Women and Pregnancy
kapeluza
Posts: 3,434 Member
Do you think there should be a law implemented in the U.S. that limits the number of children a woman can have? [Duggars come to mind]
0
Replies
-
Thats a toughie, I like to let people do what they want if it doesn't affect me or anyone else. However common sense should be used, no one needs 20 damn kids, I say after 3 kids if you ever need assistance you shouldn't be able to get it, you should have to give up your children you can't afford and also have your tubes tied. But thats just me. What's everybody else got?
I would also like to say I think I would need more time to really hash out what the law (if I wrote it) and what it would entail. There are exceptions to every rule you know0 -
I would prefer to say that it is a personal decision, and should just be up to the parents. However, in an entitlement society like we have (or are going to) in the US, it becomes a Catch-22.
You can't really limit the aid if the parents can't afford their kids, because the ones who end up suffering are normally not the parents, but the kids - who have no control over their situation. Removing kids from the family also usually is not a good solution, as numerous studies have shown - unless you can find a way to avoid the foster system and get them into permanent families in a short period of time.
So, best I can say is if you can afford it, how many kids you have is entirely up to you. If you require assistance, then there should be a penalty, if we can find one that does not hurt the kids.0 -
But is it fair to have children raise children? When parents have 20 kids, there comes a point where they obviously can't handle all 19, 20, 22 of them. Where does one draw the line?!0
-
But is it fair to have children raise children? When parents have 20 kids, there comes a point where they obviously can't handle all 19, 20, 22 of them. Where does one draw the line?!
There may be a limit - but it is going to depend greatly on the circumstances. With no social network and no support, the limit might be 2 kids for one couple. Or even no kids for a single mother, even if she can afford it, due to other factors. On the other hand, between friends and family, another couple may be able to handle 10 or 12 kids without any problem.
Even in the Duggar's case, the family works , and seems to work well, because the older kids ARE old enough and responsible enough to HELP raise the younger kids. Ideal - not necessarily, but very few things in this world are. I am less worried about a family like that than I am about ones like the OctoMom's kids.
I don't think it is possible to quantitatively identify the line. The best we can do is qualitatively, through an assessment, such as a social worker should be able to do.0 -
Since we already accept entitlement as ....entitlements....then there becomes the very difficult battle of fine tuning what's okay and what isn't.
I'll start by saying there were many discussions around the dinner table about this when I was a kid. I was raised by a single parent and I'm an only child. And I have no children.
But I don't know where or how you draw the line on this. In the example of the Duggars, I think that since they can support the family, it is their choice to have lots of kids. They believe it is God's will. I would have loved to have had siblings, so that family looks like love multiplied to me.
I'm not religious, but I see the benefits of a large family and support system. I'm nearing retirement and have no living family - so a bunch of siblings would be a comfort to me.0 -
Definitely a toughy! I saw that people brought up where the line is drawn and limiting resources if they need help when having a million kids. I kind of agree with this idea, but rather than saying completely taking away benefits or children at the first sign of trouble, I'd say there should be a time limit to welfare and other support (there should be a limit anyway). Also, parents on gov't support should be held to a higher standard to finding a job and what not
I guess I would not to say no there shouldn't be a limit but that's because I personally want to be able to have as many kids as I want. I know pleanty of families with a lot of kids that do just fine but I also see where there are families where it becomes "us" supporting a "family" just because mom wont take the necessary measures. Also, if we limit the number of kids someone can have we are infringing on freedom of religion. Catholics (and many Christians) believe that any form of birthcontrol even "pull and pray" method is a sin.0 -
I think there should be a test! Seriously!
To say that women can only have say for instance 2 kids would crush some women that have dreamed of having say 4. Big families are fun and many people, myself included, are envious of.
However, a law such as that might possibly prevent harm to some children. I know 2 families off the top of my head that keep having children when they cannot even feed the ones they already have. The ones they do have do not eat as well as they should and lack many skills because the parents cannot take care of them all.
I also know many families who have more than 2 kids and who have a great family. It would be punishment to them for something other women abuse.
I think a law would be protection for some children but unfair punishment to others. I think making some take tests would be a better idea but a whole other argument in itself.0 -
nope. In my opinion the government should not be that involved with anyone's life.0
-
Do you think there should be a law implemented in the U.S. that limits the number of children a woman can have? [Duggars come to mind]
Why?0 -
Nope. I don't wanna live in China.0
-
No. It will turn into a slippery slope, and while I think the Duggars are incredibly selfish to risk not only the mother's life when she has other kids depending on her, but also risking a child that might not even survive, I don't want to live in a police state where the government has more say over my body than it already does. Stay out of my uterus for all issues, kthxbye.0
-
I maaaaajorly disagree with the Duggars lifestyle. But it is not my place or the governments to decide how many children are enough for each family.0
-
I agree that the government needs to stay out of my uterus. I happen to be a mother of 10 kids. We made this decision because of our religious beliefs. I am very thankful that I have the freedom to choose the size of my family. BUT, now I am no longer catholic and see things differently, I do think there is a time when it is irresponsible to have lots of kids.
I feel everyday there is no way I can meet the needs of every kid. It is always who's needs are the most urgent that get my attention. We have always been financially able to take of the kids but, not without sacrifice. The salary that is needs to support a large family is high. My husband travels and gone often. This causes the absent father syndrome. I agree with the point of kids should not take care of kids also. Often in large families children are put into parenting roles, this can be very bad for the kids for kids and often builds resentment. It manifests in many ways, anger, low self esteem, helplessness, lack of power in the home, because the home is usually more of a dictatorship. Sibling physical/sexual abuse is becoming a problem in large families because of it. It is a slippery slope definitely. The Duggers do what they want, but that family is not what it seems.0 -
Her body, her choice; my body, my choice.
This is how I feel when it comes to pregnancy (and also pretty much anything to do with one's own body). So no, I don't think that there should be a limit, unless it's self-imposed.0 -
I say have them until your uterus falls out and as long as I am NOT PAYING for them than I could care less.0
This discussion has been closed.