TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breeding rights for Humans?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Breeding rights for Humans? - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiclett_33
my one teacher just said that nature would find a way to 'balance us out' lol.
some argue that that way is homosexuality. though if you were homosexual and wanted kids we've found a way around that!

short of natural disaster theres not a lot that can curb the population.
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoseHawke
If you have four you still have the population going up. Two is replacement population, and even if it was instantly adhered to, the population would continue to rise for a number of years. I don't remember what exactly, 30? I'll have to research it. Having two (this would be per couple, BTW) would actually be very slightly below replacement, as there would always be people who for one reason or another didn't want, or couldn't have kids.
i was thinking four should be the absolout limit. enough to allow people to have a bigger family if they wish and to account for multiple births.

some people are very family orientated and we still need to have freedom of choice.

four would still curb the over populationb slightly as it would prevent people like my aunt having 11 children.
post #33 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugaimes
I like the old saying, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."
To be honest, I was a little shocked and saddened to see such a pat comment coming from you, as someone who works in "the field".
I actually had to go back and check to make sure it was you!

I can't imagine seeing you walk into any domestic violence shelter and thinking this callously with any confidence, let alone actually saying it.

I understand that you work with a smaller demographic of people (that likely do have supports and paying jobs) but I am positive you must know that there are so many reasons that people depend on a life of welfare or social supports with their children (as many as they might have) including abuse (But nowhere near limited to), mental illness, lack of supports, cyclical poverty in the family structure, lack of self esteem, lack of access to affordable birth control, drug addiction, cultural issues etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum

I just hope I am wrong and you didn't actually type the above and some nasty conservative took over your computer for a moment
(not that all conservatives are nasty...!)
I did notice your subsequent post but it seems to contradict the saying above and/or just goes against basic social work ideals.
I just don't understand
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
I understand that you work with a smaller demographic of people (that likely do have supports and paying jobs) but I am positive you must know that there are so many reasons that people depend on a life of welfare or social supports with their children (as many as they might have) including abuse (But nowhere near limited to), mental illness, lack of supports, cyclical poverty in the family structure, lack of self esteem, lack of access to affordable birth control, drug addiction, cultural issues etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum
She did cover that Right here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ugaimes
I will say that it is so important not to jump to conclusions when we see a single woman struggling to take care of a bunch of children.
Oftentimes, abusive men will keep their partners pregnant (oftentimes by raping them) as a form of control (because pregnancy makes some women less mobile and more dependent on their partners). When I worked for the domestic violence shelter, my average client was about 25 years old with 4-5 kids- no joke.
So, we have a young (or not-so-young) mother with quite a few kids and an abusive husband/boyfriend. If they stay together, she can take care of the kids no problem; the trade-off is that she and possibly her children are being abused and could wind up seriously hurt or dead. If she leaves him, she and the kids are safe, but she loses a lot and suddently raising those kids is much more difficult, financially. So she goes on welfare, TANF, whatever she can get to support herself and her kids.
I guess what I'm trying to say that there are quite a few people out there who are raising multiple children and are on welfare or other forms of public assistance because it really is their safest and only choice.
post #35 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirtle
She did cover that Right here:
And I noted that in my post, though.
That is why I don't understand the
"IF you can't feed him, don't breed em" statement.

That isn't something I would expect a worker in the social services field would say. Because you would know this is a hurtful, misunderstood bit of logic.

Domestic Violence knows no financial or socio-economic demographic.
But there is this reason as well as so many other societal reasons for having children and being on welfare (which I covered in my post above)
My point was that its an unfair statement to those who have children and struggle to feed them due to so many other variables.

Its sad. Its true.

Not everyone on welfare is sitting pretty, living the large life, and laughing at the taxpayer. Far from it.
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
And I noted that in my post, though.
That is why I don't understand the
"IF you can't feed him, don't breed em" statement.

That isn't something I would expect a worker in the social services field would say. Because you would know this is a hurtful, misunderstood bit of logic.

OOPS! Sorry. I didn't see that last part.
When I read it, knowing what she does, and then reading the next post I thought that perhaps she was being funny with that comment. I hope I am correct.
post #37 of 59
I have adittedly not read all the posts but stopped when I read the somments about forcing women on welfare NOT to have children. I try not to be judgemental - I am required NOT to be proessionally - but we all have our biases. However, I think it would be extremly unfair and discriminatory to apply one law or moral code to women on welfare (because it is women this ends up aimed at as we are the ones who become pregnant!) and another to those who by the grace og God have managed not to have to rely on welfare. No one is on welfare deliberately or because they want to. And neither does it make them less human or deserving of respect!!!!!

I see people from all walks of life in my practice and whether one is on welfare has little to do with an outcome in one's life. Certainly, it is a variable but I have seen some professionals whose capability of being adequate parents I question (situations where the child is an added status symbol for example and the nanny knows the child better than mom and dad) and I have met a good number of people on social assistance (and I know they are recieving help because they have a Heatlh Card - in fact, some of my patients are forced onto the welfare rolls s[precifically so they can obtain a Health Card for their child with cancer) who are the most wonderful parents.

So that comment just made me very angry!!! I think of the oft quoted Indian proverb - Don't criticize until you have walked in someone's moccasins.

That said, there are days I walk out of the hospital (and we also serve women - obgyn and urogyn, etc) and I see a pregnant woman sitting in a wheelchair on the sidewalk(since she would not be allowed to smoke on hospital grounds) with an IV inserted, to help her and her baby and here she is smoking. But I have to bite my tongue.

It would be much too obtrusive to ever control women's breeding (unless we want to live in a society like the Handmaiden's Tale where women are devalued more than we already are!!) abilities and rights. Education, education, education!!!
post #38 of 59
Thread Starter 
Nicely put. Nicely put.

Good parenting has nothing to do with money.
The "Handmaid's Tale" by Atwood also came to mind for me when deliberating on this topic.

Scary, scary notion
post #39 of 59
You could never go through with this. There is no way to regulate it!! And who would end up being the victims? The kids that weren't wanted or allowed by society.

It's an extremely interesting thought, though. A lot of humans are way less than discriminating in their childbearing.

So how do you find a way to compromise between the two? Either way, whether people or some governing, regulatory body makes decisions, the kids end up the losers in so many cases. So how do you fix that?
post #40 of 59
I work in a welfare office. I interview clients who want to apply and who are having their cases reviewed.
In my line of work, I see a lot of people who just shouldn't breed, for lots of different reasons.
Should they be told they can't have children? No. Even though we are over-populating the world, reproduction and the propogation of the species is still a basic instinct. It supercedes race, religion, class, education, everything. If someone really wants to have children, no one should tell them they can't.
BUT....
We really need to teach people about birth control...the different types, how and why they work, and how to use them. At work, I have met a lot of women who got pregnant because they weren't using their BC method right, or were using something that was totally ineffective. No one had ever taught them any better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberKitten
No one is on welfare deliberately or because they want to.
This is not true. I deal with these people first hand, every day that I go to work. A lot of them are good, decent people, but there are some who will do anything, and I do mean anything, to get on and stay on the system.
post #41 of 59
PHP Code:
No one is on welfare deliberately or because they want to
That i Have to disagree with. I first hand know two people who are on wellfare because they want to be. by being on wellfare they do not have to work. and thats how they like it.
post #42 of 59
A friend of mine who adopted her daughter from a Chinese orphanage has said that everyone who thinks they want a kid or finds themselves pregant should have to go through what she did. She not only had to come up with a lot of cash up front, the amount of burocracy she had to deal with in applications, as well as the parenting classes she had to complete made sure that everyone who got one of these beautiful children really, REALLY wanted them! Even forget about the applications and cash...I do think that EVERYONE who is expecting their first child should have to take parenting classes. No exceptions.
post #43 of 59
Here is a thought that no one has brought up. Certian religions do not believe in birth control, like roman catholisim. If someone were to limit everyone to say 4 children, would those who believe in this religion have to stop having sex so that they do not accidently make another child?

Another thing, some families own large plots of land or raches, and part of having a farm family is having 9 kids. The kids are not bad off, it is a tradition in some families, a way of life.

Lastly, with the large divorce and remarry rate we have these days, who can have four children? the woman? or the couple? what about a person who gives a child up for adoption, does that child count against her or the family who adopts them? Both? What about surragate mothers?

There are too many what if cases out there for this to happen anytime soon.
post #44 of 59
I have seen arguments saying that women who are products of domestci violence need The System to get by, and I agree. However, more often than not, I see a lot of people who are on the system because they A-Can't find a good enough job to support themselves and their ever increasing brood of children, or B-Like the idea of having a lot of kids, so they don't have to go out and do a days work. It's people like this, that I'm talking about.

I'm no Conservative, by ANY means, but I'm also not a "bleeding heart" Liberal, either. As far as women who have escaped Domestic Violence: Yes, they do need help, and I'm all for giving it to them. However, that being said, I also think they shouldn't be allowed to have MORE children, while they're on The System, and I don't think people who have been on The System having one child after the other should get away with THAT also. I think it makes perfect sense that if you are on the system already, you should not be allowed to have any MORE children, until you can get yourself off of it. No one is saying that they should not be allowed to have children, ever. I'm saying they are adding to a problem when they keep having children, when they can't afford to take care of them, themselves. It's a nasty habit they get into, and a hard one for many of them to break. Who wouldn't want to stay home and not have to go to work, and have all of their needs met? Even President Clinton didn't want to let habitual Welfare users remain on the sysem for years. All this does is take away the money from those people who really NEED assistance at their time of need.
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick_kitten
some argue that that way is homosexuality. though if you were homosexual and wanted kids we've found a way around that!

short of natural disaster theres not a lot that can curb the population.

really? lol. that is crazy though..to imagine the whole world being gay?? i am not a hater against that lifestyle though..infact i really dislike anyone saying rude/totally mean things about homosexuality. but like..he was talking about (of course) disease/natural disasters i.e. tsunami, hurricane. bla bla. lol. i mean new diseases will always be poppin up out of no where! but thats an interesting argument! i know that fact hes a history teacher might be the 'duh' factor, history repeating..but hey..its happened before! it'll happen again! lol i just hope it happens after i die of a natural cause or soemthing, lol.
post #46 of 59
i also think...that it needs to be remembered how many people die every day also, i realize there are probably WAY more people being born than dying. (if anyone know the actual ratio that would be cool to know, i dont know it)but not everyone being born lives to be 90, infants die, children, teens, young adult..and of course those of us who are lucky to live out a full life

.....and i mean as far as americas population-if there are so many people why is there the issue with the whole retirement thing?? isnt it because of all the baby boomers retiring..isnt there generation a whole lot larger than the younger? (i.e. not enough money going from one generations pay checks to the older generation) or not? i dont know im just guessing..just heard this in class

..but im not oblivious to the 'world' population being so huge...but sooner or later..whether its through a crazy disease, or huge natural disaster that wipes out some people..we will probably be long gone before that happens...but it probably will! haha. not that its all funny but i just want everyone to know im not like saying this with a stern face, lol. i know just 'reading' something can always be twisted to mean something else to people that what it is orignally intended.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I have seen arguments saying that women who are products of domestci violence need The System to get by, and I agree. However, more often than not, I see a lot of people who are on the system because they A-Can't find a good enough job to support themselves and their ever increasing brood of children, or B-Like the idea of having a lot of kids, so they don't have to go out and do a days work. It's people like this, that I'm talking about.

I'm no Conservative, by ANY means, but I'm also not a "bleeding heart" Liberal, either. As far as women who have escaped Domestic Violence: Yes, they do need help, and I'm all for giving it to them. However, that being said, I also think they shouldn't be allowed to have MORE children, while they're on The System, and I don't think people who have been on The System having one child after the other should get away with THAT also. I think it makes perfect sense that if you are on the system already, you should not be allowed to have any MORE children, until you can get yourself off of it. No one is saying that they should not be allowed to have children, ever. I'm saying they are adding to a problem when they keep having children, when they can't afford to take care of them, themselves. It's a nasty habit they get into, and a hard one for many of them to break. Who wouldn't want to stay home and not have to go to work, and have all of their needs met? Even President Clinton didn't want to let habitual Welfare users remain on the sysem for years. All this does is take away the money from those people who really NEED assistance at their time of need.
I agree with you. For a short time I was disabled with medical problems and unable to work. I applied for assistance. was flat out denied any help with rent because I was NOT a mother, or expecting, and was only given two months worth of food stamps. I am not someone who will leech of the system. never have never will. But i physically was unable to work. It was hard to even get to the appointments to fill out the paperwork as i was supposed to be on bed rest period. It was a hard time for me. but i made it. Just irked me that I couldnt get help when i needed it when i have paid in so much..and people who can physically work..dont they just have kids because the goverment throws money at them. I do like the way it sounds like AZ works its a start.
post #48 of 59
The ratio for birth and mortality rates differ from country to country and off hand, I can't tell you what it is. (and if I have time, I'll look it up for my country, lol). In my part of the world, more ppl are dying than being born so we need to encourage immigration. This is the case for most industrialized nations tho which is why we see so many diverse societies.

I guess I meant the expression that no one WAMTS to be on walfare in a global manner as opposed to referring to specefic situations. I believe that even people who come from a family for whom life on social assistance is way of life did not choose this deliberately. For many, it is lack of education and it is all they know. I do not believe people should be accorded support they do not deserve and of course with any program, there will be people who abuse it. That is just alas, human nature but I am always chagrined that in so many discussions of welfare - which is a catch all phrase that subjectivel means something different to so many - someone inevitably brings up those who cheat the system? Why? Are they worse that the corporate guys who rip off their own contry or companies who manage threough innovative tax schemese to not pay their fair share? I don't think so.

Yes, I have come into contact with people I know are abusing even the medical system. The Get out of my ER or office syndrome. Anyone who works with the public experinces this. It is impossible not to feel frustrated toward the father who sits home all day claiming he can't work while the community raises money so his child who is ill with cancer can travel to her clinics. Or the teen with cancer whose small community raised money for him and he bought a car!! And I worked summer jobs as an undergrad doing some counselling (as opposed to the purely bureacratic social assistance type of jobs in which a client is assessed purely on financial needs - I saw everything there, some wanted a car, breat elargement, you name it. But I cannot blame them entirely - it is what they have been taught or what they saw. I see young pregnant teens on welfare becase I suspect they want to live apart from their parents. I certainly do not think any service we provide should be abused but neither should we judge all receipients of social assistance or health care for that matter by the few that would abuse it.

I think a better question is why is it that women who obtain a divorce - for whatever reason - are more likley to end up on welfare than men? How did that less than stellar stat come about? (It's a rheotorical question - I am sure you all know the answer).

I even was irked once when a fellow who had similar surgery to mine (and much less medical probs) came to me for help - politically - in obtaining Disability. I DID help him because I realized in the end that he did not have the same opportunities I had in education and his life had been diminshed because of it. I can't say I am all that thrilled to be paying my taxses to support ppl on disability who have less wrong wth them than I do but I have to ask myself who am I to judge? Again, the vast majority did not choose this lifestyle - and they hardly live luxurious lives.

I could never do it and I honestly believe the best welfare is a job but not every community in North America has an almost non existant unemployment rate and while yes, ppl can move - for some, again, that is not always an option. I would like to see more innovative welafre stratgeies in place but the vast majority of programs that are workfare are cobbled together by opportunistic politicians who care only about re-election and not about the well being of their constituents. (Tho there are some wonderful exceptions!) Why cannot a woman who needs help have her child care paid for and a Health care provided so that she can go to work rather than simply cut off her welfare thus dooming the next generation - once again brought up in poverty - to follow the same oblivious path. We need to identify what will help people get to work and not put up obstacles that make it financially better to opt for welfare than work at a Mcjob that does nothing to encourage and work (pun intended) from there.

Sorry to be so long and I have more to say but I have to get to work, lol
post #49 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
This is not true. I deal with these people first hand, every day that I go to work. A lot of them are good, decent people, but there are some who will do anything, and I do mean anything, to get on and stay on the system.
You are correct. Everyone knows "someone" or has an anecdote about someone "cheating THE system" (or any system for that matter) but why are these few seemingly always portrayed as the majority? That's like saying that PETA advocates represent the whole of the animal activist operation.

I do understand the sentiment behind it. I do realize that people think this way because it directly affects their bottom line and their back pocket. They feel as if someone is "getting away" with something while we all strive to make a living by working every day. The truth is that there are an incredible amount of factors at work that prevent good people (like each one of us) from being able to provide and maintain an adequate living. Silly bureaucratic red tape being one of them.

Take, for example, the young uneducated single mother with two toddlers.
(We are not even delving into any other obstacles or barriers here
such as abuse, mental illness, addiction, etc.)
She applies for a job at her skill level (likely a fast food job).
What she will see is that her welfare is cut off completely. In my area, this means no more health benefits for her or her children (no Rx drugs when they are ill), daycare costs aren't covered (if she can even get her kids into a reputable program), and that her take home monthly pay is about 2/3 of what it was on assistance. Now, welfare recipients aren't exactly sitting pretty. Again, in my area, she will receive about $900 per month with which to pay her rent and support her children for the month.
For a clean two bedroom apt., she is going to be paying at least $500 or more in a rough area. She has just enough left for transportation costs, daycare costs, and limited food. She will run out of money before her next payment.
This isn't a life of luxury.

What I would like to see are increased incentives for cases such as these to actually get off welfare. But when they do attempt to further themselves, they are often bound by bits of red tape everywhere they turn.

There are happy stories too. A girlfriend of mine was on assistance for a great amount of time and during that time, applied for many funded courses that would further herself and her chilldren. She ran into many obstacles in terms of finding adequate childcare for her three young children.
She ended up graduating from a welding course this past month and I see here out almost daily handing in her resumes. '
While she was in the course,she bussed her three little children daily across one side of the city to the daycare centre, then bussed over to the other side of the city to attend classes. This commute took her two hours each way. Not saying that she, in any way, represents all of society, but what I am trying to get across is that she wasn't in an abusive relationship, does not have a mental illness, an addiction or otherwise.
She was simply underskilled, and un-educated.
So, can you imagine how hard it is to overcome in life when you have other serious and multiple barriers in your way?

When I worked in Income Assistance for a brief spell as well as dealt with numerous clients in other facets of social services who depended on welfare, this is what I saw. Yes, the "bad apples", but mainly I saw obstacles and barriers and not enough work being done to effect positive change.
....Add this to a shameful public perspective of those living "off the system" and you have a very sad reality indeed.
post #50 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I have seen arguments saying that women who are products of domestci violence need The System to get by, and I agree. However, more often than not, I see a lot of people who are on the system because they A-Can't find a good enough job to support themselves and their ever increasing brood of children, or B-Like the idea of having a lot of kids, so they don't have to go out and do a days work. It's people like this, that I'm talking about.

I'm no Conservative, by ANY means, but I'm also not a "bleeding heart" Liberal, either. As far as women who have escaped Domestic Violence: Yes, they do need help, and I'm all for giving it to them. However, that being said, I also think they shouldn't be allowed to have MORE children, while they're on The System,
But Hope, its really a human rights issue. What would be ideal is if that woman was empowered enough through the system to be able to grow strong and make her own decisions to leave an abusive relationship or to prevent further pregnancies with acquired knowledge.

Domestic violence victims are really but one segment of the welfare population but let's just take a look at the factors. First, if she is living with an abusive man (or woman), she is under someone's control already. She is likely anxious, depressed, lacks self esteem, and/or is terrified.
What you are saying is that we should exercise even more control in her life by disallowing her from having further children.
How would we go about doing that? Mandating her for a depo shot? Forced abortions if she does get pregnant?

How would this strategy, rather than others really benefit this woman?
Rather than limit her choices and make her world smaller,what would be ideal is if she was given the knowledge to further herself and move out of her current situation and on to better things.
She requires knowledge, self awareness, and the skills to achieve a better standard of living. The system, as it is, is very piecemeal, bureaucratic,
and the entire picture is not often looked at. These bandaid solutions won't work.


Quote:
Who wouldn't want to stay home and not have to go to work, and have all of their needs met? Even President Clinton didn't want to let habitual Welfare users remain on the sysem for years. All this does is take away the money from those people who really NEED assistance at their time of need.
I don't know many on welfare that have all of their needs met.
For example, my mother, who is fairly well established in life, is very ill with cancer. To keep her from feeling more horrible than she does, she takes a pill every day that cost $26 each. This is in Canada where healthcare is free, but prescription drugs are not. And I know the situation is much different and much more costly in the US.
I can't imagine someone like my mother existing on welfare and not being able to afford that medication. Basic needs might be barely met, but really, what kind of life is that?
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
This is not true. I deal with these people first hand, every day that I go to work. A lot of them are good, decent people, but there are some who will do anything, and I do mean anything, to get on and stay on the system.
We have a lot of people like that here in Savannah. My mother is an educator in the public school system and she sees SO many kids getting free lunch wearing $200 Nikes. I can't even afford $200 Nikes!
And it's those people tho whom I was referring when I quoted the "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" slogan. I do not use it as a blanket statement to refer to all people with lots of kids who are on welfare. I know just as well as anyone that many people are dealing with difficult circumstances far beyond their control. But there are a few bad apples who are very abusive of the system.
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
Domestic violence victims are really but one segment of the welfare population but let's just take a look at the factors. First, if she is living with an abusive man (or woman), she is under someone's control already. She is likely anxious, depressed, lacks self esteem, and/or is terrified.
What you are saying is that we should exercise even more control in her life by disallowing her from having further children.
How would we go about doing that? Mandating her for a depo shot? Forced abortions if she does get pregnant?
WELL-PUT!!! Wanna come work as an advocate?
post #53 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugaimes
We have a lot of people like that here in Savannah. My mother is an educator in the public school system and she sees SO many kids getting free lunch wearing $200 Nikes. I can't even afford $200 Nikes!
And it's those people tho whom I was referring when I quoted the "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" slogan. I do not use it as a blanket statement to refer to all people with lots of kids who are on welfare. I know just as well as anyone that many people are dealing with difficult circumstances far beyond their control. But there are a few bad apples who are very abusive of the system.
Thanks for clarifying that, Amy You have affirmed that I was not out of it when I read that..
But, on that note, I hate when just those few bad apples seem to be highlighted. There are so many variables and factors people don't understand.

For example, my mum is unaware of how these variables can affect a person's entire life. She is old school and as there is a large problem with aboriginal poverty and subtance abuse in our city, her sentiment is plainly
"they should just get off welfare and get jobs"
I have spent hours trying to make her understand the inequities that certain groups face and how large their obstacles may be (ie, residential school abuse, reserve life and poverty, family substance abuse, lack of education or skills, racism, etc..)
Blanket statements do nothing but promote that animosity and weaken one's will to want to escape their situation.
post #54 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugaimes
WELL-PUT!!! Wanna come work as an advocate?
Oh, been there. Done that
I have worked on both sides of being a women's advocate, as a counselor at a women centred clinic, at a domestic violence shelter and in Probation with the domestic violence unit (often seeing very angry men daily..ack)...
I have surely had my fill.
But if I ever get my US visa, I may just take you up on it!!
Especially getting paid in US dollars! Now, that sounds good
post #55 of 59
I'm glad for what Loveysmummy and Cyberkitten had to say- I think you both presented the issue quite well. Since I am a social worker and have been a case manager for several year, not to mention that fact that I take the Christian instruction to care for the poor very seriously, statements like what have been made in this thread make me so angry that it is hard to respond rationally. For the literally hundreds of clients the last agency I worked at served, only eight were the people you folks described- that's pretty good considering the amount of generally lazy, rude people I see every day in my current job as a server (serving is more flexible with being in grad school than case management is). Being poor doesn't stop jerks from being jerks, just as being a drain on the system doesn't stop corporate america from accepting numerous welfare initiatives of their own.

I think everyone, especially those who support population control and eugenics should read the book, "Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty" by Dororty Roberts.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

I first heard about Roberts after attending the Reproductive Rights Conference at Hampshire College http://clpp.hampshire.edu/projects/arrc/. While you all are at it, go ahead and attend this conference. It might shed some light on the issue of reproductive freedom and even population control. You will find representatives from groups like Choice USA, but not from groups like Planned Parenthood.

Also read "Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control" by Besty Hartmann. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Women's human rights is a very strong passion of mine.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
You are correct. Everyone knows "someone" or has an anecdote about someone "cheating THE system" (or any system for that matter) but why are these few seemingly always portrayed as the majority?
My stories are not anecdotal. I work with these people EVERYDAY. It's my job to interview them and establish their eligibility for these programs. More often than not, they get really mad and try to find a way around it when they are told they are not eligible or that their benefits will be reduced, even if they are making quite a bit more money than they were before.
I'd honestly say it's about a 50/50 split between the ones who really do need help and aren't capable of doing any better than $5.15 an hour at McDonald's or Wal-Mart and those who are on assistance just because they can be.

I also remember that they are all human beings who deserve to be treated with respect...I just wish they would give me and my co-workers the same respect we give them.

Quote:
We have a lot of people like that here in Savannah. My mother is an educator in the public school system and she sees SO many kids getting free lunch wearing $200 Nikes. I can't even afford $200 Nikes!
And it's those people tho whom I was referring when I quoted the "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" slogan. I do not use it as a blanket statement to refer to all people with lots of kids who are on welfare. I know just as well as anyone that many people are dealing with difficult circumstances far beyond their control. But there are a few bad apples who are very abusive of the system.
Oh, we have them here too. I have clients who come in wearing designer clothes, real jewelery, and professionally manicured hands...and I will be struggling to find the money to buy new winter clothes and a replacement for my worn-out coat. I even have clients who are making more money than I do...and my job requires a college degree.
It's a frustrating line of work...but it can be rewarding...if I help just one person who really needs it, it's worth giving hand-outs to the cheaters.
post #57 of 59
ideally you would be married, be done with college and have a good job that makes good money before having kids, but thatisn't the case for some people
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
My stories are not anecdotal. I work with these people EVERYDAY. It's my job to interview them and establish their eligibility for these programs. More often than not, they get really mad and try to find a way around it when they are told they are not eligible or that their benefits will be reduced, even if they are making quite a bit more money than they were before.
I'd honestly say it's about a 50/50 split between the ones who really do need help and aren't capable of doing any better than $5.15 an hour at McDonald's or Wal-Mart and those who are on assistance just because they can be.

I also remember that they are all human beings who deserve to be treated with respect...I just wish they would give me and my co-workers the same respect we give them.


Oh, we have them here too. I have clients who come in wearing designer clothes, real jewelery, and professionally manicured hands...and I will be struggling to find the money to buy new winter clothes and a replacement for my worn-out coat. I even have clients who are making more money than I do...and my job requires a college degree.
It's a frustrating line of work...but it can be rewarding...if I help just one person who really needs it, it's worth giving hand-outs to the cheaters.
Hugs to you for all you do. That is such a difficult, underpaid and overworked, and thankless job, but you really do so much good for a lot of people.
post #59 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
My stories are not anecdotal. I work with these people EVERYDAY. It's my job to interview them and establish their eligibility for these programs. More often than not, they get really mad and try to find a way around it when they are told they are not eligible or that their benefits will be reduced, even if they are making quite a bit more money than they were before.
I'd honestly say it's about a 50/50 split between the ones who really do need help and aren't capable of doing any better than $5.15 an hour at McDonald's or Wal-Mart and those who are on assistance just because they can be.
Hi, That wasn't necessarily directed at you but rather at the masses
Most people provide anecdotes when attempting to prove this point.
I don't think that is fair.
As someone who works front-line (I am assuming you are an Income Assistance/welfare Intake worker?) in one of the most thankless frontline positions there is, my hat is off.

You have the horrible task of actually telling people they don't qualify for benefits...ack. So, you are naturally going to see a WHOLE lot of angry people in your daily work. I don't envy you, sister

As my profession was also in the social services sector for years (and will be again, just in a different area), I also dealt with many thankless people.
I have also seen a lot of anger, sadness, and injustice within the system on both sides. Its one of the reasons I left the field to regroup and re-direct.
Due to bureaucracy, as a worker, your hands are often tied in terms of doing the community any greater good. That is the saddest thing of all.
Have a good work day today
and remember to practice "self-care" and take it when you need it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breeding rights for Humans?