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

[dogs4thewin]

I have NOTHING in and of myself! It ALL comes from God! I was born with nothing and will die with nothing! Which part of this does not compute?

I explained to you what I meant when I said that. I understand what you are saying in a SPIRTUAL sense.

 

[DavidFMayerPhD]

It is immoral to bring children into the world for OTHERS to support.

The World is grossly overcrowded with children conceived by parents who were irresponsible enough to procreate in the absence of the wherewithal to support them. It is time that evil practice be abolished. If you can't afford them, don't get pregnant. It is that simple.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It is immoral to bring children into the world for OTHERS to support.

The World is grossly overcrowded with children conceived by parents who were irresponsible enough to procreate in the absence of the wherewithal to support them. It is time that evil practice be abolished. If you can't afford them, don't get pregnant. It is that simple.

thank you. We are all sexual beings, but we also were given a brain to know we should control it and we should have the self control to do so.

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

me?

No. I was quoting C8-@ when I asked that question.

 

[C8-@]

How many children have you adopted?

None! And you?

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

None! And you?

Who then are you preaching to when you don't lead by example?
Judging others opinions, which is all that can be afforded here in the question posed by the OP. And yet an opinion that judges others for not having children, not condemning birth control and abortion, and that admits it also isn't preaching about adoption by example, sends its own kind of message to the subject.

 

[C8-@]

It is immoral to bring children into the world for OTHERS to support.

The World is grossly overcrowded with children conceived by parents who were irresponsible enough to procreate in the absence of the wherewithal to support them. It is time that evil practice be abolished. If you can't afford them, don't get pregnant. It is that simple.

Give me scripture and verse to substantiate this view and I will concede.

I have already stated in previous posts that those who act irresponsibly will be held to account for their actions but no child, regardless of parental morality, is a mistake and it is equally immoral and evil to deny them the right to exist based on this premise!

 

[dogs4thewin]

None! And you?

Give me scripture and verse to substantiate this view and I will concede.

I have already stated in previous posts that those who act irresponsibly will be held to account for their actions but no child, regardless of parental morality, is a mistake and it is equally immoral and evil to deny them the right to exist based on this premise!

so people should just have children because supposedly no child is a mistake, yet there is an easy way to NOT have children that you cannot properly care for?

 

[C8-@]

Who then are you preaching to when you don't lead by example?
Judging others opinions, which is all that can be afforded here in the question posed by the OP. And yet an opinion that judges others for not having children, not condemning birth control and abortion, and that admits it also isn't preaching about adoption by example, sends its own kind of message to the subject.

You declined to answer the question yourself and God will judge whether or not I have led by example! Adoption is not the only means by which to support and provide for children that are not your own. I am not judging others for not having children, that is a personal choice between the individual and their creator. I am pro life in all its forms and beleive (for my sins it would appear) that God is too! I do not see any biblical evidence to support birth control, abortion, compulsory contraception, sterilisation or anything else! It frustrates me that other Christians cannot see this and I apologise if my zeal has caused you or anyone else offence!

 

[C8-@]

so people should just have children because supposedly no child is a mistake, yet there is an easy way to NOT have children that you cannot properly care for?

No people should have children because they want them and love them and not because they're a source of income, meal ticket or otherwise! Unfortunately we live in a fallen world and so these things do happen, it is the result of sin but it does not negate God's primary directive! It is for Him to sort out, not us with our medical interventions and moral high ground!

 

[dogs4thewin]

No people should have children because they want them and love them and not because they're a source of income, meal ticket or otherwise! Unfortunately we live in a fallen world and so these things do happen, it is the result of sin but it does not negate God's primary directive! It is for Him to sort out, not us with our medical interventions and moral high ground!

If you want children and can take care of them great, BUT God also expects to do our part and part of that is to live within our means and part of that is not having dependents you cannot afford.

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

I'm pro-life also. This means I respect what others choose to do with theirs. I am answerable only to my own and as such would not permit anyone to decide what I do with my body. Therein I return the respect.

No worries either, you did not offend me with your personal opinion. That is all any of us can offer here. Our actions speak for themselves in truth and off-line.

You declined to answer the question yourself and God will judge whether or not I have led by example! Adoption is not the only means by which to support and provide for children that are not your own. I am not judging others for not having children, that is a personal choice between the individual and their creator. I am pro life in all its forms and beleive (for my sins it would appear) that God is too! I do not see any biblical evidence to support birth control, abortion, compulsory contraception, sterilisation or anything else! It frustrates me that other Christians cannot see this and I apologise if my zeal has caused you or anyone else offence!

 

[KWCrazy]

It's a question of gov quality. I live in Switzerland, and here the gov pays more than 300 bucks for every child.

You mean the taxpayers pay it. Governments don't generate wealth, only take it and re-distribute it.

So you can have as many children you want without problems.

Do you believe as a matter of general principle that your neighbors should pay for your life choices?

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.

I think the Swiss history is rather unique in that with their resolve to stay out of Europe's wars they've had to maintain a level of strength that makes having children, especially males, a matter of national security.

 

[C8-@]

If you want children and can take care of them great, BUT God also expects to do our part and part of that is to live within our means and part of that is not having dependents you cannot afford.

We are going round in circles and I have addressed the point of affordability several times now!

I have made my position clear on this matter and hope it has been helpful to the OP regardless of their own opinions.

I will now concede to those who wish to limit God and place restrictions on His creation for whatever reason and justification and will not post on this thread again!

 

[Sammy-San]

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?

Define "afford"? Aren't children automatically supported by living in their parents households and their parents giving them food?

 

[KWCrazy]

Define "afford"? Aren't children automatically supported by living in their parents households and their parents giving them food?

It USED TO be that parents were responsible for their children. Now, apparently, it takes a village.

 

[Sammy-San]

It USED TO be that parents were responsible for their children. Now, apparently, it takes a village.

Are you talking about poor neighborhoods, or in general?

 

[malvina]

Women are not dying in childbirth like they used to. There is more risk from dying from pregnancy related complications than from birth control related complications.

But what about all the poor little kids being born with problems never heard of in my day

 

[Soma Seer]

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."

I watched a video of a news report in which a "mother" of 15 children--several of whom already had been removed from her "care"--said something to the effect of, 'Someone needs to pay to take care of ALL these children.' I'm not saying that she represents the majority of people with many children, but, boy, did her attitude leave a sour taste in my mouth. Actually, it quite infuriated me, the fact that she thinks she has the right to birth so many kids--by multiple men, btw--and expects taxpayers to foot the bill.

 

[BrotherRickG]

This is an interesting question. The problem with our carnal hearts is trying to see the future and if said children will be saint or a demon followers. Remember that throughout all of history people have been trying to figure out who is worth keeping or who should be sacrificed. Fortunately for us we do not have that decision to make. I say all children that are born are worth giving a chance to. I would rather spend money raising a child through government intervention than spending $40,000,000 on a gas station in Libya. The other portion of that question is why have we allowed our government to start being the facilitator of child care and taking it away from the churches and the kind hearted? There wasn’t a real problem until the government decided to make it financially fulfilling for mothers to stay single and bear more children. Just think if they changed the rules and gave bonuses to the mothers that married the father of their children and the fathers got a job!!! And to expand on my own thought: gave the family a lump sum after they became self supportive. Then they would be banned from social services for X amount of time or unless there was a death of one or the other spouse and the children were still under the age of 18…mmmmm