VA: It Is Your Job To Financially Provide For Your Children. Also, Neglect is Child Abuse.
May 21st, 2007
(15 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...This might sound harsh, but I’m going to say it anyway because I’m just that kind of bitch.
If you purposely have a child that you cannot afford, you are a […]
Original post: It Is Your Job To Financially Provide For Your Children. Also, Neglect is Child Abuse.
Blech… VA you’ve got to do something about that baby-puke green color you’ve chosen for your new site…
Here here! I, for one, wholeheartedly agree. What is it with people thinking that they are somehow entitled to life’s basics, and by default their children are too? Sorry, nobody is entitled to anything. Too often children suffer at the hands of none other than the very person who is supposed to care for them. Where else can the fault lie?
I think one would be hard pressed to find somebody to disagree with the statement put forth here. I would imagine your readership primarily consists of middle to upper middle class. And even the most liberal of us would agree that having kids to earn more welfare is despicable.
The simple fact of the matter is there is a negative correlation between wealth and number of children. The economic standpoint on the matter is that if you are rich, your time is valuable and you can only “afford” to spend so much time on children, therefore you are much more careful with birth control - rich people hardly ever “accidentally” have kids. As such, you are going to maximize the time you do have with those fewer children. This as opposed to a poor person whose time is less valuable and is able to spend more of their time with children, although it often times doesn’t work out like that, they are also less concerned with birth control.
And just to be clear I’m not saying that rich people are more valuable than poor, I’m simply stating that an hour of work from a rich person yields more income than an hour of work from a poor person.
What you’re asking for, V, is impossible. You didn’t say it, but it’s on the tip of your tongue, you’d like poor people to stop having kids. Which, when phrased like that sounds horrible, I realize, so I guess a better way of saying it would be that poorer people should abstain which would be impossible without some sort of government intervention that included sterilization.
I agree that one should fully be able to take care of themselves before they even think about having kids, hell, before they even think about getting in a relationship, but it’s something that is simply never going to happen.
Also, on a side note, while education may not be a federal institution (it is run at the state level) it most certainly is a government institution. And while all schools could certainly be improved, I would trust them over homeschooling every time.
Hmm V writes: “I am simply stating if you can’t afford to feed, clothe and shelter your children without government assistance, then you are neglecting them. ”
We live in a socialist state. If you call the cops and they do their job, do you sit down and write them a check? If you divide just the FEDERAL budget by the number of returns filed, you get 16k. If you don’t pay that much in taxes, you are riding the wagon, not pulling it. It may be regrettable that we all take from the government (except you rich folks who pay more than 16k in taxes every year, and thank you!) but that’s the facts.
Put another way, NO ONE who pays less than 16k in taxes every year is entitled to raise a child, according to V’s logic.
So, since you’re already a drain on the country if you pay less than 16k, everyone might as well neglect their children? Gotcha.
Jimmy- You are truly ridiculous. America isn’t anything close to being a socialist state. We have a capitalist economy with minor government intervention.
Just because you pay less than 16k a year means you can’t support a child, thats a complete logical fallacy. The math is off. The mega rich throw off that number. Also, some areas have a higher cost of living than others.
What matters a lot more is how much money you make compared to the cost of living in your area. It’s all relative.
Please think about your comments before you say them.
Thanks
Brava.
The title of this post should’ve been “Point, Counterpoint…”
In my humble opinion.
Hm. I sure as fuck grew up poor- and I would agree with V. She’s not saying “poor people, stop having children.” She’s saying “stupid people, stop having children.” It’s hard to change your financial situation, but my mom did it. By the time I graduated high school, our five person family was living off of $35,000 a year. Not too shabby.
Also: about poor people and birth control. Who the fuck do you think pays for it? I pay fifty bucks a month for my little pills. Condoms, for those with a healthy sex life, are probably more expensive. (Unless you live near one of those nifty college health centers).
A bumper sticker I should have bought when I saw it:
“Don’t breed ‘em if you can’t feed ‘em!”
… just sitting here quietly wondering, where are all these people and why haven’t i heard them saying this stupid crap? is there really a vast gene pool full of people having kids for the sheer heck of it?
between 1995 and 1999, in california, the rate of AFDC children per 1,000 children went down from a high of 200/1000 to about 120/1000, and the decline has continued (this, from anecdotal evidence, don’t have exact numbers.) The welfare rolls, which peaked in ‘95 at nearly 1,000,000, were effectively cut in half in the following four years, back down to the same *total* as in 1985, in spite of the vast increase in our population numbers since then.
so since available data support a significant, steady, steep downward trend in AFDC supported families (both in total numbers and in percentage of the population) (at least in my neck o’ the woods), … maybe take a minute to smile and relax and think, hey, maybe it’s going to be okay? or at least, much less non-okay?
sorry, i’m just in a really good mood today.
I see some people above don’t quite agree with V’s position, but can anyone present a reasonable argument that says that people who can’t afford a child should still have children?
Jay writes: “The mega rich throw off that number. Also, some areas have a higher cost of living than others.”
This is my point exactly. V said “if you can’t afford to feed, clothe and shelter your children without government assistance, then you are neglecting them.” I’m asking you to think about what your fair share of that cost is. Don’t just think about Medicaid and food stamps, think about what ALL our government affords us, and what it costs. All of government is a handout to you, unless you are doing your “fair share”. And as you say, the mega rich are doing the fair share for most of us. Sure, the middle class and above pay taxes, but only in the higher brackets is ANYONE paying their “fair share” (many of them pay much more than, of course)
Defense for instance is a large part of the federal budget. We don’t think of it as welfare that we (the non super-rich) don’t pay our fair share of that cost, but it is no less a hand-out than free healthcare for poor children. V has posited that if you accept government aid you aren’t well off enough to support kids. That would include just about everybody, if you don’t narrow your view of what your government provides you to food stamps and WIC.
Don’t throw around words like “child abuse” and “neglect”. I know you’re going for shock value, but redefining serious words for your not-so-serious complaining hurts us all.
I’ve personally enjoyed this session of “point counterpoint…” I’ve seen the government labled as “socialist,” the economy as “capitalist with minor government intervention… I’ve seen the “mega rich” as well as “poor people” defended. I’ve personally grown up with a touch of skepticism regarding labels. I’m certainly not rich, but that is not to say there haven’t been rich people that have been true philanthropists. Which are the one’s I truly admire.
There are also some “mega poor” people who have contributed to society in truly admirable ways. When you can sit on a park bench with a “mega-rich” business person on your left and a “mega-poor” homeless person on your right… and speak to each of them with the same amount of sincerity, respect and empathy, is what could ultimately bring a certain understanding that transcends class, race, sex and embodies common sense.
I like to try and see things from as many angles as my pathetic little mind can possibly handle. Sometimes this causes headaches, but mostly it just expands perception. Or it at least seems that way. As for kids, I can’t even take care of myself… why on earth would I want kids? Again, not that I don’t like kids, I just don’t see myself being a capable father at this point in my life. Someday… maybe, but i can’t even get a girlfriend so i don’t think anyone has to worry about that in the near future. Personally, I’d approach the issue from as many possible angles & perspectives as I could… until my brain shut off, before ever even considering bringing a child into this world. Not only for my sake…
Sorry… I’m just in a fairly good mood today.
I find this discussion very interesting, I agree at some point, but not totally.
Since I live in a far more socialist state than yours (Sweden), I am of the opinion that the reason I pay taxes (and our country has one of the highest taxes in the world) are because everybody should have the right to clothes and food, especially children.
I guess there’s a bit of a difference, since over here hospitals are funded by the government, and everybody, no matter how rich or poor your parents are, has the right to take a loan from the state to get an higher education. Even if your parents are welfarecases, you can still become a doctor or a laywer.
I’m not saying that it’s a good idea to have a bunch of kids, just to get more wellfare, but I’m much more concerned about all the people who have kids for other ‘wrong’ reasons.
Such as kids to young and immature to even take care of themselves, or people who have selfasteem issues, or other problems, and thinks a child or two will ‘fix’ things in their lifes and make them feel like they have a purpose.
So I guess I’m more against the stupid people breeding, than the poor.
If stupid people can stop breeding, then they will not be so stupid. If people have kids and then not provide for them the basics in life: food, clothes and shelther, then I agree that it is abuse. Dont talk about love and hugs - at the end of the day, without food, you will go hungry and you will die. Without clothes and shether, you will be cold and you will die. But receiving welfare from government is apparently a sensitive issue, linked with tax and all, and this stuff is so freaking hillarious! No one is going to deny you of your access to public roads and public hospitals, and lets face it, there are free-riders around who do not pay a lot of tax and are using a lot of these so-called “free” services. For example, sick people who need a lot of medical support, who can blame them? The stronger members of society are supposed to look after the weaker ones, it is only human this way. So the smart ones are supposed to look after the stupid ones. How are the smart ones supposed to look after the stupid ones if not by educating them? But the stupid ones are too busy having kids, without realising their full responsibilities as parents include providing the basic necessity in life for those kids without receiving government support - how can they ever be educated. They will forever be stupid, and breeding, and when they read something like what V has written, they will post the most ridiculous comments that reflect how stupid they are!
From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse
“Abuse is a general term for the misuse of a person or thing, causing harm to the person or thing, to the abuser, or to someone else. Abuse can be something as simple as damaging a piece of equipment through using it the wrong way, or as serious as severe maltreatment of a person. Abuse may be direct and overt, or may be disguised and covert.”
From chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dpp/GLOSSARY+OF+ADOPTION+TERMS.htm:
Neglect = A term used to describe the absence of a proper, healthy nurturance of a child. Children who have experienced neglect may have some degree of emotional problems and developmental deficiencies. Neglect can be emotional, medical, educational, a lack of supervision or failure by the parent(s) to provide the basics of food, shelter and protection. Chronic, severe neglect can cause attachment problems up to reactive attachment disorder, and is especially damaging to infants.
V has used both “abuse” and “neglect” correctly - and then someone tells her that she should not use those words because of “shock value” (see Comment 14). Just to illustrate my point about how stupid people can be.
Pssst, I’m sure Jimmy knows that businesses pay taxes as well and contribute about half of that basically made-up number he’s throwing around. It’s purposely exaggerated to try to prove a point that really has nothing to do with this discussion.
Jimmy is probably some sort of single parent on welfare who is trying to distract everyone away from the notion that he abuses his precious widdle puddin pop.
Thats the only explanation I can think of. Everyone else - no matter what side of the issue they’re on - seems to at least realize that the discussion is about people who LITERALLY can’t afford to properly feed and and clothe their kid, not some philosophical “user” class of people.
Stupidity, much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, which is worse stupidity, or ignorance? Stupidity seems to lend itself to “not knowing” while ignorance seems more along the lines of “knowing but not caring…” go on pull out the dictionary definitions. I’m not passing judgment here… just trying to further the discussion.
According to my dictionary they’re basically the same thing… but to me ignorance implies the act of ignoring something you know to be a certain way… whether good or bad or whatever. Ahhhh semantics in the english language…
this is slightly off topic, but it got me thinking about something…
ok…so…historically, survival of the fittest determined future generations. Those who had the most desirable qualities were the ones who survived to raise the most children to maturity.
today, though, our smartest/brightest/most ambitious people delay having children while pursuing their education and establishing themselves and gaining their own personal financial security.
meanwhile, those who either don’t have the intelligence or the ambition to do so, are typically the ones who start having children the earliest and eventually have the most children.
in a darwinian world, those people and their children would quickly die out from starvation/lack of basic necessities, while those who planned better and pursued security first, children second, those would be the ones who survive with their children.
but in a modern society full of welfare and social programs, instead, the lowest classes are having the greatest numbers of children, while the “fittest” in our society are subsidizing the children of others and delaying or even not having children of their own.
I am not suggesting that welfare is bad, and I am not suggesting we as a society allow the poor to starve with their children. There is no “should” in my observation, I am simply pointing out a fact.
and I am also speculating that the results of this will be future generations with a higher number of the children of our lower classes, and a lower number of the children of our middle/upper classes. What will this mean as far as selecting for qualities such as qualities such as intelligence, mental health, ambition, etc etc?
you worry that your comments will offend…I’m sure mine will offend a far greater number.
Maybe the “smartest,” “brightest,” and particularly “most ambitious”
aren’t necessarily the “fittest…” just a thought.
Not that “intelligence,” which is also quite subjective and “ambition…” are “bad” traits, but too much of anything “good” can end up “not so good”… there is no such thing as 100% objective reality.
“Intelligence” is not always synonymous with survival skills. In fact, there’s a chance we’re seeing a trend where “book smarts” or intelligence combined with ignorance and blind ambition are actually endangering our species… not saying that’s the way it is, just saying it’s a possibility.
Pardon me. There may be an 100% objective reality, but it may not be perceivable to human beings. And if it is, people may be ignoring it… either out of necessity or by choice.
My bet is that there are very few people, if any, that can see through the 100% objective reality lens. Also the older you get, the seemingly more subjective many ideas, things & situations become.
Coolfrequency seems to be bringing up the possibility of retrograde evolution or devolution of a species… don’t know if I agree or disagree, but anything is possible. I’m sure there are scientists who would line up on both sides of the argument. And, there’s probably some evidence that points in both directions. By the way, I regret the multiple posts… but it’s keeping me from smoking cigarettes and I find the discussion interesting.
So we get a little off topic now and again…
What the darwinist-stupid-people argument fails to realized is that even the dumbest human is smarter than an animal, and a group of dumb humans is damn near unstoppable.
The whole earth is populated with creatures who don’t have our brand of intelligence/consiousness, and they survive just fine. Hell, sharks have been around in pretty much their modern form for millions of years. Just because we admire smartness doesn’t mean it’s more adaptive than being able to rip something to pieces.
Aside: It’s getting that way, because we are out-adapting a lot of species into extinction. But not all of them. The bugs certainly have us beat when it comes to population size.
Also, there’s no such thing as “retrograde” evolution because it implies that evolution has a direction. Evolution is just the change in gene availability from generation to generation; it is not a vector quaility.
Hey Oscar
My figures included business. Bush’s ’06 budget was 2.7 trillion. Divide that by the US population (295 million) and your fair share would be $9152.54. Will you pay that much in taxes to the federal government this year? Maybe. But there were only about 162 million filed returns that year of any kind, including retirees AND businesses, so maybe that would be a more accurate number to work with.
2.7 trillion / 162 million = $16666.66 (hmm, that’s weird). In my
judgment, if you aren’t paying the federal government 16k a year, you
are riding on the wagon, not pulling it.
I get what V is saying, I agree the discussion is about people who “LITERALLY can’t afford to properly feed and clothe their kid”. I’m saying you can’t feed and clothe your kid without the framework of government. I’m making the point that a lot of people think they are helping to pull the wagon when they are actually riding on it. Everyone who doesn’t pay 16k a year is on the dole.
Coolfrequency is talking about eugenics. That was abandoned by most of the world as a viable concept in the 1930s. The problem is theres a difference between being poor and being stupid. You cant say that poor people breeding equals stupid people breeding.
Your wealth and status in society has more to do with whether or not you were born in a land with resources, had an education, or if your parents had status than your relative intelligence. If you need an example, look no further than George Bush. Plenty of status, but smart? …not so much. Need another example on the flip side? Try Chris Gardner, who was in and out of homelessness in the 1980s while raising his son and is now the CEO of his own stock brokerage firm. (remember the Will Smith movie about him?)
CMonster, evolution may not have a naturally defined direction but we could as a society define a positive direction. We could include things like intelligence and beauty, as positive evolutionary steps, and things like stupidity and susceptibility to disease as devolutionary. That was the entire concept behind eugenics. The problem as previously mentioned is a lot of those things are arbitrary, and (at least the last time anyone tried eugenics) you couldn’t tell if someones lot in life was genetic, or based on circumstance.
As far as Vi’s original post goes, I think having kids without an ability to support them is more akin to theft from society than abuse of the kids. As long as you’re planning the support of your kids, you aren’t abusing them. Now if you’re planning to spend other peoples money to support them, thats theft. It doesn’t change the fact that its wrong to have kids while planning to pawn off the responsibility of their care, so I agree with her sentiments.
So we agree… good… no need to argue. I just saw “retrograde” and “evolution” in an old dictionary under devolution… so it may be a bit outdated. You described what I was thinking as an aside:
“It’s getting that way, because we are out-adapting a lot of species into extinction.”
Ahhh the semantics of the semantics of the english language.
If we continue that trend we better develop a taste for bugs, huh?
That was directed @ 27,28…
because that’s the part of the discussion i was interested in.
I rather like being stupid. Being smart doesn’t sound like much fun.
“I’m saying you can’t feed and clothe your kid without the framework of government.”
I find it shocking we survived as a species then.
Also @ 29
What does it even matter? This isn’t the discussion we’re having. Why don’t we talk about Super Bowl XXII while we’re at it? Montana was on fire that day.
XXIII I meant. Stupid Romans and their silly numbers.
Y I thought it was closely related to the subject at hand. V says don’t have kids if you can’t afford to without government help, but the fact is virtually ALL of us take from the government more than we give.
All of us take from the government more than we give, thats what the government is there for- to protect the citizens living in that nation. It doesn’t matter whether we’re taking from the government, it matters what we do with what we take from the government. V made a great point that there are people who probably shouldn’t have children, solely based on their financial status. Having a child is a great thing, however having them for the wrong reasons is never good, but even if they are bringing children into the world for the right reasons, if they don’t have enough money to properly support that child, they are abusing that child.
I’m done with this meaningless argument, use birth control, and if essential, have an abortion if you cant support your child.
What if I don’t use the highways. What if I don’t use national parks? Who knows what the average person “takes”.
What is at issue here is if they take cash. You’re trying to make this something that it’s not.
Re: 37
It’s hard to argue that… I mean it is government that set up this system which allows people to make $ which government created in the first place. That’s why I’ve always though “self-sufficiency” in modern times to be largely a myth. So you work for company A to earn your living, which is allowed to exist and in fact subsidized by the government… where’s the self-sufficiency in that?
…not arguing just trying not to smoke. I guess I haven’t always thought (not though) this way… self-sufficiency as a partial myth… at least in modern western civilization.
“…even the dumbest human is smarter than an animal”
Yeah I don’t know if I can get behind this statement 100%
Humans are not animals? Since when?
Could be oversized or “swollen” brains and thumbs that make us so “smart”….
…just throwin’ that out there as a possibility.
A couple of points. First, call me irresponsible, but I’m with the “go ahead and have children and let the chips fall where they may school.” Few things strike me as arrogant and asinine as the idea that life is some kind of b-school business plan and the team with the best one gets applause from the VCs in the back row. Open your eyes and you’ll see that most of the time, most of the world (including Violent Acres and me) is operating at a level slightly above dogs sniffing each other’s asses. Life happens. The best parts are not the parts you planned. Instead it’s the messy stuff that leaves a lasting impression on you–sex, children, heartbreak, death and loss, hardfought battles that you win or lose, and that time you and your best friend got shitfaced and laughed for hours.
In fact, it’s impossible to “know” in any meaningful sense of the word that you have enough money or intelligence to raise a child. You can have a best guess. I’ve known wealthy parents who don’t really know how to give their children what they need and poorer parents whose lives were chaotic and unstable but who gave 110 percent love all the time. Life is about risk and the rest is mostly lies.
Second, I always pay more than I ever expect to get back from government. I feel privileged that I grew up in a society that put me through college and gave me so many amazing opportunities. The notion that a person’s contribution to society can be summed up only by measuring their tax bill is reductionist, hateful, nonsense.
phood writes “The notion that a person’s contribution to society can be summed up only by measuring their tax bill is reductionist, hateful, nonsense.”
It IS a stupid litmus test, isn’t it? You make a great point about people’s contributions being more than money. I hate to be a pain in the ass but I think my point is still being missed. V says, “if you can’t afford to feed, clothe and shelter your children without government assistance, then you are neglecting them.” My point is, this “government assistance” litmus test is even stoopider than my “16k a year” litmus test, and a lot of people are running around with their nose in the air thinking, “I would NEVER raise a child with the help of government assistance!” when the reality is MOST of us are on “government assistance” it just isn’t called HUD or food stamps. People richer than you are paying your way, to one degree or another.
Jimmy is purposely misunderstanding. I hope.
You can’t live in the United States or even visit it without benefitting from the “government assistance” as it provides roads, police protection, safety regulations, etc. However, as most seem to have understood, V very clearly meant “government assistance” for the poor - welfare, foodstamps - the stuff that indicate that a person cannot provide for himself and the child(ren) he already has, let alone an extra child. The more financially stable may still take more than they give to the government, but they can still manage to maintain a safe home, buy food to nourish the family, and provide clothing to adequately protect them from the elements. If you can’t do those things without an extra handout from the government, you have no business subjecting a child to the same poverty-level conditions.
V - Great article. This is something that, when I talk about it with my friends, they recoil in horror. I’ve always wondered how we figured that it was ok for women and men to have another child when they are already on government assistance. It’s not at all, and V’s right, it takes our society down. Some measures for dealing with that are certainly more extreme than others….
I’m extremely offended to think that people like Jimmy are under the impression that many of us are living on government assistance. The logic is insane. Think about this: at the end of the year, how much did you make, how much did you pay the government in taxes, and how much is left over in your bank account/ mattress? I’d wager most of us here put away 10% if we’re lucky. Where did all that money go? That’s right, to businesses. It would be interesting if someone did a little research to see how much of our money IN REALITY LAND, NOT LA-LA LAND went to the government.