» Home » Family
If You Cannot Feed Them, Don't Breed Them
It you are not able to support children, you should not be allowed to give birth to them.
 Flash  25 Jan 2008 20:09
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
A person should be able to afford to look after a child, if they can't then they shouldn't have it in the first place. They can love the kid more than anyone in the world but that love alone isn't going to put food on the table and clothes on its back. It is incredibly selfish and irresponsible to bring a kid into the world when the parents cannot afford to look after it. They end spounging off the tax payer to bring up there kids. I absolutely agree with the above statement. If they can't bring up there kids properly maybe they should be forced to give them to a family who maybe can't have kids but can bring them up properly.
 
 kddan  02 Jan 2009 17:43
 Add a Comment
 
 
If you have a child and you know you can't care for them properly(long term), your a bad parent even before you have a kid.
 
 Specter87  02 Jan 2009 17:29
 Add a Comment
 
 
Its not fair to the kids. Bring them into the world and then don't give them what they need. Too many parents don't think they should wait until they are financially stable to have kids. They say all they need is "love". Love never paid the bills.
 
 ur_wrong  29 Sep 2008 03:55
 Add a Comment
 
 
I think them being 'not allowed' is sort of unrealistic but they SHOULDN'T have the kids on PURPOSE or CARELESSLY. I can understand accidental pregnancy where as your %98 effective birth control pill didn't work. Or even if your IUD falls out (happened to me but I didn't end up pregnant). You see too many families depending on the government to feed their 5 hungry kids when all they would have had to done was use a condom or some sort of birth control method. Having that many kids on minimum wage in inexcusable.
 
 camsmommy  23 Aug 2008 06:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
You should only take what you can afford if you can't afford a child you should not have one today there is so much pressure on kids to have a nice car nice clothes be able to go out with their friends . If you can't provide 3 meals a day put clothes on their back and have enough money to fund sporting clubs or whatever else your child may want to do then it is selfish to have a child! This is an extreme suggestion but just think about it if you are on benefits and done really have any disability your just lazy and its easier not to work in Britain today imagine if no-one worked where would you get your money from I think if you have a child you should HAVE to have a job even if it is on minimum wage I think you should get some support if you earn below a certain wage but to get support you should have to be trying to do some yourself otherwise it is not "support" its just giving money away. Another reason I don't think you should just get paid to have children is because not in all cases but in quite alot of cases it encourages people with little money to have children and don't necessarily spend it on their kids I have seen alot of this since my parents began to foster until the government can conduct a plan to ensure the benefits are being spent on the children I don't think tax payers money should be given more freely. People who work and earn a good living in this country are punished by taxes whilst those who choose not to work are rewarded with benefits, these standards seem to make no sense to me! I believe in tuff love make it hard for people who are lazy for the kids that skip school and those that take drugs make rewards for the ones who learn and are respectable members of society that way people will try harder to get jobs they will want to work and pay their way!!!
 
 smk90  07 Aug 2008 14:26
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree to a point: If I have to pay taxes to support social programs just so some lazy brood mare doesn't have to get up, clean up and get a job, then somebody needs to step in because I can use that money in MY family. You know, the one I bust my ass to support!
To say nothing of the lack of parenting provided to these little money makers...ignorance is perpetuated and stereotypes are proven.
 
 Xelda  07 Aug 2008 08:06
 Add a Comment
 
 
This statement is so true. If you cannot afford food and clother for yourself, how are you going to afford formula, diapers, bottles, crib, changing table, clothes and everything else a baby needs. I know people don't agree with abortion but sometimes that is the better option. Why do people stupidly insist upon having kids and treating them bad, or not having money to raise them so they can get made fun of for their clothes and other items? I just can't stand people like this. I wish they truly knew how things are wroth a child before they can have one.
 
 curious  29 May 2008 15:33
 Add a Comment
 
 
If someone accidentally does get pregnant they should be forced to terminate the child, but as a choice
people who can not afford to care for a child, should try not to get pregnant. It is irresponsible
 
 martlamb  21 May 2008 10:26
 1 Comment
 
 Yes, if they cannot afford to feed their children, they should not be out there having sex. It is very irresponsible on their part. It makes me sick when I see women out there buying cigarettes, piercings, hair jobs, and nail jobs when their kids have no clothes or food. I never understood how many of these welfare women can afford to get their hair and nails done, but have no money for food. It makes no sense. Many women on welfare today are the biggest case of irresponsibility in history.
by  Flash
 21 May 2008 11:30
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
So true. You shouldn't be poppin out babies for government checks like most of the ppl on welfare(the ones that are lazy and don't work)
 
 celva_olva  29 Apr 2008 12:28
 Add a Comment
 
 
Absolutely true. Look at Africa so many children so little food. End World Poverty Compulsory Sterilisation Now!!!
 
 ClassyKim  29 Apr 2008 12:18
 1 Comment
 
 Disgusting.
by  Damian
 29 Apr 2008 12:20
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
I agree if you cant afford a baby then be more cautious use protection or something.
Because the stuff you do effects your kids the most. You cant afford it you will most likely want a better life for it so you end up putting it up for adoption and no kid wants to grow up in an adoption agencies.
 
 Katie92  28 Apr 2008 21:58
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree if you can't afford a child then you should wait.
 
 nelson12  14 Mar 2008 00:24
 Add a Comment
 
 
Without question, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. That goes for kids, it goes for pets, it goes for everything they do in their lives. How can you expect to be able to raise a responsible child if you are not responsible yourself?
 
 Cephus  03 Feb 2008 00:31
 Add a Comment
 
 
It is a very important for someone to know that if he or she is not having the capacity to do something then they should not even attempt to do so, consequences may turn out to be tragedies. Before taking a step one should be confident about his or her abilities and all other situations that prevail around them. Often it has happened that any harsh decision has ruined someone’s life. The same thing is very much applicable to all those people who are not having the condition to feed themselves either and they are having a baby to feed. In such a situation what happens is the upbringing of that child happens in negligence and due to insufficient feeding the child suffers from poor health. Thus before giving birth one should definitely think that whether they can take care of their baby or not.
 
 sudipa  30 Jan 2008 20:14
 Add a Comment
 
 
This is true. Millions of parents have babies that they cannot support and they do become a menace to society. If parents cannot support their children, then they should lose them. It is a good idea to put them in a foster home with a family who can support them and provide them with their basic needs. Then, if the parents ever become responsible and can support them, then they can get them back. However, I agree that if you do not have the means to feed your own mouth, then don't make a poor, helpless child suffer.
 
 BullDog  29 Jan 2008 20:03
 Add a Comment
 
 
I wish this could really work, but we have too many liberals in America as well as that dang'd ACLU. Would never happen. But I do think more focus should be put on what types of assistance these people should be allowed to receive and if they should be mandated to put their children in foster care until they could afford them, without the welfare.
 
 seoems369  29 Jan 2008 17:07
 1 Comment
 
 Good point seoems. They should put these kids in foster homes until their parent can be responsible. It is sad to see so many parents out there buying cigarettes and alcohol while their kids go with the basic needs.
by  BullDog
 29 Jan 2008 20:00
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
I agree, too many kids go hungry, because some kid got pregnant, and knew they could care for another child, plus they are too irresponsible.
 
 MORE  28 Jan 2008 00:17
 Add a Comment
 
 
Every child should be a wanted and loved child but this is an ideal not a reality.
I agree in theory that no-one should have children they can't support. Their are many reasons why this doesn't work in reality.
Some religions encourage people to have more children than they can feed and love, this needs to addressed and people re-educated.
Many people are ignorant of birth control and men in particular need to taught how irresponsible it is to bring unwanted children into the world.
I agree that in theory something should be done to help people limited their families to what they can cope with.
The people who suffer most are the neglected children but I don't see how people can be forced into not having them.
China has a policy of one child families but plenty of people break the rule.
One of the suggestions has been enforced sterilisation which introduces a lot of contentious issues about human rights.
People should be educated better into responsible relationships and parenthood and sterilisation for men and women can be positively promoted .
 
 Researcher  27 Jan 2008 16:05
 Add a Comment
 
 
Absolutely. If people cannot afford to have children, then they should not go out here and have them. It is not fair that the working people pay their taxes and the tax money is used to help feed and take care of these kids who have worthless parents who cannot support them. Then at the end of the year, the worthless parents continue to cash in on the taxes when they file their taxes and get money back. I believe that anyone who is on welfare should not receive any government issued tax money. They already receive discounted housing, food, and insurance. If they don't work, they should not be entitled to any tax refund. They already get too much from the government already.
 
 Professor  25 Jan 2008 21:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
This is true. People who cannot take care of themselves and have very low income should not be allowed to have children in the United States. It is not fair for the child or for the society. All of these women who go out here and have one baby after another and they have no job or means of supporting these children and only abusing the children and they are a massive burden to society. It is because of these people the hard working people have to pay higher taxes. It is not fair to those who work for a living. Society should not be forced to pay for your mistakes. I strongly agree that if you cannot feed them, then don't breed them. Only people who can support their children should be allowed to keep them. If you can't feed yourself, then get your tube tied before you bring a baby in this world to suffer. Quit depending on others to feed your kids. Get off your butt and get a job and live up to your responsibility.
 
 Flash  25 Jan 2008 20:14
 4 Comments
 
 Yet you call yourself Christian.
by  Fromwithin
 25 Jan 2008 21:00
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Humans are sexual creatures. Children are the result of having sex. No man and no woman can decide who can have or who can't have children. Sex is a natural process. Sure, we should all be able to provide for our offspring but that is not always the case in this society. You see, just as the rich and well-to-do have sex so do the poor.

Bill Clinton's Welfare to Work Program was one of the best cures for this situation. Mother's had to secure a job and contribute to the support of their children and eventually were weaned off of the welfare system. The absent father's were sought out for child support, but many of these mothers didn't even know who their children's fathers were.

It is sad to see so many young women black and white having children by more that one "baby's daddy" and them being only a "baby's momma".
 
 menhim1967  02 Jan 2009 18:36
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree that if you can't support them you shouldn't have them. However government involvement in the decision of who gets to baby make and who doesn’t scares me to death.
 
 finsch  02 Jan 2009 18:13
 Add a Comment
 
 
Most of the folk on the other side of this debate must think they are God. But God attached no coin slots or credit rating software to our genitals. The only restrictions he asks us for is that we procreate with somebody we marry of the opposite sex and that we love and honor them and the progeny produced.
 
 kkcoyne  02 Jan 2009 17:35
 2 Comments
 
 How did you know I was a God?
by  Specter87
 02 Jan 2009 17:37
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
No kids for you
 
 SilkySweet  02 Jan 2009 17:23
 1 Comment
 
 I'm glad you didn't waste time typin to do Ntire words 4 yr frase. It saves so much time went you.
by  Specter87
 02 Jan 2009 17:39
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
I disagree. I think that if people who couldn't support children weren't permitted to give birth to them, then people who couldn't have children because of infertility would also lose the option to adopt said children...
 
 SlyOne  01 Nov 2008 21:38
 Add a Comment
 
 
Nothing to do with being allowed.
Just give them benefit for the first one, then see how the flow will dribble to a halt.
 
 keepmindok  29 Jul 2008 13:25
 Add a Comment