That becomes a sticky situation when you factor in rape.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's a sticky situation regardless, because if they end up having kids then they'll probably starve.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Not if they have other family to turn to.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

But then that puts two kids in danger... Some money is better than no money.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Don't punish the kid for the parents. It really is hard to get a job in this economy. My mom has been on welfare for a year and a half, and she's not riding on it so she doesn't have to get a job, she's "riding on it" because she can't get a job. Welfare doesn't give you very much money anyways. We have 9$ in the bank right now.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Exactly. It's not the kids fault. Might not even be the mothers fault in some cases.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Still, if you can't afford to have a bunch of kids as it is, you probably shouldn't. The point of this post is that you shouldn't be able to have lots of children just to suck more money from the government. It's not punishing the kid, because if the parent is smart she won't have any more kids.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What about unplanned pregnancies? A condom could break or something.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How is making that kids family have no money by taking away their welfare "not punishing the kids"? Most poor people just have a normal amount of kids, not 7 little babies running around to collect more money from the government. Do you have any idea how HARD it is to get welfare in the first place? Even if some dumbass does decide to have kids just to get welfare, oh well, not the kids fault, you shouldn't make life hard on everyone because of a few dumb people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I disagree with taking away welfare, but maybe make it stay the same. They'd be allowed to have one kid, like it says in the post. And like I said, if you know you can't afford kids, you shouldn't have them. I think most people are smart enough to figure that out, so if it's an accident then they would give it up for adoption. That would at least decrease the number of homeless children.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How would that decrease the number of homless children if the child that was put up for adoption had a home? That is utter crap. No. If this country ever starts taking away your kids for reasons other than you being an unfit parent, I'll eat my teapot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I didn't mean homeless, I just meant poor. It's a safe assumption that if she's poor, she can't afford a house. If she can't afford a house, it is not a safe assumption that her children will be able to afford a house before they reach adulthood. Anyway, if you can't afford to raise a child, and you have a child anyway, you aren't really a fit parent. Since an orphanage is technically a home, the children will not be homeless. If the parents don't have children because they can't afford it, their nonexistent children will not be homeless. Therefore there will be less homeless children.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's a little harsh. I don't think it will do anything but make matters worse for the children. I do think that awareness should be raised about this though. I know there are some people living off welfare for the hell of it. Those people are lazy! But the kids shouldn't be forced to suffer just because of the selfish parent(s).

by Anonymous 10 years ago