License to Procreate

There are 109,631,000 Americans on welfare, and only 105,862,000 full time working Americans. The fact that the amount of people on welfare outnumbers those who work, shows how our country is deteriorating. Some individuals on welfare take advantage of the system and exchange the things given to them, such as food stamps, for drugs or alcohol. I think anyone who does that should be taken off of welfare. In order to prevent that from happening in the future, I believe a system should be made. The system would determine whether an individual is deserving of government assistance or not. In order to be on welfare, there would be a drug test that has to be passed to even be considered. If passed, there would be quarterly drug tests that have to be passed in order to continue to get help from the government. There should also be a standard set that determines if the severity of the person’s disability is worthy of governmental assistance. If they meet all the criteria and pass their quarterly drug tests, then they deserve to be on welfare. Those who do not meet the criteria and are qualified to work, should get a job in order to support themselves and their

| Given the contentious debate surrounding issues of procreation, develop an institutional policy, which can be applied to the range of treatment and research issues related to procreation.

Although the minority, pregnant, uneducated people of the world could get all the free help they applied for. Like I said, I do agree with helping those in true need of assistance. However, there are too many people who are cradle to grave welfare recipients, and that just isn’t right. Somewhere in the system there needs to be a program in assisting those to get off of the system.

The current (US) welfare reform consists of more than cash payment that the poor US citizen could bank on. There is a monthly payment that each poor person received in spite of their ability to work. The main people who received this payment were both mothers and children. Moreover, the payment does not have time limit and those people could not remain on the welfare for the rest of their live.

Maybe by providing stricter guidelines, such as job search requirements, along with proof of the job search, welfare would not be as attractive and recipients will be more likely to get a job. Newt Gringrich, a Former speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote an essay titled “Renewing America” “The welfare system has sapped the spirit of the poor and made it harder to climb the first rung of the economic ladder.” (usnews.com). Sucha system has placed an unfair burden on the hard workers who are forced to pay for these programs. Gringrich states, “Why should taxpayers be forced to take fiscal responsibility for those who do not take responsibility for themselves? He continues to say “As individuals,we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences.” If people do notcare about their own well being then why should I be forced to care? As Gringrich sees it, “If society is responsible for everything, then no one is personally responsible for anything. With that said, without responsibility, are we truly free? Welfare should be used for the right purposes; to help those who are truly in need get on their feet and become successful. But because of the excessive misuse, welfare has now developed a stigma, and should be reformed to its original notion, and that is for its help and not

When a couple or individual decides to adopt a child, they know they are going to take on the responsibility of taking care of someone else’s child. Due to the biological parent(s) who can’t take care of that child anymore, because of either drug abuse, alcohol abuse, abuse to the child or if the parent(s) had died and there is no other care for the child. So that’s why this gives other couples who cannot have kids, the opportunity to promise themselves to be a great parent to a child in need. Though there are some bad things about adoption as well. Like adopting a child from another country of another race, because once that child is adopted into an American family, he or she will be cut off from their culture and never know about their

This will give people what they want, it limits placed on government spending and improving the economy's debt. (Magoon 12, 61) Welfare is made to help individuals get back on their feet not a life supply, if you need assistance the government is willing to help but it should be temporary.Welfare is a privilege and abusing the system ruins it for the families in need of help. The government wants to get families out of poverty and by eliminating the problem only helps us by improving our economy. (Magoon 11)

Some people think that drug testings those on welfare is unfair to the kids, because if the parents are positive on a drug screening, they think the kids take the punishment because they wont recieve benefits, and food. I would feel as if the parents would stop using drugs, if that were the case to keep their kids from not having any food, or medical help. In the long run it could be helping

The right to have children is understood in very different ways and people’s ethics and values are put to the test each and everyday when they find out they not only must take care of themselves but the lives of another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted this statement regarding the right to bear children “men and women of full age, without any limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”[1]. This concept has been viewed in multiple ways and according to ethical theorists; they agree that no rights are absolute. However, it is said that for women at least, there is a fundamental privilege to have children. The right to

What would happen if the government made changes to the welfare system? There are approximately 110,489,000 of Americans on welfare. Many people benefit from what the system has to offer: food stamps, housing, health insurance, day care, and unemployment. Taxpayers often argue that the individuals who benefit from the system, abuse the system; however, this is not entirely true. Many of the people who receive benefits really and truly need the help. Even though some people believe welfare should be reformed, welfare should not be reformed because 40% of single mothers are poor, some elderly people do not have a support system, and college students can not afford to take extra loans.

No matter how liberal or conservative, all politicians agree that welfare costs could be greatly reduced if abuse and fraud were eliminated. Welfare was first introduced in the 20’s as a program to help people get through the depression. The government created many public works jobs to employ the thousands that lost their jobs. At the time it was a great program but seventy-five years

We don't need to keep rewarding people specifically teen moms for having three to seven kids at a time, especially when they couldn't afford the 1st one they had. A solution for this recurring problem could be to give teen moms only a year to be on welfare after the birth of their child. When the year is coming to an end, they must find their own way to pay their finances and get jobs. The welfare they would receive for the year should help them get on their own feet. The reason we feel that teenage moms shouldn’t be able to get on welfare for longer than a year is because they are still young and they have their whole lives ahead of them to be able to go and get a good education and get well paying jobs. It is harder for them to go to school, but studies show that teen moms who go on welfare are more likely to stay on welfare. Having this as a solution will not only save a lot of money for taxpayers, but it may even decrease the amount of teenagers that are getting pregnant. Giving money to teenage moms makes it seem like we’re promoting them to get pregnant. Cons to this solution would be that abortion rates would go up. Another con would be that there are possibilities that the teen moms will end up on the streets with their

Marry Anne Warren and Don Marquis present arguments in favor of and in opposition to the moral permissibility of aborting a pregnancy. Both raise important points, but I am not fully convinced by either argument. Warren proposes a justification for allowing abortion based on the idea of a moral community. According to this view, moral agents have an exclusive or at least preferential obligation to those entities that meet the criteria for membership in the moral community, and their rights should never be violated for the sake of an entity that is not a member. The criterion Warren chooses is personhood, which entails one or more of the characteristics of sentience, communication, reason, emotion, and so on. The essential point of Warren’s

The intentions of welfare reform is simply to reduce dependency, reduce child poverty, and to strengthen marriages (in line citation website). However, taking away a low income families chance for help is not going to help their poverty. The idea of getting rid of the help a family needs, in order to help the family end their poverty is contradictory. This is more likely to leave families stuck in poverty, or even send them below if their aid gets removed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a childless couple wanting to adopt a baby—it would certainly be a wonderful, life-changing decision for both the parents and the child—but this still leaves a fairly large group of older children without a home to call their own. “Because of changes in legislation and policies regarding child welfare, increasing numbers of older children are being placed for adoption. Many of these children are defined as having ‘special needs’ and include children who are at risk for physical, emotional, or behavioral problems” (Schweiger). Statistics today show that the majority of children put up for adoption are said to have special needs, which could be any number of things that might make finding a home more difficult for them: they could be a racial minority, have emotional or physical issues, be of an older age, have siblings that cannot be separated from them, have behavioral problems, or possess a record of difficulty in past adoptive placements (Wind). All of these children are desperately in need of a family to call their own, although some children—such as those who are of an older age or those who have siblings that they do not wish to be split up from— have a significantly more difficult time finding one. Infertile couples are clearly the more traditional adoptive parents, but it would certainly be impossible for every child to find a home if they were the only group looking to adopt. According to Rene Hoksbergen, the