Fundies and Government Aid

[lilwriter85]

That's true of FLDS, but not of mainstream Mormons. They have their own assistance program because they discourage getting government aid.

I can't remember which thread it was, but the topic of Mormons and government aid was discussed. Someone said that some Mormons are ok with government aid. I follow a Mormon blogger who is disabled. She only receives $781 because she only worked for three years prior to becoming disabled. She probably feel right about it, because she paid into the system. But I get the feeling that she refuses other forms of government assistance.

[MadameX]

Sluts should get welfare. Hypocrites should get welfare. Racists should get welfare.

People who actively choose to continue breeding after they've become so desperately poor that they can't afford the ones they have, should get welfare. I am absolutely in favour of their kids being able to eat.

But you bet your britches I judge the everliving hell out of their choice to have another (and another and another) kid, whether they're accepting government/community support or not.

:clap:

[shesinsane]

FLDS and Mormon's teach their members that taking government aid is their right. FLDS call it bleeding the beast, beast being the government.

FLDS consider themselves Mormon, but Mormon's do not claim FLDS and they aren't one and the same. FLDS does recommend "bleeding the beast" to get as much money out of teh ebil government as possible, but it's also because their society is full of "single" moms. Since legally a man can only marry one woman, the rest of the sister-wives are considered separate households, and therefore are eligible for lots of aid as single mothers with dependant children and no means of support (any support from the father is off the books). Many feel it's justified - since the law won't let them marry, let the law pay.

Mainstream Mormons don't have multiple wives and don't "bleed the beast". They may get government aid, but not at the extremes of the FLDS.

As someone many pages back stated, there's a whole lot of "this is wrong except when I do it." when it comes to abortion and government assistance.

[emmiedahl]

One thing to consider that I think is completely relevant in this economy is that people may not have been in a bad situation when the children were conceived.

Here is what my neighbors see: an able-bodied couple living in subsidized housing with five kids. The dad is in school and the mom hardly ever leaves the house. The children are from more than one father. They have nice clothes and a relatively new vehicle and the mother carries designer handbags.

A lot to hate there unless you know the situation.

[Sola]

I was also a welfare worker for some years (the position was called "Financial Assistance Worker" in my province) and I believe 100% in a social safety net, to ensure that no one starves to death and children are not living on the street. That being said, if some of these fundy families had come into our office to apply for income assistance, they would have received a very rude awakening! First of all, both the husband and wife would have needed to come in together for all appointments and orientation, no excuses. They would have to completely disclose all assets and all forms of income. Including anything that either of them was earning from selling crap on the Internet, etc. They would have to provide complete photo id, social insurance numbers, and proof of citizenship or legal residency for each adult, and a birth certificate for each child; none of this off-the-grid nonsense. And, biggest deal-breaker of all, BOTH adults in a 2-parent family, if able-bodied, were required to be available for work and actively looking for work! And by work, I mean, a full-time, paying job in the aboveground economy. The ministry did not finance anyone's self-employment scheme, anyone's attendance at a non-accredited bible school, or anyone's SAHM or homeschooling beliefs. And I would have been a complete hardass to them, too. I would have made both husband and wife bring me a job-search list every week, and I would have made both of them attend lots of sessions with the resource workers for help with their job search. In the end, their choices would come down to either figuring out a way to make money on their own if they wanted me off their back, or else changing their lifestyle and their priorities a LOT, if they wanted to keep getting the cheque in the mail.

I think that is why a lot of the fundies we snark about on here don't want to go for government help. It's not only that they disagree with how the government distributes welfare, it's the fact that if they did go on welfare they would have to abide by all the conditions such as get a damn job, a proper job and not an internet selling scam, and that would go for both parents too. None of this, oh my wife stays at home because da bibble sez so.

[GolightlyGrrl]

One thing to consider that I think is completely relevant in this economy is that people may not have been in a bad situation when the children were conceived.

Here is what my neighbors see: an able-bodied couple living in subsidized housing with five kids. The dad is in school and the mom hardly ever leaves the house. The children are from more than one father. They have nice clothes and a relatively new vehicle and the mother carries designer handbags.

A lot to hate there unless you know the situation.

This! There is always a "story behind the story." A family could have doing quite well for years and then someone has lost a job or someone ends up having a horrible illness. And just think about what this bad economy has done to countless people.

[Feberin]

He fully intends to work again, when he does get work we KNOW we will be able to afford our children (currently a toddler and one on the way) Why should we have to delay our family because this month we can't afford it? Children are around for the rest of our lives, this period of unemployment may be here this year, maybe even next year, but not forever.

If your children will be around for the rest of your lives would waiting another month really be that horrible? My husband's job was up in the air for awhile last year and we waited until it was more stable to start trying for our second child because we knew we couldn't afford two in daycare so we had to wait until we could afford for me to stay home and my husband's job was relatively stable (I know things could happen at any time with any job but when we were previously on a week to week basis of finding out if he would be working the next week that was NOT stable enough for us to expand our family). I know there isn't a "perfect" time to have a baby but I do think there should be some thought given to affording the child.

I don't think government aid should be pulled from families that have baby after baby while on it. However that doesn't mean I can disagree with their decisions to continue expanding their families when they aren't able to afford it. While I don't think children should be luxuries for the rich I don't think having twelve children is a right everyone should have either. My SIL loves children and would love to have a big family. But after her second child they took pernament measures to ensure their family won't continue to grow because two kids is all they can afford.

[feministxtian]

From abba12:

Why should we have to delay our family because this month we can't afford it?

Precisely for that reason...YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!

It is unwise to bring another child you can ill afford into the world. I quit having babies because I KNEW there wasn't enough $ to go around. IF I had the financial wherewithal to have more children, I would have. As it was, due to some things, my kids suffered when the X and I divorced. How smart would it have been to bring another child into the world when I was barely making ends meet to feed the ones I DID have? It was time to STOP.

While I'm all for people having children, heck, I had a few of them myself, I believe that you should "count the cost" of having more children than you can reasonably support. I'm not talking a nursery from Pottery Barn, a new car at 16 and a fully funded college fund, I'm talking about just being able to afford the basics. We have a family situation now with an unexpected pregnancy...and we are helping the kids all we can. BUT, I can assure you there won't be another baby in the near future...they're smart enough to realize that trying to make it with just ONE baby and parental help is going to be tough and they know that another baby is NOT in their or the baby's best interests. But, if someone wants to keep breeding more ill-cared for children who don't have the necessities let alone luxuries...who am I to judge? I'll tell you who I am...A TAXPAYER who was smart enough to STOP having kids when the finances weren't there.

[Coconut Flan]

This exactly. Children are to be valued. One should consider how many children they can reasonably support financially, emotionally, socially, religiously, etc. To indiscriminately bring children into the world to many is wrong because one could not do right by them.

Being unemployed is absolutely a reason to delay procreation. To do otherwise sounds a bit immature to me as in the inability to postpone the wish for immediate gratification.

[desertvixen]

This exactly. Children are to be valued. One should consider how many children they can reasonably support financially, emotionally, socially, religiously, etc. To indiscriminately bring children into the world to many is wrong because one could not do right by them.

This. I value my daughter enough that I want her to have the best.

[Witsec1]

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. And to state again, people who are on welfare with no intention of ever getting off it and no plans for the future are a whole different group. But I think you'll find most large families do not fit into that group.

You want people not to judge you for continuing to have kids while on welfare, but at the same time you want to judge all those"are on welfare with no intention of ever getting off of it". You know, many many people on welfare who are doing the best they can, trying to get training for a better job, taking whatever work comes along, hoping for a lucky break: they're exactly like you in other words, though they may be a different race or religion.

Some people on welfare may not have the advantages you have, of being able to coherently express themselves as you did in your post. Your written communication indicates that you have benefited from education.

What I would judge fundies extremely harshly for is their tireless work to dismantle, defund, and otherwise destroy the public education system that gives the children of the poor their only hope for breaking the cycle of poverty.

Some facts for you:

Welfare use as a life course event: toward a new understanding of the U.S. safety net.

Rank MR, Hirschl TA.

Source

George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. markr@gwbmail.wustl.edu

Abstract

What proportion of the American population uses a social safety net program during the course of adulthood? To address this question, we constructed a series of life tables using 30 years of longitudinal data. Our results indicate that two-thirds of Americans between the ages of 20 and 65 will at some point reside in a household that receives benefits from a means-tested welfare program (food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or other cash welfare). Such assistance is often in the form of in-kind programs, such as food stamps or Medicaid. The findings also indicate that the use of welfare tends to take place over fairly short intervals of time. For example, although 65 percent of Americans will use welfare by age 65, only 15.9 percent will do so for five or more consecutive years. However, once the use of welfare occurs, it is quite likely to occur again at some point during adulthood. Our results suggest that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the use of the United States social safety net is a mainstream experience.

[abba12]

This exactly. Children are to be valued. One should consider how many children they can reasonably support financially, emotionally, socially, religiously, etc. To indiscriminately bring children into the world to many is wrong because one could not do right by them.

Being unemployed is absolutely a reason to delay procreation. To do otherwise sounds a bit immature to me as in the inability to postpone the wish for immediate gratification.

`

From abba12:

Why should we have to delay our family because this month we can't afford it?

Precisely for that reason...YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!

It is unwise to bring another child you can ill afford into the world. I quit having babies because I KNEW there wasn't enough $ to go around. IF I had the financial wherewithal to have more children, I would have. As it was, due to some things, my kids suffered when the X and I divorced. How smart would it have been to bring another child into the world when I was barely making ends meet to feed the ones I DID have? It was time to STOP.

While I'm all for people having children, heck, I had a few of them myself, I believe that you should "count the cost" of having more children than you can reasonably support. I'm not talking a nursery from Pottery Barn, a new car at 16 and a fully funded college fund, I'm talking about just being able to afford the basics. We have a family situation now with an unexpected pregnancy...and we are helping the kids all we can. BUT, I can assure you there won't be another baby in the near future...they're smart enough to realize that trying to make it with just ONE baby and parental help is going to be tough and they know that another baby is NOT in their or the baby's best interests. But, if someone wants to keep breeding more ill-cared for children who don't have the necessities let alone luxuries...who am I to judge? I'll tell you who I am...A TAXPAYER who was smart enough to STOP having kids when the finances weren't there.

But that's exactly my point, just because we're unemployed this year dosen't mean we won't be earning a great wage next year. Just because my sister has a great stable job this year, dosen't mean she won't be unemployed next year. My father found himself unemployed for about 2 years after working his whole life, this was a few years back. Should he have not had children 10-20 years ago on the off chance he would become unemployed? Babies don't cost a great deal of money in their first year if you already have furniture and clothes, so why should I base the existence of a child on a GUESS of whether we will be employed in a reasonable job in 12 years when the child starts to cost a far bit more.

It dosen't make sence that we base a decision that will be with us for 18 years on nothing but our present circumstances which could change overnight. My husband was employed when our first was concieved, how did that help us when he was laid off at 16-odd weeks? Why is that situation so different to someone who was unemployed at conceptin, we had just as little ability to pay for the baby at that point as someone unemployed at conception. My husband was unemployed when this baby was concieved, but just in the time between my previous post and this one he has had an opportunity come up that, while not garunteed, he has a great chance at getting. And suddenly that makes it all ok if he gets it, because we can, in theory, afford that child now (for the next few months until something changes again)

You want people not to judge you for continuing to have kids while on welfare, but at the same time you want to judge all those"are on welfare with no intention of ever getting off of it". You know, many many people on welfare who are doing the best they can, trying to get training for a better job, taking whatever work comes along, hoping for a lucky break: they're exactly like you in other words, though they may be a different race or religion.

Some people on welfare may not have the advantages you have, of being able to coherently express themselves as you did in your post. Your written communication indicates that you have benefited from education.

No, I'm saying the guy who used to live next door who spent his days at the beach, and openly bragged about living on benefits and how he had no need to ever work, so why bother bettering himself, just enjoy life and surf, is probably in a different group to people who have plans for themselves. They're a minority, but they exist, and they give everyone else a bad name.

And thank you for your complement on my education, it just so happens I was educated around the dining room table, and never went to college. I hope to teach my children the same communication skills.

[feministxtian]

Umm...whether its now or later...if you can't afford children, you don't have them. Our income has swung from poverty level to upper middle class and back a few times. My children paid when the income dropped. If there had been another baby, that one would have paid too. At some point, it's time to STOP. For example, let's say you're making 50K/yr. You're comfortably supporting your family as it is. THEN...you decide to add baby # whatever. 6 months later, you lose that income and are trying to live on 25K/yr. All the children see their standard of living drop. What would happen if your husband was suddenly no longer able to work? What would happen if he died? Do you have the education and skills to support your family? Is there enough life insurance?

There comes a time to be reasonable. There comes a time to understand that even though you'd love to have more than 2 kids, it's just not economically feasible. I'm not talking about a mcmansion in the 'burbs, the brand new SUV and yearly vacations to Disney. I'm talking safe housing, a running vehicle and enough $ left for a picnic or two. Yes, at one time I did take advantage of food stamps. It was either that or my kids would go hungry. BUT, that lasted all of 2 months...then I got off my duff and SUPPORTED my children, worked my tail off, and improved our situation. Since then...nope. When I remarried, my husband and I had a long talk about more children. We chose to NOT have anymore. Why? Because supporting the ones we had was expensive enough. I would have LOVED to have a couple more babies...honestly. BUT...we chose to not do that to give the ones that were already here the benefit of improving their circumstances.

There's a time to be smart and quit trying to justify things. Dooming children to a life barely at poverty level because of what YOU want is beyond selfish. Remember, they didn't ask to be created/born. You did it. You are the one who will be guilty of not giving them all they could have had if you had quit having children.

[abba12]

First: I am GLAD that the "safety net" exists. Unquestionably glad.

Second: Decades? Really? Children are only children for, at most, 2 "decades". Interesting choice of language.

I stated quite openly at the begining of my post that I am a fundie lurker, so while a single child may span two decades, a family of, say, 10 could easily span 4, which is the context I'm refering to.

Third: Why should you delay your family because of current unemployment? Because it is wise planning. FWIW My own daughter is delaying having a 2nd child because of financial reasons. She still has medical bills to pay from the pregnancy/birth of the first. Her care was not and currently would not be covered by any assistance programs. What is she supposed to do? Arrive at the hospital and be turned away because of the outstanding bill from the first? Not see OBs because she can't pay her significant copay up front? Keep getting behind until she gets kicked out of her house? Delay is WISE PLANNING in some circumstances. Only you can determine what is WISE PLANNING in your circumstances, but what's in you post, well...

I live in Australia so our system is quite different in that regard, no one pays to give birth unless they choose homebirth, we have a public healthcare system for rich and poor, or you can choose to pay for private insurance but something like 70% of Australians are on the public system. I don't know the situation with American healthcare well enough to comment on her position, it sounds scary to me. But that is somewhat different. She is putting off children because of the immediate cost of giving birth, not because of the theoretical cost and potential financial situation of the next 18 years. There's a big difference between her situation, and someone who is insured and debating whether to have their second, third, or further child.

Fourth: You do NOT have any guarantee that your husband is going to get that miracle good job. None. I am living that experience myself. Husband had good job in his field, was forced to "retire" - no income - at age 54. Nearly 6 years later, still working in an "underpaying" job. (I have worked and am still working at my professional job). Gah.

And if my husband currently had a 100k a year job I would have no garuntee that he would still have it when my child is born. Like I said to another poster, my husband was employed when our first was concieved, in a full time position at $30 an hour! There is no garuntees, and that's why the idea of deciding if you can afford a child based on your financial situation at the time of conception is so absurd. We had the financial stability with our first, people said it was 'perfect timing' for a baby, and yet when she actually arrived, she was born into a home completely dependent on welfare. My finances at the time of conception really have nothing to do with whether my baby will be born into a welfare home or not, so why should I not have a child based on such a false indication of whether or not we can 'afford' it.

Here in Australia a huge amount of workers were laid off from Ford, a major car company, without warning. The current ecconomic climate means that those people are unlikely to find work in the same field, the car and general manufacturing industry is moving overseas (this was my husbands original field, we went through this process ourselves years ago) Most are begining the process of retraining for a new field. Suddenly we have a crowd of people, no doubt some of them with young families, looking at spending years on welfare as they attempt to train for and find a new career.

Also, confused by your post's talk about the man losing or getting a job, no reference to the woman losing or getting a job. ??

As I said before, I openly stated at the begining of my post I am a fundie lurker, so I am writing from the perspective of a one income family. I will be at home, homeschooling and raising my children for the forseeable future. I hope to work (very) part time as a doula in the next few years, I'm in the process of writing an ebook, and I dream of one day, when my children are grown, becomming a midwife, but in the forseeable future I will not be working in any 'traditional' employment. It also happens that I am disabled, cutting my employability considerably, but this is a secondary factor. If I were able bodied I might have taken on some part time work, but with such high unemployment rates no one will hire a disabled person unless in a specialised field, which I am not qualified for.

[abba12]

Umm...whether its now or later...if you can't afford children, you don't have them. Our income has swung from poverty level to upper middle class and back a few times. My children paid when the income dropped. If there had been another baby, that one would have paid too. At some point, it's time to STOP. For example, let's say you're making 50K/yr. You're comfortably supporting your family as it is. THEN...you decide to add baby # whatever. 6 months later, you lose that income and are trying to live on 25K/yr. All the children see their standard of living drop. What would happen if your husband was suddenly no longer able to work? What would happen if he died? Do you have the education and skills to support your family? Is there enough life insurance?

There comes a time to be reasonable. There comes a time to understand that even though you'd love to have more than 2 kids, it's just not economically feasible. I'm not talking about a mcmansion in the 'burbs, the brand new SUV and yearly vacations to Disney. I'm talking safe housing, a running vehicle and enough $ left for a picnic or two. Yes, at one time I did take advantage of food stamps. It was either that or my kids would go hungry. BUT, that lasted all of 2 months...then I got off my duff and SUPPORTED my children, worked my tail off, and improved our situation. Since then...nope. When I remarried, my husband and I had a long talk about more children. We chose to NOT have anymore. Why? Because supporting the ones we had was expensive enough. I would have LOVED to have a couple more babies...honestly. BUT...we chose to not do that to give the ones that were already here the benefit of improving their circumstances.

There's a time to be smart and quit trying to justify things. Dooming children to a life barely at poverty level because of what YOU want is beyond selfish. Remember, they didn't ask to be created/born. You did it. You are the one who will be guilty of not giving them all they could have had if you had quit having children.

I'm not debating the number of children, because we will completely disagree on this no matter what, the entire point of this forum is to snark on people who have large families. My husband was one of eight who had everything they needed on one income, I was one of four who lived below the poverty line most the time and wouldn't change it for the word. So I believe we can afford a large family and you do not, no amount of debating will change that.

What I am debating is whether someone currently living off benefits should concieve a child, be it their first, second, third, or whatever.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Umm...whether its now or later...if you can't afford children, you don't have them. Our income has swung from poverty level to upper middle class and back a few times. My children paid when the income dropped. If there had been another baby, that one would have paid too. At some point, it's time to STOP. For example, let's say you're making 50K/yr. You're comfortably supporting your family as it is. THEN...you decide to add baby # whatever. 6 months later, you lose that income and are trying to live on 25K/yr. All the children see their standard of living drop. What would happen if your husband was suddenly no longer able to work? What would happen if he died? Do you have the education and skills to support your family? Is there enough life insurance?

There comes a time to be reasonable. There comes a time to understand that even though you'd love to have more than 2 kids, it's just not economically feasible. I'm not talking about a mcmansion in the 'burbs, the brand new SUV and yearly vacations to Disney. I'm talking safe housing, a running vehicle and enough $ left for a picnic or two. Yes, at one time I did take advantage of food stamps. It was either that or my kids would go hungry. BUT, that lasted all of 2 months...then I got off my duff and SUPPORTED my children, worked my tail off, and improved our situation. Since then...nope. When I remarried, my husband and I had a long talk about more children. We chose to NOT have anymore. Why? Because supporting the ones we had was expensive enough. I would have LOVED to have a couple more babies...honestly. BUT...we chose to not do that to give the ones that were already here the benefit of improving their circumstances.

There's a time to be smart and quit trying to justify things. Dooming children to a life barely at poverty level because of what YOU want is beyond selfish. Remember, they didn't ask to be created/born. You did it. You are the one who will be guilty of not giving them all they could have had if you had quit having children.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[meda]

I'm not debating the number of children, because we will completely disagree on this no matter what, the entire point of this forum is to snark on people who have large families. My husband was one of eight who had everything they needed on one income, I was one of four who lived below the poverty line most the time and wouldn't change it for the word. So I believe we can afford a large family and you do not, no amount of debating will change that.

What I am debating is whether someone currently living off benefits should concieve a child, be it their first, second, third, or whatever.

Actually, for me the point of the forum is to snark on fundamentalist quiver full dominionists who want to create a theocracy. Tha fact than many of them seem to want to breed like rabbits and raise children without basic amenities while flogging them for Jesus is really just smark gravy for me.

[apple1]

@abba12 - Not sure whether you are that clueless, or whether you intentionally twist meanings. But I will say this and stand by it:

You cannot afford the kids you have. Only an extremely unwise person would INTENTIONALLY (emphasis on intentionally) bring more into the world when they cannot afford what they have. As I said before, I am glad for the safety nets. But to intentionally plan to need the safety nets is unwise. Very unwise.

Oh, and my daughter's decision to wait before creating another child is only PARTLY based on healthcare bills. There are plenty of other costs.

And something is being triggered in the back of my brain about your user ID's previous posts. I think I will go look.

[Coconut Flan]

The flaw in the logic is that while you have no guarantee of future income, if your husband is currently unemployed you have absolute knowledge of current lack of income. One can make reasonable guesses or assumptions about the future, but the present is a known. None of us knows what tomorrow will bring, but would I have a child while on public assistance? Never. Would I see it is as less risky while making $100,000 a year with savings in the bank? Absolutely. I'm talking about a reasoned mature decision not an I want what I want when I want it mentality and trying to fuzz the logic to justify myself.

[Witsec7]

And thank you for your complement on my education, it just so happens I was educated around the dining room table, and never went to college. I hope to teach my children the same communication skills.

Then I suggest you teach your children about spell check.

[formergothardite]

Wait, so we have a fundie here who can't afford kids, refuses to go work herself, yet wants to have a whole bunch even though she knows that at this moment she can't afford them? And this is why we snark on fundies. Having kids that you know you can't support is completely different than having kids when you can afford them and then later something happens that causes you to need help from the government.

[Elle]

Taxpayers already do this, we subsidize the familiy's of military, religious, people of either political party. Each of those particular life choices create 'need'.

Our military are sacrificing their lives to protect us. What do those on welfare who keep popping out baby after baby after baby give in return for what they're receiving? We shouldn't be subsidizing religion, and we shouldn't be subsidizing politicians. I think politician pay should be capped at no more than twice the average salary in the US counting ALL perks.

[feministxtian]

Umm...I had/have a large family. 3 bio, 4 step and 1 foster. Nobody's saying anything against a large family, we're saying that if you CANNOT AFFORD IT then don't have one. I would have gone for an even dozen...BUT we could not afford it. Financially, spiritually, emotionally, we could not afford more children. The ones we have about sent me 'round the bend more than once.

They're all grown now and mostly self-supporting. Some realized that they were not ready to have children and have chosen to delay childbearing for that reason. Some are not married and therefore have chosen to not attempt to have children. Some want children and are having trouble concieving. Of the 8 kids, only 2 have children right now. One child and her mate have 4 children. One child and her mate have 2. One child and his girlfriend had an "oops" that is due in November. One child plans to start their family sometime in the near future. One child does not see herself with children for the forseeable future. One is having way too much fun as a college student to even THINK about getting serious with a young lady and having a child. The older children (the first 6 children) are all educated, self-supporting and able to make rational choices. The younger 2...one is expecting his first baby with his girlfriend and the other is having fun. They KNOW they can't afford kids, the one who is going to be a daddy this fall realizes that they messed up and are not ready to have a baby, but when only 1 out of 8 has an "oops", well...mom and dad can help a bit. However, he is on the path of gainful employment and knows that while we may help with the necessities for the new one, we are not going to help them with the things they need to do.

The children did pay when our life crashed down around our ears (during my divorce). They went from middle class, homeschooled, house in the 'burbs to public schools, free lunches, 2nd hand clothes, 3 kids stashed in a 2 bedroom house 1/4 the size of the one they had before. THEY SUFFERED. When my husband and I got married and mingled our families, we discussed having another babe or 2...we were financially MUCH better off, nice house, etc. BUT...my fear of losing it all again kept me from getting pregnant. The kids gained back most of their former lifestyle (except for the homeschooling, I'd worked to finish my education and could make a good living w/o my husband).

But...answer the other questions...are YOU able to support your family if need be? Do you have the skills to get a decent paying job? Its all fine, well and good to be a SAHM, but realize that stuff happens...where YOU might end up having to support your family. I never thought it would happen to me, but it did. I was the good little homeschooling, fairly-fundie SAHM who had nothing more than a high school diploma. Then...BAM...now X husband decided to toss me and the kids out like yesterday's garbage. It took a couple of years of working lousy jobs and going to school to be able to make a living wage to support myself and my kids.

Now, I'm essentially unemployed again. IF I'd had more kids, I'd still have young teens at home and they'd be living in the stressful situation of praying I can find another job and we're able to make the mortgage payment this month. Umm...no. Not fair to the kids. It sucks bad enough that I had to quit working full time due to my mother's final illness, there's no way I could have coped with another tween or teen during that time.

Part of parenting is PLANNING for the future. Admittedly there are always unknowns and the future is never certain. BUT...that alone is enough to be smart about limiting one's family size. If you don't have a guaranteed bank account or a trust fund, then be reasonable. Don't go starting little ones who WILL suffer during the bad times. No. Don't do it.

[emmiedahl]

Actually, for me the point of the forum is to snark on fundamentalist quiver full dominionists who want to create a theocracy. Tha fact than many of them seem to want to breed like rabbits and raise children without basic amenities while flogging them for Jesus is really just snark gravy for me.

Exactly.

I have a large family so I am not snarking on that. And I get public assistance, so no snark there. But if I decided to conceive another child in this situation, that would be so snark-worthy that I would be making fun of myself.

abba, deciding to not have children today is not an 18 year decision. You can get pregnant next year, after you see whether things are going to look up for your family any time soon. Especially considering that you have no intention or possibly ability to work if your family needs it. My ability and willingness to work (much like the Proverbs 31 woman) is what has kept a roof over our heads for the past few years.

[Elle]

Why shouldn't people have children while receiving assistance ? Having children should not be determined by your economic class, and I would sure as hell rather my taxes go to paying for housing and food stamps and health care than to kill people in some idiotic war, or jail people for drug offenses.

Because someone else is paying for it, that's why. It's irresponsible and SELFISH to have kids just because you want them when you can't afford to raise them on your own. The system can not be sustained much longer with the way things are going, far too few people aging in for the huge numbers taking out. Part of being a responsible adult is having to say no to getting something you want when you know you can't afford it on your own. While you have the right to have kids if you want them since it's your body, that doesn't mean it's right or moral to have the if you know you are going to have to take money from the labor of others to support what you wanted to do.