Child in the system should parent get fixed so they can't have any more kids?
By Justme2007
@Justme2007 (1848)
United States
June 3, 2007 7:00pm CST
I know it seems wrong, but I think a mom who continues to have babies and they are in the system should be made not to have children. I not saying tie there tubes but stop it up.lol
There are so many children in the system who parents are on drugs and just don't care. Not only that but the rich people go way across the world to get children when they have enough right here in America. I know those children need families also, but they should look in there own back yard first because, there is a child who needs love to and are not bad children just lost.God Bless and let me know how you feel no heart feeling if you don't agree.
6 people like this
10 responses
@AcousticSoul (1309)
• United States
4 Jun 07
isn't that the truth... its like the women who are stable and healthy and want beautiful families are unable to bare children and those who are incapiable have many...and instead for fixing the problem in the USA celebrities go over seas.. hoping for world peace... it starts at home to me...
I guess you can say I'm a little selfish...
the only good thing about it is for those who are unable to provide families can adopt and furfill there lives by changing someone elses
1 person likes this
@professorxang (201)
• United States
5 Jun 07
i think celebrity know that in usa orphan or child taken from bad family have better and safer chance in system here than in third world country. children here in usa are treated better mostly and there are severe consequences if orphan place found being bad right? in third world country most children die in orphan place becase country have more problem then worry about how they run, if they are fed, if they are cleaned and receive treatment. these children are far less likely to be adopt by own countrys people. usa orphan have better chance of survival and life. i think that celebrities know this and this may be why they go to those countries to save at least one child from starving an dying horribly in third world orphan place. i think orphans should be taken if you can and have the means and desire from anywhere. true i think focus should be on own usa baby but at least they are helping a poor unfortunate soul rather than not at all.
1 person likes this
@Thoroughrob (11742)
• United States
4 Jun 07
I think after 3, they should have to. We know of a lady that had 6 and the state took them all. Most of them at the hospital. I don't think they should have let her keep having them.
1 person likes this
@professorxang (201)
• United States
5 Jun 07
i agree. if kid taken away all the time they are born then why can lady keep having these poor children to be burden on system (and not have good life anyway) it seem cruel on lady's part that she have them and not take care of them and let them go to the state. it seem like she should be punish somehow.
1 person likes this
@Rozie37 (15499)
• Turkmenistan
4 Jun 07
It seems cruel, yet I find it very hard to give you a good arguement. I think that they should have their tubes tied, burned, whatever it takes. Later on, if they get their lives together, they can work on finding and starting a relationship with the children that they already have.
My best friend was put up for adoption luckily a good family adoted her, but eveyone is not so fortunate. It's kind of hard to say though, because every child that is born has a purpose and is meant to be hear. Depending on your beliefs, this is a tough one. Good topic though.
@kitkat1 (1227)
• Canada
5 Jun 07
I know what you mean on this one. It does seem creul to say they should get fixed but if they cant afford to live then they can afford a child either. I know there are some in my area that keep spiting out kids for the money they get of the system and dont really want the kids and that is so unfair to a child. So i really see what you are saying.
1 person likes this
@toe_ster (770)
• United States
4 Jun 07
I wish there was some way to stop people from repeating their bad behaviors. Especially those people that continue to have children and putting them into foster care. Legally it probably would never pass, but something should be done. It is not fair to kids to have to be put through that.
1 person likes this
@wahmoftwo (1296)
• United States
4 Jun 07
I think that bringing life into the world should be looked at as a privledge and not a right. If you abuse the privledge it should be taken away. It isn't fair to the kids that are born. They don't have a voice but we do. I say after three no more. I think this should go for those on wel-fare and even food stamps. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to feed them.
1 person likes this
@Lydia1901 (16351)
• United States
6 Jun 07
I do see your point and I would agree with you in this case. If she can't take care of them, something have to be done about how she makes them.
@targetgirl (44)
• United States
4 Jun 07
My opinion varies depending on the situation. If the mother has her kids taken away but she straightens up her act and gets her kids back and is good with them, then no.
But if the mother just keeps having kids and having tehm taken away then I think she should be put on brith control that she can't "forget" to use or have her tubes tied, her choice.
I'm all for women having reproductive freedom but once you start having the state pay for your repeated mistakes you should have to give up your right. ecause then its not just about you because your poor choices are affecting the kids, the state system and all the taxpayers that have to foot the bill.
1 person likes this
