Poor people should not be allowed to give birth

[SiegHeil]

Poor people should not be allowed to give birth yes that is what i think although i know that most of u will disagree but for me it is a simple fact that a child is not a property of parents and if a person does not have enough money (in advance ) to afford the basic needs of the child (food,education,shelter) for atleast 3 years he does not have the right to make the child suffer.
yes i understand the rights of the poor point but what about the child.all i am saying is that there should be atleast some minimum criteria for being eligible to have a child after all whole life of a human being is at stake.

do they deserve this
i would like to know your views

 

[third eye]

Interesting..

Does this have anything to do with the name you have chosen for your self ?

 

[grey boy 2]

Rohit Chopra: Should the Poor Be Denied the Right to Bear Children? Sept 24 2009

The poor and indebted have it tough. They may have the right to buy a gun, but they can't get much else. They can't afford down payments, so they're not able to buy homes anymore. And since they can't afford to live in a good neighborhood, their kids aren't allowed to go to the best schools. And we've all heard how they can't afford adequate health insurance.

It raises the question: if they can't afford it, should the poor be allowed to have children?

So what does it really cost to raise a child? The USDA Center for Nutrition Promotion & Policy publishes an annual report that tries to answer just that. I analyzed this data to determine whether a lower-income family could afford to have a baby.

After a parent has taken care of their own personal expenses, housing, and savings, he or she would need an additional $1,000 per month (before taxes) to raise the average child from a lower income family. This assumes that extra money beyond monthly expenses are invested at a rate 2-3% higher than inflation. Regardless, it's an enormous bite out of the average low income earner's paycheck.

The good news is that if the family puts away about $60 extra per month, it amounts to a large amount of money over 18 years and can pay the majority of tuition at a public four-year university.

But $1,000 is the minimum. They'd need more if they lived in the Northeast or West Coast, more if they lived in a city, and more if they want to raise their child like their middle income counterparts. And way more if their employer doesn't provide family health insurance.

In other words, unless you can pony up at least an additional $1,000 a month for the next 20 years, you'll end up falling into a debt trap or depriving your child of the minimum needs to compete in the real world.

So should there be a childbearing policy? In India, they want to reduce the birthrate by promoting television. A British study recently showed how contraception is the cheapest way to cut carbon emissions. Last year, a Louisiana legislator actually proposed sterilizing poor women.

Here in America, could we better protect the environment, reduce crime, and increase school performance if the poor had fewer children? Maybe.

But, regulating childbearing for the poor seems wrong (and probably a little racist), even if economists can prove it's "efficient." Before we start telling people they can't have kids, let's consider other strategies to make everyone better equipped to tackle the financial challenges of raising a family. Here are a few:

Automatic Savings Account Enrollment. The last thing on the minds of new moms and dads is dealing with excessive paperwork related to pre-tax savings accounts. We should automatically enroll children in college and health savings accounts with contributions deducted from their parents' paychecks. Often parents discover these benefits far later than they should.

Credit Card Debt Warnings. Parents should receive warnings about excessive credit card debt and its potential to jeopardize their child's future opportunities. Financing a family with credit cards is rarely a good idea.

Better Baby Showers. Instead of registering for a $1,000 baby stroller, the laws should allow a reasonable amount of gift-giving to a child's educational savings account. Friends and family spend a lot on toys and clothes -- let's give them new options to invest in something more meaningful.

Prenatal Financial Counseling. Nonprofits and health care providers should partner to provide counseling for expectant parents so that they can understand how the finances will change, including the potential need for disability and life insurance. Unfortunately, lower income people often don't take advantage of dependent care and other tax-advantaged plans. Better information can help fix this.

The bottom line is that having a child is expensive. Instead of denying people the chance to be a parent, let's do everything we can to help people better plan their new family's financial future.

 

[xuxu1457]

Everyone is equal,no matter rich or poor,they must have the eaual right to have the same number of children

 

[SiegHeil]

Interesting..

Does this have anything to do with the name you have chosen for your self ?

ummm -somewhat yes.

but am rather intrested about your thoughts in this matter.

 

[Khajur]

As far i'm concerned, i must say india's poverty is the sole contribution of high birthrate seen among poor ppl compared to the lower middle class and up ,negating and burdening all developmental activities.

 

[third eye]

ummm -somewhat yes.

but am rather intrested about your thoughts in this matter.

I guessed as much.

Instead of raising the bridge, the author of the article suggests that the river be lowered.

Next, he'll suggest that we should exterminate the poor or send them to camps where they could be fed, made to work and paid for it.

A poor man has as much right to everything as a rich man does, also he needs it more than a rich man does - having children is a part of 'everything'. We have been thru the Sanjay Gandhi style of birth control...

The state is at fault if a man remains poor & uneducated not the man himself.

 

[hero]

The person who the article is an idiot. Every one capable as him given the opportunities. Gov should provide opportunity and bring them to the mainstream. Money is temporary what is guaranty that you will not loose. They should be provided proper education and vocational training skills.

 

[no_name]

It think the problem is more complicated. Poor people should be allowed to have at least one children. No children means no future and no point of living a 'normal' life for some of these folks.

If there is any 'right' that the poor have, it's the right to start a revolution. All government need to take steps to combat poverty.

If we only have rich people, who's going to do the 'lowly' jobs.

regards,

 

[SiegHeil]

thirdeye, grey boy 2, xuxu1457
i have already made it clear that i do agree that poor man has equal rights but just look at those children in the pics what did they do wrong to deserve this..yes the state is at fault but this dosen't mean someone has the right to ruin the life of as many humans as they like and let them suffer for the rest of their lives.

 

[grey boy 2]

Should poor people in developing nations use birth control if they choose? Musings from inside, outside, and underneath

It seems silly to me to even be answering the questions poised in the title: “Should poor people in developing nations use birth control if they choose?” But, I will indulge and give my opinion: Yes. The should be allowed to. They should have access to it. There should be education programs about family planning (both in the US and abroad) that are not abstinence only. And, having worked internationally in health education and reproductive rights, this does seem like a no-brainer to me.

However, the first line of Kristoff’s op-ed piece in the New York times on Wednesday read:

The Bush administration this month is quietly cutting off birth control supplies to some of the world’s poorest women in Africa.

The rest was just as scary. To see the article, click here.

Personally, I am a real believer in family planning. If you look at poverty rates and then compare them with average number of children per family, there is a distinct correlation. In the past, and in some areas where subsistencefarming is the way of life, families need to be big. They need to ensure that some of the children survive (this assumes that some will not) and that they have enough hands to work. With the technology and medical advances, this should no longer be the case. Certainly, it is not in the developing world.

Part of family planning is teaching couples proactive ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies, thus avoiding dangerous–sometimes back-alley–abortions. Birth control and condoms are the best (easiest, mot reliable, and cheapest) ways for people to do family planning.

In the last weeks, “U.S. Agency for International Development ordered six African countries to ensure that no U.S.-financed condoms, birth control pills, I.U.D.’s or other contraceptives are furnished to Marie Stopes International, a British-based aid group that operates clinics in poor countries.”

This is unacceptable.

John McCain, instinctively, supported the plan. “When a reporter asked him this spring whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, he initially said, “I haven’t thought about it,” and later added, “You’ve stumped me.””

I believe that it is important that we use contraception as a fundamental part of battling AIDS. I also believe that poor people around the world should be able to plan their families and use contraception just as people in the US and other developing nations do without thinking. Furthermore, I think this plan backfires on it’s pro-life backers, increased unwanted pregnancies not only increase unwanted children, they also increase abortions.

 

[SiegHeil]

It think the problem is more complicated. Poor people should be allowed to have at least one children. No children means no future and no point of living a 'normal' life for some of these folks.

If there is any 'right' that the poor have, it's the right to start a revolution. All government need to take steps to combat poverty.

If we only have rich people, who's going to do the 'lowly' jobs.

regards,

nice thoughts.

 

[westwind]

if the couple can not afford condoms and know nothing about contraception and have no money to pay a abortion,do they have the right to give birth?

 

[xuxu1457]

thirdeye, grey boy 2, xuxu1457
i have already made it clear that i do agree that poor man has equal rights but just look at those children in the pics what did they do wrong to deserve this..yes the state is at fault but this dosen't mean someone has the right to ruin the life of as many humans as they like and let them suffer for the rest of their lives.

I think that every family should be allowed to have 1 baby when the woman is before the age of 28,then you can have another after the age of 28;If you want to have more babies after the age of 28,you must pay more tax,the tax will be used to improve the education and medical Systems.How do you think?

 

[SiegHeil]

I guessed as much.

Instead of raising the bridge, the author of the article suggests that the river be lowered.

Next, he'll suggest that we should exterminate the poor or send them to camps where they could be fed, made to work and paid for it.

A poor man has as much right to everything as a rich man does, also he needs it more than a rich man does - having children is a part of 'everything'. We have been thru the Sanjay Gandhi style of birth control...

The state is at fault if a man remains poor & uneducated not the man himself.

thirdeye i am not even remotely advocating what the author says and although my profile name may suggest something but the truth is that my mom is a gynec and runs a hospital and i have seen some of the most messed up people having children some of them can't even provide their family a single meal a day.i think if you were in my place you too would have had a different view in this matter.