people in my family repeatedly breed (if we want to use this word) children with above average IQs (in 120s). We breed wiht partners in the same categories and continue producing such high IQ children. maybe I should insist that only people with high IQ are allowed children. Should they take IQ test before doing it?

I agree that certain kind of people should refrain from procreating, but should i make that a law or renforce somehow? i don't think so.

I also personally believe that people shoudl be married if they ahve children. But it is my personal belief and I have no interest in reenforcing it for others.

As about HIV. as raek said, you can have HIV negative children. Also disabled people might have healthy children, and healthy parents can have disabled children.

Sure dirfingernalis, both i and X were beyond poor at some point. We were good parents and still are.

doodleboo you standards do ask a lot. country clubs are private and they can make whatever laws. i do not want US to opearte as a country club. I don't want government to tell people to get education or get a better paying job.

ha kkny, good idea, maybe steparents have to show a proof of income, education, HIV negative status and other stuff before they are allowed to join a family wiht children.

Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide?

I come from long-lived families on both sides. My relatives die in their 90s from complications of heart disease. And we are talking the ones who've already made it to their 90s, who spent much of their lives without the types of medical treatments available now. (blood pressure and cholesterol medications, etc). I have every expectation of living past 100, assuming I don't get smashed to bits in a car accident or something. There is zero family history of cancer. Maybe I want to decide that only people with family history suggesting an 85+ life expectancy, or only people with no family history of cancer, should be allowed to reproduce. If your mother and aunt and older sister have all had breast cancer in their 30s, should I prevent you from having children, since there's a very high chance both you and your daughters will also have breast cancer, and be subjected to all that illness and pain and suffering and die young?

How much of a likelihood of a child inheriting a disease does it take? 90%? 50%? 20%? How "bad" does the disease need to be? How short of a life expectancy is too short? How much suffering is too much? Does it matter if it's genetic or environmental? Should nobody living in a war zone or third-world country be allowed to reproduce, because there is just too much suffering and too short of a life expectancy?

Who gets to set the standards? You say you think yours are reasonable, but other people will absolutely think their standards (which you may not agree with) are reasonable, too. Not only that, you admit yourself you are having a child with a husband who doesn't meet your own standards; do you really want the government to come in and say, sorry, Doodle, Jonathon doesn't make the cut as a daddy, forced abortion for you? Really? Because that's exactly what the policy would imply. (that or take the baby away when it's born and adopt it to an acceptably licensed couple)

I understand and even share your outrage, and yes, i'd bet everyone at some point has looked at someone else and thought "s/he should just not be allowed to have children", I certainly have, but even in imaginary utopia-ville, this is just not something that a decent society can do. imo.

Maybe instead of discussing who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have children we should look at ourselves and ask "What can I do to help those kids that are born into families less fortunate than I am?" or "What can I do to help educate mothers and fathers to be about being a good parent or about improving their job skills so that they can earn a better living?" "Can I give to shelters or the food bank or to some other organization that helps people?" .....I think we are all a lot closer to needing help then we think. I had no idea 15 years ago that I would become disabled. If you would become very ill or get into a car accident that would change your abilities should the government step in and take away your kids or would you rather have someone to help you?

I know that I said in my previous post that I could understand thinking that some people should not have kids and I still feel that way but you just can't make that choice. The world is a mixed bag of nuts and there isn't anything anyone can do about except to challenge yourself to give of yourself and help out.

all boils down to is it's roo bad that humans in general are too ignorant to use common sense.

Personally If I had AIDS I would not have a baby. I wouldn't take the chance. I wouldn't wish that kindof illness on anyone let alone my own child. I think that's best practice but unfortunatly there are alot of people who don't have any form of good judgement.

The education of parents is a good thing but there doesn't seem to be an outcry for education from the ones who need it. It's kindof like the boss lecturing the group because of one staff members actions at the office and the only one who isn't in attendance is the one the speech was intended for to begin with. Alot of the times sub par parents don't see that they are in fact crappy parents.

How could you make it so the ones who NEEDED the educating got what they needed? Any suggestions on that?

I'm really enjoying everyones view points on this. It was a loaded topic and contraversial to boot but I think that's how good ideas are born. You start out with a theory that may be considered excessive and from that you get a more applicable version of what you started with that works:)

If you read I state that steps, fosters and adoptives would be held to the same standards. You can't make rules for one set and not apply them to ALL child caregiver situations.

That's obvious.

But you title this thread, license to breed -- a slap at parents, not others -- yet some here herald stepparents rights as if they were parents (I wont use the word breed, which I find offensive in this context)

Would procreating be better I guess. It's the same thing. Someone said that denying humans the right to have children would be "denying humans of their most basic animal instincts". Animals breed. We are animals. Spawning could be used also. It's all the same thing. I didn't mean it to be offensive. Sex with the result of having children. There. I guess that could work too.

As far as it being a slap in the face to bio parents it is obvious the existence of the children in question BEGINS with the two biological parents. Any other parental type adults they come into contact with is AFTER they have already been brought into existence. Thats the only reason I state bio parents in the title. They are the starting line for life.

Obviously if others become parent figures subsequently they too would have to measure up. Fair is fair. It's about what's best and safest for the children at the end of the day.

right kkny. this thread is called license to breed. not lisence to parenting. hmmm

Oh btw we have this social actions annually when we collect money and items for our local AIDS shelter. This woman spoke to us last year. She has AIDs but her grown son, who was born when she was HIV positive already, is healthy. So i cannot imagine that somebody would have rights to prevent this young man from being born. She lived with HIV wihout getting sick for many years, and although she already has AIDS she is doing fine, so does her son.

i will pray that day when rights to bear children will be limited by our government will never come. scary picture. i don't want to live in the world like that.

Well you just keep on praying for that. Meanwhile I will pray that one day the human race will wake up and start doing right by their children and stop being so damn selfish and so quick to cry about what their rights are.

No one ever said they could NEVER have children but rather certain goals should be met before they were allowed to.

I think people planning and preparing for children is a good thing any way you slice it. If a person wants a child bad enough they will do whatever necessary to be able to have it. If that means proving you can hold a job....well, that can only benefit all involved. I guess it is also that adults right to mooch off the taxpayers though, huh?

As quick said, who gets to make these decisions? Who gets to decide what is "reasonable?" Even if we are just talking about "education," who gets to decide what the "right" thing to teach is? When I was a baby, doctors told mothers not to feed their baby more often than every 4 hours, and not to pick him/her up if she cried because it would spoil them. Weight gain in pregnant mothers was severely restricted. On the other hand, smoking around your kids was fine. I believe that all babies should be breastfed for at least 18 months, unless there is a medical issue that makes it impossible. I think the family bed and attachment parenting is the right way to parent. What if I were the one who got to make the rules and design the educational program? - I think some posters here would not be too happy with the parenting curriculum I would mandate.

You can't assume that just because someone may pass on a genetic "defect" that the offspring will be miserable/die an early and painful death. Who knows what developments may come in the next couple of decades that could make it a non-issue. A couple thousand years ago, my entire family would have been in big trouble, because we are all nearsighted. If we had had to hunt without glasses, we would never have survived. Now, of course, it is not more than an inconvenience.

It boils down to common sense,in my book. If you can't adequately care for a child . . don't have one. If people could follow this simple line of reason on their own the world would be a better place.

I'll offer up an assistant in my office as an example. She and her boyfriend wanted another dog so their current one would have a playmate, but realized the food and such would be expensive, and that with two dogs they would likely need to put up a new (expensive) fence. Because they thought this through and knew they weren't prepared for the cost, they opted to stay with one dog.

Now she is pregnant.

there was a time that there would have been no way to know what the young woman even died of much less that her children would absolutely have the same disease. we wouldnt have told her she couldnt have children then...why should we tell her now. As I said an early death or even having a disease or disability does not necessarily dictate a poor quality of life or even an unhappy one. She seems to be enjoying the time she has and she is surrounding her life with what she loves... there is nothing to say her children cant do the same. And as tos said there is no way to know that there wont be a cure or medication in the next whatever years to prevent it from happening all together. (on a side note: Personally, I think that doctors and scientists dont know nearly as much as they think they do and nothing is guaranteed not even that her children will 100% have this disease. they gauranteed my grandfather wouldnt live 6 years ago... they were wrong)

And back to my original example my bf's (at the time) little brother.. when their mom had him she knew there was a possibility of complications she was older when she got preggo. When she got pregnant (if I remember correctly) she found out there was a chance he would have this disease... she chose to have him anyways. He wasnt supposed to live long enough to leave the hospital. He did. Then they said he wouldnt live beyond a year old... he did. Then they said well 5 years old... he beat that one too. And, in all of that time I can gaurantee there are few people in this world that were as happy and content more in love with life or loved than this kid. He ended up dieing at 10. But, he lived "better" (for lack of a better word) than most I can think of. On top of that he touched so many many lives. I would hate to think that anyone would begrudge him having come into this world...

No one knows what it means to walk in someone else's shoes. We look at having that disease as a horrible death sentence that she shouldnt be passing on to her children. Others say death comes to us all... its how we live in the meantime that matters ... no matter how brief that may be. It certainly isnt my choice to make.

Doodle, I could be wrong, but I saw your post as being kind of tongue in cheek. In that way, I can see where you are coming from. The logistics in getting something like that to work are impossible, but I can see how it would be an entertaining thought and it's one I have entertained often when seeing parents neglect/mistreat their beautiful children.

Brittney Spears? Sorry, you have to wait until your mental health is better, for your sake and your unborn children's sake.

My old neighbor, who kept having kids for the welfare check? No go, sorry lady.

I think a marriage should take as long to get as a divorce.

So, I agree with you. Too bad God didn't take a little "free will" away from us!!! But I think you'd agree there would be no logical, fair way of implementing it. This was just a way to blow off steam about incomptent parents, right?

As for some people talking about healthy babies... Even once they're born we can't guarantee health. Remember the little boy who got AIDS from a blood transfusion- Ryan White?

Momof4:
"why should I get a permit to add on to my house on my property ... especially if I am doing the work myself."

Can we get an AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was tongue in cheek. It was one of those "I'm going to say what everyone is THINKING but won't say" kindof moments. When I read about that woman who put her infant child in the microwave all I wanted to do was rip her ovaries out and place them under the rear wheel of my car and floor it in reverse! I wasn't very concerned with her rights as a human no less as a parent at the moment. Personally I feel she should be shoved in a microwave but that's a whole NOTHER politically incorrect statement.

I don't know...I mean seriously? Should a woman who did that to her child really be allowed to have more children? Will everyone here at least agree that child molesters, child murderers and abusers should not be able to have children or are their rights more important than their victims as well?

how do you know who could be a child molester? not like people advertise it.

There has been a recent post by a concermned father whoes ex was dating a CONVICTED child molester and he didn't want his kids around the man. Obviously some people lack even the most basic judgement. Sometimes people are so stupid even when it is obvious (bio mom and control freak boyfriend anyone?) they don't see the danger in a situation. They would walk right off a cliff holding their child in their arms if someone (my husband anyone?) with some sense didn't step in and interven.

doodleboo, I totally understand what you are saying. When I was in the hospital having my youngest son, a girl I had gone to school with was also there having her 6th child. She was the definition of "trash" in school and 3 of her children had already been taken away from her because she had not been taking care of them appropriately. I found it insane that they just let her leave with this newborn child, knowing the kind of person that she was...Just because you CAN give birth to a child doesn't always mean that you should be a mother to one. A few years later I ran into this woman. She had only 1 child left with her and the kid was so dirty that it obviously hadn't been bathed in days. Made me feel so horrible for the poor child.

I am not against common sense. i am just again government making laws who can do what.

Well In the case of children who do not have a parent with common sense I think somebody or some organization has to tell the parent what they can and can't do. If all parents could be trusted to not be shmucks there would be no need for children srevices. Sadly the case workers are completely over loaded with cases and keep on top of each child like they should.

I still stand firm that their are certain people who should not be able to have kids. OR if they do have kids they should be watched really closely.

I have issues with the government but I am also not so naive that I believe we as a race could survive without some higher power telling us what to do to some extent. We would kill each other to extinction without laws. Look how ridiculous humanity acts when ever theres any kind of crises...panic,looting,shooting at rescue choppers. We are not that terribly far removed from animals when it comes down to it.

I mean we are talking about the same race that will trample and KILL each other at a Rolling Stones Concert for crying out loud. Anarchy would never work,we'd all wind up dead or living like the kids in Lord of The Flies.

but who is that somebody who decides who should not be having children. who would have such authority? you said GED is to be required, but your own husband has no education.

We can't drive without a license. We can't hunt or fish without a license. We can't build without a permit. We can't operate a business without a license or permit or both. We have to have licenses to be in certain professions. We have to be fingerprinted to volunteer with a school or youth organization. In many states, you cannot ride a bike or motorcycle without a helmet. In many states, you must wear a seat belt while riding in a car (& kids in carseats). In my state, you can't talk on your cell phone while driving unless it's with a handsfree device. The government is already up in our business on seat belts, cell phones and helmets... but what about children, the most precious thing I can think of? They are innocent and helpless, totally reliant on the adults in their life...

A daycare provider must be licensed but any moron can give birth.... multiple times. Anyone that has worked in social services or reads the newspaper has heard at least one tragic story of a mother abusing or killing or neglecting or giving birth to a drug addicted baby and going on to have more children.

For every 'major' story of a mother driving her kids into a lake or drowning her kids in a bathtub or throwing her kids off a bridge, there are countless other stories you will never hear. Sure, it will probably never be something that is implemented but there IS something wrong with a society that allows anyone to have a child but one has to get a license to be a babysitter.

ima

I totally agree with you I have been saying this for years...

And how exactly would you prevent people whom you didn't deem worthy of having children from doing so? Forced abortion? Forced birth control?

And what if the mother passed the "test," but the father did not? Or vice versa?

ima agreed.... but in reverse... I say we shouldnt have to have a license to be a babysitter or half the other things we need permits or license to do.

I agree with Ima. There is over regulation of the silliest things and little to no regulation protecting children. How is this right? We worry more about only fishing with the right permits during the right seasons, but we can pop out kids at any time under any circumstance? You get fined, even imprisoned, for hunting or fishing out of season but you can pop out a kid, figure out 'oops - I don't want to be a mom', and drop it off at a fire station for someone else to deal with and walk away scott free?
Don't get me wrong - I am in favor of these safe houses and would rather the child left than neglected, but how backward a system.

So to those who are so opposed to there being any regulation on parenting, what is your solution to the problems this nation has with abused, neglected and unwanted children?

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem . . .

and as I was perusing the thread... sorry I didn't read all of it, someone calls it a slap in the face of parents because the thread is entitled 'License to breed'. Well, I for one, was not present when my stepdaughter was conceived. It's the biological parents that create the child and a step, foster or adoptive parent steps into an already created situation. That would make it the parents fault/responsibility to 'breed' (for lack of a better term) responsibly. Anyone that accepts the responsibility for a child should definitely pass a certain standard to care for a child. Foster parents are screened. Adoptive parents are screened.

Sometimes, even step parents are scrutinized by the parent too. I know my SD's mom wanted to 'check me out' before I was allowed to be around her daughter. That's fine.. she has the right. But remember, this is the same woman that dumped both her kids to move three hours away with a guy she knew two WHOLE weeks. Then let her 8 year old daughter sleep on the same bed as his two preteen sons the very first time all the kids were together.

"abused, neglected and unwanted children?"

A good start would be more parental supports, as I have said before - paid maternity/paternity leave, job security for parents staying home with sick children, more widely available subsidized daycare. No one should have to choose between their child's safety and keeping their job that feeds them.

Finedreams-

I said myself Jonathan would not of had the required credentials by my standards. I know he is a good daddy and a hard worker but I still ride his ass all the time about going back to school. I think as a parent he NEEDS to have at LEAST a GED. It isn't that difficult to ontain. He could go down and take that test anytime and get his GED no problem. He won't though because he's lazy:) However if he was told you have to have it to have your child he would go down there PRONTO. It's a win win situation. It would be a motivational thing for him and I'm sure it would be for alot of others as well. How's encouraging people to have some standards in any way a negative?

Martha-
"We worry more about only fishing with the right permits during the right seasons, but we can pop out kids at any time under any circumstance?"

This is precisely my problem with the system. If they can tell us when and where to do everything else why can't they tell who can and can not have children? There is much more at stake with the life of a child then the life of a deer or fish.

IMA-

"The government is already up in our business on seat belts, cell phones and helmets... but what about children, the most precious thing I can think of? They are innocent and helpless, totally reliant on the adults in their life..."

Can I get a AMEN?

"abused, neglected and unwanted children?"

A good start would be more parental supports, as I have said before - paid maternity/paternity leave, job security for parents staying home with sick children, more widely available subsidized daycare. No one should have to choose between their child's safety and keeping their job that feeds them.

The girls mother had all of these things and she still sucks as a parent. Sometimes a free ride isn't the answer. Sometimes the person is crappy parent material with or without government assisstance. In fact, If I went down right now and asked the ladies at DCF down the hall how many cases they deal with are low income, government assisst families getting wellfare, free daycare, medicaid and the like they'd say 99.9%. ALOT of the kids I work with are BG1's. That's the code for protective service children. I only work with subsidized families so your theory is already in practice and it ISN'T working.

Anymore ideas? I still say intervention is key but birth control and condoms are FREE at the health department so apparently that isn't the answer either.....hmmmmm. Maybe people are just too dumb to use common sense and not get pregnant even when there ARE a ton of resources at their disposal. Just a thought.

"If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem . . ."

OUCH! Guess I'm part of the problem!!

I'm pretty sure the Nazis felt they were very well qualified to make decisions affecting other people's lives as well. We all know how wonderful that turned out.

So many of you feel that you are qualified to make the decision about who is worthy and who is unworthy - well, if it was up to me then I'd deny quite a few of you because some of you obviously have some mental health issues...

Think about what you are suggesting. Statistically speaking, an abuser was usually abused as a child. It is a horrible cycle and yet you would condemn them for not knowing any better. Some of these people have NEVER been taught right from wrong, they have never been in a loving family situation and yet you arbitrarily want to lock them up and throw away the keys. Those children that are being abused today will eventually grow up - what we could do for them now is get them extensive counseling and put them in families that will nurture and love them. Perhaps then the downward cycle will stop or at the very least perhaps it would slow.

It's so easy to condemn and yet what are any of you doing to prevent it?

I dont think anyone here is arguing that standards for parents wouldnt be a great idea. What they are saying is that there is no objective way to determine who should be eligible for parenthood.

I wouldnt trust the government to get it right.

exactly kathline. of course plenty of people should not be allowed around children but i disagree that our government should be the one to decide.

My personal solution to a problem: people should not be having children with partners who are deadbeat, abusers, addicts etc. plenty of stories how one parent is fine and the other is completely messed up. well my solution to it, i didn't have children with messed up people. so maybe if we all decide not to breed wiht whoever there will be less problems. the only way to ensure that is to teach our children by example. i am not messed up deadbeat, neither is X, so our DD grew up to be a fine woman. that's a solution.

as about families where there is no good role model, schools should teach about birth control. plenty of people (not even minors) think that they won't get pregnant. yeah right. My solution is to teach young boy and girls early on to respect their bodies and respect themselves.

Doodle - I think this would make a GREAT satyrical editorial in a newspaper somewhere! You should TOTALLY send this into your local paper or something!

Isn't it funny that so many people, me included, got so serious with this subject. I think it hits close to home for most of us because we know people or have family members who are unfit to be parents (my best friend who insists on living on welfare or my sister who got pregnant at 15). Bottom line is that there IS NO WAY for any government to successfully regulate this. But, who among us hasn't thought about it when we see some lady snap up their kid in Wal-Mart or some guy scream at their kid when he doesn't hit a homerun at his baseball game? We all do! But it's taboo to TALK about it.

That's why this is satyre. Because it's a ridiculous concept that everyone wishes there was a way to make happen, but, by the same token, wouldn't want to happen to them.

I thought it would be a great debate topic as well. It's very interesting to see the different ideas.

I do feel strongly about this becuase of what the girls are going through. I pray to GOD that their mother doesn't end up pregnant again! Theres nothing to stop her but her common sense and it's pretty obvious she lacks THAT. Scary.

My Grandmother was also dumped off at a Hospital by her mother when she was a baby. Her mom just decided she didn't want a child. I'm glad my Grandma was born obviously but wouldn't it of been nice for my Great Grandmother to decide she didn't want children BEFORE getting pregnant? Then my grandmother wouldn't of bounced from foster home to foster home. My Grandma has had alot of mental issues spawned from being abandoned. She has battled alchoholism and prescription drug dependancy as a result. She is clean now but it wasn't easy for her. It's a classic case of the "Gee thanks mom" syndrome that could of been avoided all together. I think it's really tragic.

Doodle - I completely understand where you are coming from because sometimes one has to wonder why people who can hardly care for themselves decided to have a child/children. Thankfully, though, no one is regulating this for us.

My dad and mom had 6th and 8th grade educations respectively and $20 between the two of them on the day they married. They did very, very well for themselves and my sister and I didn't suffer. I will admit my mom did have many emotional problems that left their marks on us. We survived. She was a good homemaker and tried her best to be a good parent, but she was raised in an orphanage and didn't have a good role model. My personal regret and gripe about my folks is that they didn't value higher education at all. They preached that it was a waste of money and time because they did so very well for themselves without one.

AND, if you think about all of us on this forum, we would all be denied licenses to breed. All of us, BP and SP, are participants in failed marriages - even if it was the other spouse who cheated. It could be said that we lacked good judgment when choosing an appropriate mate.

This thread made me think of a case near where I live that happened when I was a kid. A mom of six (three boys/three girls) murdered two of her adult daughters that she had abused & pimped out. Her sons helped dispose of their sisters. How many lives ruined/wasted?

Here is a link that might be useful: Story of Theresa Cross

"But, who among us hasn't thought about it when we see some lady snap up their kid in Wal-Mart or some guy scream at their kid when he doesn't hit a homerun at his baseball game? We all do! But it's taboo to TALK about it.

That's why this is satyre. Because it's a ridiculous concept that everyone wishes there was a way to make happen, but, by the same token, wouldn't want to happen to them."

Exactly, Ashley. I know there aren't textbook rules that can be applied across the board with regard to child bearing. But - I do know that SO MUCH MORE could be done to educate, empower, and assist the population so that they did have, for lack of a better word, some common sense. That is what I mean by my 'part of the problem' comment. If we argue the government doesn't get any say in this (while they rule the majority of everything else we do) then what are we doing to improve the issue?

"paid maternity/paternity leave, job security for parents staying home with sick children,"

Doodleboo,

Your SD's mother REALLY had access to paid maternity leave, and a job where staying home to take care of sick children did not affect her job security? In the United States? I find that hard to believe.

I had paid maternity leave - twice.
Unfortunately my job is one where missing days is difficult, but it can be done. It's not so much my employer who gets upset, but my clients. Were I to miss a large number of days for whatever reason it would create an issue only because the clients could go to another company.
But - there is the Family Leave Act. To envoke your raight to use it and lose your job for it would be a lovely little HR claim.

I think this is a good idea, but not a solution. What about all the crack head moms who don't even have a job to take leave from? I'm more concerned about them.

"What about all the crack head moms who don't even have a job to take leave from?"

Exactly. The biggest problem I saw happening:

**Addicts having kids. There was a judge that actually gave a mom the choice to have norplant or go to jail after he took her fifth or sixth drug addicted newborn. All her kids were in foster care and the last one, she was pregnant with at her sentencing hearing for one of her previous kids. The Judge couldn't force her to use birth control, but he offered her a reduced sentence (no jail time) if she agreed to do it. The Judge was censured for some of his tactics, but I think he was one of the best Judges I've ever met.

**Teens having kids. I had an 18 year old girl that was living in a motel. She was pregnant with her fifth baby and had one kid living with her. Her other three kids lived with other relatives. Now, I was a teen parent but that doesn't mean I did the right thing and to continue having kids after someone else is raising the first ones because you can't handle it, then why have more. Her mother should have done something to help her, but instead.. her mom was raising two of her kids because it meant she got a check for them and all her own kids were grown so she couldn't get welfare anymore. Instead of getting a job, she was raising grandkids on welfare.

**Having kids because they like being pregnant, or they love babies, etc. I came across women that just liked being pregnant or loved little babies. Once they were no longer pregnant, they didn't feel whatever it was they wanted to feel so they'd get pregnant again. Or once the baby was not a baby anymore, (or they realized how much work/responsibility there is) they left the kid to someone else to raise.

Education and parental support are definitely needed. But, it can't be assumed that everyone is on the same level. Some of the problems are caused by substance abuse, mental/emotional problems and some are generational.

also, paid maternity leave was available in my last job, although I never used it.

Why wouldn't you use paid maternity leave if it was offered?

I'd only use paid maternity leave if I had been pregnant/adopted a baby when I worked where it was offered. Lots of co-workers used it, but I had my tubes tied after my daughter was born years earlier.

"wouldn't it of been nice for my Great Grandmother to decide she didn't want children BEFORE getting pregnant?"

Our great-grandmothers, even our grandmothers, weren't likely to have had any choice about getting pregnant.

Even today, accidents happen, men are insistent/demanding, women get the flu & puke up their contraceptives...

I applaud any woman who hands her baby to a responsible person rather than keeping it & resenting it, mistreating it, hurting it.

Sylviatexas,
That is so sad and true. I agree with you completely "I applaud any woman who hands her baby to a responsible person rather than keeping it & resenting it, mistreating it, hurting it."

I personally feel the government already has too much control over us as it is, I think a better aprroach would be to stop allowing it to happen...I was a welfare kid, lived in the projects sometimes in a hotel etc... my mother thankfully had enough sense to stop procreating,
My thought is that If the government stopped handing oput checks to people (especially the checks where you get MORE money for having more kids, that it would discourage some from making more babies, one of my research papers in college was about welfare reform, I cant remember where it was exactly but somewhere if you were receiving assistance and became pregnant, you wouldnt get any more money for the additional child...my thought is that the rule should be any aditional kids dont count toward any more assistance period, some might say thats harsh but if the parent can't make it and take care the kids on their own and continue to have more than the kids should be adopted by a family that CAN support the child,there are so many families that cant have kids of their own.....

I being a wefare kid and growing up in poverty turned out ok I think...I guess it depends on the determination of the person.....
Doodle: you should encourage Jonathan to go take his GED test. There is an enourmous amount of study material online, the test doesnt cost a whole bunch and you could help him study! I am sure he would feel alot better if he did!

fiveinall

In CA, there is a time limit of 60 months on welfare and there is no additional money to children born while aided. (the new children can get food stamps and medical/medicaid though). I completely agree with the new rules, which also require parents to either be working or in school... something leading to self sufficiency.

The downside is that there are those that claim disability to avoid the work/school requirements... the most common disability I saw was mental health disorders, usually ADD/ADHD, depression and bi polar. Yet, some continued to have children, even though they knew they would not get more money. That meant the existing children were in greater peril because now a check meant for 2 people is supporting 3 or more. The check, in my opinion, isn't enough for 2, so stretching it to support more means they all suffer because of it. So, while I agree they needed welfare reform and I agree with being harsh to force people to take responsibility, it doesn't prevent some people from ignoring common sense and creating children they can't take care of.

On the issue of welfare & the mental health issues claimed by welfare recipients, it doesn't surprise me when they are depressed. When you have more children than you can take care of, no job, little/no education, you have no hope and are likely going to be depressed. Personally, I think ADD/ADHD and bi polar are over-diagnosed and even if they are appropriately diagnosed, there are medications/treatments that don't have to render the person 'disabled' so they can sit home collecting welfare.

"Your SD's mother REALLY had access to paid maternity leave, and a job where staying home to take care of sick children did not affect her job security? In the United States? I find that hard to believe."

No, no one has paid maternity leave in the USA unless you are employed by a HUGE corporation. Neither will I but does that mean I'm going to get high on drugs and dump the baby on J when she's born? PFFT.

She did have every form of government assisstance You can possibly get though. She couldn't even put the needle down long enuf to make it to her re-determination appointments and lost all of her assisstance. That's when she left the girls with us and went totally down the tubes. She dropped the ball and then hauled ass when being a mom got too tuff.

This was also four years after the girls were born so I hardly see what not getting paid maternity leave would have to do with the girls mother anyhow.

"I applaud any woman who hands her baby to a responsible person rather than keeping it & resenting it, mistreating it, hurting it."

I'm glad you thing Grannies mom was so courageous but if you spoke to my Grandmother I think you would find that at least SOME dumped adoptive children do not share your sentiment. It screwed her up for life being abandoned. I don't know if IO would go so far as to applaud them for dumping their children.....

Maybe a a tiny pat on the back for not being a TOTAL F*** Up but applaud? I think that would be going a tad far.

I have enormous respect for Steve Jobs (of Apple) whose parents put him up for adoption and yet he is friends with his later born biological sister. The parents said they were not able to raise a child when Steve was born, but were able when sister was born. I can only imagine that his adoptive parents gave him such a good home, he had no resentment.

I NAG him every day about taking that test! He is a ridiculously smart man and he is cheating himself by not getting a proper education. He could go on to a University and be whatever he wanted to be no problem. SO FRUSTRATING!!!!!