[Bluestar]

I already stated that I have no problem paying taxes for welfare for those who DESERVE it. Of course, I would take issue with my tax money going to those who ABUSE the system, those who abuse the system and as a result are stealing money from those who again, DESERVE it.

Again, of course anyone with an ounce of compassion would but why are those people being selfish and irresponsible by having children that they can't afford in the first place. That's the point Timbit. Having children that you can't afford. Instead of sitting there ****ing and making babies, they should be busy looking for ways to better themselves, their situation, and their country.

Did I even indirectly hint that those who have children then become poor are abusing the system? No. There's no need to exaggerate. What I did in fact say was, "this also applies to people who continue to have children while on welfare" Keyword being: continue. How does one live on welfare and continue having children? Please explain that to me.


shadha-

You would have loved Thatcher. That's quite scary.

I want to be poor when i have children, kids get everything they like and more and grow up taking every thing and everyday for granted. That's not the way to bring up children.

What you said before, that was not nice. Are you trying to say poor people don't deserve to have children? They don't deserve to hold their own kin in their hands? That's only a privilege for the rich? Bull!

Why should people work entirely for their country? No country is just or fair, anybody who gives their life to their country's economy should know that's a life wasted. That country doesn't care about you, one individual means nothing to them, yet you're one individual to your kids and you could be everything to them. Don't question why people have loads of kids when they can't afford it, that's none of your business. If you don't pay tax to them, you're probably going to be paying tax to "help" some country that your country has bombed.

Sorry Shadha, but you're still young and a lot of things you say reflects the age that you're at. You may not have been in a social position where you have truly experienced life being poor. Thank God for that, don't question whether or not they have the right to have children because that just ain't right.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by shadha

Ibn: Since when was there ever any explicit or implicit belief or widely-held opinion that people on welfare shouldn't have anymore kids until they're off welfare?

Without welfare, are they able to provide for those children?

Why should the rest of the state foot the bill for that family to continue to have children that they can't provide for?

Its not like they're getting a free ride. Welfare is for those people that live below the poverty line. They may have a job, but [for example] at minimum wage with part-time hours, they are below the poverty line and therefore potentially eligible to receive assistance from the State.

What you are advocating, it seems, is putting a limit on how much State financial assistance welfare recipients can receive in regards to their children, but such a limiter already exists - in most places once the kid reaches either 16 or 18 years of age, they are no longer eligible for welfare.

As for the State footing the bill for social services, that's what taxes are partially for. Redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. The concerns you're talking about have already been taken into account by economic and budget plans long in advance, and nowhere in North America have I seen any kind of government put a limit on how many kids one can have, if they're on welfare. That kind of limit would create a greater disadvantage - denying society the chance to develop these kids into model citizens that would become educated and strengthen the nation in countless ways.

Ibn: What if one of those kids grows up to not only pull his house outta welfare, but to help out the community and countless others? What if that kid grows up to be someone good for the world?

And what if that kid grows up to be a criminal? What is your point?

My point is that developed societies already have checks and balances in place to deter criminal behaviors and encourage more productive pursuits. The probability of a kid growing up and benefiting society, and the amount of people that would benefit in particular, far outweighs the probability of a kid growing up, becoming a criminal and the amount of people he or she may possibly put at disadvantage.

Ergo, its much more desirable for society to let kids from welfare families go through the same educational process as kids from non-welfare families have gone through, and to give them the same opportunities as everyone else - as opposed to any minuscule financial benefit that society might enjoy by putting limits on how many kids poor families can have.

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Its not like they're getting a free ride. Welfare is for those people that live below the poverty line. They may have a job, but [for example] at minimum wage with part-time hours, they are below the poverty line and therefore potentially eligible to receive assistance from the State.

Even with full-time hours at minimum wage, a surprisin number of people can't afford shelter and food both.

Again, of course anyone with an ounce of compassion would but why are those people being selfish and irresponsible by having children that they can't afford in the first place. That's the point Timbit. Having children that you can't afford. Instead of sitting there ****ing and making babies, they should be busy looking for ways to better themselves, their situation, and their country.

I don't even wanna know what word you were using that got censored. Being vulgar and sensationalizing things is not going to help you make your point though.

Anyway, if you're just talking about people on welfare in America, then go ahead. Become a politician in your country and help to implement the policies you think are best. I wish you luck.

I got the impression you were talking about people in developing countries though 'cause of your comment about the rest of the world having to make sure that children born into poverty survive. The rest of the world doesn't tend to do much of anything about poverty though, so I dunno where that's coming from. Has reducing poverty or child poverty ever been a priority for anybody?

Most people are indifferent to the huge gap between the privileged and the poor actually, or like you, they mouth off about their tax money being wasted and blame the poor for being poor, without actually knowing or caring much about the structural reasons why poverty exists.

And in any case, if you're poor, your life doesn't stop. You survive. Life goes on and you get married and have sex and have kids and work hard so that their life will be better.

[shadha]

Bluestar: What you said before, that was not nice. Are you trying to say poor people don't deserve to have children? They don't deserve to hold their own kin in their hands? That's only a privilege for the rich? Bull!

Again, I said, if you cannot afford to have a child then you should not have a child.

Bluestar: Don't question why people have loads of kids when they can't afford it, that's none of your business. If you don't pay tax to them, you're probably going to be paying tax to "help" some country that your country has bombed.

So it’s not of my business how children are forced to grow up? So, with that logic, people should not be concerned with worldly issues. We should not care if children overseas are being sold off, for it’s none of our business, right?

Bluestar: Sorry Shadha, but you're still young and a lot of things you say reflects the age that you're at. You may not have been in a social position where you have truly experienced life being poor. Thank God for that, don't question whether or not they have the right to have children because that just ain't right.

Sorry Bluestar, but I have already held this conversation with more than two dozen people ranging from the ages of 18-55+ and none of them agree that people who can’t afford children should have children, but nice try though.

Ibn: Its not like they're getting a free ride. Welfare is for those people that live below the poverty line. They may have a job, but [for example] at minimum wage with part-time hours, they are below the poverty line and therefore potentially eligible to receive assistance from the State.

It’s about responsibility and accountability. That is what I am arguing for. One does NOT have responsibility or accountability if they become burdens on society by continuing to have children that they can’t afford, hence putting the financial responsibility of their children on others.

And yes, unfortunately I know many people who are abusing the system and getting a “free ride” out of it. Muslims are not excluded from this either. The most infamous example being that they are pimping the ‘Din by demanding their supposed ‘right’ to have multiple wives, they have multiple children, and everyone is on welfare from the start. Is that Islamic? What is the difference between that and having children you can’t afford? There is none.

Bottom line- it is disgustingly selfish and highly irresponsible, to believe that you are entitled to procreate and then depend on the rest of society to take the financial responsibility for your children, hence becoming a burden on society and expecting society to pay for that which you yourself can’t afford.

Timbit: Has reducing poverty or child poverty ever been a priority for anybody?

So let’s compound manners by having even more children eh? If you are already in a proven stricken state, why then would you willingly bring another innocent participate into the situation? Again, what sense does that make?

Timbit: Most people are indifferent to the huge gap between the privileged and the poor actually, or like you, they mouth off about their tax money being wasted and blame the poor for being poor, without actually knowing or caring much about the structural reasons why poverty exists.

No. Again, incorrect. In regards to tax money going to welfare, how many times must I repeat? People who need welfare- fine- people who are abusing the welfare system- not oki. It doesn’t take much to understand the distinction between the two.

In regards to people overseas- here’s a novel concept, you’re not going to reduce child poverty by adding children to the mix. Has it been working for them thus far? Didn’t think so.


It is nothing less than amazing to me, that you three are actually fighting for a person to have a child that they can’t afford. Baffling even. Let me ask- who will take care of that child if the parents themselves can’t afford the child? Who? If you’re going to answer any of my questions, please answer this one first.


shadha-

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by shadha

Again, I said, if you cannot afford to have a child then you should not have a child.

Do you think the Prophet Muhammed S was told that when he tied stones around his stomach because he didn't have enough food to feed himself? Having children is not about what materials you can give them.

So it’s not of my business how children are forced to grow up? So, with that logic, people should not be concerned with worldly issues. We should not care if children overseas are being sold off, for it’s none of our business, right?

Having children to sell them off and having children because you want a child of your own to love are two very different things Shadha.

Sorry Bluestar, but I have already held this conversation with more than two dozen people ranging from the ages of 18-55+ and none of them agree that people who can’t afford children should have children, but nice try though.

well done, give yourself a pat on the back. you must be right.

You have no idea what you're talking about, no idea about the depth of human emotions and the unpredictability of one's social status. Were you born with a silver spoon in your mouth or is it just natural for you to be so arrogant?

[shadha]

Bluestar: Do you think the Prophet Muhammed S was told that when he tied stones around his stomach because he didn't have enough food to feed himself? Having children is not about what materials you can give them.

I never said materials-- I said, food, shelter, clean water, etc.

Bluestar: Having children to sell them off and having children because you want a child of your own to love are two very different things Shadha.

So it's out of love to have a child that you can't provide food, shelter or clean water for?

Oh and you conveniently forgot to answer my most important question, so out of the kindness of my heart I will repost it for you: "...who will take care of that child if the parents themselves can’t afford the child? Who?"


shadha-

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by shadha

I never said materials-- I said, food, shelter, clean water, etc.

None of those have to cost money in a western society. Shelter and water are provided by the council, unemployment benefit and income support help people financially. As for those who may live in extremely impoverished countries where no welfare is given out at all...just another reason why we should give to charity, so we can help them live the life they want as well. As for whether they should be allowed to have children or not, perhaps you should be focussing more on the lines of getting support out to them than protesting that they deserve not to have children.

Oh and you conveniently forgot to answer my most important question, so I will repost it for you: "...who will take care of that child if the parents themselves can’t afford the child? Who?"

obviously not you.

[Arabesque]

Shadha:

Maybe - and I could be wrong - people give zakaah for exactly that purpose. We're supposed to be a community that takes care of each other. It may seem unfair at first, but if you think about it, Allah is fair to all - rich and poor.

Allah may not give the poor enough money to take care of themselves, but He had promised them to sustain them and their children. Of course that doesn't mean it's going to be Maryam-Zakariya style, which is why we are required to pay zakaah and give charity.

[shadha]

Bluestar: obviously not you.

Don't have an answer, eh?

That's oki though. I knew you wouldn't.

Arabesque: Maybe - and I could be wrong - people give zakaah for exactly that purpose. We're supposed to be a community that takes care of each other. It may seem unfair at first, but if you think about it, Allah is fair to all - rich and poor.
Allah may not give the poor enough money to take care of themselves, but He had promised them to sustain them and their children. Of course that doesn't mean it's going to be Maryam-Zakariya style, which is why we are required to pay zakaah and give charity.

Oh no, I totally agree with and support and encourage zakat. It's a beautiful concept MashaAllah. In all honesty, it is one of my favorite aspects of Islam.

My only issue is people who continue to have children that they can't afford. Just as you shouldn't have a second wife if you can't afford her, I believe you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them. I stick with the question I asked, "...who will take care of that child if the parents themselves can’t afford the child?"


shadha-

[Aryan_]

All poor people should be sterilised. I'm sick of seeing my taxes being used to help "poor" people buy iPods and £130 nike trainers.

Having children when you can't afford them is child abuse.

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by shadha

Don't have an answer, eh?

That was my answer, you're just not intelligent enough to understand it. That's patronising of me, just how it's patronising of you to believe people who don't have money shouldn't have children and yes, i hope it pisses you off

My only issue is people who continue to have children that they can't afford. Just as you shouldn't have a second wife if you can't afford her, I believe you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.

People aren't bought. Glad you have such a high estimation of yourself though, hope your fiance got a receipt.

[shadha]

Bluestar, lol, why would I be pissed off that you can't provide the answer?


shadha-

[onetspvanilla]

i honestly dont see why everyone is attacking shadha for suggesting that people not continue having babies after they can't afford THE ONES THEY HAVE. meaning they already have children to love and take care of and blah blah blah. why have more that you cant afford?
it's not that heartless of a concept... everyone is just having knee-jerk reactions unfortunately. have sex, use protection, if you get pregnant, yes obviously keep it and love it etc, but you shouldn't actively be trying if you know that child will be brought up in poverty/welfare.