Jump to content

The Right To Bear Children Or Eight Is Enough


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

The couple face a huge fine for breaching the strict one-child policy as well as losing their home, a family planning official said.

They spent £100,200 on IVF after learning they could not have children naturally – and employed two surrogate mothers as a fall-back.

But the mother successfully had triplets herself, then the two surrogates had five more between them, state media reported.

The couple claimed they did not intend to have so many children. But the case has made a mockery of China’s controversial one-child policy, and the provincial government has launched an investigation.

The area’s deputy health chief said: ‘Why did they have to hire so many people to have babies for them? Did they think they had the right to bear children just because they were rich? Secondly, what respect to life did they show? Multiple pregnancies are super risky.’

http://www.dailymail...GHT-babies.html

Link to comment

I feel blinded from the truth of this issue. I was well into my adulthood before I understood that human beings have an innate desire to reproduce, not just have sex. For so many years I thought all these teen pregnancies were accidents, the result of a temporary lapse in self control. We didn't know about birth control, etc. etc. I just recently realized that the young women having these children are doing it on purpose. It's not some lack of knowledge or education. It's the simple fact that they want to reproduce when they want to reproduce regardless of whether or not they know the consequences. I guess it's similar to asking, "Why do people my age smoke cigarettes even though we were all taught since kindergarten not to do so?"

In a way the system does reward people for having children before they are prepared to provide for them. It stands to reason that these are the type of people that are going to survive and be represented in the gene pool in the future.

I just talked to a new grandpa who shared with me that when his 17 year old daughter had a child out of wedlock of course. He said it pleased him because his entire life he had been playing by the rules. Now he was finally going to benefit from the system that had robbed him of his tax dollars most of his life, cash in, if you will.

For so long I viewed the natural man as exclusively some old batchelor who loved his money more than having children, because that's all anyone ever talks about. But I would contend that the welfare mama is also a demonstration of the natural man in so many cases. Yet because saying so is taboo, it took me a long time to figure that out.

Link to comment

I don't care how much or how little people choose to live on. I think if you choose to have children, you should have a way to pay for them yourself, not be having them as a means of generating income. I see nothing wrong with limiting the number of children people can have if they have been on welfare.

If someone can afford to have children on their own dime, I don't think anyone else has a right to tell them they cannot do so at this point.

Link to comment

Welfare is for dependent families(Aid to Families with Dependent Children). Further the total time on welfare averages less than a year and a half, with a statutory limit of two years. So you want to punish the kids for that actions of a parent?

While not direct AFDC Food Stamp use is at an all time high.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/pf/food_stamps_record_high/index.htm

Link to comment
Welfare is for dependent families(Aid to Families with Dependent Children). Further the total time on welfare averages less than a year and a half, with a statutory limit of two years. So you want to punish the kids for that actions of a parent?

I don't want to punish the kids for the actions of a parent. What am I doing to punish them? I'm simply saying that I shouldn't be required by law to provide for these children because I didn't decide to have them. If I choose to help them, that should be my perrogative, not my legal responsiblity because it wasn't my choice.

At what point would such a person have that right?

When you can show that you have a job and health insurance, unless of course you can show that you have enough money to pay cash for the obstetrician. You should be able to sign a waiver saying you'll forego the services of a medical professional. I think that's fair. But not like it is now where having a child means a guranteed increase in your monthly government check. Present a budget and commitment to live by the financial plan you have created. Then you can be approved to have a child.

thesometimessaint are you actually claiming that these people only stay on welfare for two years? So they stay on welfare until the baby reaches two years of age and then what? The culture and lifestyle makes a dramatic change in that short time period? I'd have to see that to believe it.

Think of it this way. What if I chose to have four or five kids on your dime as a taxpayer? Would you be viewed as heartless for saying my brood wasn't your responsiblity and that you didn't owe me anything or would I be viewed as irresponsible for choosing this path. Our view of good and evil is dependent on who becomes responsible and who benefits. It's inherently biased based on the outcome.

Link to comment

Well it's interesting how, with China's newfound economic freedom, there are non ruling class people wealthy enough to have large families as this one is. So here is evidence that economic freedom can lead to more freedom with regards to family size, as scarcity of resources is ostensibly a major reason why the one child policy is in place, and I daresay other freedoms as well will ultimately result.

Link to comment
If someone can afford to have children on their own dime, I don't think anyone else has a right to tell them they cannot do so at this point.
At what point would such a person have that right?
When you can show that you have a job and health insurance, unless of course you can show that you have enough money to pay cash for the obstetrician. You should be able to sign a waiver saying you'll forego the services of a medical professional. I think that's fair. But not like it is now where having a child means a guranteed increase in your monthly government check. Present a budget and commitment to live by the financial plan you have created. Then you can be approved to have a child.

I think you answered a good question. It was not the question I asked, however.

I also think you answered it poorly. It sounds like you advocate applying for the "privilege" of having children. That's not God's plan, and, further, it gives a bureaucrat the power to deny your innate right to have children. That's a formula for corruption and extortion.

However, I agree: those who cannot afford to have children ought not have them, but, it should be a familial responsibility, not the state's, to raise children. If the mother and her "partner" (it's largely the unmarried who fall under this heading) can't afford to nourish, clothe, and house their offspring, then grandma'n'grandpa should do it—they raised the ne'er-do-wells. If not them, then uncles and aunts should be there. If not them, then volunteer neighbors (including church members and military, for instance—for military members— assistance groups, or police benevolent societies, for cops). But under no circumstances, should a person who has no connection with the family be forced to pay to support their children. Private charity will take care of the rest (as it will do for educating them—please recall that government-run, tax-funded schools are just another form of welfare paid for by the unwilling and unconnected).

Public shame and scorn for failure to meet your responsibilities must be brought to bear on misfits. No one should have a sense of entitlement to that which he did not create or contribute to.

Lehi

Link to comment

You're all so heartless. Requiring that people be responsible for the results of their own poor decision making! You should be ashamed of yourselves. Except TSS, of course.

Link to comment

Stargazer:

Let's take them away from those irresponsible parents. How dare they have children when they may at some future time lose a job, get sick, become disabled, lose their spouce to death or divorce.

The act of having children after responsibly making reasonable preparations to take care of them (i.e. being married to a willing partner, being physically capable, having a source of income, etc), is not equivalent to having a child because of the poor choice of having unprotected sex with some semi-random stranger after a wild drunken party. Even so, I don't think I have advocated here for taking children away from their parents, either because of not knowing who the father is or because their spouse died. Please accuse of me the crimes I have committed instead of ones I haven't. Thanks.

I'm more than happy to help out with someone who is struck by personal tragedy; I'm just a little less happy to do so if the person dug their very own hole and jumped in. Especially if the government comes to me and forces me to do so at gunpoint.

Link to comment

Lets see now. I have 7 children, a mortgage, a B.S. and M.S. degree 20+ years experience in my field and up until 6 months ago a decent job and was a financial contributor to the state and the church.

I'm now on food stamps and unemployment due to a layoff. I've never lost a job to bad performance.

Am I irresponsible for having a large family now that I can not pay for them (temporarily)?

Link to comment

Lets see now. I have 7 children, a mortgage, a B.S. and M.S. degree 20+ years experience in my field and up until 6 months ago a decent job and was a financial contributor to the state and the church.

I'm now on food stamps and unemployment due to a layoff. I've never lost a job to bad performance.

Am I irresponsible for having a large family now that I can not pay for them (temporarily)?

As far as i'm concerned DaddyG, you're just using the money that you have already paid into the system. Here's to better days ahead. :good:

Link to comment

Lets see now. I have 7 children, a mortgage, a B.S. and M.S. degree 20+ years experience in my field and up until 6 months ago a decent job and was a financial contributor to the state and the church.

I'm now on food stamps and unemployment due to a layoff. I've never lost a job to bad performance.

Am I irresponsible for having a large family now that I can not pay for them (temporarily)?

I pray for you every night! I do hope things turn around and I am here for ya! I have thrown your name into a few Temples!

Link to comment

Lets see now. I have 7 children, a mortgage, a B.S. and M.S. degree 20+ years experience in my field and up until 6 months ago a decent job and was a financial contributor to the state and the church.

I'm now on food stamps and unemployment due to a layoff. I've never lost a job to bad performance.

Am I irresponsible for having a large family now that I can not pay for them (temporarily)?

Of course not.

I've been where you are now, and you have my sympathy.

Link to comment

The act of having children after responsibly making reasonable preparations to take care of them (i.e. being married to a willing partner, being physically capable, having a source of income, etc), is not equivalent to having a child because of the poor choice of having unprotected sex with some semi-random stranger after a wild drunken party. Even so, I don't think I have advocated here for taking children away from their parents, either because of not knowing who the father is or because their spouse died. Please accuse of me the crimes I have committed instead of ones I haven't. Thanks.

I'm more than happy to help out with someone who is struck by personal tragedy; I'm just a little less happy to do so if the person dug their very own hole and jumped in. Especially if the government comes to me and forces me to do so at gunpoint.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I think it is irresponsible to have more children than we can reasonably expect to be able to provide for. Most of us will fall on hard times at sometime in our lives, and may need some assistance. That is a far cry from just mindlessly reproducing without even pondering the means to support our children--physically and emotionally. Parenting is a serious business, and this trend of young single mothering by choice is very disturbing to me.

Link to comment
Parenting is a serious business, and this trend of young single mothering by choice is very disturbing to me.

And it is but one of the effects of "feminism", not to mention the rendering irrelevant of fathers in the home by the welfare state. (But I repeat myself.)

Lehi

Link to comment

And it is but one of the effects of "feminism", not to mention the rendering irrelevant of fathers in the home by the welfare state. (But I repeat myself.)

Lehi

Out of all the young single mothers i've known personally (about 10 or so) none were feminist. Older single mothers i could see that being the case, but i'm not sure young single mothers are motivated at all by feminist beliefs as feminism espouses them.

Link to comment

Out of all the young single mothers i've known personally (about 10 or so) none were feminist. Older single mothers i could see that being the case, but i'm not sure young single mothers are motivated at all by feminist beliefs as feminism espouses them.

It's not they who are feminists, but the "culture" the feminists (among others) created over the decades since The Feminine Mystique and Gloria Steinem's "men are useless" mantra.

Feminism's victims are more than they, themselves. We all suffer by their actions.

Lehi

Link to comment

It's not they who are feminists, but the "culture" the feminists (among others) created over the decades since The Feminine Mystique[\i] and Gloria Steinem's "men are useless" mantra.

Feminism's victims are more than they, themselves. We all suffer by theiractions.

Lehi

Just an FYI, but the woman who wrote the Feminine mystique, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem were not working towards the same goals-they were often at odds precisely because Betty Friedan did NOT want feminism to become about women verses men. Friedan was solely about equal rights (voting, work place, etc.). She believed that the turn feminism took with those like Steinem would be the death of her dream. Friedan wasn't looking for a woman's revolution-her book was never about that.

I do see what you are saying though, i think. It's just that all of the young single moms i know desperately want the 'fairytale' and got pregnant actively looking for the fairytale of the man who would be the white knight who would swoop in and save them. Perhaps you could explain how that outlook is the fault of feminism so that i can better understand where you are coming from.

Link to comment
the woman who wrote the Feminine mystique, Betty Friedan,

Your point (and, apparently, Ms. Friedan's) is mine: Feminism (as understood in XXI) is destructive of society. Whatever goals some of the original proponents of "equal rights" may have had, their followers threw out the bath water, the baby, and the tub. As I see it, this destruction of the foundational entity of civilization is exactly what Satan has worked for since Adam said, "She is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone."

Those poor young women who are now single mothers have been hoodwinked by the movement and the government that bought into it. There's a reason that the most vocal supporters of abortion on demand are men, aged 18 to 34.

Lehi

Link to comment

Right to bear arms and right to bear children....personally I think we should leave the bears alone. Sorry just had too and since the thread has devolved into the evils evils of women voting making a bear joke seemed ok.

It is my understanding that the limit on children in China has been around for decades

Link to comment

Your point (and, apparently, Ms. Friedan's) is mine: Feminism (as understood in XXI) is destructive of society. Whatever goals some of the original proponents of "equal rights" may have had, their followers threw out the bath water, the baby, and the tub. As I see it, this destruction of the foundational entity of civilization is exactly what Satan has worked for since Adam said, "She is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone."

I agree that satan is very good at taking good things and corrupting them.

We shouldn't judge the good by the corruption though. I personally am very thankful for women like Friedan who stood up and fought for the rights of women when so many others refused to.

Those poor young women who are now single mothers have been hoodwinked by the movement and the government that bought into it. There's a reason that the most vocal supporters of abortion on demand are men, aged 18 to 34.

Lehi

You still haven't explained how they have been hoodwinked.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...