet access tho right? That cost. And you have SOME kind of cell phone right, which is a luxury I might add, (and they got those fore free too, so if you truly poor, then you gotta tracfone, not a smartphone)
#2. You dead wrong. I have a problem with able bodied people who choose to make stupid idiotic decisions and expect someone else to foot the bill.
And don't hit me with the issues with women ? . I'm married to a beautiful college educated no excuse makin didn't have children out of wedlock that she couldn't afford, good job havin black woman.
I have 3 beautiful black daughters and a son from my previous marriage that I live and die for and teach to have self accountability and self respect.
I don't give their mother a hassle or cause problems in her life. In fact throughout all the ? she put me through I made a conscience decision do keep doing what's right and keep my kids priority one.
I have 3 siblings, two of them female, that I did everything I could for to help them succeed later in life. My younger sister, will be graduating college soon. I opened my home to her in her troubled teens, helped her get back on track and she moved out of state on her own and is taking care of herself.
No my sister, I have NO issues with women, I have issues with these grown little girls who are lost. And trust, they know that they are lost. They just don't care.
See IDGAF it's it's male or female, I'm fair unlike yall one sided hypocritical selves. I believe in pulling your own weight and not adding to the problem -
ROFL @ the ? I'm still reading
is this thread about corporations or low income mothers? -
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
We should invest in women who have multiple children out-of-wedlock who are so poor that they can't even afford to take care of them without government assistance?
@Sion, what kind of return should someone expect on an investment of that nature?
lolololololololololololololol
I think when she says "invest" she means providing more training and educational opportunities, which I actually agree with.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
We should invest in women who have multiple children out-of-wedlock who are so poor that they can't even afford to take care of them without government assistance?
@Sion, what kind of return should someone expect on an investment of that nature?
lolololololololololololololol
I think when she says "invest" she means providing more training and educational opportunities, which I actually agree with.
I know.
It seems cold-hearted, but heard someone make the case a while back that it didn't make sense for so much taxpayer money to go towards helping special needs/disabled/? kids because there's only so much they're gonna be able to do anyway.
Basically saying that the money would be better spent on kids who just needed a little help (tutors, afterschool help, etc) because they had the potential to go further in life.
? sounded horrible when I first heard it, but when you think about it....you can't deny that it makes sense.
This is a similar situation.
No matter how much you spend on women in those circumstances, most of them aren't going to take advantage of those opportunities because there's nothing indicative in the way they live their life to show that they would do so.
-
On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
Yep.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
And I don't know why you all keep harping on the government "paying" for it when it ain't that much money.
As I said, welfare comprises only .0000016 of the federal budget, and y'all are talking as if this is almost one billion dollars that is being spent on welfare and birth control services.
You can't be serious right there.
As for your .0000016 number, where you get that from?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
"Safety net programs: About 12 percent of the federal budget in 2012, or $411 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2011 and 2012 as the economy continued to improve."
I read it in a book awhile ago--and I'm talking specifically about ADFC when I say welfare, not a combination of the other social saftey net programs.
Even in the remaining programs (Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance), not all of it is even spent on the poor.
Read a break down of spending here.
http://www.snowcow.com/society/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
What's this bloggers credentials?
You posted a link where a blogger skewed numbers to fit the purpose of his article. Does he have any expertise in data analysis to support his claims and so called breakdown?
I posted a link to raw data. You can't front on that.
You're link is hereby denied into evidence as by his own admission:
"Call me Dustin. Just Dustin. I am a professional software engineer, amateur political philosopher, and wannabe writer. Despite all that, my only real, demonstrated talent in life is spewing forth semi-informed opinions on a blog."
http://www.snowcow.com/about/ -
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
We should invest in women who have multiple children out-of-wedlock who are so poor that they can't even afford to take care of them without government assistance?
@Sion, what kind of return should someone expect on an investment of that nature?
lolololololololololololololol
I think when she says "invest" she means providing more training and educational opportunities, which I actually agree with.
I know.
And you don't agree with that? -
Feelings have nothing to do with this
Men are just tired of these ? broads ? . Simple as that.
The stupidity that comes out of their mouths is horrendous.
Read some of their posts, this ? is crazy.
Men are held accountable in so many ways when it comes to children
Yet that same accountability is not even considered with these broads
Oh, let the state take care of em. But if that child grows up to be a statistic?
"Gurrrl, his daddy? That ? ain't ? ! That's why he ? up now and in jail, with his broke ass"
It's a cycle that must be stopped.
It takes a WOMAN AND A MAN to make a child, so when a child is involved the men will always share the blame. Stop going raw in these girls and/or be more picky with who you choose to put your ? inside of. The risk of STDs and an unwanted child should be enough to outweigh 30minutes of feel good.
Also, the woman are still taking care of the children. If you have a problem with the way your BM is raising your son or daughter, file for custody and prove your case. ? , you might not have to prove your case, she might be happy that you actually gave a ? and let you raise him/her for whatever amount of time y'all agreed upon.
..But like I said earlier, all of this can be prevented if you clowns stop trying to get your ? count up and realize the risk that comes with having sex, and the simple concept that quality always takes precedence over quantity. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I fully expect pregnancies in the mexican and blacc communities to go up 280%.I know a chick with 6 kids and lives off welfare (link card and cash).If you don't deter these ? they will milk the system and perpetuate the cycle of nothingness
according to the articles California has been penalizing these mothers since 94 and it hasnt impacted the birth rate...low income women are still having kids
Shouldn't really be about that either.
With an ever shrinking tax/income base, there just isn't enough money to do all of this.
It sounds cruel, but if low income women continue to have kids, they should be solely responsible for paying for them......just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
If they can't afford the kids, take the kids away.
Huh lol
So traumatize the children by taking them away from their families and make them wards of the state
Would rather we address the source of the problem which is poverty, substance abuse and lack of jobs, then further burden the state, make the children suffer
None of that has anything to do with women continuing to have children they can't afford.
All the more reason to not have children.
Are you saying that women living in poverty don't have any self-control and are incapable of making responsible decisions?
Careful, because if you say that these women do have self-control and are capable of making responsible decisions.....then you're also saying that they believe having children they can't afford is responsible.
Which also implies that they have a warped concept of self-control as well.
multiple studies as well as my personal experiences has informed me women, people have babies because they are looking for purpose and/or love....low income people aren't devoid of these emotions, thoughts. however, the problem is they usually come from broken families/ impoverished /violent areas
the careers, loving relationships and educational opportunities that occupy middle and upper class women’s twenties and thirties are just dreams to these women. and children can act as a stabilizer in a neighborhood, family or financial situation that is otherwise chaos
You seriously can't believe that.
None of that even makes sense.
Almost sounds like you're reading verbatim from a script or something.
You actually believe that if these women are having kids "looking for purpose and love" that it absolves them of being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions?
And that all of these children born into these conditions are "acting as stabilizers in their neighborhoods?"
lol...
women have children for many of reasons...many of whom i mentioned throughout this thread
purpose and love being the main culprits
for women of lesser means the desire for a loving and stable relationship is even stronger considering they live an otherwise chaotic, direct-less existence ....which leads to many having children, following after pimps, etc
smh....nobody is popping out babies for foodstamps, now that's a ridiculous notion
anyways providing women, lower income people with opportunities and a reason not to get pregnant that simultaneously improves their quality of life is the direction to go in imho
The bolded wreaks of the very feelings you keep talking about. Not to mention it's very biased. Nobody is popping out babies for food stamps? Really doe?
As far as the rest, you mean we need to give poor men and women, but women especially, REASONS to not bring an expensive child into the world during a moment where they can't afford it?
I'm done, I can't, I just can't -
blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ the ? I'm still reading
is this thread about corporations or low income mothers?
one of the main reasons given as to why people argue that we should defund certain social programs and slash spending is because we don't have the money
yet at the same time, the very same people don't say a word about corporate welfare or about how wealthy farmers receive farm subsidies worth millions
so its hypocritical, and begs the question if we can afford these programs why can't we afford others... -
NothingButTheTruth wrote: »Feelings have nothing to do with this
Men are just tired of these ? broads ? . Simple as that.
The stupidity that comes out of their mouths is horrendous.
Read some of their posts, this ? is crazy.
Men are held accountable in so many ways when it comes to children
Yet that same accountability is not even considered with these broads
Oh, let the state take care of em. But if that child grows up to be a statistic?
"Gurrrl, his daddy? That ? ain't ? ! That's why he ? up now and in jail, with his broke ass"
It's a cycle that must be stopped.
It takes a WOMAN AND A MAN to make a child, so when a child is involved the men will always share the blame. Stop going raw in these girls and/or be more picky with who you choose to put your ? inside of. The risk of STDs and an unwanted child should be enough to outweigh 30minutes of feel good.
Also, the woman are still taking care of the children. If you have a problem with the way your BM is raising your son or daughter, file for custody and prove your case. ? , you might not have to prove your case, she might be happy that you actually gave a ? and let you raise him/her for whatever amount of time y'all agreed upon.
..But like I said earlier, all of this can be prevented if you clowns stop trying to get your ? count up and realize the risk that comes with having sex, and the simple concept that quality always takes precedence over quantity.
women can't close their legs to prevent this phenomenon? it's all on the men right? haha
I'm doing my best not to go in
-
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
We should invest in women who have multiple children out-of-wedlock who are so poor that they can't even afford to take care of them without government assistance?
@Sion, what kind of return should someone expect on an investment of that nature?
lolololololololololololololol
I think when she says "invest" she means providing more training and educational opportunities, which I actually agree with.
I know.
And you don't agree with that?
Check the edit.
I went back to explain further.
-
blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ the ? I'm still reading
is this thread about corporations or low income mothers?
That's the trusty old standby excuse.
What do corporations have to do with single mothers?
Who in here excuses the behavior of greedy corporations?
Ol "they doin it too!" ass ? -
yaaaaaaaaas!!!! loca reeeead hunty!
-
desertrain10 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ the ? I'm still reading
is this thread about corporations or low income mothers?
one of the main reasons given as to why people argue that we should defund certain social programs and slash spending is because we don't have the money
yet at the same time, the very same people don't say a word about corporate welfare or about how wealthy farmers receive farm subsidies worth millions
so its hypocritical, and begs the question if we can afford these programs why can't we afford others...
-
#1. You got internet access tho right? That cost. And you have SOME kind of cell phone right, which is a luxury I might add, (and they got those fore free too, so if you truly poor, then you gotta tracfone, not a smartphone)
#2. You dead wrong. I have a problem with able bodied people who choose to make stupid idiotic decisions and expect someone else to foot the bill.
And don't hit me with the issues with women ? . I'm married to a beautiful college educated no excuse makin didn't have children out of wedlock that she couldn't afford, good job havin black woman.
I have 3 beautiful black daughters and a son from my previous marriage that I live and die for and teach to have self accountability and self respect.
I don't give their mother a hassle or cause problems in her life. In fact throughout all the ? she put me through I made a conscience decision do keep doing what's right and keep my kids priority one.
I have 3 siblings, two of them female, that I did everything I could for to help them succeed later in life. My younger sister, will be graduating college soon. I opened my home to her in her troubled teens, helped her get back on track and she moved out of state on her own and is taking care of herself.
No my sister, I have NO issues with women, I have issues with these grown little girls who are lost. And trust, they know that they are lost. They just don't care.
See IDGAF it's it's male or female, I'm fair unlike yall one sided hypocritical selves. I believe in pulling your own weight and not adding to the problem
LMAO. Even though I have internet access, I still live below the poverty line and don't make a lot of money, ? . LOL at you deciding on the internet if I pass the poverty litmus test. You sound like Mitt Romney.
And I wish you'd stop ranting in paragraphs--point is, everyone needs the state to step in when you're in a neo-liberal capitalist market economy where there's never going to be enough jobs or income for everyone. Especially women of color who are disadvantaged by racism and sexism. People talk about personal responsibility, but neglect social responsibility.
Funny how you guys can critique the government harshly when it comes to racism, but when it comes to Black women specifically, you fall short.
Oh those feelin coming out now. Yeah you love typin long ass novels full of fictitious/slanted "stats", but when that truth bomb hit now I'm typing too much.
My point in illustrating the fact you have internet access was to show you that since you so ? poor, if it came down to it, you STILL have money to revert from that internet bill (which is pretty costly) to some birth control.
You stay makin excuses for lazy women. I gotta ask, how is your relationship with you father? -
This is stupid! You shouldn't have kids if you can't feed them. These ? need their tubes tied after the second baby if they're on welfare.
-
NothingButTheTruth wrote: »Feelings have nothing to do with this
Men are just tired of these ? broads ? . Simple as that.
The stupidity that comes out of their mouths is horrendous.
Read some of their posts, this ? is crazy.
Men are held accountable in so many ways when it comes to children
Yet that same accountability is not even considered with these broads
Oh, let the state take care of em. But if that child grows up to be a statistic?
"Gurrrl, his daddy? That ? ain't ? ! That's why he ? up now and in jail, with his broke ass"
It's a cycle that must be stopped.
It takes a WOMAN AND A MAN to make a child, so when a child is involved the men will always share the blame. Stop going raw in these girls and/or be more picky with who you choose to put your ? inside of. The risk of STDs and an unwanted child should be enough to outweigh 30minutes of feel good.
Also, the woman are still taking care of the children. If you have a problem with the way your BM is raising your son or daughter, file for custody and prove your case. ? , you might not have to prove your case, she might be happy that you actually gave a ? and let you raise him/her for whatever amount of time y'all agreed upon.
..But like I said earlier, all of this can be prevented if you clowns stop trying to get your ? count up and realize the risk that comes with having sex, and the simple concept that quality always takes precedence over quantity.
Agreed and cosign
Now when do you apply that same attitude toward women?
You said it yourself, and I agree once again, it takes a WOMAN AND A MAN.......
Why you bein one-sided doe? -
The funniest part about this whole thing is, it's 8/10 the lower-income people or damn near broke people who feel so strongly against programs that help out people with financial troubles.
They don't realize that they're a couple of paychecks away from being in the same position. I be laughing at these clowns like, "Yo they're talking about you! You're the broke one ? !" -
desertrain10 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ the ? I'm still reading
is this thread about corporations or low income mothers?
one of the main reasons given as to why people argue that we should defund certain social programs and slash spending is because we don't have the money
yet at the same time, the very same people don't say a word about corporate welfare or about how wealthy farmers receive farm subsidies worth millions
so its hypocritical, and begs the question if we can afford these programs why can't we afford others...
who in here said they endorse corporate welfare?
that was just another straw man argument brought in this thread to deflect from the obvious premise of expecting personal accountability
c'mon shorty you of all people should know better SMH
so if I disagree with both types of welfare, then what? -
I think what this thread has reiterated again is that no one cares about poor people.
Or, more specifically, not even some Black men seem to care about poor Black women.
You Mitt Romney ass ? .
only black women are poor in California????
LMAO surely you jest -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I fully expect pregnancies in the mexican and blacc communities to go up 280%.I know a chick with 6 kids and lives off welfare (link card and cash).If you don't deter these ? they will milk the system and perpetuate the cycle of nothingness
according to the articles California has been penalizing these mothers since 94 and it hasnt impacted the birth rate...low income women are still having kids
Shouldn't really be about that either.
With an ever shrinking tax/income base, there just isn't enough money to do all of this.
It sounds cruel, but if low income women continue to have kids, they should be solely responsible for paying for them......just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
If they can't afford the kids, take the kids away.
Huh lol
So traumatize the children by taking them away from their families and make them wards of the state
Would rather we address the source of the problem which is poverty, substance abuse and lack of jobs, then further burden the state, make the children suffer
None of that has anything to do with women continuing to have children they can't afford.
All the more reason to not have children.
Are you saying that women living in poverty don't have any self-control and are incapable of making responsible decisions?
Careful, because if you say that these women do have self-control and are capable of making responsible decisions.....then you're also saying that they believe having children they can't afford is responsible.
Which also implies that they have a warped concept of self-control as well.
multiple studies as well as my personal experiences has informed me women, people have babies because they are looking for purpose and/or love....low income people aren't devoid of these emotions, thoughts. however, the problem is they usually come from broken families/ impoverished /violent areas
the careers, loving relationships and educational opportunities that occupy middle and upper class women’s twenties and thirties are just dreams to these women. and children can act as a stabilizer in a neighborhood, family or financial situation that is otherwise chaos
You seriously can't believe that.
None of that even makes sense.
Almost sounds like you're reading verbatim from a script or something.
You actually believe that if these women are having kids "looking for purpose and love" that it absolves them of being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions?
And that all of these children born into these conditions are "acting as stabilizers in their neighborhoods?"
lol...
women have children for many of reasons...many of whom i mentioned throughout this thread
purpose and love being the main culprits
for women of lesser means the desire for a loving and stable relationship is even stronger considering they live an otherwise chaotic, direct-less existence ....which leads to many having children, following after pimps, etc
smh....nobody is popping out babies for foodstamps, now that's a ridiculous notion
anyways providing women, lower income people with opportunities and a reason not to get pregnant that simultaneously improves their quality of life is the direction to go in imho
The bolded wreaks of the very feelings you keep talking about. Not to mention it's very biased. Nobody is popping out babies for food stamps? Really doe?
As far as the rest, you mean we need to give poor men and women, but women especially, REASONS to not bring an expensive child into the world during a moment where they can't afford it?
I'm done, I can't, I just can't
i'm not a mother... and i don't receive foodstamps, fortunately i don't need them
with that said how i am the biased one? lol
you're the one implying the majority of lower income women are having kids just for an extra couple hundred dollars in food-stamps and cash benefits a month in spite of the fact it means there's an extra child to bathe, clothe, supervise, etc
as if the idea that like most women, they are biological wired to breed...have the same urges, wants, desires, etc is so implausible
may sound dumb and i would agree that lower income women should sustain from having multiple children until they can afford them, but its life and one could argue human nature..
and there's no evidence to suggest that penalizing these women with anything other than jail time, will deter anyone from having kids. and will actually tip the vulnerable into poverty
so other then insult their intelligence, what do suppose we do as a country with these women and their children? what about the fathers?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc
This is what yall support.
I get it now.
I keep coming in these threads thinking we can have an honest dialogue. maybe even find some common ground in agreeing that throwing more money toward irresponsible behavior is not going to fix anything. If nothing else, it makes those on the receiving end MORE dependent on the government which keep ? just like it is.
But every single time it's excuse excuse excuse.
@blakfyahking got the right idea
lurk mode=on
