Should taxpayers or charities have to support more women in more ways to keep their babies?

Question

I've often heard it suggested that an alternative to relinquishment could be setting up funds or homes of some kind to assist women to parent their children.

While I agree with people accessing any assistance that is available to them, is it really fair to expect other taxpayers or donators to support someone else's child?

Isn't it also, in some cases, leaving the door wide open for women to abuse the system, and get a free ride by using adoption as an excuse?

What are other's thoughts on this?

Answer 1

NO..... people these days are too reliant on government handouts. Its not hard to get a job and daycare.

Answer 2

Okay when I was pregnant with both of my daughters I was on medicaid and foodstamps.  Did I stay on them?  No.  We could incorporate training programs that help women find jobs, decent ones.  We could hold the fathers accountable too. Its time.

Answer 3

This is a moral choice.  Although taxpayers are not required to help, they should still face the question, "is it the right thing to do?"

I go by the rule that you can judge the level of a society by how well it treats its weakest members.  Animals kill theirs.  Humans have a choice.

So yes, I believe coordinated government and private help should be available as it is in Canada and Western Europe.  Will some people abuse the system?  Of course.  But I wouldn't want to look away from 140,000 children because 100 had mothers that abused the system.

-Tobit

Answer 4

Have to?  No.  But it would be nice if they did.

Answer 5

Right now in the US there are endless resources to assist women, it's just letting them know it's out there.

I never met a women, no matter how poor, go without food for her babies, I'm sure it happens, but it is out of not knowing where to go for help.

Already there is a ton of abuse. I see to all day where I work. Some women will keep having kids just for the benefits and so they can stay home.

I guess we in the US should appreciate that we get tax credits when we have children, when in some countries you'd be taxes for having children/

Answer 6

Hi,

Thanks for asking for our thoughts on this.  Speaking as a mom, if there is something more important to a woman than her child, then I don't know what it is.  Strong families make strong societies, so yes, if society values families, then I believe they should help keep families healthy and intact.

I'm sorry you are so opposed to people needing help.  Do you feel the same way about women who need help raising funds in order to adopt a child?  I assume you are also opposed to adoptive parents accepting that $10,500 tax deduction too, since that would be taxpayer's money, right?

Just things to think about before denying those who wish to keep their families together.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 7

Your proposed system would have had no effect on me keeping my baby or not.  It wasn't all about finances.  Some women just cannot, should not, or do not want to parent, no matter what you come up with.

**I must add I think Andraya's answer is spot on.  I doubt you'll ever hear me say that again, so take that for what it's worth.  ;o)

Answer 8

I work with a charity in the UK that does just  that.  If the moms I work with lived in the United States most of them probably would have lost their babies to the adoption industry by now, which is sad because they are darned good moms

I believe in giving people in a temporarily difficult situation a helping hand, yes.  I do.  

We also have a government program 'Surestart' ensuring ALL kids get a good start in life, regardless of their parents financial position.   Should the taxpayers here be protesting that they are paying for this and demand that those children be relinquished immediately to somebody who is more worthy of being a parent 'cos they earn more money!

I thought we had moved past the days when women who 'got into trouble' were punished by losing their babies.   I guess I was very wrong.

Answer 9

Everyday, we pay for hundreds, maybe thousands of illegal aliens to have their children in the US.  We pay for ALL their expenses, hospital, WIC, Medicare.

My own daughter can't go to Pre-K in my state because it has now been restricted to ESL.

If we are willing to pay for illegals to have all the same privileges as tax-paying American citizens for breaking the law, why shouldn't we help our OWN citizens?!

And no one would DARE hound them to give up their babies--that would be racist!

Answer 10

Firstly, how a charity decides to help people is up to those in charge of the charity organization.  Donating to charities is a choice.

Regarding tax dollars, there are tax incentives for for people who adopt and tax incentives for people who keep their children, as well.  A family paying into the tax system receives a tax deduction for each child.  This continues until the child is 18, no matter how much money the family makes.  If the child goes to college, depending on certain criteria, the family can continue to claim the child as a dependent, allowing that tax deduction to continue.

Services to give a parent with a new child a hand up would be short term.  No matter how you look at it, having someone having a child will cost the taxpayers money, whether it's in the form of public programs to help families or in the form of incentives and deductions, which reduce the amount of money paid into the tax system.

As far as the concept of women having more children to receive more services, do families who are not considered poor by government standards have more children in order to have another tax deduction?  I do know some families who have actually claimed their grown children as tax deductions even though their child is not living with them.  My husband's ex-wife attempted to do this.  Scammers  are not the norm, but they do come in all varieties.

Our society claims to value families.  Therefore, in light of the other family related tax incentives available, I see no reason not to use some of that money to help new mothers who are poor get on their feet.

Answer 11

Hmmmm.  Great question.  I guess my first reaction is that why would society NOT want to help babies stay with their mothers if it's simply a question of resources.  This benefits EVERYONE for so many reasons.  As someone else already said, society is only as strong as its weakest members.

There are a number of problems with the welfare system in the US the way it is currently.  I was going to go into detail about the problems and possible solutions, but I literally ran out of room, so I decided to just leave it at that.

Do some people take advantage and abuse the system?  Maybe some do, but, trust me, most everyone wants to be off welfare.  If you look at the actual stats, the vast majority of people that receive federal aid, do so only for a short time to get on their feet, which is exactly what it's there for.  

The problem is that many, many women aren't even aware that they can get assistance and keep their babies, or they're made to feel like total losers and bad mothers if they do get federal assistance.

You ask if it's fair for other taxpayers or donors to support someone else's child...I ask you, what does fairness have to do with it?  Is it fair that not everyone is born into rich families, or some people lose their jobs, or don't get the funds to go to college, etc, etc, etc.  It is just the way it is.  It sounds almost like a class issue, talking about fairness.  

Do less fortunate people have less rights to keep their children?  Do richer couples then have the right to take their children, simply because they have more money?

I say that there SHOULD be more charities and government programs to help mothers keep their babies.  How about starting with free healthcare for working parents whose jobs don't provide insurance and affordable government subsidized childcare so mothers can actually afford to go to work.  Those are two good places to start that women in just about every other industrialized nation have that American women just don't seem to have the right to.

Answer 12

Taxpayers support these children, when they're adopted, in the form of adoption tax credits anyway, don't we?  And we support them, sort of, in Welfare payments if they're kept adn the mother is not married.  

I'd hate to be single, poor and pregnant.  You are damned if you abort, a "welfare queen" if you keep your baby, and a "crack w***e" if you give it away.  Taking a child away as punishment is no better than denying an abortion as punishment for "spreading one's legs."  We're too busy passing judgement on the mother, it seems, to care what's best for her child.

Answer 13

i often take pause when people have issue with the idea of "tax-payer" money going to help poor women keep their babies.

we spend far more money on nonsense in this country than we could ever spend on women and children.  also, many women who are young and pregnant (if supported) could go to school, get a job and leave the system. the issue, IMO, is that we have to punish and keep punishing people for not living by the moral code.

i have NO problem with helping women keep their babies: and i probably pay a h**l of a lot more taxes then most who are bitching and moaning!  also, i am more inclinded to not only provide assistance; but also day care so that these women can actually go to school, get a decent job, get off assistance; and keep their child.

quick story:

i received assistance for 7 years after my son was born. my monthly stipend was $279.00/month cash, $200 in foodstamps, and medical care.  in seven years, that totaled $23,436.00 in cash, $16,800 in foodstamps and i'll estimate $25,000 in medical assistance.  This year, my husband and i will pay approx. $52,850 in income tax!   and that doesn't include AMT!  ...oh, that's for just one year, btw; not the 11 years i've worked since receiving assistance.

so i think i'm paid up!!! and i have no problem paying for another young woman to have the same assistance i had.

re: using the system...the biggest "users" of our tax system are those making > $500K and declaring most of their income as "capital gains."  in other words, they are not taxed as high as those who earn less money.

ETA:  i have to respectfully disagree (than i have to get back to work) that women get pregnant *just* to get more money.  grant it, many young women get pregnant to become emancipated ; yet i find it difficult to accept that women get pregnant just to get money and stay home.   i mean, seriously, how much money do you think one can get by having kids?  $400?  $500?  that's no real incentive.

poor women (of childbearning age) get pregnant for the same reason as my neighbor's wife who's pregnant every year: they are having unprotected s*x and probably want children.  i just don't think it's fair to "praise" one sector of people who procreate (eg. the duggars) yet, condemn another sector (eg. poor women).

btw, the duggars are NOT taking care of their 17 children by themselves...they receive tax subsidies, donations for the community, and royalites from the discovery channel so that they can "stay home" and have more kids...

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

Answer 14

Well, don't we "fund" these kids anyway, in the form of paying foster carers to take these same children once they've been removed from their homes?

What's the difference?  Either pay to help keep a family together, or pay someone else to care for them once the family is separated.

I, for one, would MUCH rather my money go to help KEEP families together.  Maybe it's just my midwestern, family-oriented attitude, but where I come from, we help out our friends and neigbors.

Besides, just think of what those billions of tax dollars being pumped into Iraq could do for our own people right here at home.

Answer 15

I think support should be there for addition counselling, parenting classes, employment readiness etc.  In Canada we also have affordable housing projects.

The real question is not whether the birht parents are poor, but are they ready to raise a child.

Answer 16

YES!