(ZPG) Zero Population Growth

ashtonsmama wrote: I think it's an interesting idea, but I do want more than one child. The main idea of ZPG is basically to just have one child I think, just to replace you or your SO/DH, and not make the world bigger? I'm a little confused still--but just curious if anyone had heard of the idea or what you thought.

Sorry for the random post.

C&K*s Mommie replied: This may be catty. LOL

But that would be ridiculous!!! May as well rename us China deux and put a controlling dictator at the helm if someone would consider making that the law. It would take alot to make us similiar to China, but at least a portion of that would resemble them.

My3LilMonkeys replied: I don't quite get it - if there are 2 of you (you and SO) why are you only being replaced with 1 person? That would be negative population growth, wouldn't it?

ashtonsmama replied:
Yeah...


Let me see if I can find more about it--

ashtonsmama replied: Sorry-I don't know why I thought it was having one child, it's having two...that didn't come out right!

IF anyone is interested, here's a site:

Info on ZPG

zero population growth

The concept, popularized by a group called Zero Population Growth (ZPG), that individuals should only reproduce themselves at the replacement rate; for example, a man and a woman should have no more than two children. The reason for this concern is the alleged overpopulation of our entire planet, which, zero population growth advocates believe, would be resolved if they and many others bore fewer children.

Others allege that poverty and hunger are primarily the result of an inequitable distribution of available resources, not overpopulation.

Zero population growth advocates may be actively involved in the group that formally promotes their philosophy, or they may be informal believers in this concept.

If many people were zero population growth advocates, then the alleged worldwide overpopulation problem would probably be resolved; however, many people believe in bearing many children or do not believe in using any family planning method, with the end result being they bear many children whether they planned the births or not.

Some proponents of zero population growth, because they may enjoy raising children very much, have opted to adopt children rather than to bear more children themselves. They reason that there are already children in the world needing homes, which they can provide.

kimberley replied:

it is a dumb idea imo and ITA with the above statement.

holley79 replied:
ITA with Nicole on this one. Though there are some people I wish would be sterilized but that's JMHO. (Because they ticked me off mainly. )

~Roo'sMama~ replied: Bad idea and completely unnecessary IMO.

A&A'smommy replied: I think its a stupid idea!!

My2Beauties replied: I think it's a very bad idea, because what about the people that don't, can't have children, aren't the ones who have more than 2 just simply making up for them? This really just makes no sense to me, I don't think that the government should be able to take away the right to how large of a family one should have, if they have the means to have more than 2 children and the love then let them have 100, I could care less as long as the children are loved and taken care of! While I do think that kids who are only children are fine (I was one, my half-brother never lived with me and was much older than me) I think it's also good for them to have siblings as well.

ashtonsmama replied:

ITA!

jcc64 replied:

Amen

ilovemybaby replied:
That's what I was going to say!

Um also how exactly would they make it a law? Nothing stopping a couple from doing the deed in their own home and conceiving a second child and having that child at home. Would they force abortions or adoption on those who broke the law?
I think it's ridiculous.
Actually I think with all the women these days that are actually deciding not to have kids because they don't want any or those that want to just be career women, that our population is going to get smaller. But then maybe not.

ilovemybaby replied: Ok so it's really two kids if there's two of you... I just read the article.
But what if they want to have another because they have two of the same sex and they'd like to try for the opposite sex? This is our plan. We aren't going to have any more kids yet though... we need to get into a bigger house first. I'm going to wait until Abby is about 8 before we try again. I'd like a bigger age gap next time so hopefully that will make it a bit easier for us to cope with three or four kids! Four is the limit!

Heather77 replied:
ITA!

redchief replied:
The planet is more than capable of feeding more humans. This is proven by the amounts of crop and livestock destroyed for lack of market/ability to market. The gov't pays some farmers not to plant! ZPG is a typical liberal ideal in the same vein as global warming and the distribution of wealth. On scrutiny it just doesn't hold water.

What the ZPGers (for lack of a better word) fail to consider are the effects of war, famine and blight on the distribution of food to those most in need. It is an unfortunate and disgusting fact of humanity that the biggest reason so many are starving is because other people wish or allow that to be so. In other words, food acts as part of the distribution of power and wealth in some parts of the world. In our own country, urban blight and associated poverty are the main reasons for people going hungry. It isn't that we can't feed the people; it's that, collectively, we don't have the desire or ability to do so. That would mean fights most of us simply aren't willing to put up.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use our heads as far as our population of the planet goes. I don't think those who haven't the ability, economically or physically, to feed and educate their children, should bring them into the world. Unfortunately poverty and illiteracy are often part of the equation. Many would say that is an uppity attitude, but I don't think so at all. I just believe that people have a responsibility to ensure their offsprings' basic needs are met to adulthood. Who bears the responsibility to fix those areas of the world where hunger, crime and oppression rule? All of us who know what it's like to be safe and secure bear that responsibility. The final question is, do we have the resolve?

ilovemybaby replied: I agree and the thing is what happens if the two kids you conceive end up dying young and you die too? Then you have no one to carry on after you. It's horrible to think about but I don't know if Abby and Sophie will still be here in another 65 plus years (my great grand mothers are still alive and they are 95 and 96). They could die before Paul and I.

And I agree... there are people out there bringing more kids into the world and they cannot take care of them at all. I don't think a low income should mean someone can't have kids (like Paul and I... we are low income but Abby doesn't want or need anything... we survive! But my mother and father and Pauls father did not think we should have kids yet because of our financial situation... and they can't talk because they did the same. I still think we have the right to have kids... if we didn't do it two years ago due to our financial situation and we waited until we were financially better off then it would never happen seriously!) but I agree when it comes to poverty... like third world poverty ... I don't understand it. Why all these women in Africa are bringing kids into the world when they are just dying of malnutrition and starvation? It's so sad and I know there are probably reasons why that we just can't comprehend. But it just doesn't make sense.
Something needs to be done about poverty. There are people in this world with a ton of money and it's like they don't even care about those poor kids in Africa and other third world countries. If I won a large amount of money there is no doubt in my mind that I would send some of it to Africa or somewhere else. I HATE seeing those kids on TV and I would love to help them. Unfortunately we are not financially able to help them. And yet, there are people out there who are driving fancy cars and wearing designer clothing and living the good life (I'm not saying if you have an expensive car and wear good clothing that you shouldn't have those things) but they don't send money to those who need it. When I say living the good life I don't mean a couple that have everything they need and extra money to spare. I mean for example... people like Bill Gates!

ashtonsmama replied: I love reading your opinions and ideas, Ed, and I agree with both you and Renee on all counts. I hadn't really looked into/researched the ZPG issue much before this, I haven't heard much about it lately, but I'm glad I brought it up. It seems to be an interesting topic. Thanks for expressing your opinions, all of you.

jcc64 replied:

I agreed with much of your post, Ed. As usual, very well articulated and thoughtful. The one thing I take serious issue with is your assertion that global warming is a screwy liberal delusion- there's LOTS of undeniable science behind it, and lots of evidence that the facts are being deliberately buried by people whose interests would be compromised by addressing a very real problem for ALL of us. But, this post wasn't about global warming, so I'll leave it there.
The other thing that confused me a little bit was your statement above about the distribution of wealth not being a legitimate concern. It seemed to contradict the statements that followed in the rest of your post. Can you clarify for me?

coasterqueen replied: I don't buy into it. Although I do have the opinion that one should not have any more children than they can afford, i.e. don't keep having children if you are on welfare, etc. I just feel that's the responsible choice. Just an opinion. I think if you can afford to and responsibly take care of them, have as many as you want.

ashtonsmama replied:


Like those Duggar Family types, who have tons of kids, but take good care of them and don't depend on the state/govt. to take care of them.

~~*Missi*~~ replied: its that kinda what they were doing in china... don't they have a similar "rule" so to speak???


I think we need "replacements" and I don't think with all the bad things that can happen this day in age that jsut one child per couple is going to do it....

But the idea is there so .....

ashtonsmama replied:
Kind of I think. Now that I've read more and learned more about it I'm seeing how it could be a bad thing if everyone started doing it...who knows.

ilovemybaby replied:
I don't understand why so many people have this view... but I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It just upsets me. We get assistance from the government because I'm a SAHM and we live on one income. I feel that since I paid taxes and worked 40 plus hours a week for nearly 7 years that I have the right to now be a SAHM and get some of the money back that I put into taxes to raise my own child. I don't agree with my tax money being used on certain thins eg giving money to those who are just too lazy to work or don't want to work so they can sit home on their butts and drink and smoke and watch TV all day KWIM? but I paid my taxes (and Paul of course still is paying taxes) whether or not I agreed with what they would be spent on. And I hate seeing huge sports stadiums going up that were built with our tax money because they are a waste of money IMO but I know many people don't see it that way. And being a Christian I have very strong beliefs that women are meant to stay home and raise their own kids and cook and clean... not work outside the home. That's the mans job.

If I waited until we were financially better-off and able to afford everything we needed before having any kids it NEVER would happen. Seriously. And I think I have just as much right to have kids as anyone else. I'm not going to pop out 5 or 6 or more kids. But if we don't stop at the two we originally planned on... that's our choice. Back in the old days families were much larger than most are these days... my dads mother had 4 kids and my mums mother had 5 kids. Whereas we are only going to have a maximum of 4 and I'm hoping only 3! (we want to try for a boy... but the limit is 4!!!!)

Anyway, I know I have gone off topic but I just felt the need to express my opinion on this. Sorry!

ashtonsmama replied:
I can see your point. I think that what Karen and I were both talking about is people that really don't even try to take care of their kids, I think that you personally are doing your best Renee--and lots of people need a little help with their kids, etc. I think that too many people really take advantage of it just because they're lazy though...JMO. YOU are not.
Just to clarify.

coasterqueen replied:
This is off topic, however since you replied to my general statement I felt I needed to reply back. I agree, we are all entitled to our opinions and so are you. However, your thinking is why I think welfare gets a bad name and I totally disapprove of this mentality personally. I, too, could be a SAHM, live off one income and get on welfare. I choose not to because of how I was raised and taught by my parents. I do not believe that others should have to work and pay for me to stay at home, just because I feel I want to or I feel I'm entitled to anything. I've been working full time for almost 15 years now and I've never once felt like society or the government in general owes me anything for paying taxes. My children are MY responsibility, not anyone elses and I'm not going to SAH so the government can help pay for them. Welfare should be there for those who can't work for medical/phsyical reasons, single parents, and those where there are two working but still can't make ends meet.

I will never feel like I made the wrong choice to work instead of SAH for my children because I am instilling values/morals in my children that I feel are VERY important. I might have had some pretty crappy parents but they instilled some good values in me about working hard and not having anything handed to me. My mother could have gone on welfare too when my parents were younger and were raising me as teenagers, but they didn't. They both chose to work instead of asking the government for help and my sister and I were no worse off because of it.

I, too, would never get to SAH w/my children if I waited til I could afford it. Would never happen. But I knew that before having kids.

I could go on and on about this subject, but I won't. I just wanted to explain why I feel so differently than you.

ilovemybaby replied:
Oh don't get me wrong I wasn't taking offence to your statement (and I know it was a general statement) because you are entitled to your own opinion and I'm not knocking your opinion. It just saddens me that so many mothers feel they HAVE to work because others make them feel that way.
I just think too many mothers are working these days because they feel pressured into it. They feel that they don't have the right to be a SAHM if they can't afford every little thing on their own. I think a lot of them are made to feel bad if they do choose to be a SAHM and get help from the government. I know I have felt that way because of what others have said.
And to clear this up.. I'm not a SAHM because I feel entitled to be or because I just want to be. I am doing it because I feel it's what I should be doing. I wouldn't feel right having kids and putting my kids into daycare. Because I have a biblical viewpoint of womanhood. Woman stay home and take care of the house and kids. Men work outside the home. Actually women didn't even work outside the home at all in bible days. Even if they didn't have kids. They stayed home and took care of the house and cooked. Everything has changed now.

I don't think this view gives welfare a bad name. People that don't agree with it give the viewpoint and welfare a bad name. If I was popping out 5 or 6 kids and living off the government and never intended to go back to work then yes, I would feel bad about that too. I don't think it's ok to just have kids because you don't want to work and you want to sit at home on your butt all day. And that's NOT why I'm a SAHM. It's the mothers that actually do this... and don't even care for these 5 or 6 kids properly (like neglecting them or using the money for the kids on other things like booze and cigarettes) that ARE giving welfare a bad name. JMO

It's not that I think I'm entitled to money from the government. But my husband IS paying taxes and he is most likely paying out about the same amount as what we get back each week. In fact, before I met my husband and was living alone on my own income I was paying $64 a week in taxes and I was getting exactly $64 a week back from the government. So I was actually not really getting anything from anyone. I was just getting back what they were taking from me. I earned the money. If we didn't have to pay taxes then we wouldn't have to get any money from the government which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Why not just scratch tax altogether for those on low incomes or one income etc? Because they are just giving it all back to us anyway. KWIM?

And not everyone has high paid jobs that mean they can afford everything they need. It's not my fault that I didn't get the qualifications to be able to get a job like that. I'm not going to go into major detail but I had a very horrible childhood (was sexually abused at 7 years old, 14 and 15) and suffered from major depression and couldn't even concentrate at school and didn't do well at school) and wasn't able to do my best in school so I ended up working in the supermarket as a checkout operator. I was being paid $9.75 an hour. I started on $7.50. So I had to get government help just to pay the bills and mortgage each week.

And I don't think I should have to put my children into daycare and go back to work full-time so I don't have to get any help from the government. I would then most probably not be able to keep my job or have to go back on anti-depressants because I would spend my days worrying and upset about my children in daycare... wondering if the workers are looking after them properly and worrying about something really bad happening eg a worker sexually abusing them or mistreating them. And I don't see the point of having kids and sticking them straight into daycare (but I can understand some mothers just don't have the choice). What's the point of having kids and then handing them to someone else to take care of? You then also miss out on so many firsts and moments that you don't see because you are at work. And I'm not judging or putting down anyone who uses daycare. Don't get me wrong. I just personally would feel terrible. I want to raise my own kids and see EVERY cute or clever thing they do the first time they do it.
I used to work in a daycare centre and it just really got to me how so many of the kids would be balling their eyes out standing at the window calling out "mommy mommy" and banging on the window EVERY day when their mothers left them. I just couldn't do that. I'd go to work balling my own eyes out every day. I wonder how they do it. It's hard enough sending them off to school. Do you become desensitized to it or something? And I'm not bashing anyone here... I'm just wondering how you actually do it.

I also wonder why anyone thinks the government is entitled to take our hard earned money off us? You say that you don't feel the government owes you anything because you pay taxes... but what gives them the right to take YOUR money off you in the first place? And why are they entitled to it but you are not entitled to be a SAHM?
And how is being a SAHM any different to those that get money from the government to help fund their studies (how are they any more entitled to the help than a mother is for bringing new life into the world? We are creating the next generation. If every women decided not to have kids if they couldn't afford to do it all on their own and they all decided to be career women then the population would go down considerably) etc? How is someone that wants to study and cannot afford to on their own any more entitled than someone who wants to bring a child into the world?
And if your children are YOUR responsibility not anyone elses then why is it ok to give them to strangers to take care of during the day while you work but not ok to take care of them yourself and get a little help from the government?

I could also mention the studies that have been done that have shown the negative affects of a child being in full-time daycare but I don't have the research. Dr Phil did a show on SAHMs vs working moms and there was a lady on there that provided some data on the negative affects of full-time daycare as apposed to a child being with their mother most of the time. I think they recommend only 1 or 2 days a week for a 3 year old.

Again, I just want to say that I'm NOT judging anyone here. And I don't think anyone is a bad mother for using daycare or being a WOHM. I am just trying to add other viewpoints to this and give you something to think about.
And this post is NOT aimed at coasterqueen. It's just another general statement. Please don't take offense!

Sorry for such a lonnnnnnnnnnnng post If you read all this then Wow! I feel sorry for you!
Just PLEASE don't take personal offense to this. Because it's not aimed at anyone and I'm not judging anyone. And my hormones are all up the shoot right now being pregnant. So I apologize in advance if I have come across the wrong way.
And sorry for the caps. I'm not yelling there! I swear. I just wanted to emphasize the important parts. I didn't think of bolding the words.

ashtonsmama replied: Wow Renee!

I didn't know you had it in you! (J/K)
That was fun to read. I actually did read all of it, well said. I won't say more here, because I could go off on long tangents all day, but well said.

jcc64 replied: I have to agree with Karen on this one. There have been many times where I would have preferred to be more available to my kids and stayed home with them when they were little- but my dh and I chose to bring them into this world, and to the best of my ability, it is my responsibility to provide for them. That includes being a full time working mom, in my case. I am not going to address the comment about women's obligation to stay home and raise children- these are your beliefs and you are entitled to them. But having kids is a responsibility, not a right, I'm sorry to disagree with you there. I would love to have more kids- but I know I cannot support more than I have, so here it is that I stop. And I also agree with Karen that paying taxes doesn't somehow entitle you to a free pass- for anything. I'm 41- I've been working since I was 16, worked all the way through college, and never once received or asked for assistance. Does that make me a better person than anyone else? Absolutely not- but it also doesn't entitle me to demand child support from the gov't unless I have some disability or extenuating circumstance that precludes me from providing for my family myself.
Man, you'd never know I was a raging liberal from this post, huh? I mean no disrespect to anyone, so please- no flaming.

ilovemybaby replied: Also I put off having kids for about 7 years (my biological clock was ticking all that time) because of being told to wait until I could afford them and to wait until this and that... but after 7 years I just couldn't take it anymore. I would see little babies at work every day and almost burst into tears and I wanted so badly to pick them all up and hold them and it was all because I wanted a baby of my own so badly. I was an emotional wreck! I got upset because I'd keep thinking "I'm never going to have kids. I can't afford to have kids." etc...
That's why I feel that I have just as much right as anyone else even if I can't afford everything on my own.

It's funny how people find it so easy to bash those on welfare (and I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that) but they are not going over to third world countries like Africa where women are popping out kids and the kids are dying from starvation and malnutrition to protest and try to stop them. No one is bashing them. Everyone feels sorry for them and the poor kids. But no one says anything. These women have no help from the country. Heck the country doesn't have the money to help these women. And yet, they still have kids.
Because they can't provide for their kids does this make them any less entitled as women to have kids? Their husbands should be providing for them (this is what the bible says!) but they are not. Whose at fault here? The women? The government? Or the men?
I can't even really answer this question. But I thought it was something to think about.

ilovemybaby replied:
Thanks! I can't believe you even read the whole thing! If it was me ... I probably wouldn't have. I am guilty of skimming long posts.

ilovemybaby replied:
Yes that is true and this is where I ask... "what does responsible mean to everyone?" Because how is it responsible to have kids and give them to a stranger/s to take care of? Aren't you responsible for taking care of your own kids?

And as I said... I don't think I'm entitled to help from the government because I pay taxes. But "what makes the government entitled to take my hard earned money or my husbands?" What makes them entitled to it? What makes anyone else entitled to my tax money? Why is it ok for my tax money to be spent on things like sport stadiums, roads, buildings, unemployment benefits etc?
How is someone that wants to study to be a lawyer or doctor any more entitled to my tax money than I am? I mean half the people that get student loans probably don't even finish their studies or graduate. I once did a course and got a student loan of nearly $3000 and quit the course after two or three months because I didn't think it was the right one for me and I was finding it very difficult (the Psychology part). The majority of the student loan was not refunded to the government or whoever is responsible for handing them out. I had to pay it ALL back. I'm actually still not finished paying it back because I could only afford to pay the bare minimum back each week when I was working. I still owe just over $200. And I got nothing from the course because I quit it after two or three months... no qualification. So other peoples taxes went to funding that student loan and I didn't even use it. I feel bad about that. But I was miserable in that course. It was just too OTT.
Do you know how many others there are like me that got student loans and never even used them? The only difference there is that I have to pay it back including interest.

ashtonsmama replied: I love the side tangents going on here. Never thought it would be such a hot topic!

ilovemybaby replied: Also not to sound like a moaning "feeling sorry for myself person" but what does disability include? Because here in NZ you can go on a sickness benefit for depression. I could have gone on one...
It's something that can be handled with medication and counselling but they still include it as a sickness that you can get the sickness benefit for.
Do you think that is ok? Do you think the government should be able to use your tax money for that?
Disability is abused too. My FIL was on disability just because of severe migraines and a bad neck. He reckons he cannot work or drive because of the neck problem and migraines. But my husband gets severe migraines that are way worse than FILs and he still works. There isn't anything wrong with FILs neck IMO because he bikes everywhere and he still has to turn his head both ways for that to make sure that no cars are coming right? And he hardly ever actually gets the migraines (my hubby doesn't either... but he used to get them every week even sometimes twice a week and he spent a lot of time off work and he was always worried he would be fired for all the time he was off) so he would be able to hold down a job. He actually does Avon now. So exactly how did he manage to get sickness benefit? I have no idea but I think he was abusing the system. IMO

BTW my hubbys migraines are so bad that his whole body shakes, he cannot walk or talk or communicate, he drools from the mouth and he has to have a shot of Pethidine if he can't get rid of it with the medication he has. One time we took him to the hospital because we were sick of doctors just calling it a migraine and we thought it had to be more serious and so we took him to the hospital by doctors suggestion so a Neurologist would see him and he was admitted. They were supposed to do tests on him but never did them We are putting this down to the fact it was a public holiday and the Neurologist wasn't there and so by the time he saw him the next day he was his normal self again and he didn't see him while he was actually suffering. When we wheeled him into the hospital the receptionist asked if he was handicapped/a vegetable Seriously that's how bad they are.
We think this is all because he was beaten up at work about 10 years ago and they said they suspected brain meningitis. It was that bad. The guy punched him in the head a few times and in the neck. The migraines only started after that. Too much of a coincidence if you ask me... but they have never actually done any tests on him. You'd think with all the times he's been to the ER and hospital too that they would have done something by now. He's even seen a Neurologist at Auckland hospital and all she said was to change his medication.
I think we'd actually have to pay for any tests to be done. He's been told by my doctor that he should have an MRI. But we would have to pay for it.

coasterqueen replied: You know what I'm not going to respond to your posts because as a moderator I can't say what I want to say, so I won't. I do feel very sorry for you, because you seem to have a lot of reasons why everyone else should help you and why you can't do this and that in life.

I had a horrible childhood, too, which many people on this board have NO clue what I went through and the secrets I have, but I chose to put them behind with me with the loving help of my husband, go on with life and live it for the positives. That attitude got me to where I'm at, no one else, but mine. Heck my husband spent summers with his mother in grade school and highschool digging through dumpsters for food just to survive, never once asked the government for help. They struggled and struggled and never once said, it's not my fault so everyone else should help me.

Anyways I better stop here. and the best of luck to you in life.

mummy2girls replied: wow...

I do have to say im a little offended about the daycare thing. Some couples cant afford to have kids where can one stay at home full time so thats why they put them in daycre. So does this mean those people cant or should not have kids? There are people out there( as myself) that have to put thier child into daycare. Its a part of life... I think yes there are daycares out there that are nightmares but there are also awesome ones out there( as mine will be...LOL). Plus i think kids being in an environment with other kids thier ages is good for them...

Anyways... ill stop before i restart this debate... Im sorry if i did but i just had to add my 2 cents in

aspenblue1 replied: Well I am not sure I should say anything here. I am very offended on some of the comments made here. First I am a christian also but I do have to work and I do not see anything wrong with working and having children. I love my children more than anything else in the world. I also do not believe that I had children to let someone else raise. Yes my children are in day care but they are there playing with their friends all day learing important socialization. I also do not believe the government owes me anything for the several years I have worked. Also as far as people getting more chances for education. I have worked full time and went to school to get my degree.

Our Lil' Family replied:

And is it responsible to get pregnant and become a SAHM KNOWING you cannot afford it on one income and have to depend on government assistance? I think not.
My DH and I chose to get pregnant knowing that our choice was for me to stay home with our baby, and we made sure that we were financially capable of living on one income. Yes, we cut back, alot. Yes we miss a lot of luxuries, but that's what being a parent is about, sacrifice! Sure we could apply for government help and maybe be able to have all those luxuries back but we knew what parenthood entailed when we conceived our son.

jcc64 replied: Hmmmmm, this is already getting a little overheated, but I really feel the need to address some pretty offensive comments. I do believe we women tend to be quick to denegrate the choices of others in order to justify our own beliefs. I also think if we were so secure in our choices, we wouldn't feel such an urgent need to defend them so stridently. I make no apologies for being a working mom. My children are fine, they are well cared for, and we had very good experiences with our childcare throughout the years. It was no one's responsibility but my own to ensure my children's well being, whether they were in my care or in daycare. The consequences of those choices are mine, and my children's, and nobody else's business. When people begin to feel they have the right to scrutinize your choices or lifestyle is when those choices have repurcussions beyond the boundaries of your own home. If you have children, and you have no ability to provide healthcare for them, and one happens to contract a serious illness, for example, the astronomical cost of the care is assumed by the gov't and the taxpayers. You can't in one breath be complaining about paying taxes, and in another be asking for assistance. It's a paradox. Your ability to indulge your beliefs about motherhood and your judgments about daycare relies on the kindness (or obligation, depending on your viewpoint) of strangers.
I believe we as a society don't do enough to support working families, and I vote accordingly. I am not against welfare in any way, shape, or form, and I will gladly pay more taxes to improve the sorry lot we land some of our brothers and sisters in through no fault of their own. But when we abuse the system, it makes it ever more difficult for those that really are truly desperate to find the help they need. And in the end, if we are expecting charity and compassion from others, we better perfect it in our own homes first.

ilovemybaby replied:
Thanks for that. Now I really am crying. You know I thought this was a supportive board and the last thing I need is more stress and upset on top of what I already have being 26 weeks pregnant and in as much pain as I am.

I don't expect help from anyone. I never got pregnant because I knew we would get as much as we do and I was scared we wouldn't cope. But I have just as much right to be a mother than anyone else. Sorry but I do. My parents didn't get any help from the government and if I wasn't entitled to anything then I would have still had Abby and made do on one income. As for luxuries... well, we don't have those. The only thing we have is the internet and I've said many times to Paul that we don't need it. Heck when I get this much grief from a message board I don't know why we have it anyway. We still just scrape by. Even with the help from the government. We can't buy anything nice. We are lucky if we can afford to get Abby a birthday and Christmas present. But she has what she needs. As for socialization... well, she will get it when she goes to school. I went to Kindy and it did nothing for me. I have never been a social person even though I had socialization since age 3. I don't go telling people whether they can or can't have kids. And I didn't expect to be judged here for being a SAHM whether or not we get welfare or not. I wasn't judging those who use daycare. I stated many times that I was not doing that and that I meant no offense. So think what you like but that's not what I was doing.

ilovemybaby replied: I'm not even going to bother answering any more of these horrible posts. But just to clarify... if we didn't get any money from welfare we would not be able to pay all our bills and the mortgage. So it's not like there is a choice. Yes I had a baby. But I'm not going to sit here and justify why. Because that's my business and no one elses.

Basically you are saying that I should not have had Abby because we couldn't live on one income? Well that is so not fair. Not everyone has high paid jobs. If I was to wait until Paul was earning enough for me to be a SAHM ... well, lets just say we wouldn't have ever had kids. If I was to have kids and work full-time and use daycare then I would have been miserable, suffering depression and having to take medication and see a counsellor. Is that fair? I don't think so.
Also ever considered that it wouldn't make any difference whether I was a SAHM or WOHM. Here daycare costs about $120-250 a week... I am not sure but it's a lot. My income when I was working was $300 and something. I would be taking home about the same amount as what I get from welfare. So because I shouldn't get money from welfare I should work full-time and how does that benefit us at all? It doesn't. It just means that I wouldn't have to hear people go on about how I'm screwing the system which I am not.
And I am not complaining about paying taxes. I did it because I had to and now I'm benefitting like all the other people that have been taking my tax money for almost 7 years for things like student loans. I'm not saying I'm entitled to it but how is the government entitled to it? No one has even answered that question!
And I didn't post all these posts to justify my decision to be a SAHM. I did it so others could see things from a different view than just "those who accept welfare are bludgers".

luvbug00 replied: This has gotten way heated but I do believe we are alll intittled to our own oppinions and everyone is going to be offended by SOMTHING somone else has to say about them. i'm so frequently attacked on debate boards i guess I see no reason to get be getting upset.

As far as the population goes I personaly can only afford to have one child right now. I make less then 9 grand a year and my Fiancee makes what is concidered low income. We never used assistance and there is nothing wrong with using it . I just see somthing wrong with somone using it when they are popping out kid number 5 or 8 . KWIM. everyone has the right to have children but i think that to me i wouldn't and won't because i can't afford to . I will be able to afford to very soon and then i will persue it.. I hope. But if you can't I see nothing wrong with going ahead and having some kids 2 or so since that is the "ideal" # . It's just the extreme child bearing ( again 8 kids and what have you) welfare sucking people out there who do give welfare a bad name. As far as daycares ehh to each his own.

Jamison'smama replied: I think you need to remember that when a person states an extreme view it will often times be answered with opposing views. Many of the views stated were attacking those who work or use childcare. You have to expect that those people will take offense. Even some of us who stay at home would take offense. There are people who share both sides of this debate. You just have to remember when stating your personal views, other's can state theirs too.

So many blanket statements were made that you may have hit hotspots for several people. I am a HUGE advocate for social services as I have devoted my life to that field but I can't' quite agree with a lot of the statements made. Student Loans? I used them and pay ALL of the money back...it's a loan. The government profits from the interest. Also. It would be helpful to understand third world countries and lack of birth control. education and their religious beliefs before bringing it into play. It is truely apples and oranges IMO.

None of this is attacking anyone personally, it is agreeing or diagreeing with previous statements only.

ilovemybaby replied:
I agree but this is not the first message board I've used where I've been upset/hurt personally and I'm sick of being the one to apologize every time when both sides have said something that has offended... and I'm the only one that is expected to apologize. I'm not going to do it this time.

And I'm not the first one to leave this board. I know a couple of others have left recently.

All I did was express my thoughts and views.

mummy2girls replied: you dont have to leave if thats what your tyhinking of doing. Just like what was said.. everyone was just expressing thier views. What you said was a strong view that you believe in and what people responded was what they strongly believe as well. It did get a bit heated but we have to realize that this happens on messageboards. im sorry if you were hurt in any way....

ilovemybaby replied:
I didn't think my view was extreme and I was not attacking working mothers or those who use childcare. I don't see how I was. I was giving my personal opinion. If anyone actually bothered to read my whole post they would have read that. I was stating my personal view and opinion. That's all. I was basically explaining why I am a SAHM and get welfare. Why I refuse to let others make me feel bad for that. Why I don't feel bad for it.
Many times I stated that I was not judging WOHMs or those who use daycare. And I also apologized in advance if I had upset anyone but stated again, that I was not attacking WOHMs. And when I said "is it responsible to have a child and let someone else take care of them?" I was trying to make you see another side of it. Because apparently it's not responsible to have a child and be on welfare. I was saying how is either option any more responsible than the other.
Maybe no one should have kids. Honestly, I hear bad things about WOHMs and SAHMs and career women who don't want any kids. Why don't we all just stop having kids and then no one will have to feel bad for their personal decision.

I actually have a lot of respect for WOHMs. It's something I just couldn't do. I think I'd go insane. I don't know how they do it.
I was in no way saying mothers should not go back to work and use daycare and that that is irresponsible or that every mother should be a SAHM and raise their own child 24/7 and leave the bread winning to hubby. That was just my personal choice. I guess I'm old fashioned...
The thing is how did they all do it back in the old days (in bible times)? The men were the sole income providers. What if they didn't earn enough? How did all these SAHMs manage? They didn't have welfare but maybe it's possible things just didn't cost as much as they do these days... I know that when my parents bought their house it only cost $175,000. It's in one of the best areas in our town and in zone for one of the two best schools. But now you couldn't get a house in that area with three bedrooms (that's what it is) for less than $249,000. Now their house is worth about $350,000. We need three bedrooms and our limit is $200,000. So we are stuck here until both kids go to school and I can go back to work. Inflation has been a big problem. Hardly anyone here in NZ can even afford to buy their own home. If all those people that couldn't afford to buy their own homes didn't have the option of renting or state housing and they didn't have kids because they couldn't afford to... well, our population would be down at least 50 percent. Are all these people (on two incomes) meant to have 80 hr a week jobs so they can afford everything on their own? Basically the government is laughing in our faces. They have a ton of money. We have to work like slaves just to survive and for example... our PM of NZ ...well she gets a gardening allowance of $1000 or something. They live off us because they take money off us that we earnt. Is that fair? We pay taxes to them when if we didn't, we would be able to afford to buy a house and not need welfare. They are screwing us over.
And I never said no one else could state their opinion. You can state your opinion without saying something like "I feel very sorry for you" though.

ilovemybaby replied:
Exactly my point... the government benefits from it. Not those who need it. Anyone remember when education used to be free? Now we have to pay for our education (including our parents paying for our schooling and books etc...) so we can get a job so we can earn our own money so we can survive. We all have to work and we have to be qualified to get anything better than a job at McDonalds but we have to pay for it.

ilovemybaby replied:
sorry I forgot to finish this ... they would be homeless or you'd have large amounts of family living in one home together and then there would be major health issues and hygiene issues. And renting costs more than what we pay for our mortgage each week. State housing... well, if you can get a house since there is a huge waiting list for those. And they are in poor condition. So are most rentals ... my house is an ex rental. Lets just say it was disgusting. We had to replace the carpet and lino and repaint. And that wasn't the worst of it.
I think in our street alone that we are 1 of only 2 families that own their own home.

ilovemybaby replied: Also since I'm apparently irresponsible because I chose to have a child and get welfare I have to ask how many mothers are out there working not because they HAVE to but because they don't want to go without something. Is that not selfish? What's wrong with being a SAHM and going without a haircut or makeup or new clothing or whatever? Money isn't everything. I'd rather have my kids and see them grow up than to be so worried about not having something I want for myself. I may be considered irresponsible but I consider a lot of mothers selfish (lets be honest here... how many mothers really do HAVE to work because they can't afford raising kids without 2 incomes? I mean those that can do so without government help) for having kids when they have to have everything and can't do without one thing eg designer clothing or a big screen TV and so they put their kids into daycare. JMO

luvmykids replied:
Better yet, why don't we stop judging each other for personal decisions and the personal reasons behind them? I'm more than happy to respect your choices as long as you are willing to respect mine.

I think your blanket statement that moms who work just because they don't want to give up things sounded very judgemental, JMHO. If you want others to respect your decision to have children while on welfare and not judge you for the reasons behind it, then you have to be willing to not judge them for their choices to work and their reasons. You may deem it frivilous and unselfish but if we aren't being judgemental, that really doesn't matter, right?

And FWIW, I am a SAHM who takes my children part time to daycare for my own SELFISH reasons, just because I'm a mom, SAHM or otherwise, does not mean I am nothing else. And I for one, am a much better mom for doing that. It is a gift to my children as much as myself to be the best mother I can and for me that means having some time by myself. And so what if a woman works to provide well not only for her children but also herself? All that tells me is that she knows she is no good for her children if she is not good to herself. To some that means smelling the flowers in a meadow, to others it's a new pair of shoes.

If you don't want to be judged then who are you to judge?

coasterqueen replied: Actually ilovemybaby you took offense to a very blanket statement I made and this is how it started. You replied attacking my statement when it wasn't my intention to attack you with mine in the first place.

I do not expect you to apologize, never asked for one. I will NEVER feel guilty for the decisions I've made in life. I made them, I own them, I live with them, I will not feel guilty for them. I can not help if me or anyone else makes you feel guilty for your decisions. IF you are feeling guilty there is something else there, it's not that someone else is making you feel that way.

I'd also like to say I'd LOVE to have a $200,000 home......we couldn't ever afford that, even off of two incomes.

Last, just to let you know. I started working full time at 17 years of age. I worked part-time before that since the age of 15. I got a job right out of highschool with ONLY my highschool skills, that's it. I worked my way through college and got my degree. When I got out of college 10 years later I was already making what I would make if I had my degree. So I would never be able to say that one can't get a good paying job unless they went to school and got a degree. It's entirely not true. I got mine by using my highschool skills and the drive to educate myself on things that I didn't even study in college. It's entirely possible for people to get good paying jobs w/o a college education, one just has to put in their "time" a little longer in a field and they'll get the pay. Although I don't consider myself having a great paying job.

I have a world of thought to post but I can't so I won't.

TANNER'S MOM replied: I wasn't going to post here but I feel like I have too.

Now you religious beliefs tell you that woman need to stay home and take care of their husbands and children and I understand that is your belief. But I want to stress that there were tons of strong women in the bible...who did alot of things other than change diapers and cook. They did what it took for their families as well as their community. If they needed to hunt they hunted if they needed to sew they sewed if they needed to doctor the sick they did..they did it all also. The woman in the families were very revered and respected b/c of all they could do!

But I what I really want to say..is this. I am a mother of 4. 3 of my own and a step child I love dearly. I have what alot of people consider a large family by todays standards. I am a working mother. I resent the statment that I work for selfish reasons such as nice things. I work for many reasons.. and nice things maybe just a very small part of that. I work to FEED, CLOTHE, Provide all the basic needs in my family..just as the women of the bible did for their families. Times are different then they were then. The means of how we feed our families are different..the means of how we get clothes are different. These things take money in this day and age. Groceries aren't grown in the pasture anymore..we aren't butchering lambs around back..we are having to have money to go to the store and purchase these things. So in the end.. I think I am doing the same as the strong woman of the bible.. I am just doing it in 2006..and the best I can for my large family.

I am going to work daily, I am sending my children to school, I am taking them to church on Sunday and I am spending every waking moment worrying that no matter what I do it is not enough in today's society.

Yes my children stayed in a home day care..or with family members. I was lucky in that family members were able to help, though I still had to pay for their help! But NO one else has raised my children. No one else has gotten up in the middle of the night and changed diapers or nursed them when they are sick. My children always creid for me or their father.. I raised my children and they have not suffered from it.

But they have learned from it. They have learned what it is like to put family first and my own needs last. THey have learned what a strong woman is like. They have learned that it takes the whole house to function because we rely on each other. They have learned that nothign comes free..and they have learned that hard work is how you get some where. My kids know what it is to get up at 6 and feed the animals before you eat yourself..and the same at suppertime. They know what it means give all you have to a cause and a reason which happens to be our family.

And if by being a working mother it has helped my daughters and son respect all women and what they do for society then praise the lord for that..because per the bible..a virtous hard working woman is a like a rare ruby..her worth far greater than any other!

ashtonsmama replied:
AMEN!

Thank you for saying that. Mel--I think you're an incredible mother and wife, and I think that was very well said. Thank you for putting it all out there.

ashtonsmama replied:
Please don't leave Renee-we would miss you so much...you're a wonderful person and it would be a shame to lose you over something so petty. Please reconsider.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Firstly I am a little confused as to why this became a SAHM vs. Working mom debate. But since it did I will state my opinion on both issues. I am very much anti population control. I believe like most women here do (although in a different way than some) my reproduction should not be allowed to be controled by the government. ITA the ones who have said it before we would become China 2. That country is facing a crisis in the near future in their work population. The child limit imposed has now begun to catch up with them and they will soon not have the people to continue their workforce and care for those who are aging. That of course can/will lead to the non-productive citizen genocide but here I will digress....

I would also like to say I come from a BIG family 9 kids in fact and we were not welfare recipients. My dad busted his butt to provide for us (in a blue collar job) and my mom stayed home. They did WHATEVER it took to make ends meet and we never knew any differently! Sure going out to eat was a treat,it should be I think, and so was some of the stuff that Taylor gets to take for granted BUT I grew up in a loving home and did not suffer any permanent damage for not having a gameboy! On this issue the Bible also says "Give to God what is His and give to Ceaser what is his" talking about taxes... I would also like to state as a SAHM who has a husband who routinely puts in 80-100 hours a week and has been working with a torn ACL for 2 years and pays more than his fair share of taxes ($500 off this last check ) When he got hurt we were not able to get the assistance we would have needed to make the bare minumum bills so he went back to work...There have been more than a few hard times and he has done everything he can to keep our family provided for. It irritates me in a way to hear someone say well I paid it-I can get it back....that mentality and the drain on the system it causes, is what stopped us from getting help when it really was needed....We had a string of bad luck that would have knocked alot of people out of the race BUT thanks to my husband we pulled ourselves up and kept on trucking. I am very sorry that you had bad things happen to you when you were a child Renee. I know the damage done can be lasting and difficult to overcome BUT I also firmly believe that you have to take the reins for yourself oneday and overcome-the Bible says that you can do that too... I am not attacking your views that your children are your life I am right there with you (4 babysitters in 5 years) Can you move to a less expensive area? Here a $200,000 home would be incredible. Can you take a child or 2 in to your home for childcare? If it is that high it seems as though you would make some good $$$...I guess what I am saying is I am blessed to stay home I would do whatever it took to keep things this way-my husband is the hardest worker I have ever known but if things slowed down and he needed help I would not feel like I was going against the Bible or my values to lend a hand up to MY family before I would take a handout as entitlement......

ashtonsmama replied:
Abbie--DEFINITELY agree with you on the opening statement, I never ever meant for this to turn into what it has.

And by the way, love your new avatar pic!!!