Is it ok having babies you can't afford ?

Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they are on government assistance then why are they malnourished? :shrug:

Are you aware that the gov't will dole out more money if there is a child?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's why I said "or", they're on government assistance.
There's poor malnurished people in some countries that don't get government assistance, and yet have babies. Then there's poor people (not necessarily malnurished) in countries where the govt. does give welfare of some sort.

So that's why I used "or" in the sentence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no, i do not.

 

Don't think it's a good idea, but if you can find a way to take care of them then who am I to say anything?

 

No.

You should only choose to have a child if you're 100% ready and fit to look after them.

 

so there should be no children in ethiopia (or other african nation of choice) except for those from the ritch dictators who are raping the country?

 

You must admit Asguard that the example outlined in the OP doesn't mirror that of African nations where there isn't even a welfare system. If you have a nation that is compromised by war and or famine, disease etc then you will encourage childbirth regardless of the poverty. On the other hand there are efforts to try and get some African countries to encourage birth control so that they don't overstretch their limited resources, in those cases limiting the number of children born to a family could mean a families ability to afford child care and education without it taxing the family too heavily. I believe that the OP regards Western or developed nations not developing nations where there's a different paradigm.

 

Those people that are in some countries that are malnourished can't afford food, let alone forms of birth control. We really can't judge them for this.

I understand the government assistance, but there are many reasons some are on government assistance. Some, loss of job, loss of home due to things that are out of their control, or a family member going through an illness. In these cases, having a child during that time to me is OK. They don't plan on being on government assistance forever, just going through a rough patch.

There are people who make a career out of being on welfare. To me that is wrong. I actually overheard a woman say it was time to get pregnant again because her case was about to be up. I almost choked.

There is a woman, (I cringe calling her that), that I know of that has had 9 children and lives on welfare. She only has custody of two. The others live with other family members, in foster care and 3 have been adopted. She makes a person believe in having the government step in and tie up those tubes. Yet, that would be a violation of rights. So, she can continue having these babies,give them away, and have them taken away from her. Disgusting.

 

Whether you're in poverty in Africa and can't afford to have a baby, or you're in a western nation in poverty and can't afford to have a baby; either way you're going to put a burden on the child, yourself, and society.
I suppose for some people though it provides comfort that in a western society, for a child born into poverty, it's survival is dependant on the taxpayers.

 

Great answer. Yes, it's okay to have babies that parents supposedly can't afford. Isn't it the poor who has the most children? I think God gives more children to the poor, because the rich people who could most "afford" them, make the most pathetic excuses to not have more children.

What's wrong is government welfare, which ought to be considered an oxymoron, because government has nothing to give that it didn't take from the fruits of other people's labor. Welfare should be private individuals and groups, and VOLUNTARY, so as to hold it accountable for wise use of the funds.

The father should work to support their children, but I see no specific clearly measurable definition of this. If there are no jobs to be found, a family still has their God-given right to Life and to procreate children. There's no obligation of married people to practice any form of contrary-to-nature "family planning."

It doesn't make sense to make a prerequisite that babies be "affordable" before they are conceived, because look how the evil politicians twist things. What's to keep them from saying you must make at least $250,000 a year, before being allowed to conceive a baby, then get taxed through the nose for making "too much" money?

When you are poor, children don't cost much, as poor people make more of what they use, and buy less. Somehow I see "affordability" quotas soon morphing into "family size" quotas, according to the perceived needs of the socialistic machine awful state. Let's not go down that path, and leave it to God or the billions of breeder parents to decide how to enjoy their liberty.

BTW, I advocate large families worldwide, so that far more people may experience life, so understandably, I have to be a bit "flexible" on the "affordability" measure. Not that there aren't other good reasons to reason against an "affordability" measure. Having a job, any job, minimum wage, almost anything ought to count towards babies being possibly affordable to the frugal parents who love children.

Or poor people could just stop having sex? Ah, didn't think so.

They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth. Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies? I wouldn't expect poor people to afford the nasty unnatural anti-life "birth control." And they say that people who use the "natural" method of rhythm, perhaps because it is free, are usually called PARENTS, joking that it doesn't really work very well. So why not use the most natural and free method, the NO METHOD method. It's the most pro-life and consistent with God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Lack of affordability is an economic condition quite often caused by the bad policies of corrupt politicians. What wouldn't be affordable, if people were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, and we could get the politicians out of our pockets and out of our business? No need to blame the innocent babies for such things.

 

No, people should not have a child if they cannot afford to give them every opportunity to succeed in life. Ethiopia is not always poor, they only starve if there is drought or war.

The fact is, evolution has caused us and many other mammals to do just the opposite. When times are tough, we need to have more children, because more of them die. We have them earlier in life, and we tend to engage in riskier behavior because things are desperate.

 

Only if you are MOMCOM and your child is named a war. :shrug:

 

No, it is not ethical.

In fact, many people have more children just to get more welfare.

 

The hope for many is that their offspring will be able to do better than them and help them as well. Many people have a good job when they have a child or two but then they lose it, divorce happens and then little income is left for the children.

 

I agree with this.

 

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

 

Agreed.

Apparently very few people think it's okay.

Of course, I suppose, a passerby shouldn't simply neglect them for the idiocy of the parents. But if you know you can't care for so many children, don't punish them by bringing them into poverty.

I was going to wonder about what Pronatalist would say, but naturally, it has already spoken. Predictably. It assumes that everything is always rosy.

 

A strange fixation I have noted that Pronatalist seems to have about a man and woman in a one room hut, banging away as it is their only form of recreation.
Free porn for the children? Do the children, at some point... ah, never mind. :scratchin:

No need to blame the innocent babies, indeed. I assume you have control over these corrupt politicians? So when can we expect this corruption to cease?
Enjoy the suffering while it lasts, I suppose.

 

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.