Do you believe that 90% of child poverty & its negative consequences in the Unit

1. 86

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   Do you believe that 90% of child poverty & its negative consequences in the United States would be
   
   reduced, even eradicated, if people were intelligent enough to use birth control & limited family size to 1-2 children or 3-4 children at the most?   Do you believe that in order to reduce, if not eradicate child poverty in America, there should be mandatory birth control & sterilization, especially after a couple has 4 children?  Poverty is a terrible thing for children to endure; however there are parents who selfishly, knowingly, & purposely have large families, not caring about the outcomes of their children.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 84

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   The solution to this is requiring long term contraception for every woman in a family collecting any welfare benefit from Section 8 housing to SNAP to SSDI. If you cannot support yourself, you cannot be allowed to add more children likely to remain on benefits after hitting 18 because they've become socially inured to it. This model allows for someone to regain fertility after marrying a man who can support her or increasing her income to get off welfare, plus virtually eliminates teenaged pregnancy (since most births are to girls whose mothers are already receiving some form of welfare)
   But liberals don't allow this because they want more dependent people on welfare because they can depend on their vote to keep the welfare coming.

   replyreport
3. 86

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   
   
   The solution to poverty is making intelligent & educated choices.  Intelligent & educated people believe in being financially prepared before they become parents.  They also believe in educational preparedness.  Beyond those components, they believe in having small families of 1-2 children as they contend that children from small families have more access to educational, cultural, & intellectual opportunities than children from large families.
   
   Intelligent & educated people also don't have children until they are well established in their careers.  This translates into socioeconomic advantages for both parents & children.  In affluent households, children have better nutrition, medical care, & educational access.  They also have more educational paraphernalia in the home as there is more discretionary income beyond the rudiments.  There is also less stress in the household as there is money to go around.
   
   People shouldn't have children unless they are socioeconomically as well as educationally prepared to be parents.  When people are socioeconomically & educationally prepared before they become parents, they have more to offer to their children in terms of opportunities  Studies show that impoverished parents put their children at a severe disadvantage intellectually, educationally, & psychologically.  These same studies show that impoverished children have stunted brains because they have poor nutrition.  Such children are also relegated to poor school which eventually lead to poor educational outcomes.  The WORST thing people could do is to KNOWINGLY have children in poverty.  Poor people SHOULD NEVER have children as they have NOTHING to offer them.
   
   To further solve the situation of poverty in America, there should be mandatory contraception & sterilization.  People should aim for small or medium sized families (1-4 children) & people who have large/very large families(6-more children) should be penalized as such children will be relegated to poverty & struggle w/diminished opportunities.

   replyreport