August 1, 2006 8:43 AM
Hypothetical question of the day
From a reader:
From what I have gathered reading your blog you are very much a Republican. Many Republicans reject the idea of full openness to life (that even excludes nfp) because it is considered more of a priority to be fiscally responsible with the government's money.
So my question is, is it right or wrong to purposely conceive children when you are using government aids such as health care, wic, food stamps, etc?
Folks, I'm about all talked out today - in the midst of radio interviews fornmy last book even as I'm finishing up the manuscript for my next. Plus I have an article due today. Reminds me of a quote from Douglas Adams:
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
I'm hoping the person who sent this did not mean it as a Gotcha-type question - you know, as in "Well, if you can't answer this then I guess everything you profess to believe is invalidated." I hope it is just a simple sincere question. In which case I hope a simple sincere "Gosh, I don't know and I don't have time to think about it right now" will suffice.
But maybe some of you have something to say on the subject?
Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
Hi Barbara,
I don't think a response is truly necessary. There are people who abuse the system no matter what "system" it is and/or who is providing it. Humans will always look for an easy way out, but I can't imagine that being pregnant and giving childbirth would be an "easy way out" for anyone!! I loved being pregnant, but I would look for another way to cheat the system if I was looking for health care benefits. :)
I'm not really sure what this person is suggesting, but as a person who conceived our 2nd daughter while unemployed and uninsured, I can honestly say that the government system saved our family from a HUGE financial debt as well as provided excellent prenatal and postpartum care. I know there are people who wish to abuse the system, but I think there are many more people who greatly benefit from it's services like our family. I'm so thankful for that "insurance policy" that our taxes pay for each month that we were able to benefit from during our time of unemployment.
Angie
Posted by: Angie | August 1, 2006 9:19 AM
Well, I think it is somewhat of a loaded question. I previously lived in a state with great welfare benefits. People actually moved over the state lines to get the welfare. And women purposely and willfully conceived children to get more money. Now these women were not necessarily married to the father's of the babies, nor did they raise their children with the father participating. Their lifestyle was not very motherly.
I think that you need to look at the heart of people who are doing these things. What's in their heart? Is it love and openness for their children or greed and other less desirable motives?
Posted by: Shelly | August 1, 2006 9:22 AM
For many people, there is never a perfect time for having children. So if a husband and his wife would like the blessing of a child while unemployed, but seeking employment, why let that be a hinderance? There will always be something in the way, not enough savings perhaps or not enough time or not enough help. You can always find a "reason" to delay having another child. Why miss out?
Posted by: Angela | August 1, 2006 10:53 AM
It wasn't a gotchya question.
I have voted republican everytime I have voted, but I do have issues reconciling the issue of fiscal conservatism with full openness to life, especially with regards to health care. In my personal life I have struggled with not always having it available.
I don't think I could EVER EVER vote for someone I knew wasn't pro-life, but if I am being totally honest then when I will admit that when I was listening to John Kerrys plan for health care last night(a little different than I originally thought it was, becuase it does allow choice), I thought it sounded like a darn good idea. But this is coming from a person who recently lost a relative due to them having no health insurance. She was 38 and her colon ruptured.
Anyways, I have never really decided my point of view on all other republican/democrat issues. I have always been 100% pro-life and that is always my highest priority when voting, but there are issues like health care where I can see where the democrat side is coming from.
I concieved 3 of my chilren while using WIC/medicaid. Then for a couple of years we had no insurance at all (coudln't qualify for mediciad but couldn't afford to buy into private insurance). I am no longer on any kind of aids and I think we are doing well enough now that the threat of ever going back on them is over. I do feel that God has looked out for us, but it took us a little while to get here.
I have friends on other pro-life websites who have not been so blessed yet and struggle with the fact that they have to use these aids, or that they don't have insurance and really want to be able to be open to more children.
I am not saying that I am anywhere close to a "bleeding heart liberal" or that I don't see the problems that could be caused if we inched closer to a socialist economy, but I am saying that my experience in life has shown me that there are problems that I don't think fiscal conservatism addresses, and I am just left very confused about it all.
Anyways, I just want to reiterate that I am not trying to stir trouble, I just want to get opinions from other conservatives to help form my own conscience.
Posted by: paigeu | August 1, 2006 11:13 AM
It is a difficult question. I think when it comes to the "career welfare mom" who has baby after baby with a dozen different men, we know that's wrong. not because she's on welfare and having children, but because she's not married, having sex, and bringing children into that situation!
We have used wic and medicaid on and off. I've always felt bad about it on some level, however, when we're "off" our taxes are being taken out and put into government systems. And my parents are medical doctors and we couldn't "use up" the money they've paid in taxes over almost 3 decades even if we had 15 children!
Personally, I'd rather government programs be cut and taxes be cut so we could actually afford to live. But since those programs are there, and our taxes are being removed from our paychecks, I don't have a problem with using them, much. And actually, I much prefer to see a Christian pro-life family of 8 doing their best to raise the next generation using government aid as a temporary life-line, than a single mom who's been sterilized and is living a career welfare life and abusing the system with only 2 children.
Posted by: Margaret | August 1, 2006 12:08 PM
I think this is a very good question. It's one that I have asked myself several times, while contemplating the whole quiverfull philosophy. It's one of the big reasons that I can't quite buy into it. I mean, the way some people do it, I can get behind it 100%. The ones who have a lot of kids, love and provide for each one, and raise them in a God honoring manner...that's great! Personally, I know a family, though, who are having their seventh baby. They are on welfare. The husband only has a job "sometimes". They are constantly trying to leave their kids with other people to watch. Any time you see them out, their kids look unkept and dirty. They stuff them in an automobile too small for their family, with only the smallest or maybe the two smallest in car seats, when, by law, almost every one of them is supposed to be in at least a booster seat. Their kids are all about a year apart, and she has told me herself that they don't believe in any kind of birth control and will have kids until she can't anymore. She also said that they believe that welfare is God's way of allowing people to have all the kids they want. That, I have a problem with. The Bible teaches throughout that a man should take care of himself and his family. I don't have a problem with the government assisting people who are in a bad place and need help, but I do have a problem with people who make it their lifestyle. I know of people who won't marry their boyfriends, because then they won't get all of the welfare money for their illegitimate children. Unfortunately, the people with the seven kids that I talked about isn't a freak incidence. Within a circle of people that I have been associated that teach that birth control in all instances is wrong, there are quite a few of the kind that don't take care of their children, and that live off of the government. I just can't buy into the idea that doing that is pleasing to God. In those cases, I think that birth control is perfectly acceptable.
As always, that's just my opinion, but I do think it's a very valid question and consideration.
Posted by: RachelHarmon@comcast.net | August 1, 2006 12:12 PM
These are really two separate issues. To stop God from forming life through a married couple just because of financial issues is something that many Americans who aren't on welfare do every day. This isn't right. God owns all things and He will provide for those who trust Him and are will to do what it takes to be frugal and who are humble enough to ask for help from the Body of Christ. If financial stability by American standards was a criteria, than practically no one east of Austria or south of San Antonio would ever have a child.
As for someone on welfare- Why should Christians have to depend on the government for their needs? Are we as believers grown so loveless and uncaring that we refuse to follow Christ's commands to care for one another? Or if someone refuses to get involved in a church that God could use to support them through a crisis and give them the accountability to get them back on their feet then that is a different sin issue. One can't say "I'm following God by having children no matter what" if at the same time they refuse to follow His system of caring for the needy through His church and doing all that they can to support themselves and get themselves to the place where they aren't a burden on others.
When my parents couldn't have more of their own children they took on a young couple in our church who was waiting to have children because of finances. We agreed to help with costs for equipment and such and for three years provided them with free childcare. At that point they were doing well enough that handling the two children they then had was no longer a problem. They and their children were as much a blessing to us as we were to them because we were willing to get down to basics on what it means to 'love one another' and help others to be able to follow Christ's commands.
Posted by: Cheri | August 1, 2006 12:14 PM
Scripture is clear that a man must provide for his family. Otherwise he is ANATHEMA. Very serious.
I don't think you should deliberately conceive if you know you are going to go on welfare for it.
If you conceive accidentally, then I would use whatever is lawfully available to you that is necessary for the child/mother's health. The government does take the money from us all to pay for it.
If you oppose birth control I'd just quit doing it for awhile until you were in a financial position to feed your family. Blunt, but then I am that!
Posted by: Marie | August 1, 2006 4:56 PM
For me this is really simple. There are two issues involved. For one thing most people who are quiverfull do so to follow God, and thus IMO are excluded from being "irresponsible" in conceiving. What could be more Perfectly responsible than following God? (To the person who cited the family with 7 kids who don't support themselves or even really care for their children, I doubt you would suggest their actions are in line with God's will.) If someone following God needs help because that decision, He will provide it through work, charity, the government or whatever, and they should not feel guilty for accepting God's gift.
The second issue is with how our current government "charity" works and why Republicans generally have a problem with it. It simply is not charitable or generous to force other people to fund good works that we wish to do by taxing them. True Christian charity comes from the heart and reaps much better results than government taxation and socialism.
Posted by: Michelle | August 1, 2006 6:08 PM
((((It is a difficult question. I think when it comes to the "career welfare mom" who has baby after baby with a dozen different men, we know that's wrong. not because she's on welfare and having children, but because she's not married, having sex, and bringing children into that situation!)))))
Paige I loved this comment, isn't this the truth. The reality is welfare on not, rich or poor, unmarried sex is WRONG, whether children are conceived or not.
Is having children you can't afford a actually right or wrong question even? No more like are you married, are you working hard every day for your family, etc all things the Bible admonishes.
To obtain government assistance is a personal decision, much as going to a churches' free store is or shopping a thrift store.
I have a former family member that truly judges a person's parenting capablity by what the children dress in. ((Name brand or not, new or tattered, etc)) I know it would a mortal sin for this person to go on welfare, but so would walking into KMART.:)
As another poster stated, welfare is not an easy out. You CANNOT provide for a family while on welfare. It's like the difference between have $10 or have no dollars, when in reality you need $100. But of course, that struggle too is a choice.
I like to teach other low income mother to garden and to cook from scratch. (Have you ever seen the food from a food shelf, I would barely feed a dog some of the chemical processed preservative packed junk to a dog) We also encourage CSA to families. Of course none of these ways are funded by government (which why does that seem like such a bad word around here)But these can help move a family closer to self sufficiency as well as a healthier lifestyle.
Natural birthing, midwives and doulas should be promoted more. The cost of a home/birthing center birth is about $3000 while a hospital birth is easily $10000 or more without complications. Working with ALL insurance companies can help facilitate this.
Isn't is true thought, that if we follow God's standards many of these woes will not be ours. A married poor couple can still rejoice with the fertility of the womb, while a poor single mother is stressed and still needs to seek forgiveness for the orginal sin, let alone begin to make her life anew. And yes the bible's words of a busy wife-home manager and a husband who cares for his family will eventually feel God's blessing of self sufficiency even if not at first.
God's wonderful word protects us from so much. Even guilt and shame. We all know that Jesus has a very tender place in his heart for the poor and afflicited .
Posted by: Roberta | August 7, 2006 4:55 AM
