Do you believe the government should support out of wedlock pregnancies?

Roberta P

Married or single why is it the government's (ie taxpayers)job to support you? If more people would be responsible we won't be having so many people looking for hand outs. One child is an accident 2, 3 or more is a habit that needs to be broken. I would love 2 more kids but finacially it would be hard to support them. So should I adopt them then let the taxpayers and government support me and my 6 kids?

I would rather have infertile couples or fertile couples that can afford children to raise the children than a poor family that lives off of others raising the child. Let's break the cycle of entitlement and hand outs.

sundragonjess

I think they should do something about it because I know alot of people that get pregnant and don't want to get married to the person they had the baby with because the government wouldn't give them money anymore if they were married.

Carnie C

the government does -- it's called Welfare, WIC, rent assistance, food stamps, job search assistance, etc.

however, in WI, if your daughter is 23 or younger, she is considered yoru dependent (for the purposes of welfare) and, as a parent, your income is considered when determining if she is eligible and, as such, most are knocked out of the welfare bracket. Therefore, families are stretched to the hilt trying to make it happen.

but we do. I do it every day and wouldn't give it up.

BUT i disagree with women doing nothing to get an education to better their lives as well as the lives of their child(ren) yet they keep having children. That's where I draw the line. It is not up to the government to support irresponsible women who continue to have children knowing they can't support the ones they have.

Carol c

OMG - another typical insecure adoptive parent question?
I really think you need to deal with your infertility issues rather than spending so much time trying to castigate single mothers.

Candy Corn

the govt already helps infertile couiples who adopt with the 10,000 tax write off!

Jackie B

You are missing the point. Having the resources for mothers to be able to raise their own children trumps adoption. PERIOD.

I am infertile but don't see how it could ever be right to adopt someone else's child because the government says I should and to keep welfare costs down because I already have the resources to support a child.

Ridiculous.

kitta

Only when it is absolutely necessary. First, lets get the parents to support their children...that means both of them.

And I don't see why infertile couples should be involved.

Families should look after their own. it used to be that way. People are a social species. social welfare is a good thing, not a bad thing.People are meant to live in groups, in families.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting the old-fashioned word 'marriage' in some cases. It does work for some people.It doesn't have to be perfect. there was a time when people didn't focus on the wedding, either. they focused on their life together.

Government should provide when all else fails. it can provide for the people who have no other source of sustenance.

SJM

The conservative approach really doesn't work here. Adoption as we know it could not happen without government interference in the family. Adoption requires tax dollars. It requires home studies, social workers, lawmakers, and judges. It requires socialist policies such as the psychological parent and the best interest of the child. It requires tax dollars and force of law to seal records and keep those pesky biological parents and adoptees apart. Sorry, OllieO. The conservatives have sold out on this one.

Anha S

The more you post, the more I have to wonder if the Handmaid's Tale is your utopian society.

The presence or lack thereof of a marriage certificate should have nothing to do with whether or not aid is given to a pregnant woman.

Unmarried pregnant women do not have a responsibility to fill the arms of a infertile couple. And it would be utterly wrong to ask them to do so

gypsywinter

Ollie...Do you believe that the government should give infertile adopting couples 'adoption welfare'?? I.E....a $10,000+ tax write-off. There are a host of moneyed programs available to adopting couples...from their places of employment, organizations, even their state governments, etc. Unmarried mothers w/children aren't the only ones getting a 'hand-out'. The $10,000+ tax write-off is just another 'subsidy' that is actually benefitting the Adoption Industry. Agencies have upped the adoption prices (and their profits) to the PAP, because of this tax write-off.

And why is it automatically assumed that a first-time PAP, with no previous parenting experience will be the better parent rather than the young single mom?? Answer: $$$$$ and a Marriage License.

I have never, ever understood that rationale... How a non-parent (no experience) PAP would be the better parent. Put $$$$ and Marriage License aside...what else proves they have better parenting skills? Age with no previous parenting experience?

My (reunited) daughter's amother (had no parenting experience) would say in front of me one time, with (our) almost 40 yr old daughter present.."I brought 'it' home..and I didn't know what to do with 'it', I didn't even know how to change 'it's' diaper or feed 'it' a bottle". I still can't believe this 'mother' would refer to her now adult adopted daughter as 'it'....my daughter just smiled...and I wanted to punch someone's lights out!!

...

Children shouldn't be responsible for their parents mistakes.

Independ"ant"

The govt should support anything that will keep children that are not biologically yours away from Aps like you.

Bookwarm

Yes I do, I don't believe any child is more deserving of food and medical care then another or that any person is less deserving to raise there child then another, unless of course the child is abused.

Tanya S

would you rather have the kids starve b/c a single parent can't take care of them?

Shannon

Just because a child is born out of legal wedlock does not mean that there are not two parents around to love and care for the child. Many people on social programs are married couples with children as well as single people with children. Where I live, there is no hand holding. If you do not work, you do not get welfare and there is a limit to how long you can get welfare unless you are physically unable to work. This is in the United States. Too many people forget about the working poor, who work 40 hours a week but bring home less than 20,000 a year. These are the people who are getting the most help from the government right now. And rightly so, can you imagine if there was not medical care for these children??? What child deserves not to be seen by a doctor if he or she is sick????

Infertile couples are not better than out of wedlock couples. And they are certainly not automatic better parents than an out of wedlock couple. Stop with the sense of entitlement!

grapesgum

Yes, I believe the government should support "out of wedlock" pregnancies. (wow - that phrase from 2 centuries ago was hard to type). Infertile couples are no more qualified to be parents than anyone else. In fact, judging from their "Dear Birthmother" letters, many seem quite self-centered and unsuited to parenting.

Let's face it - giving babies away to strangers is out of favor. We as a society need to accept the sovereignty of giving birth and do all that we can to ensure that children will be raised in a healthy environment.

monkeykitty83

I think the government has a responsibility to help people involved in crisis pregnancies or family situations to support themselves. This doesn't mean a financial handout for the entire childhood of the baby-- it means access to temporary aid, including food, shelter, and medical, counseling, job training, and parenting classes. The goal should be helping these families live independently, but the families may need some help at the start to be prepared to do that.

I do think the government needs to provide that help. Helping these families stay intact and be productive benefits all citizens. Prevention of social problems is the best cure.

senoritavalencia

Should i ask you this question when you have a baby? How would you feel to have that child ripped out of your arms and given to someone else????
I have a son. Im a single mother althought the father is still involved with our son. I receive government help, but i ALSO WORK. I do the very best i can and my little boy goes without nothing. He has everything he needs. I home cook his food (No ready made rubbish), I take him swimming, he has the right size shoes and clothes and is a happy child. So what right would the government have to take him away? Granted, getting pregnant while not married is NOT the Smartest thing to do, but dont judge someone on a mistake they made. Judge someone by how they cope. Dont judge us all as one. There are single mothers shooting up drugs in front of their kids, and there are mothers like me, trying to do their best and be a good example for their children. Dont judge untill you know each situation personally.

â™¥The Mrs.â™¥

Because we have the freedom of religion and beliefs, that is what America is about. Who cares if they are married or not. A married man and women could still need government support and many do. I see what you are getting at, but your cause is incorrect. Besides, foster homes are already over flowing. What makes you think they need more children in the system left to feel worthless.
Unless you are the perfect "ideal" parents, and the baby is white and has little to no obvious disabilities there is more chance of them going from foster home to foster home. There are huge problems with the system.

Jennifer L

I think the government does have an obligation to offer assistance to citizens who need it. Not as a lifestyle, but as a helping hand, a temporary measure.

I don't think the government should base the decision on who "deserves" this help based upon whether or not they are married.

Marriage is not a cure for an unplanned pregnancy. People who get married "for the sake of the baby" usually wind up getting a messy divorce a couple years down the road.

I will never have any problem spending my tax dollars helping a young family get back on their feet and get to college.

â™¥â™¥Ritaâ™¥â™¥

M'kay...so if the "little ninnie gets married...and then asks for government assistance"....that is okay?? Will that make everyone happy??

Ollie, you still baffle the he!! outta me.....you spend more time stitching together mismatched fabric than any other I have ever seen.

The marital status of the BIOLOGICAL mother/father...should have no bearing AT ALL on whether the government supports the parent in their effort to support the child. The moment it does, the government will parade up and down the street with bull horns and jack boots.

Actually, there are less people on WELFARE in the classic sense than 20 years ago....why?? It is called WELFARE TO WORK programs that were signed in to law in 1996 by Pres. Clinton. Every person in America has a 60 month max to draw on TANF (once known as AFDC). As far as Medicaid and WIC.....you have to make A LOT of money to not qualify for that so many married people even partake in those programs.....cannot point fingers at "out of wedlock" children.

Try again, OllieO.....

ETA:

This, I found, in reference to an Australian law from 1965. This author wrote a book in 1961 and prerdicted this.....

"If the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed the supply... then it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed mothers will be "punished" by having their children taken from them right after birth."

He explains that:
"A policy like this would not be executed - nor labelled explicitly as "punishment". Rather, it would be implemented by such pressures and labels as - scientific findings, the best interest of the child, rehabilitation of the unwed mother, and the stability of family and society."

The link:

http://www.angelfire.com/or/originsnsw/history.html

I am not super savvy on Australian hisotry regarding adoptions....but I cannot imagine it would have been drastically different from the U.S.....what I quoted is on the mark here.

All in the best interest of the child. Unbeleivable that mentality is still alive and thriving today....

â™¥Kay1134â™¥

I don't think you should have to have a piece of paper saying you're married in order to get government help. The thing with that it that people assume if you're married, you are ready to support your family, but you can be married and have less money than an unwed couple has. With that said, I think anyone who needs government help should be required to do all they can do to try and support themselves and get on their feet while they're receiving government assistance. A piece of paper saying you're married doesn't really have much to do with whether you can support your family or not.

MamaKate is an Aunt!

I would rather the government support out of wedlock pregnancies than war.

Opedial

Out of wed-lock???/ Please join us here in 2008!

But if you are asking if we should be helping those in need then yes. It is not social welfare, it is social programming. As an "infertile" couple, I am enraged that you think we should ask "poor" people to give us THEIR babies to meet our own needs.

Where did you crawl out of?????

#1 due 8/2/09

Not everyone who has an out of wedlock pregnancy is mooching off the government. The only thing i'm getting from the government is health insurance because my insurance wouldn't cover pregnancy. The only reason I got that is because I'd like to get decent prenatal care so I can have a healthy baby. I work 2 jobs to support myself. I'm not getting foodstamps or WIC or anything else from the government. At the store I work at part-time, there are tons of married couples coming in using foodstamps.

Oh and by the way, I was on the pill when I got pregnant and I also have PCOS to which causes fertility problems so I wasn't being stupid when I got pregnant. I'm 24 years old, not some 17 year old. This pregnancy was an accident, a suprise,and a miracle.

Cindy B

I think that sometimes people need help. What i don't agree with is the mothers that have baby after baby after baby and just use the system.

Coleman

Not! The military person broke the code of conduct. When she had a baby out of wed lock. She knew when she went into the military. She was not to get pregrent/give birth to a baby. We already have to many useless freeloaders receiving benfits, and working for the federal government. If she got raped, while in the military. I would support 10 percent money benfits for and single woman and child . When the child reach the age of 18. the 10 percent for the child would be cut off.There would have to be a police report and a medical record within 4 hours after a raped and the person name and have been arrested. Again. other then rape. I don't support any a person that has a child out of wedlock. The person should file charges with the Adjutant General Section against the person that got her pregrent for his support, in reference to State Benfits.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: