Welfare & Adoption

I would think I had opened my eyes that day living in a country where the government had WAY too much control over people's lives. Then I would move.

I would think it's cruel, unpractical, and ridiculous.

It's a scary world when the government has authority over your fertility and family. I say "hands off".

While I have some inkling to think that there is wisdom in having some form of "enough already!" checks within the welfare system, this one simply doesn't seem right. Adoption is a wonderful gift that a person elects to give to a childless couple- it's not a "punishment". I would also worry that women would avoid prenatal care and child birth in hospitals out of fear that they would be "found out".

There's a part of me that agrees with the other answers....it's wrong...we would be socially one step behind China...next would come the one child per family law with forced abortions.

But what is the solution to getting fertile mom's off of welfare? What is the answer to decreasing the birth rate and ending a cycle of dependency? A welfare mother makes more money per kid at home than entering the workforce. Not hard to figure out which option is easier.

I would think we were sliding further down the already slippery slope we're on with giving our government even more control over our lives, our bodies, and what we do with them.

Not everyone on welfare is looking to milk the system. Mothers don't deserve to be seperated from their children just because they're on public assistance. Being poor is not an adequate reason to remove a child from his mother.
What happens when/if that mother gets off welfare?? Then has has 1 less child because some up-tight jerk felt a need to punish her?? I doubt the adoptive family would want to give up their prize.

If you know anything about eugenics- you know it's very slippery slope and one group does not have the right for force choices on another group on the basis of false superiority.

I'll be shocked if there are any mothers out there who would agree with this.

Wow- that's a doosie.

On one hand, I'd feel that my ability and desire (and perhaps right?) to love and nurture a child is not predicated on my present joblessness/need for public assistance. However, there is an obvious need to be able to financially support a child, because all the love and nurturing in the world is not going to put a roof over the child's head, or food in it's belly, or clothes on it's back.

This is just a huge can of worms with so many issues to consider. Certainly, if a person is briefly using public assistance to get through a rough patch, I'd think that resisting the urge for instant gratification, i.e. having a child while on assistance, should be easier to resist. However, for those people who are chronically on public assistance, or those who see kids as a means for obtaining more assistance, well, that's a tougher bunch, I'd think.

I don't really have an answer, it's a tough issue, for sure. But probably not one the government should be taking the reins of... I don't know...

I would think the I woke up and no longer lived in a great country that values Individual liberties and Human Rights. That would be a huge slippery slope.

I think to improve welfare, there are other ways.

People should only be allowed welfare for a certain amount of time. Having more kids while on welfare should not make you more money.

Taking a child away, however, would be horrible.

Hopefully that never happens...I think that would be cruel and very unhelpful for those that need to assistance and guidance. I think a law that regulated welfare with regular drug testing, job counseling and job placement would be a great idea.

Seriously? Who is going to adopt all these children? You? How many children are lingering in foster care already? The best place for children to be is with their families.