Single Mothers' Responsibility?

[Noir]

Piggybacking on CT's single mothers' thread, and co-signing Leroy's comment about not wanting his taxes supporting a single mother via Public Assistance, what is your opinion on the following:

Do you think the state should request that single mothers receiving public assistance to raise their child(ren) receive a long-term birth control method (Depo-Provera, implant, etc.,) to prevent them from conceiving another unplanned child?

Okay, the state cannot force the woman to be on birth control, but should the state then indicate (which many do now, I believe) that if the mother gives birth to additional children without the support of the father she will not receive additional state benefits?

 

[jucurious]

...wow...

*leaves*

 

[doggish_098]

people dont want to force a man to take care of his kids but you want to force a woman not to have any That just doesn't make sense to me. I would rather my tax dollars go to take care of the people in this country than them going to take care of any and everybody around the world who comes with a hand out.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I will say this...Public assistance is a choice. You are not mandated by the state to go down there and sign up for benefits. Seriously you are not. Just like working is also optional. You don't really have to ever get a job in this country if you don't want to. It might help out if you did on either case but you don't have to.

There are certain things that if you expect to get and keep a job that your employer requires of you. Random drug tests, criminal background checks, ethical behavior, etc... that is not required to get on public assistance.

I won't say that the government should force anybody to do any damn thing but they are not forcing you to take benefits and if you CHOOSE to then there should be some standards that you are required to keep to recieve them.

That's not a cosign or a derogatory statement for this thread it's just the way I see it. We don't really require people to do shit to get these benefits but be poor or unable to help themselves.

 

[Noir]

people dont want to force a man to take care of his kids but you want to force a woman not to have any That just doesn't make sense to me. I would rather my tax dollars go to take care of the people in this country than them going to take care of any and everybody around the world who comes with a hand out.

I'm all in favor of making a man take care of his kids, but just as a male can be irresponsible by not taking care of kids he helps conceive, I believe a woman can be irresponsible by having children she is ill prepared to care for financially.

 

[doggish_098]

I'm all in favor of making a man take care of his kids, but just as a male can be irresponsible by not taking care of kids he helps conceive, I believe a woman can be irresponsible by having children she is ill prepared to care for financially.

im sorry but im not buying what you are saying some married people who have children are not finacially prepared to take care of them. So by you logic poor married people should have birth control forced on them too.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

im sorry but im not buying what you are saying some married people who have children are not finacially prepared to take care of them. So by you logic poor married people should have birth control forced on them too.

By your logic anybody who doesn't properly plan for shit should be taken care of. So why not just give the man money too for fathering these children if he is too poor to take care of them. Shit everybody let's get some money. Fuck and prosper.

That's not the answer either.

 

[Noir]

im sorry but im not buying what you are saying some married people who have children are not finacially prepared to take care of them. So by you logic poor married people should have birth control forced on them too.

Perhaps I am not the best person to speak on this, since I do not have children, but I do not believe that anyone (single, couple, married, etc.,) should bring a child into the world if they have not thought out how to care for that child.

Maybe my statements are tinged by my frustration over the alarming numbers of people (men and women) having children without considering the consequences of their actions.

I know that even the best of circumstances (couple has money, job, education, plans, etc) that events can occur (change in economy, loss of job, catastrophic event) that can affect a family financially, but that is totally different from someone without 2 pennies to rub together from jump street deciding to have a child.

 

[melonpecan]

I'm feeling Andey on this one.

I think there should be some sort of requirements one should keep on public assistance to keep your benefits. For the requirements there are to get on it most lie anyway, (least in America).

Sometimes I think that some programs should act as a helping aid and others as a last resort, and should be managed as such. This instead of the handouts that they are.


Hell if I had half a mind to fuck taxpayers over I would, but why? When I have the want and the ability to to do for myself why shouldn't that be a priority instead of committing myself to embarrassing interviews by DFCS, (which are sooo an invasion of privacy). Perhaps if instilling such an attitude and the resources to get there were a priority for those on public assistance this type of question wouldn't exist.

 

[melonpecan]

I know that even the best of circumstances (couple has money, job, education, plans, etc) that events can occur (change in economy, loss of job, catastrophic event) that can affect a family financially, but that is totally different from someone without 2 pennies to rub together from jump street deciding to have a child.

Oh this is kicking some people's ass right now. There is no way in hell some people should be turned down from certain jobs like Family Dollar and Macy's and fast food joints if it wasn't a sign of the times.

 

[LeroyDibiase]

Piggybacking on CT's single mothers' thread, and co-signing Leroy's comment about not wanting his taxes supporting a single mother via Public Assistance, what is your opinion on the following:

Do you think the state should request that single mothers receiving public assistance to raise their child(ren) receive a long-term birth control method (Depo-Provera, implant, etc.,) to prevent them from conceiving another unplanned child?

Okay, the state cannot force the woman to be on birth control, but should the state then indicate (which many do now, I believe) that if the mother gives birth to additional children without the support of the father she will not receive additional state benefits?

Thanks for bastardizing what I said.

There should be no sort of forced "sterilization". The problem with this is that say she DOES have more children, if you take away the money, you only hurt the children. Which is counter productive to what it's there for.

 

[Noir]

Thanks for bastardizing what I said.

There should be no sort of forced "sterilization". The problem with this is that say she DOES have more children, if you take away the money, you only hurt the children. Which is counter productive to what it's there for.

If I bastardized, then I apologize. I did not say that there should be any forced sterilization, just that birth control be encouraged, and to discourage the notion that people can have children with no means of supporting them and expect the state to give the financial means to support them.

 

[IntelligentDyme]

If I bastardized, then I apologize. I did not say that there should be any forced sterilization, just that birth control be encouraged, and to discourage the notion that people can have children with no means of supporting them and expect the state to give the financial means to support them.

There is a fine line between personal responsibility and being upset to somehow suggesting that birth control should be encouraged... This is what happens all the time with poor women of color especially, they are encouraged to have abortions, get on birth control, get the shot....this has long lasting effects on a woman both physically and emotionally. Most are not given proper information about the risk of doing such things.. This is how Planned Parenthood started, and if we are not careful with using things like encouraging alternative methods, we can be perpetuating a present day Eugenics Movement.

The Secret of Planned Parenthood
http://impiousdigest.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=25

http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

The Eugenics Movement
http://hnn.us/articles/1551.html

 

[onyxfemme]

All I know is if you have babies-be able to support them single or not. Mother or Father-

I think common sense would say hey-I had one I am young....oooh dont want to have anymore right now let me get on something-

 

[LeroyDibiase]

All I know is if you have babies-be able to support them single or not. Mother or Father-

I think common sense would say hey-I had one I am young....oooh dont want to have anymore right now let me get on something-

Unfortunately, not everyone is born with common sense.

 

[onyxfemme]

Unfortunately, not everyone is born with common sense.

Trust me I know
Thanks God I was raised by H & P

 

[PrincessC]

Noir, what about forcing men to use condoms? Cheaper and safer than birth control.

 

[jucurious]

Noir, what about forcing men to use condoms? Cheaper and safer than birth control.

I know you didn't say that on bgol surely u jest!

 

[Top_Bunk]

Piggybacking on CT's single mothers' thread, and co-signing Leroy's comment about not wanting his taxes supporting a single mother via Public Assistance, what is your opinion on the following:

Do you think the state should request that single mothers receiving public assistance to raise their child(ren) receive a long-term birth control method (Depo-Provera, implant, etc.,) to prevent them from conceiving another unplanned child?

Okay, the state cannot force the woman to be on birth control, but should the state then indicate (which many do now, I believe) that if the mother gives birth to additional children without the support of the father she will not receive additional state benefits?

It's not supporting the mother. . .it's to support the child. Notice "CHild support"

 

[LeroyDibiase]

Noir, what about forcing men to use condoms? Cheaper and safer than birth control.

I agree. I wholeheartedly wish that all women would force men to use condoms.

 

[DeSiRe]

move to china...problem solved

 

[Noir]

Noir, what about forcing men to use condoms? Cheaper and safer than birth control.

I agree, unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that it would be used consistently, hence why I had mentioned the long-term methods. They need to finish developing that long-term birth control method they were supposedly developing for men.

 

[LoneStar29]

All I know is if you have babies-be able to support them single or not. Mother or Father-

I think common sense would say hey-I had one I am young....oooh dont want to have anymore right now let me get on something-

C/S

I partly agree with Noir that it is a big problem that women continue to have multiple kids while on assistance ... it makes no sense especially if they keep claiming the father isn't around each time

But I don't know if giving the government power over our bodies is a good idea either

 

[jucurious]

instead of some forced chemical bullshit

more states should adopt the assistance cap in terms of years and children...maybe even decrease it

ya know what would be interesting...if there was an incentive for women to find & verify their child's father (DNA verification of course) & they can still be provided some benefits until the father is set up to step in or the time limit expires..whichever is first. Talk about RADAR lol. Yeah I know the incentive is for the child to have their father around but besides that.

Let's not forget, it's not that all single mother's are actually "single" or don't know who their child's father is...he may still be involved to a degree...but for ppl in finicky financial situations...consistent money and benefits are very appealing.

 

[PrincessC]

I agree, unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that it would be used consistently, hence why I had mentioned the long-term methods. They need to finish developing that long-term birth control method they were supposedly developing for men.

There's no way to ensure that women would take their birth control properly or consistently either. There's a way to make sure that men stop ejaculating sperm...called a vasectomy. So there are issues on both sides.

My point is, I think we need to overhaul the way our society thinks about birth control. It is not just a woman's responsibility. I absolutely cannot wait until birth control for men is done with testing and is available for public use (about 4 more years). If the burden of bearing/raising children fell on men, this would have been done years ago.

 

[jucurious]

My point is, I think we need to overhaul the way our society thinks about birth control. It is not just a woman's responsibility. I absolutely cannot wait until birth control for men is done with testing and is available for public use (about 4 more years). If the burden of bearing/raising children fell on men, this would have been done years ago.

Unless some major advocacy happens in the near future, be prepared to wait more than 4 years.

honestly...I don't think a lot of guys will take a pill.

Shit, some girls don't take a pill. I know when I "tried the whole pill thing" I would forget so I was like nerp...this aint it.

condoms are the way to go b/c ur are protected from some STI's, pregnancy AND you can see it. how the hell do i know he took the pill, has a vasectomy, can't have kids? ppl fabricate documents all the time. the same thing goes for a woman sayin trust her she's on the pill....