Should people have children if they can't afford it?

[ReligiousGirl]

I have a friend that when we meet up, we always end up talking about a fairly controversial issue and often can never agree on them.

This came up yesterday as we were watching a programme on a family on welfare benefits with 11 children who were saying that the government were not helping them enough to look after the children and buy what they need.

What are your views? Should the government/ general public be in the position to pay for this?

 

[keith99]

My thought is it is too bad that the fate of the children cannot be separated from that of the parents. If mommy and daddy won't work let them starve. But far too often the kids suffer first and worst.

 

[Hetta]

Perhaps they are too poor to afford birth control. Love is one of the few things that is (generally speaking) free.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Perhaps they are too poor to afford birth control.

If being poor doesn't justify robbing somebody, then it doesn't justify aborting pregnancy either.

Anyway, you should take a look at the origin of birth control and it really just hurt women. The pill was seen, sadly, as the actual remedy to female liberation on all fronts, and it backfired on them.

 

[Hetta]

If being poor doesn't justify robbing somebody, then it doesn't justify aborting pregnancy either.

Contraception =/= abortion.

 

[Hetta]

Anyway, you should take a look at the origin of birth control and it really just hurt women. The pill was seen, sadly, as the actual remedy to female liberation on all fronts, and it backfired on them.

Why does it seem that you enjoy the idea of something backfiring on women? Contraceptives never hurt me. Multiple pregnancies might have killed me. The death rate of women during pregnancy and childbirth, and the deaths of women at young ages due to multiple pregnancies have decreased hugely, and this is a good thing.

 

[ReligiousGirl]

Love is one of the few things that is (generally speaking) free.

It is. Though bringing a new life into the world requires some form of financial ability.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Contraception =/= abortion.

Not being responsible enough to not get pregnant when you can't afford birth control and getting an abortion = abortion. Nice distracting from the point.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Why does it seem that you enjoy the idea of something backfiring on women? Contraceptives never hurt me. Multiple pregnancies might have killed me. The death rate of women during pregnancy and childbirth, and the deaths of women at young ages due to multiple pregnancies have decreased hugely, and this is a good thing.

Women wanted 'liberation' and then had to turn back around and demand aid from men to continue such. Birth control didn't do anything except make women gravely irresponsible of the fact that they are women and rue being born with a uterus.

I do sort of enjoy the idea of something backfiring on women, being that men are so attacked and indoctrinated into a false concept that women essentially be as much like men as they can while men be as so as women. I don't like the idea of men being told there is something intrinsically wrong with them and not women when it is clearly the opposite if one wants to go there.

 

[pakicetus]

I have a friend that when we meet up, we always end up talking about a fairly controversial issue and often can never agree on them.

This came up yesterday as we were watching a programme on a family on welfare benefits with 11 children who were saying that the government were not helping them enough to look after the children and buy what they need.

What are your views? Should the government/ general public be in the position to pay for this?

I have two responses:

1. At least here in America, "welfare moms with 11 children" is just a toxic stereotype; it's not the norm. The average family on welfare includes 1.8 kids, not 9 or 10 or 11.

2. No one should have children they can't afford to raise. I think most people agree on that. But it's often confused with the idea that if you do have children you can't afford, the government should just abandon them even if they need help. That is a sick idea. In my opinion, any society that's so obsessed with "blame" that it prefers letting children grow up in horrible conditions to helping out people who did something irresponsible—just because we feel superior to people who made their mistakes instead of ours—is just insane.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you cannot afford them do NOT have them. If you have to "keep it in your pants".

 

[timewerx]

What are your views? Should the government/ general public be in the position to pay for this?

I'm already 34 and still got no kids, not even a GF just to be sure. I don't think I could afford to give even just one child a nice life which is why I stayed single.

If I can't give them a nice life, then I won't have kids. I can't take those chances even if they may likely turn out to be fine, but what if they don't?? I don't want to play dice with children.

 

[cineplus]

It's a question of gov quality. I live in Switzerland, and here the gov pays more than 300 bucks for every child. And if you can't afford the sanity bill it helps there too. So you can have as many children you want without problems. This has always been that way, even before Switzerland was a rich country, so it's not a matter of richness, but a matter of priorities of the state.

 

[RDKatz]

In America, the more children you have the more welfare money you get. I am told that this is a possible reason for having many children.

 

[Timdaniel]

I have a friend that when we meet up, we always end up talking about a fairly controversial issue and often can never agree on them.

This came up yesterday as we were watching a programme on a family on welfare benefits with 11 children who were saying that the government were not helping them enough to look after the children and buy what they need.

What are your views? Should the government/ general public be in the position to pay for this?

No, they should not have children. Period.

 

[Mohamad Al-zawahreh]

This is what the Qur'an has to say
"And do not kill your children for fear of poverty: We give them sustenance and yourselves (too): surely to kill them is a great wrong." (17:31)

"...And do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty -- We provide for you and for them --- and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice: this He has enjoined you with that you may understand." (6:151)

Now the meaning that can be gleaned from this verse is that, money is never an issue. To put your trust in Allah.

Essentially, having children is a gateway in of itself to more wealth, as is getting married in the first place according to this verse:

Chapter (24) sūrat l-nūr (The Light)


Sahih International: And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.


The conclusion we reach is that, we should not refuse ourselves and our children marriage, to complete our faith - and that we should not avoid having children, because regardless of what we do (in attempt to prevent) Allah will give us a child If He wills. So it is better not to avoid.

Money is essentially, unimportant in the grand scheme of things - because Allah Has made for all of us a set bounty that He gives, If we strive to satisfy our obligations to Him and our families. We will never find ourselves short.

And for those who do find themselves struggling, read this verse

Surah Al-Ankabut Verse 2

Sahih International
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried?

and I end with this prayer inside this verse.

Sahih International
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned. "Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people."


I believe you can find the equivalent of these verses in the Bible, I am merely giving the response in my holy book for a question directed at Christianity, I understand that these are two different religions - but I believe the similarities are enough that we can share the wisdom among ourselves. Feel free to delete this post If you find it out of place. However I hope you are able to take the verses to heart. As they are truly words of wisdom.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, they should not have children. Period.

thank you I mean if you already have children and "life happens" then that is one thing.

 

[pakicetus]

In America, the more children you have the more welfare money you get. I am told that this is a possible reason for having many children.

Who is telling you that? Did you hear it from a sociologist or a political scientist? Like I said earlier, the average family on welfare includes 1.8 children, which seems pretty normal to me. It certainly isn't "many children."

 

[C8-@]

As far as I am aware God hasn't revoked His first commandment! I.e. Go forth and multiply and fill the earth etc. If He has then as a father of 4 now we didn't get the memo.

The Bible also tells us that children are a gift from the Lord and blessed is the man (including woman) whose quiver is full of them and no matter how empty my wallet may be my heart never is!

Should we not have them if we can't afford them? The world will tell us YES and condemn us as being irresponsible if we think otherwise, but we all belong to God, He has a plan and purpose for each and every one of us so who are we to determine this?

Also if you are a believer we are told to consider the lilies of the field and the birds of the air who neither toil nor reap and God provides all their needs. The same applies to us regardless of how many mouths we have to feed. Everything belongs to Him and He gives freely.

Jacob had 12 sons and who knows how many daughters, grandkids etc. and God fed them all in Egypt during a famine thanks to his 11th son Joseph! Imagine if he had decided to stop at 2 or 4 or 10 just because the world around him told him he was being irresponsible having so many kids. They'd all have perished and along with them the 12 tribes of Israel!

Egypt was their welfare state but only because God made it so through Joseph an 11th child. So let the rich feed the poor when necessary because they are only rich by God's hand not their own anyway (no matter what their arrogance may tell them)!

As for me and my house I have a good job (for now) praise God and we pay our way, but we also receive money from the government for our children, money I have paid in taxes over the years and continue to do so. We take out no more than we pay in and my children will pay for my state pension when I am older. So let's not throw our babies out with their bath water and forget that with an ever aging population our future depends on them!

The question shouldn't be if WE can afford them it should be can God afford them? The answer of course is YES. The problem is not one of affordability it is one of greed as too few have too much and too many have too little! God has provided sufficient resources, more than enough for all but our distribution methods are crooked and morally indefensible which is why Jesus said the poor will always be with us even unto the end of the age!

No, we shouldn't stop having kids! That is Satan's agenda! He hates humans because God created and loves us! He's already got us believing that contraception and abortion are acceptable and now he wants to cull us due to finances? Another fine example of money being the root of all evil!

 

[Hetta]

nm