Originally Posted By jonvn "That's already done now if the child is in harm''s way. It's not a new solution." Harm's way can mean a lot of things. I am simply saying a new one is financial inability to raise a child. And that would be because we stop giving money to people who have children.
Originally Posted By jonvn These are nice ideas. I doubt any of them would work. Things like this have been tried. The problem still exists. You have to do what you have to do in order to protect society in general. Some people just do not understand that you need to do certain things or there will be consequences for your actions. Why? Because right now there are NO consequences. Telling people to do certain things in school is nice, but at the end, with no consequences, there is no reason to do them. Without consequences, you have no reason to change your ways.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm not opposed to abortion.<< I'm aware of that. My comment was directed at people who are. >>What you suggest is really unrealistic.<< It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done. It would take time and creativity. It would take a lot of buy in from people who are influencial to teens, and would have to begin at an early age. I think your solution would never be put into place, and am not sure it would do anything at all to discourage teen pregnancy even if it was.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think your solution would never be put into place" It would require quite a bit of desperation and change of attitude. Would it do anything to change teen pregnancy? I think it would. But if not, then maybe jail time would be an effective persuader. What I'm talking about is a very harsh set of treatments for people who irresponsibly have children that should not. It might not be a bad idea to consider this a criminal activity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The only difference, Douglas, is that I'm trying to respond.> That's not a difference.
Originally Posted By DlandJB It might not be a bad idea to consider this a criminal activity.>>> You are too over the top to even debate with sensibly. Do you think courts and jails pay for themselves? That is tax payer money too.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Do you think courts and jails pay for themselves? That is tax payer money too." As I said, I am not talking about something cheap. This is not to save me a few dollars in taxes. But, do you think that having a child when you absolutely can not afford one is not in some way abuse? Is it not wrong to do that? And if it is wrong, should it be criminally wrong? I didn't say definitely it is, but certainly, I think it is the wrong thing to do. Should a person who does that be punished in some way? Why not? At what point does making children become a problem for the state? It already has to step in and pay for these kids, maybe something needs to be done about the fact that they keep getting made.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Should a person who does that be punished in some way?<< Not if it is bad for the newborn. But that's the big philosophical discussion at the root of all of this, isn't it? Is institutional care better than being raised by a parent? Which has the greater correlation with criminal behavior and social problems later in life - being raised by a single mother on welfare, or being raised in a government-run orphanage?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Is institutional care better than being raised by a parent?" If a parent is broke, and having children just to get a welfare check, is that better than an orphanage or a foster home? I don't think it is. I don't think an orphanage is ideal, either, but I don't think living in an environment like that where the mother is utterly amoral and irresponsible is good at all.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If a parent is broke, and having children just to get a welfare check, is that better than an orphanage or a foster home?<< By the way, study after study has shown that this isn't happening in any significant numbers. You're getting riled up about something that is more of a myth than reality.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 It is so easy to sit far removed from this environment, pass judgment and come up with far fetching solutions. I'd say most of these young women are far from amoral and irresponsible. What they are is young, immature, lacking in education, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-worth and most of all hope. All of their worth and value is like Road Trip said wrapped up in having a baby. Whether it be to immaturely hope that this ropes the father in to a long term relationship, that a baby gives them someone to love unconditionally or even the false sense of security of an income. I believe the last one is the least of the reasons young girls are having babies. I come from one of these families that has had generation after generation after generation of teenagers having babies. I currently have three young cousins who've all had babies in the last year. All three are now out of high school, in either a work program or sadly collecting welfare until they figure out what they are going to do. Did they know better? Hell yes! I do not pretend to know the answers as it pains me just as much to see them pregnant and repeating the cycle as it did when it was my cousins my own age who did it and unfortunately it will probably pain me again when one of the babies just born does it in fifteen years from now. This is a social problem that is far deeper than our ability to solve it. Major changes need to be put in place. JB outlined some excellent ideas. I can only relate to the situations in my family and can't help but wonder if we somehow encourage the behavior because as a family swoop in and make sure that the child and her baby are taken care of. We don't throw them into the streets and let them fend for themselves. I can tell you from experience removing a child from it's mother to a orphanage or through foster care is devastating. Our foster care system is full of children to be placed, imagine if you instituted this as a policy how many kids there would be. It just so sad.
Originally Posted By ecdc Interesting discussion. I do think the old cliche about having to get a license to drive but not one to reproduce is apt. I like jon's overall idea that we need to respond differently to parents who can't care for their children appropriately. We make the argument that as a society, we all have a say and a benefit in children that are raised in a stable environment, therefore, we're taking kids away that don't meet that requirement. But it's much easier to say we should do it than actually do it. Would jon be willing to be a foster parent himself, for example? Would we all be willing to pitch in and help the children that deserve our attention, or do we just continue to let our tax dollars perpetuate a deeply flawed status quo?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The most recent statistics I could find (from the mid-1990s, before welfare reform) show that 84% of families that receive AFDC are off welfare entirely within four years. Also, the number of children in these families is the same as the number of children in families not on AFDC, which wouldn't be the case if mothers were pumping out kids to get more money.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I agree with you regarding the stat's Tom. I just recently attended a workshop with my young cousin who recently had a child. She was entering a computer work program. It includes a classes on life skills. They spouted off similar statistics regarding teen pregnancies in the last five years. Once the law went into affect that once your child reaches age 5 or 6 I believe that you would be cut off it motivated a lot of young mothers. I strongly believe that young mothers who enter a work program should be allowed to stay on welfare for atleast six months. As going to work is expensive. Most of the time they land a job and then quit or lose it due to expenses regarding transportation, clothing, food and daycare. Let them get their feet on the ground before you pull all their income away from them. I'm sure that is far to liberal thinking for most on here though.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The most recent statistics I could find (from the mid-1990s, before welfare reform) show that 84% of families that receive AFDC are off welfare entirely within four years. Also, the number of children in these families is the same as the number of children in families not on AFDC, which wouldn't be the case if mothers were pumping out kids to get more money.>> Largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You are still rewarding irresponsible behavior. Say a young couple tries to do what is right. They get married when they find out she's pregnant. Of course being young and having no education beyond high school, the job opportunities for both are limited. The young woman would LOVE to stay home and raise her child, but there is no way she can. Because she has a husband present who can work full time she cannot collect welfare. And without assistance they are going to need two incomes to squeak by. So you tell me. Why should the irresponsible person be rewarded when the responsible one is not? Maybe we need to reverse things. Maybe we say you can only collect welfare if you ARE married.
Originally Posted By avromark Rest assured if I somehow got pregnant (Hey it happened to the governator) I would not be on social assistance, and I would take care of my child
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I don't think getting married just because she ends up pregnant is necessarily always the most responsible thing to do. I wonder statistically how often that scenario plays out? I'm really asking not being antagonistic with RT.
Originally Posted By DlandJB We overlook behavior on a regular basis. Someone gets lung cancer because they smoked, or AIDS because they engaged in unprotected sex or shared needles. Do we tell them they may not have access to treatment? Someone has a bad tooth and needs a filling...they might need 5 more more fillings and a root canal. Do we check to see if they are still eating candy before we tell them they may have the treatment? I've offered my suggestions. I appreciate the kind words I've gotten from a couple of the posters here who agree with them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You're getting riled up" I'm not riled up. I'm just chatting. "this isn't happening in any significant numbers" Then it won't cost so much after all. I still think it is a good idea. "All of their worth and value is like Road Trip said wrapped up in having a baby." Then that avenue needs to be shut off and taken away, and replaced with something that will be of more benefit to them. "Did they know better? Hell yes!" Then their children should be taken from them while they figure out what to do with their lives. They are not fit parents. "I can tell you from experience removing a child from it's mother to a orphanage or through foster care is devastating." Then that would be a good incentive to not have that child, wouldn't it. "imagine if you instituted this as a policy how many kids there would be." Imagine if these teenagers finally realized that having a baby this early is really a horror for them, and they stopped. And maybe what if while those babies were away, these idiot girls learned a skill, got a job, and was able to finally support their children properly? And after that, maybe they could get their kids back. Maybe that would be better for everyone. "Would jon be willing to be a foster parent himself, for example?" I've actually wanted to adopt kids, but that's not going to happen. Would I be willing to take on foster kids? Probably not, no. "Once the law went into affect that once your child reaches age 5 or 6 I believe that you would be cut off it motivated a lot of young mothers." I want to motivate them to not have the children in the first place.
