Should people take a test before they Have Children?

It is not hard to notice that most people who have a large number of children seem to be poorer and largely uneducated. Although birth control is available to everyone, via planned parenthood and/or classes in school about sexuality, it appears that people who are uneducated or come from a lower social class do not get the information they need to make smart choices with regard to having children. The trouble with this type of ignorance is it breeds more ignorance and continues the cycle of poorer people having larger families.

I am certainly not interested in casting aspersions on people for the amount of children they choose to have or on the income they make. Nor am commenting that their lack of education creates stupid children. What bothers me is that when these people bring said children into a world of difficulty, ignorance and sometimes co-dependence on a system that is already overwrought and underfunded. These parents do not consider the long term effects of their decision with regard to the opportunities they can afford their children and their ability to parent them successfully due to their limited means. 

So, should there be some sort of "test" or classes people should undergo prior to having children that would show their ability to succeed at the level the child needs? After all to adopt a child it takes much screening and sometimes years of waiting to be certain the people adopting would be worthy parents. Of note one can see that most people who are more educated usually choose to have 1-2 children to replace them (so to speak). Since it costs about $100-200K to feed, educated, clothe a child from infancy to age eighteen, we know that larger families do not have the resources to care for the amount of children born into their poorer families.

The tragedy of the entire idea is that should we resolve to implement such a test or mandatory class, it will infringe on the human rights of the individual. We cannot even sterilize a woman who is a drug addict and welfare abuser because it infringes upon the rights of the woman. Society has to pay not only for the care of these innocents, but also must deal with the affects of the drugs on the child and the emotional and physical injuries that many of them will face in their lives, dependent upon their home situations. 

How do we even discuss this without sounding prejudiced, elitist or snobby? If society continues to bring uninformed, uneducated and unwanted children into this world, what kind of society are we agreeing to inhabit?


More by this Author


Comments 57 comments

barbergirl28 profile image

barbergirl28 5 years ago from Hemet, Ca

I have to agree - this is a topic that no one can really discuss without someone being offended. I have seen way to many people that have overused and abused these programs that should be a stepping stone - not a way of life. It disgusts me. Yet, to make a person take a test before they can have a child, or to sterilize them if they are a drug addict would be against their rights. Yet, there are so many couples who are struggling to have their own child and can't get pregnant. To adopt, they must go through this rigourous testing and see if their finances are in order. It really isn't fair.

Voted up cause I agree the whole way. Although I will see, there is no guarantees with birth control. My husband and I only wanted two children because we knew that was what we could afford. We took the proper precautions and still ended up with a third. I guess if it was meant to be it was meant to be! :)


Mentalist acer profile image

Mentalist acer 5 years ago from A Voice in your Mind!

I know intelligent people who are unable to adequetly raise their children in a loving and secure enviroment,also,I know uneducated people who raise their children,though modestly,in a proper manner...you cannot test intention.;)


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 5 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I know ...it was a hard choice whether to write this. No one has the market on being a good parent. Money is not everything etc. I do see needless suffering in poorer families, but then again we have many successful people who started out in such...and my own mother was from a poor family of 13 back before the depression. I think I am just saddened by the travesty of children in the foster care system who suffer even when they find a foster family..all because their parents had no foresight to realize they could not afford to have so many children. Thanks for your comments. I almost deleted this Hub before posting it. I certainly do not want to sound judgmental or prejudice. I am from humble beginnings myself.


barbergirl28 profile image

barbergirl28 5 years ago from Hemet, Ca

Aley - please don't delete this hub ever. I think you bring up some rather good points. Maybe I am looking at it differently, but I don't think you are picking on anyone in particular. I think people as a whole - whether they have money or not - need to be tested before being able to have kids. It would definately end heartache. Unfortunately, it can't be enforced. I came from a humble upbring as well. When I was young I remember being excited because I got a new shirt from goodwill. But, my parents also didn't abuse the system. Then again, there are others that are well off. But does it benefit the children... they are just being raised by paid help. It's a no win situation. However, I think you have written some very strong words... and maybe it will make people think twice on whether or not they are ready for a child. I still say- Well done!


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 5 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

Thanks so much...I know it is something that would never happen...but definitely should...:)


celeBritys4africA profile image

celeBritys4africA 5 years ago from Las Vegas, NV

A great hub, motivated me to become one of your followers...very well written.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 5 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

thank you for coming by and following me Celbritys!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

Oh boy... where to start. I want to start by pointing out that the level of education and income people you claim "have only 1-2 children" is only an average of the 'middle class' income and education levels. The wealthy often have large families.

Now, as for the 'system' that can't care for them... it's not up to 'society' to do it, and it's high time 'society' got out of the way.

Big families ensure the survival of the family. There is no reason that a 'family' should not be able to 'survive.' "Society" got in the way of 'survival' when the 'middle class' expanded and became the controlling interest over elections, and voted for politicians who would make it illegal to camp on public grounds, to forage for food, to put hugs licensing fees on hunting, fishing and trapping so that the poor would effectively become 'criminals' for feeding their families.

Education does not guarantee that anyone will 'get' a job, and it certainly does not guarantee that anyone will keep a job. We were given an entire planet that could nourish us, until laws stepped in to prevent us from nourshing ourselves from that planet.

I have been poor, middle class, and very close to wealthy in my life. The family that 'raised' me, is 'middle class.' The family that raised me has no sense of family values, stood there with their hands out when I had money, but wasn't there to help out with my kids for an hour or two a night when I was offered a job that would have kept me at work 1 hour and 45 minutes after daycare closed.

My mother 'forgets' that I was at my grandmother's house almost every weekend. My mother 'forgets' that she had a sister, a brother, a brother in law, and a sister in law, to watch me whenever she needed it.

She forgets that I went to my grandfather's house for 2 weeks in the summer time.

She 'forgets' that she was able to send me to live with my aunt and uncle for a whole MONTH because she was moving and I would have been 'in the way.'

My 'middle class' mother had only 1 child, me. So now that I am a mother, and she refuses to ever help out with my kids, I don't even have brothers or sisters I could turn to, as she did, and she refuses to be the kind of grandparent my grandparents (who were raised dirt poor) were.

My husband's family, was large and poor. Never once have any of them turned me down when I needed someone to watch the kids.

When a family is poor, they know that all they have is each other.

When a family is middle class, they think they know everything because they went to college, and they think that you can just 'go on welfare' and 'demand' that welfare provide you with everything you need.

Welfare doesn't do that. Not by a long shot.

So to answer your question, "should people have to pass a test?" Yes, but it should not based on their 'economic standing,' but on their 'family values' system.

If a person doesn't think that the whole family is the responsibility of the whole family, not just the two parents, then no, those people should not be allowed to have kids.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

You most certainly are passionate about the subject. My mother refused to care for my kids unless she wanted to do so. I had no outside family to help me either. I have been "middle class" (not by Romney's definition) my whole life and often have worked multiple jobs. Both my adult children are not interested in having kids which is certainly fine with me. Our world is a mess, why bring any more kids into this mess? I do not think having children is the "responsibility" of the whole family, because I have seen people who take advantage of this and "dump" their kids on parents and others while they go out and continue to be kids themselves. If one has a child, one needs to pick up the gauntlet and be a parent, or let someone adopt it that will love it. I will NOT be raising any grandchildren if my kids have babies at some point. That is their job. I will love them, spoil them and let them come to overnights and the park, but I raised my two and I am done with that job. Thank you for your input here. It is always nice to have readers who respond to the subject with such passion!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

I am always happy to contribute to anything that gives people a chance to remember what family values are and how they ensured the survival of the family. I'm happy and sad to hear that your kids aren't interested in having kids. Sad for the joys they'll miss out on, but glad they won't have children suffering the ills of a world where both parents do need to work, and there's not a good family support system interested in the 'whole family' and not just 'themselves.'

I hope if they do ever change their minds, they make sure that at least their partners have partners with those 'family values.' Being part of a family, doesn't start and stop with having and raising your own kids until they're 18. It's a lifetime commitment to always be there for your children.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I am always there to listen to and love my kids and they me. I had a deadbeat dad situation with one of their dads, but the other one was much more available. I do not believe there is a "one side fits all" family. All families are dysfunctional in their own way and no matter how well a child is brought up, there can always be schisms in the family or problems in communicating and other things. We are all human after all.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

Well put, Aley. All I can say about the 'middle class' notion of 'only having 1 or 2 kids,' and that the 'job' of 'raising' them is done therefore not the 'family's' responsibility to help raise (the 'adjective' is 'help') the future generations, is this...

Those 1 or 2 kids are the only people left to take care of you when you become aged or infirmed... by your example, they should do nothing to care for you, because that was YOUR parents job, and they did that, so you're on your own now.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I would never expect my kids to take care of me, they have their own lives. My brother felt this way too and did not even tell his kids he was ill, due to not wanting to bother them. It was what we were brought up to do...to not bother anyone else. It sounds sad, but I would rather it this way than to burden my kids by making them have to care of me and be miserable. My husbands family believes it is ok to infringe upon family as there were no boundaries set. He new realizes it is a horrible thing not to set those boundaries as people take advantage of each other. In his family home people walk right in at all times of the day or night, make food, l leave a mess and have dumped their kids at the door. without asking. They expect the family to be there. This is not how I could live. I realize we do not see eye to eye on this, but I am comfortable with the way I feel about the subject and you are compfrtable with your way. We can agree to disagree. If I get so sick I need to be taken care of all the time by someone else, I want euthanasia. I never want anyone to turn their life over to be my nursemaid.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

I feel the same way about euthanasia, unfortunately, that's not legal. I doubt it ever will be. It's sad though, that the past four generations have taught us that 'taking care of family,' is the same as 'the family taking advantage.' I think the 'taking advantage' part came about because of the 'entitlement' attitude that 'society' should 'provide' the good jobs, so that family doesn't have to take care of family. Now when the economy is bad, and family is all anyone can really count on, they can't count on it anymore, because the generation that came before them think that if they do anything for anyone else, that that person is taking advantage of them.

What a self absorbed people we have become.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

agree! Fortunately it is legal in WA state!


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Aley Martin, A multillion applauses. You have stated what I have so lucidly stated ad infinitum. Women who have large to very large families tend to be uneducated and poor. I have written many hubs on the large family system, please check them out!

You are a smart woman. I too staunchly believe in family planning. Large families drains the system in a myriad of ways- they tend to have no health care, tend to be underachievers in school, tend to be pregnant teenage mothers, etc. The large family is dysfunctional and pathological in more ways than one.

Intelligent, educated, and more affluent people have small families because it is beneficial to the entire family unit, particularly the children involved. I believe that ALL people, regardless of social class and education, who intend to be parents should be test to determine their maturity, psychological, and emotional feasibility to be parents.

Excellent premise you made! Again, check my hubs on the large family system, we are in agreement there!


Express10 profile image

Express10 4 years ago from East Coast

I thought the test was marriage before having kids, having a reliable income before having kids, and having substantial savings before having kids...but that's what I get for THINKING!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

In my opinion, required tests or classes would not be advisable and probably would not be constitutional. However, everyone should be encouraged to take free classes on pre-natal care, post-natal care and child care before having children.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

there is no way this would ever come under constitutional scrutiny unfortunately....but it does not mean they cannot get the education in high school that will lead them to consider what will happen if they have so many kids. Thanks to all. Express10: I think that even if you get married first and even have a reliable income etc, it does not guarantee you will be a good parent. I have seen very intelligent, well educated people fail in their parenting skills. Hard to measure of course.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

Expresso, I was married and had more than 'reliable' income. Then the market crashed, he left, I had two little kids, and no 'family' to help raise them. There's no such thing as 'safe and secure.' Large families ensure the survival of the family. It's only 'seemed' to be untrue since the great expansion of the 'middle class.' When their 'house of cards economy' collapses, it will be the large families who have 'values' that all band together to get through the rough times.


Nicole Winter profile image

Nicole Winter 4 years ago from Chicago, IL

I think gmwilliams said it best: family planning... man, when did the word "family planning," turn into something whispered about, dirty and not uttered in "mixed company?" I don't think it's necessarily an income thing, sometimes it's a religious thing, sometimes it's a (too lazy to use birth control?,) thing...

I'd love to see people tested to have children. You may not bear babies unless you are ^this^ smart. (Or have *this* much of a sense of humor... or are !this! patient.) I think it'd cut down on a lot of strife.

Definitely never gonna happen, though... the government would more likely enforce a one-child limit to people before actually asking them to show a little gumption, forethought or *gasp* "family planning."


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I know...it interferes with our freedoms. I also think some people should be sterilized who keep having babies and are on drugs or working the welfare system, but it will not happen. We have freedoms like no other and "we" (people) can take advantage of this system to do whatever they want to do, which is sometimes nothing. I do not believe the government should tell us what to do, but I do think we all need to be responsible for the children we bear.


Peanutritious profile image

Peanutritious 4 years ago from Cheshire, UK

What an excellent hub. I agree with you. The way some people bring up (or in actual fact don't) their children in the UK is depressing and disgraceful! It seems to be the norm that the most disruptive children I taught have all bred before the age of 18 it would seem to get themselves a council house and benefits. To work hasn't even occurred to them.

I remember when I bought my first house and I was all excited about moving in, one of my pupils said 'why are you buying a house Miss, just have a baby and you'll get a free one!' I couldn't believe it! I really believe the world would be a better place if they sterilized those who keep popping out children like peas for benefits, not because they want them.

You hear people swearing at their kids in the street and feeding them sausage rolls and pasties. You can just imagine how the child will turn out, they don't stand a chance!


Deepak Chaturvedi profile image

Deepak Chaturvedi 4 years ago from New Delhi, India

Great hub!Big family often face big problems viz. social,economical and educational.It is the root cause of many social disorder and class-struggles. Thanks to show your concern.


Peanutritious profile image

Peanutritious 4 years ago from Cheshire, UK

Hi again Aley, I just wanted you to know that i've linked this to my hub 'You stink and your mum's a baghead' which is about neglected children of addicted parent's I used to teach.


Express10 profile image

Express10 4 years ago from East Coast

As a woman FL2BoysMom, I am sorry that you have gone through what you have gone through however, I still believe that when a person chooses to have kids that they must have substantial savings prior to doing so.

This means at least 9 - 12 months living expenses in the bank, money market fund, etc. that will cover everything from basic needs such as housing, utilities, to medical care and everything the child(ren) needs. Modern life is tough and to avoid creating or experiencing certain negative situations more people need to delay having children.

Too many people in this world see children as something they "should" do or they are pressured by extended family, but they don't take the time and effort to investigate how much money, time, and effort each child needs. Modern life is NOT free and neither are kids. Simply delaying having a child makes most situations MUCH easier financially and in a variety of other ways. Not having a child is also an option people often don't consider.

I am not an advocate for testing because I think it's an invasion of privacy and highly doubt that it's needed. I simply think more people should be delaying their choice to have children and others should not have any at all. That is their choice though. While I do understand that "stuff" happens, we as adults need to be MUCH more proactive and self-sufficient.

A lot of unsavory things can be prevented or their impacts lessened just by having these two traits. Whether it's a married man or woman, they need to each sock away money just in case the marriage fails or the spouse becomes ill or incapacitated. Life insurance, wills, even trusts, can be held up by legal challenges. But there's nothing like having your own and the SECURITY that comes from it.

Also, taking firm and immediate action in a lot of situations will prevent them from progressing to an even worse point. The "large" families that I see have pronounced dysfunction and a lack of "values." This is my observation as a young adult and from my experience working for a charity.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I honor all your posts and opinions. Thank you for taking the time to post and to share as well. Namaste.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

Expresso... I had $100,000 in CASH in the bank, and owed over $3M in 'real estate holdings' when I had my son in early 2006. Over the next year and a half, the market began it's decline. Tenants started losing their jobs and not paying their rent. Vacancies became harder to fill. Selling property slowed, and slowed and slowed... eventually coming to a 'screeching halt,' and the 'substantial savings' was depleted, depleted, depleted, paying the mortgages, taxes and insurance payments on the properties as they sat there, waiting for tenants and buyers. Until it was all gone.

Up until two generations ago, families lived in 'multi-family' homes, all the family pulling together to ensure the survivial of the family. Chipping in to pay the bills, look out for each other's kids.

As a child, when my own parents divorced, my mother, her sister, and my grandmother and I, all lived under one roof, and my mother's brother lived close by. There were three, actually four counting my uncle's wife, family members available to take care of me when my mother had to work, or to give her a break, or to go out on a date to possibly meet a man who would be a husband, provider and father figure to me.

When I was grown and it was myself and my child, I had no brothers or sisters to turn to when I needed that kind of 'family support,' because my mother believed that 'having only one child was the 'right' thing to do, and like the author of this hub, that her 'job' of raising me, ended the day I turned 18, so I didn't even have her. And this was in spite of the fact that she herself did have such a family. I have no idea how the 'apple' fell so far from the tree, but it did.

I did everything 'right.' I had a thriving business, substantial savings, investments, education, and waited until I had all of that and was over the age of 30 to have a child. I still was not 'safe.'

I have seen, and lived, every single side of the discussion, and I have learned that family, with a strong sense of 'family' and 'family values' is the absolute and only thing anyone can ever count on for 'survival.'

When my ex left, we had the 22 month old, and I was pregnant with the second. I remained a single mother for two and a half years, remarrying at the age of 35. Financial survival as a single mother was 'bare minmum.' Still in an economic recession when I did finally remarry, jobs were still scarce and we have still had to 'make do' with only one income.

We learned to grow our own food, use sites like FreeCycle for clothes, and use Craigslist to find 'work,' or 'barterting' opportunties... and one of the most important lessons we've learned, is that it is often the 'poor' who are the 'most' generous. They 'understand' what it is like to not be able to afford a babysitter when you most need 'a break' because of all the stress of worrying about money.

Every day, it gets better and we get closer to returning to a 'better' life. If I were not already 38 years old, and had not already experienced two high risk difficult pregnancies, I would have more children, so that my children would have that much more 'family' they could count on to 'pull together' for the family's survival. But if I could, I would, in spite of being 'poor' now, because I know that with a large enough family pulling together, my children won't ever have to be 'poor' or be called 'ingorant' or 'uneducated' for being the 'family' that provides for the family.

The author of this hub stated that she would 'euthanize herself' before she would be a 'burden' to her children. Leaving aside the fact that family is a blessing, not a burden (and what an awful thing to teach your children, that they were a 'burden) the fact is, she may not have that choice. She obviously has not considered things like a stroke that would render her incapable of euthanizing herself. She also speaks of being a 'burden on the system.' Perhaps a look at the 'elderly,' who are 'living alone,' and can't get out of their Hurricane Sandy affected homes, and the people 'delivering food' to them, might consider them a 'burden' on the system, that wouldn't be necessary if those people had 'family' who would step up, is in order.

When this economy collapses, and it will, growing food, hunting food, foraging for food, and finding 'work' will become necessary for survival. The bigger the family, the more people pulling together to gather those resources and opportunities, the more likely the family is to survive.

The 'dysfunction' you see in 'large families' comes from poor families who have been judged and condemned by a pseudo-intellectual middle class who sit up on their sanctimonious high horses about how 'entitled' they are to education that will give them a 'job' that someone else takes all the 'risk' to provide for them.

The fact is, that the middle class complains about paying the taxes they pay that support the poor. They do not realize that it takes 'risk' on someone else's part to create a 'cushy, safe, secure JOB,' for the middle class and the 'tax breaks' that the wealthy get, are but one reward for taking the 'risk.' The middle class takes no 'risks' to make anything any better for anyone else.

And to 'appease' them, our government, all the way down to the school cirriculum they design, focuses on teaching people to 'covet' dependence and discourage 'independence.' This keeps a cheap labor force, gives the middle class something to make themselves feel 'superior,' and doesn't really affect the wealthy at all.

People need to get down off their sanctimonious high horses. I was up there. I did everything 'right,' and it still blew up in my face. That was an arrogance that was exceeded only by my own ignorance of just how little I knew about 'walking a mile in another man's shoes.'


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I too was nearly homeless due to job loss and a freeze out from people who deemed me and my husband "overqualified" The truth is we are all only one disaster away from the curb. We need compassion and empathy in order to understand others and not finger pointing.


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

FL2BoysMom, I just cannot comprehend that you believe that large families are the only support system people have. If a family is poor, they cannot support each other adequately. The larger the family, the deeper socioeconomic hole they are in.

Poverty is not a good lifestyle. Children who are impoverished suffer both mentally, emotionally, and physically in addition to financially. They have no access to proper nutrition, medical care, dental care, and education. They also have no access to cultural and intellectual activities. Large families since they are more likely to be impoverished than most families also receive outside financial aid- they are not the self sustaining unit that you utopically proclaim.

One does not have children to be a support system. Children are beautiful individuals in their own right. There are broader social networks today than ever- neighbors, church, and friends. I have seen neighbors care for each other and friends to be a very valuable support system. The church also is a viable support system for those in need.

Small families are beautiful, Fl2BoysMom. I have seen large families that were in the hole. If one member is poor, the others are poor also. They CANNOT help and assist each other- they are in dire straits themselves. It is money that helps. When one works, one should save and save and invest- THAT what keeps ONE afloat in hard times. Having a conglomerate of children is not a security blanket but having investments and savings are!


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

Guess you will have to agree to disagree ladies. Some things are not worth getting upset over! Hugs


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

gmwilliams, your mistake is in thinking that 'large families' are 'poor families.' That's simply innaccurate.

I have seen neighbors and friends be valuable support systems too, but that does not absolve any 'family's' responsibilities to be a support system for each other.

It is a 'crass' thought to imagine a mother telling her child to "go knock on your neighbors door and ask them to watch your kids when you go to work. I can't be bothered."

I won't argue that poverty is not a 'good lifestyle.' However, anyone born, or even thrown, into poverty can get out of it, and the fact is that it takes a lot of people to 'help' them 'rise' out of it, and although with the family values system we have today you can't count on family, you can count on neighbors and friends even less.

Perhaps you missed it where I pointed out that it was only because my mother had her mother, her sister, her brother, and her sister in law to take care of me, that she was ever able to go to work during times I wasn't in school, that daycare wasn't open, to get a 'break', or to date to find a husband.... and climb out of 'single parent poverty.'

The problem of poverty is not how many people are in the family, because there is always strength in numbers. The problem is in a society that is so mired in the belief that their SUV's and suburban McMansions are 'wealth,' looking down on everyone who has already seen that house of cards fall once.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

let it go..there is no "Winning" in this argument.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

It's not about winning Aley. It's about all the people who are trying to understand, being able to see all the sides, so they can 'think,' instead of being told what to think.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

as you wish. I just think if you have not lived it, you cannot condemn it. We are all only a few steps away from being homeless no matter what our intentions may be. I would never ask my family to help me care for my own children, they were my responsibility not theirs.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

Aley, I've lived all sides of it. I've been the child of the mother who escaped poverty because she had 'family' to help her. I've been the mother who did it without that same 'family.' And I've been the daughter who ended up 'providing' for her mother when my mother needed it.

I'm not the one 'condemning' people to the prospect of being told that they are too 'ingorant or uneducated' to procreate without the 'approval' of someone who doesn't even have a sense of 'responsibility' to their own 'family.'

And I know that when my children try to buy a home, they're far more likely go get a 'loan' to help with that down payment, from me, than they are from 'a friend.' I would be horrified if my children felt they had to get a loan from 'a friend,' becuase I taught them that my 'job' of 'bearing the burden' of raising them ended when they turned 18.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

I stand corrected.

I had to borrow money from a friend as a down payment on a home, because no one in my family had any money to lend. Thank goodness that friends are family too.


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Aley....Wouldn't this be the greatest Fairy Tale ever! A "TEST," to screen for lazy, immoral, drug-addicted, mentally unstable, emotionally immature, sexually deviant, intellectually void.....INDIVIDUALS.

I see the END of child abuse/neglect/pedophilia/child mortality rate/the spread of ignorance and the over-population issue.

I see healthy, loving, involved parenting, happy, well-adjusted, self-motivating, compassionate children, who become successful, mature, stable, superb human beings.........The IDEAL world. UTOPIA...........

"And everyone lived happily ever after...."..........The End.

Yes...wouldn't it be wonderful....however, 100% unrealistic. I would happily volunteer to create the TEST!! Very good question, Aley!


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

amen


Peanutritious profile image

Peanutritious 4 years ago from Cheshire, UK

Well said Effer! I couldn't agree more!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

fpherj48,

lazy, immoral, drug-addicted, mentally unstable, emotionally immature, sexually deviant, intellectually void.....INDIVIDUALS

And who is going to set these 'standards' for what is 'lazy' and 'immoral'?

You?


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Fl2BoysMom.....After reading this entire thread of comments, thoroughly......It's apparent that "calming down," is in order. It is also apparent that everyone is "sorry" that you have had such unpleasant and disappointing experiences. You have made your point. You were wealthy, you aren't any longer. Your mother had family help & support, you did not. Got it.

Try to keep in mind, if you can, that every individual also has an opinion, based upon their beliefs and experiences.

NO ONE is exempt from hard times, nor safe from the possibility of losing every thing and/or needing to struggle and start anew.

I don't think it necessarily needs to occur to anyone, to breed and raise there own personal family "safety net." This is a bit of a bizarre stretch, in an effort to insure "help & support," in the event of catastrophe......

In terms of your last question, about "setting standards?" Since the beginning of time, realistically, unspoken, unwritten codes of decency and common sense, clearly define LAZY, as well as MORAL....

Any lucid adult who requires the ABC's or 1-2-3's of WHAT defines lazy or moral....is in much deeper trouble than can possibly be fixed.

You tell Aley that this "is not about winning," but we can see that's not quite accurate. Not only does it appear to be about "winning,"....but what's blatantly obvious is a whole lot of "whining."

Relax. It is not acceptable to rant and rave at intelligent, compassionate peers, who have graciously received your point of view. Some will agree. Some will not. Such is life.


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

I am relaxed. But seriously... do you want George W. Bush or Barack Obama setting the standards? Because that's exactly where this rabbit hole goes.

As far as 'safety nets,' before the great expansion of the middle class, when we were an agricultural economy, larger families are what ensured the survival of the family.

We moved on to become an industrial economy and now an information economy... but when you strip away the economics, if the entire system were to collapse, agriculture, food, is going to be the most important thing we have.


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

First of all.....This was and IS a "hypothetical scenario." This TEST to be administered before "allowing" people to reproduce......is NEVER going to happen, nor even be considered, in the U.S. of America. Thus, we needn't be concerned about WHO will be setting standards.

Many generations ago .......the world was a vastly different world....that was THEN. 2012, TODAY, This is NOW. Living in the present time, under the current situation and systems, is where WE are. Therefore, NOW is what we deal with and how we gauge our efforts and fight our battles and live our life.

If the ENTIRE SYSTEM were to collapse and "agriculture, food is going to be the most important thing we have.".......I can assure you, fewer mouths to feed, will be a plus. As a bonus, we might even eradicate the outrageous obesity issue in this country....one and for all. This is really ALL too much hysteria for me to try to rationalize.

Seriously. Try to focus today, on the list of blessings in your life....that you will be expressing your gratitude for, on Thanksgiving Day. Be happy....be kind to yourself. Embrace a little tranquility.


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Fl2BoysMom, are you suggesting that we regress to just an agricultural, rural 19th century economy? This premise is absurd in the least. Your premise that everyone have large families is totally amiss. Children are not security blankets, that type of thinking is totally atavistic in the least.

Children are individual human beings with their own needs and wants. Large families are no longer necessary in a postmodern society. Children does not necessarily provide a safety blanket-many children, even in large families, are not able to care for their parents because they are impoverished themselves. WILL WHEN YOU LEARN?

It takes MONEY to keep one afloat, not having a conglomerate of children. Look at developing countries, the average size of families are large; however, they are unable to get out of the economic impoverishment that such families create. Do the MATH- LARGE FAMILIES MEANS LESS RESOURCES TO GO AROUND = IMPOVERISHMENT AND THEREFORE LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CHILDREN.

Surely, you as an only child should know better than to make such an unthinking remark. Poverty is not glorious. Many hubbers have tried to convince you of the utter fallacious, illogical folly of your thinking. You are an educated woman. Educated people do not think in this matter, only uneducated people who have not studied family dynamics have. As my late father used to say, SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST HARD TO LEARN!


Express10 profile image

Express10 4 years ago from East Coast

FL2BoysMom. In my life experience thus far, much of people's life circumstances seem to reflect whether or not they were self-sufficient and proactive. When times and the status quo change, we must, as a duty to ourselves (and any loved ones) be proactive and correctly maneuver/adapt.

When people have just one income source, most Americans think that's all they need and like the grassphopper they overlook the possibility that lean times could ever occur to them. This is quite obvious with the economic meltdown and the resulting problems from those who were very affluent and those who weren't so much so. Not planning for rainy days is not adult like behavior especially when one has any children or other relatives to care for.

Creating streams of income is an important example of self-sufficiency and being proactive that many Hubbers can attest to. This is something that proactive and self-sufficient people the world over work tirelessly to create and grow.

Everyone's life experience is different however, we all have the ability to learn new ways of thinking and we have the ability to change our ways to positively adapt to negative or changing circumstances. Only those willing to do so will have the opportunity to secure their futures and comfort. The best thing is that we can change our way of thinking and our approach to life at any time we choose. We cannot control others, but we can definitely make the effort to control our reactions to others and changing circumstances.


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

FL2BoysMom, A new socioeconomic paradigm is coming into fruition. The old premise of JOB SECURITY is now a thing of the past. The name of the new game is SKILL SECURITY and BEING PROACTIVE. YOU cannot regress into the preurbanized, agrarian model. This is the 21st century, not the 19th !

You have to learn to grow and change, if you do not, you will mentally and emotionally atrophy. If people want something in their lives, they have to strategize and work smart to obtain their goals. You indicated that YOU want a better security blanket. Well, first, return to school and study something that is marketable. There are also a myriad of opportunities to make monies. You can sell Avon, go to job fairs, research for reputable jobs on the internet, go temping,etc. There are THINGS to do if ONE IS WILLING TO EXERT SOME GOOD, OLD FASHIONED ELBOW GREASE.

LIFE is LIFE! The ones who survive are the one who are resilient in the face of adversity. Those who perish and crumble are the ones who are doing what you are doing. You are a woman, not a little girl.

DO NOT EXPECT OTHERS to support and/or rescue you, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS YOURSELF, NOT YOUR MOTHER AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. YOU are THE AUTHOR of YOUR OWN FATE!

As my beloved, late father used to say, " USE YOUR HEAD FOR MORE THAN A HAT RACK. GET UP YOU A$$, USE SOME INITIATIVE, AND SOME GET UP AND-GO!"

P.S. WHEN ONE OBTAINS A JOB, ONE MUST $AVE AND INVE$T THEIR MONIES AND THINK Y-E-A-R-S AHEAD. YOU WERE WEALTHY ONCE AND YOU CAN BE THAT AGAIN IF YOU ONLY THINK INSTEAD OF COMMISERATING! YOU are YOUR ONLY MEANS of SECURITY, not YOUR FAMILY nor YOUR CHILDREN! GOT THE MESSAGE NOW, ENOUGH SAID!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

I'm not suggesting we 'should.' I am suggesting that we 'will.'

And I didn't say that everyone should have large families either. I said that larger families ensure the survival of the family.

The idea that the poor are 'too ignorant and uneducated' to stop having babies is, well, ignorant and uneducated.

They have large families because they believe that blood is thicker than water and that family is the stronghold that will get them through the tough times.


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

FL2BoysMom, I am going to explain this to you clearly. The poor have large families because they are uneducated regarding family dynamics. They do not realize that large families are a drain to them until they have those children.

Did you attend college? Were you asleep in sociology class? In large families, there are FEW, VERY FEW financial resources allotted per child. Besides studying family dynamics in sociology classes and studying the subject in depth on my own, my parents CAME from very large families. They stated HOW HARD LIFE WAS. My mother told me that IF IT WAS NOT FOR OUTSIDE DONATIONS, she and her siblings would not have clothes and/or some necessities. My father HATED it !

I also had friends from large families. They were poor and hated it. One of my classmates who was one of 20 children had everything donated to her-that was how she and her family survived! YOU NEED TO RETURN TO SCHOOL AND STUDY SOME SOCIOLOGY. SOMETHING IS TOTALLY AMISS!

The uneducated poor have large families in the mistaken belief that THEIR LARGE FAMILIES will get them through. NO, NO, NO! Oftentimes, they are in worst socioeconomic straights. They are in a socioeconomic quagmire that they cannot get out of! Jeez, I DO NOT believe that I am talking to an educated woman!!!

Yes, people who have children and cannot afford are deemed to be uneducated and ignorant. Educated and intelligent people usually have small families, they know how beneficial it is for the entire family unit! More affluent people view their wealth in assets and investments which have a more lasting and noteworthy value.

Having a lot of children makes poor people, well, POORER and do not guarantee any measure of economic security! Forget, people have tried to educate you on the utter absurdity of your logic! As my late father stated, SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST UNLEARNABLE! I am COMPLETELY DONE and FINISHED responding to YOU!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

No one did rescue me. And I learned from that, NEVER to do that to MY kids and to teach my kids to respect that their 'family' is all they have in the world and to be better than that.

Yes, I attended college. And no, I didn't sleep through sociology. I was wide awake to see exactly how 'education' is being used to create a society that is dependent on government instead of family.

Your entitled to your opinion, but so help me, it will be a cold day in Hell before YOU get to decide whether or not I live up to YOUR standards for being permitted the right to procreate and create the family and the destiny that I choose.


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

OK....FL2.......NOW, you've truly gone off the deep end. It seems no amount of calm, rational and intelligent discussion with the stellar hubbers here, has assisted in the least. You insist that your opinions-statement-ideas are absolutely accurate and that IF any one does not SEE this, they are misguided...etc.

"larger families ensure the survival of the family." No statement could be further from reality. This is such backward thinking, at this point, it is simply not worth addressing, here in the forums.

It's surely not worth my time and education, to attempt to explain to you, fact by fact, where the exact OPPOSITE of your statement is true.

To be sure, I do NOT equate poverty with ignorance or lack of education. Not now, not ever, would I make this sum-all statement.

However, the uneducated or otherwise, ignorant, most definitely DO have more children, due to this very ignorance. Oh yes, they absolutely do, and historically, always have. The reasons these people have too many children, is not even close to being as romantic and Fairy Tale-like as you insist......."because they believe blood is thicker than water.....& that family is the stronghold that will get them through the tough times...." Utter nonsense and gibberish! Please, do not insult the intelligence of the people on this site.

Blood IS thicker than water. It doesn't get any THICKER by the dozen! Blood is thicker than water is a small family or any size family, if this is what those people believe!

As for the stronghold? Too many children, dependents, family members through "tough times" are a CHOKE-hold......not a stronghold.

Peace to you FL2BoysMom........have a great Thanksgiving. I hope one day you are able to understand that your attitude is shared by very very few......And that those who strongly disagree with you, have that right......


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

To fpherj48: As my late father stated that nonsense cannot learn from sense! I just DON'T understand such fallacious statements. I am quite appalled by this inverse logic!


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

To fpherj48: As my late father stated that nonsense cannot learn from sense! I just DON'T understand such fallacious statements. I am quite appalled by this inverse logic!


FL2BoysMom profile image

FL2BoysMom 4 years ago

I don't think I'm having any discussion with any 'rational' human being when their premise is that the poor are just too 'ignorant and uneducated' to stop making babies.

My own mother was born into poverty. So I know a thing or two about the way the poor think.

If you don't think our economy is going to collapse and that agriculture is going to become a primary necessity for survival, again, then you have every right to think that.

But again, YOU won't get to decide that I don't get to have children because I choose to believe what history has proven, time and time again, what will undoubtedly happen.


Alaina Frederick 4 years ago

In days past large families was not about educated vs uneducated it was about love and of course the hands to work the land. Large families were a blessing and often meant you had rich lands.

I don't know about many of you but for me that "parent thing" didn't trigger till I heard my baby cry for the first time. Had I taken some test I know I would have failed and this world would be short 4 amazing, caring, talented boys that will soon be stellar men.


Aley Martin profile image

Aley Martin 4 years ago from Sumner, Washington,USA Author

wow, I surely did not want this to take on such a rabid edge....


Express10 profile image

Express10 4 years ago from East Coast

It is clear to most that was not your intent Aley Martin. You have done a good job with this hub. As you so clearly stated "These parents do not consider the long term effects of their decision with regard to the opportunities they can afford their children and their ability to parent them successfully due to their limited means." From my observations so far, this is often the cause of nagging issues of large and even smaller poor families with children.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working