[IbnMardhiyah]

You're right.

My bubble is little, indeed. Compared to your bubble of overhauling the entire social services paradigm of society, dang, my bubble just doesn't stand a chance.

Carry on.

[shadha]

Ibn: Compared to your bubble of overhauling the entire social services paradigm of society, dang, my bubble just doesn't stand a chance.

It would be ridiculous to believe that you can drastically change one part of the government without changing another.

zakk, I was never trying to force anyone to share my views. As I have said/asked from the first post, I don't understand how people can continue to have children if they can't afford it? What do you want me to provide proof of?


shadha-

[IbnMardhiyah]

Personally I don't think the issue is serious enough to warrant even attempting such massive changes, but if that's how you feel - good luck.

[shadha]

Ibn: Personally I don't think the issue is serious enough to warrant even attempting such massive changes, but if that's how you feel - good luck.

Poverty not being a serious issue? Our ridiculous welfare system not being a serious issue? Our dismal level of education, which indeed correlates to poverty/welfare/crime, in this country not being a serious issue? I'm sorry but there are many contributing factors of poverty [as well as crime] in this country and unfortunately they are being overlooked or just plainly ignored.


shadha-

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Why not? Having children is not essential, that's a backwards third world mentality.

No, not really, some women feel it is extremely necessary for them. You're noone to suggest that they have a backward mentality, they're just very maternal women.

I bet it pays enough to put you in the richest 10% of the world's population. If it doesn't, get a job that pays better.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

umm, no and no, like i said, our aims are different.

I suppose this thread ties in to the notion of 'I'. If you think the 'I' is predominant over all other creatures then yes, you won't like to give money to those who need it but don't tie in with your own mindset. Peoples whose actions you can't explain or make sense of, or even those who you might see with a critical eye (the two aren't really different). As opposed to people, who don't place emphasis on monetary value.

Originally Posted by Variable

... I wasn't

Originally Posted by Variable

I think it's a pretty valid question. If you're going to decide to have kids without getting your own life in order first, maybe blame the kids and beat them up a little for being a burden, and not give them any semblance of a chance in life - why on Earth would you have had them in the first place?

By the time these children reach adulthood, being brought up in an environment devoid support of any kind and carrying deep wounds, they're ready to find a mate and continue the whole process all over again. I know I'm focusing more on the abuse of the children here and Shadha's posts have seemed more directed at the welfare side of it, but I think they're closely linked.

you linked poverty to violence in families assuming that most families which breed violence are poor. Yet, it could easily be argued that (a) that is not true since research can not fully intercept in private family matters and so what we know of it, does not form a full picture or (b) some people may exert different forms of violence on their family members, but it's only poor families which exhibit in a way which is noticeable.

But i agree that people shouldn't have children until they feel mentally ready and aware of what may come. Having a kid is sometimes a thankless task, people have to be ready for it. That just comes from seeing mothers not being one so i may be wrong.

Originally Posted by shadha

Poverty not being a serious issue? Our ridiculous welfare system not being a serious issue? Our dismal level of education, which indeed correlates to poverty/welfare/crime, in this country not being a serious issue? I'm sorry but there are many contributing factors of poverty [as well as crime] in this country and unfortunately they are being overlooked or just plainly ignored.


shadha-

Poverty isn't related to the lack of education anymore. Globalisation has made education free and easy to access. Qualifications still cost but the responsibility to find knowledge has always lay on an individual, having money can make that search easier, but not having it does not make it impossible to attain. If there's a lack of drive for education, that's changing values to blame.

[LEGALEAGLE]

I think we're missing the enormous push that population increase has given to technological development

To be satisfied with the status quo is to vegetate...

[Sharmaynia]

Originally Posted by shadha

Ibn: Tax is a part of every civilized society, and part of tax is used to support social services. Everyone knows this and understands this. Those poor people also give back to society, but it doesn't HAVE to be commensurate with what society is giving to them in the first place, because then you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

As I said before, I have no problem with taxes that go towards social services. Yes, society is about building itself up together, in your words collective strength, however, it is not collective strength when there is an abuse of the system. Is there much that can be done about it? Yes, however, that means that many other aspects of the government/law will have to be changed. Many. Unlike myself, not everyone is willing for that to be done, hence why the systems continue to be misused, either by abuse or not reaching those who need it.

Mossad: And yes, the entire tone you've been using to describe poor people has been negative, including that comment above. You are looking down on them just by presuming that its appropriate for you to judge when they should or shouldnt have children. You look down on them by dismissing or invalidating all of the multitude of motives that they may have for having children. You look down on them by portraying them as irresponsible for having children, etc etc etc. Pretty much everything you've written in this topic

Yes, I do believe it is irresponsible to have children that you can't afford. Now, if some are offended by that, I'm sorry but that's what I believe. I am in the same category I speak of [our parents wealth is not our wealth]- desiring children but not being able to afford children. If I wanted to, yeah I could have a child or children, but that would mean that the state would have to burden the expense [or that we both would just be working extreme hours etc, but roll with me]. I won't do that. I believe that there are other families out there who 'deserve' the money more than I do, and that I shouldn't take from them when I can prevent it.

Now, if it ends up that there comes a point, InshaAllah, when we can afford children and we do have children but God forbid, we are later put into a situation where we can not meet our financial needs. Then as Ibn said, the collective society concept will come into play. Bringing those who are down up. But while I'm down, I would not further complicate matters by having more children. That is the point I have been making from the start. Taking responsibility and accountability.

Life does go on yes, but not everyone shares the same luxuries. Having a child is a luxury. With children comes responsibilities and I do not believe it is just to intentionally push those responsibilities onto others.

Yes, we should always turn to Allah, swt, but we should also exercise commonsense with our actions. One day we can be rich, not even the next day but rather the next moment we can be poor. Allahu Alim, either way we shouldn't stab ourselves in the foot and hand.


shadha-

Shadha, I agree with you completely. Awesome post, m'A.

[MoonStar]

Whether you planned to have the kid or not, the child will end up in foster care and the parent charged with neglect if you can't provide basic care/necessities. Unless you have family who can help you out, assuming they're able to help you out. Or if you're in a third world country your child will end up working at a very young age. So keeping your finances in mind sounds good. And just having a lot of kids without thinking about time/money spent on the child will just result in neglected kids with problems, how many times do we read about kids (usually with teen mothers and no fathers around) in the paper who died from neglect/were abused by boyfriends/left alone/fell out of a window/left alone in bathtubs and drowned/were starved/abandoned to the grandparents/etc.

[Bluestar]

It's not the fact that they're poorer that determines whether children go out scumming around though. If you really study their behaviour, it's their attitude which they pass on. There are plenty of people who have grown up poor but have helped their parents through it and understood the true concept of poverty because their parents have brought them up with values of love and sacrifice.

Those children who bum around with no jobs, havent grown up with the same values. It's the VALUES which are detrimental, not the financial status of the family.

I was visiting a group of friends last night and asked them this question out of curiousity. All of them agreed noone had the right to inhibit poor people having children or trying to persuade them they didn't have that priveledge because they couldn't be financially self-sustaining. Alhamdulillah, i have good friends.

[SaidAbdullahofDarfur]

Originally Posted by Caramel_Candy

Poor people having lots of kids = free money from the government

Wow...

You all really don't know how the U.S. treats the poor do you?

You actually think people have kids to get money?
The government doesn't support the kids, the parents or their environment(community)

What you get Is a little something that you let alone your kids can live off of.

Thats Capitalism for ya...

[serendipity_000]

Assalamu Alaikum,

Just have you have wondered about one's financial ability to take care of one's children, I've always wondered about one's emotional capacity to care for one's offspring. But I guess that is another issue.

I think I've come across just as many people who are emotionally incapable of providing for their children.

In my field I've met quite a few mothers who seek to have children (regardless of their socio-economic status) in order to un-do the wrongs that their parents have done to them. Many of them see it as a way to be the parent that their own parents should have been to them. Many of the women I have met are very low functioning women who do not possess the mental capacity to think logically about their actions, but they do want to feel and experience love. Their partners don't provide it, but a brand new baby does in many ways.

If this is something that you're really interested in, I'd suggest that you ask the people who you really desire to hear from, rather than people on here. Conduct a study. Talk to the mothers and familes having multiple babies in poverty. I have, it's a truly eye-opening experience.

Ma'salama

[IbnMardhiyah]

If it gets really bad, then CAS is always available.

And if you object to that even, then the only option you really have left to push for, is to tell people to stop having babies and well, that's just DOA.

[Laimuun]

while I agree that people who are 'poor' should consider their financial situation and try and plan their family size around their means (it's just logical), I don't agree with the view that they shouldn't have kids altogether.. it's between a husband and wife to decide whether or not to have kids, no one else.

and you know, people with kids on welfare aren't the only ones 'abusing the system' and taking taxpayers money.. plenty of singles are playing the system as well. are the parents supposed to suffer by not getting any money and the singles' out there get away free? the problem is with people in general who have the mentality that it's ok to abuse the system.. not people with kids.

so shadha, I wanted to ask.. since you have the view that poor people shouldn't have kids, what do you suggest as the solution? government imposed laws forbidding couples under a certain income standard to have kids? should they get a fine if they disobey such a law? what do you see as a solution to the 'problem'?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Talking about who's "abusing" the system is a pretty deep pit. Even well-to-do individuals and large or small corporations employ tax lawyers to make sure they're holding back as much tax as they legally can, from the government. In some cases, individuals and companies that should be taxed in the +40% bracket end up getting away with paying only 3%.

I'm sure that's probably a burden on society also, in some way or another.