Interesting Perspective

I found this Thread on R & R and thought it was "interesting" to say the least. What do you think?


The Original Poster's Perspective:
If you CAN'T Afford Children, Do you hve a Right to have them?  In a word, "no." Well, maybe "no" with and asterisk. What I mean is that if you're on public assistance of ANY type whatsoever, I believe you have no inherent right to have a child. However, realizing that educational interventions only go so far and that people will choose to get pregnant for myriad reasons ("need" to be a mother, biological clock is ticking, trying to get extra money from welfare by "gaming" the system, etc.) I would allow anyone the right to have their first child on public assistance and still provide support for the child and the mother (I am saying "the mother" only because I assume it's a foregone conclusion that the father is 'in the wind' will be required to provide child support if he can be found and if he earns any money). This support would include child care as needed,, food stamps, living expenses, housing and medical care for both the mother and the ONE baby. As a condition of this support, however, the mother must agree to the following stipulations:

1) Participation in a vocational education program on a daily basis and subsequent job placement.

2) Participation in parenting and sex education classes.

3) Having a birth control device implanted which will not be removed until one year after she has obtained and maintained gainful employment. 

4) If the woman somehow manages to get pregnant again while on public assistance, she will have the option of (a) having a state funded abortion or (b) she will lose all public assistance and her other child will be removed from her custody until she has obtained and maintained a job for one year. Upon the birth of her second child, that child, too, will be removed from her and placed in foster care until the same precondition can be met.

If I, as the taxpayer, am expected to pay for these mothers and children out of my tax dollars, then you play by my rules. If not, then figure out a way to support youself and your kid(s) without a penny of help from the state -- but be aware that at the first sign that you cannot do so properly (without any governmental support), your kid(s) will be removed from your custody.

Dude.....seriously?   You would "allow anyone the right to have thier first child on public assistanc".....and with your tax dollars mothers should "play by your rules"???

I don't even know why I responded, I think you're a faceless troll....shoot you might not even be black. I sure as hell can't tell by ANY of your comments on any thread!

You know Shani,
about 7 hours ago I typed this lonnnnnng response with a few facts explaining how a child in states custody costs the taxpayers thrice as much and how I was a foster parent who ALWAYS treated the birth parent with the dignity that is due them AND how I did it "her way" by waiting until I had the proper means to raise a child only to learn at the age of 29 that endometriosis has riddled my reproductive organs deeming me infertile and needing a total oompherectomy 3 months later, so I know how it feels to be not be able to have children, yet her solution is cruel as it would deny a woman (and man) their HUMAN right. But then I thought, what's the use.
 

Did you put that post on the R &  R Board...they could use a different point of view. I gues I was trying to jog a little intellectual curiousity and get a discussion about the growing type of Discrimination in the Country>>>STATUS.


I guess if I want intellectual stimulation, I had better stick with my in-person Book Club, Sorority, Professional Conferences and Friends. Clearly online is not the place to have a discussion more than a paragraph long. I haven't run across many "people online" who attack CONCEPTS, instead they attack the "person/screen name", I wonder what that means. Never-the-less your initial reaction was probably the right one (focusing on Concepts), then you succomed to that all to real "common consciousness". I wonder who is a REAL Group Leader, one who tags along to be popular or one who encourages dialogue and is a conscensus builder, even though there be extreme diversity of opinion; surely a Leader recognizes no 3 people can have the exact same thoughts...unless they are clones, then you have 2 brains too many.


For my Christian Brothers and Sisters, a riddle: Who is better, a Pagan who follows Christ and DO his works (example The Golden Rule) or a Church going Christian who back-bite and hates-who seeks to be not just in the world but a part of the world. Truly as Paul said, Prayer/words  without  Works/deeds/action are Fruitless.


PS: Really Nice Play List

I don't do drama. Case closed.

Yess You Do, when it suits YOU. When you are wrong, you

Actually heaven forbid I'm gonna have to stand up for ValuMe.  She is not the originater of this thread.  We all know she likes reposting other folks stuff.  A dude named Draz posted this on R&R

Thank you Michelle.

If one reads most of these Posts (say go back 20-30 pages on each Board) you will probably find that over 65-70% of the Topics are in some form re-iterations of some other post.


I LOVE Re-posting other people's stuff...that's a form of flattery (good or bad), I just don't care to take the credit and say I thought of it.   I have lived in the world too long to believe that I am the only person with an original thought.

I'm just glad for once you didn't post it as if it WERE your original thoughts.