BYU pauper babies

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I speak from my own experience, as someone who has not been on the good side of the odds. If my parents — in the high middle class — had not had health insurance, we would have gone bankrupt and lost our house (at least twice), and my dad would not be alive. If my wife and I had not had health insurance (through government aid), we too would be bankrupt from medical bills, and our son would not be able to hear properly. Now, practically speaking, I would advise every poor person planning on having children: make sure you have health insurance! Now not everyone is going to need health insurance right away—but if enough people follow my advice, many are going to be glad they did.

[Katya]

Tao, your definition of "not too poor to have children" appears to include everyone in the world who is alive. Is that accurate?

[Marduk]

Agreed, Katya. That's how it appears to me, as well. I think he has a metric of "cannot possibly have and raise children" instead of "what conditions ought to be met before having children."

And Sauron, I can say the same thing as you; my father's health conditions being what they are at the moment, my family would have incurred over a million dollars of cost by now.

[Tao]

Tao, your definition of "not too poor to have children" appears to include everyone in the world who is alive. Is that accurate?

Just about. To reiterate:

At what point is a couple (or individual) at the point where they cannot care for their child to the point where they should not have had it?
While I can conceptually imagine such a point, I don't know if it can or does occur in the United States.

Looking closer at my assumptions, I presumed the couple already had themselves taken care of, I was solely considering the financial ramifications of adding a child to the family.

What if we came at the original situation from a different angle? Instead of "At X level of income, a couple can no longer care for a child, and should not have one." What if we asked those of you with children "A catastrophe happens that reduces you to X income. By your own assertion, you are now at a point where you should not have your child. If given the opportunity to go back in time and prevent your pregnancy in order to improve your financial situation, would you take it?"

Or, more brutally: if put in the situation where someone has the power to do so forces you to choose to be stripped you of a certain amount of your financial assets or have your child 'uncreated', at what point of financial loss do you give up your child?

As I'm reading Sauron, it is when he can no longer afford health insurance, which is why I disagree. I'd take the child over the comfort of knowing someone else is paying if I get cancer any day.

[Katya]

Tao, I don't know that anyone here is talking about giving up a child after he or she is born. I think we're saying that there are times when, all other things being equal, it would be wise not to have a child in the first place.

[Digit]

I was just reminded of this funny Monty Python clip. Imagine if not one was wasted?

"But if they'd let me wear ... we wouldn't be in the mess we are now."

[Waldorf and Sauron]

[if put in the situation where someone has the power to do so forces you to choose to be stripped you of a certain amount of your financial assets or have your child 'uncreated', at what point of financial loss do you give up your child? As I'm reading Sauron, it is when he can no longer afford health insurance, which is why I disagree.

This is a willful misreading of what I have said. I have said repeatedly that I'm talking about planning ahead for children.

[Laser Jock]

I'm not going to jump into the main debate here, but I do have one observation: I don't think it's really anyone's place to tell a couple that they shouldn't be having kids. That's what actually bothers me about this whole discussion. It's really none of anyone else's business if a husband and wife have prayerfully decided to start a family, whether or not their circumstances are in the kind of shape that you feel is necessary before having children. There's so much you don't, and can't, know about them (emotionally, spiritually, financially) that it's just pointless to pass judgment on them, as many here seem to be doing.

It's possible that no one here meant it to come across that way; maybe this is supposed to be more of an abstract public policy debate or something. Nevertheless, it's coming across, at least to me, as condemning anyone who has a different definition of what's necessary before having a baby. Certainly the initial post was, and I feel like some more recent ones have been as well.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

LJ: You've done the same thing by specifying conditions that a couple should be "husband and wife" and should "have prayerfully decided."

I've thought of this thread in terms of a hypothetical situation: if poor couples were thinking of having kids and wanted my advice, what would I tell them. I don't think this is a public policy question.

[Katya]

I'm not going to jump into the main debate here, but I do have one observation: I don't think it's really anyone's place to tell a couple that they shouldn't be having kids. That's what actually bothers me about this whole discussion. It's really none of anyone else's business if a husband and wife have prayerfully decided to start a family, whether or not their circumstances are in the kind of shape that you feel is necessary before having children. There's so much you don't, and can't, know about them (emotionally, spiritually, financially) that it's just pointless to pass judgment on them, as many here seem to be doing.

It's true that prayer and inspiration can lead an individual or couple to make decisions that might seem counterintuitive by the world's standards, by the standards of Church culture, or even by the standards of their own personal philosophies. However, individuals and couples at least start out with some sort of default mindset or approach, and many won't think to question or seek inspiration regarding that approach unless they're presented with the idea that another approach could be equally valid.

So, I'm not worried about couples who have made it a prayerful decision to have children at a time in their lives when money is tight and one or both parents are in school, but I do worry about couples who think that they are being unrighteous if they don't have kids as soon as possible or who haven't thought through the financial implications of their decisions. (But I will freely admit that both circumstances might look the same to strangers, so I agree with the sentiment of being careful about passing judgment.)

[Marduk]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

It has been my experience that the guidance of the Lord usually follows that which is also logical and thought out. In other words, when I've studied and applied logic and thought before making a decision, the decision I've chosen has almost always been the one I've also felt inspiration about.

[Katya]

It has been my experience that the guidance of the Lord usually follows that which is also logical and thought out. In other words, when I've studied and applied logic and thought before making a decision, the decision I've chosen has almost always been the one I've also felt inspiration about.

Wait—is the inspiration coming before the logical thinking out or after?

[Laser Jock]

LJ: You've done the same thing by specifying conditions that a couple should be "husband and wife" and should "have prayerfully decided."

I've thought of this thread in terms of a hypothetical situation: if poor couples were thinking of having kids and wanted my advice, what would I tell them. I don't think this is a public policy question.

Um, actually, I'm paraphrasing the Lord and his leaders there. They have never (as far as I'm aware) given guidance on exactly what level of poverty is or isn't unacceptable before having children; however, they've made it very clear that marriage is part of God's plan for having children, and that we should approach him in prayer on the matter. Will I condemn someone who doesn't do these things? No. But I feel entirely in line in suggesting that they are good principles and that the Lord will bless those who follow them.

And that approach to this (what advice would you give someone) makes sense. Unfortunately, I don't think it was really clear before that that was the mindset here.

@Katya: fair enough. I can see that reasoning.

[Marduk]

Katya: after. I follow the model set forth in the scriptures: study out all options, make a decision, pray for confirmation.

LJ: just because you are making a judgement call that is in line with what the brethren have said, you are STILL making a judgement. For what it is worth, I also feel the initial post was intensely judgemental, but I feel that way about just about everything Portia says, so i've stopped bringing it up.

[Katya]

Katya: after. I follow the model set forth in the scriptures: study out all options, make a decision, pray for confirmation.

What are the circumstances that lead you to pray about a decision? (I.e., surely you're making small, routine decisions all the time that you're not praying about. So what bumps something up into being prayerworthy?)

Also, has there ever been a time when you were prompted to make a very counterintuitive decision?

[Tao]

[if put in the situation where someone has the power to do so forces you to choose to be stripped you of a certain amount of your financial assets or have your child 'uncreated', at what point of financial loss do you give up your child? As I'm reading Sauron, it is when he can no longer afford health insurance, which is why I disagree.

This is a willful misreading of what I have said. I have said repeatedly that I'm talking about planning ahead for children.

A willful misreading? How so? Of course you haven't said anything from that angle, I'd just proposed it in the post you are reacting to. Yet as I read your comments, the logic I see you promoting would follow to the conclusion I put forth. You are saying that health insurance is a necessary prerequisite to having children. Thus, if you can't afford the one you can't afford the other. Thus, if situations were such that you can't afford your insurance, you no longer qualify to raise your child. Castigating a young expecting couple for their choice to have a child while poor is the exact same situation, only you don't have to look at the child as you condemn it to non-existence. Effectively 'taking it away' before being born.

nec·es·sar·y
   [nes-uh-ser-ee]
Adj.- being essential, indispensable, or requisite
n.- something necessary or requisite; necessity.

If health insurance is requisite or indispensable for child raising, then the loss of the former disqualifies you from the latter. Only, worse than Social Services coming in and taking your child from you, you are saying it is better off if were never born at all. That's how I read you, no obstinacy intended.

Tao, I don't know that anyone here is talking about giving up a child after he or she is born. I think we're saying that there are times when, all other things being equal, it would be wise not to have a child in the first place.

Quite. I'm not saying that there are no reasons for waiting, I'm saying that in my eyes, at no point in the United States is it 'impossible' for a hard-working, selfless couple to have a child. For those who don't want a child right away, or don't feel ready to take care of it, I'm perfectly fine with their waiting or choosing not to have kids at all. To each as they deem best. But to criticize or to claim that certain thresholds are requisite benchmarks, seems to me to be implicitly saying that there is no other way to raise a child other than that which I have chosen.

[Marduk]

Tao, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, the only thing NECESSARY to having a child are functioning reproductive organs. And even that is questionable, what with adoption and other options.

So there is absolutely nothing that is necessary to having a child.

[Marduk]

Katya, I feel like this perhaps should be another thread, but I would love to answer you.

The main circumstance that would lead me to pray is any uncertainty in my mind about the decision, and if I feel it could be in any way life altering. Also, most of these kinds of prayers are simply in my head, so it isn't like I'm dropping to my knees every five seconds, or praying about which cereal to buy (I already know the best choice is cinnamon Life.)

I wouldn't say there's been a time when I've felt prompted to do something "very counterintuitive." There have been times when I've felt that a better choice existed than the one I had made, in which case I go back to the drawing board and look for something I may have missed. If I do feel a sudden prompting to do something different than what I've decided, and it isn't a choice I've made yet, then I will go back and try to look at the topic in a new light. I think it is something like when Nephi felt a prompting to kill Laban, which seemed odd to him, but then he considered it and found reasons to support it.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Of course you haven't said anything from that angle, I'd just proposed it in the post you are reacting to.

AHEM. From the same post in which I use the word necessary, which you apparently saw:

What I'm saying is that basic health insurance is a necessary part of providing for one's family.

We can argue about the other little things or definitions or whatever, but poor people thinking of having children need to plan to have health insurance for themselves and for their children. If they want to get help doing that from the church or the government, in my opinion that is fine and great. If they don't want to do that, they can't view health insurance as something unnecessary that can be cut out of the budget in "sacrifice" to cut down to the most essential things, just as they shouldn't cut shelter out of the budget.

Now in hard times, yes people go without lots of things to make ends meet. To all those poor prospective parents out there, it is possible to be poor and have children. But you've got to be realistic. Don't just think that you can work a minimum wage job, go without health insurance, and you'll just be able to make it on your own and everything will be fine. If you have a child (without resorting to medicare) even with catastrophic medical insurance, you'll be paying at least $5-6,000 maternity deductible for the delivery. That's not in Tao's budget.

The good news for poor people is that for many public programs exist to help. In my opinion, these should be taken advantage of if needed. But you should also strive to become self-sufficient, to get training in a field that pays above the poverty level, and to get a job at your own level.

From another post:

Now, practically speaking, I would advise every poor person planning on having children: make sure you have health insurance! Now not everyone is going to need health insurance right away—but if enough people follow my advice, many are going to be glad they did.

So, I did make it clear multiple times that my advice was for planning to have children. Nowhere did I say or imply "to those of you poor people who have children and not insurance: you're terrible people and you never should have had children" — nor would I. the most I would say is "try to get insurance when you can!"

Yet as I read your comments, the logic I see you promoting would follow to the conclusion I put forth. You are saying that health insurance is a necessary prerequisite to having children. Thus, if you can't afford the one you can't afford the other. Thus, if situations were such that you can't afford your insurance, you no longer qualify to raise your child. Castigating a young expecting couple for their choice to have a child while poor is the exact same situation, only you don't have to look at the child as you condemn it to non-existence. Effectively 'taking it away' before being born.

Hogwash. I said, "basic health insurance is a necessary part of providing for one's family," not that it's prerequisite to having children. I'm not going to split hairs with you over the definition of necessary when you could easily look at other dictionary definitions that don't logically lead to condemning children to nonexistence. There's quite a leap from "you should have planned for insurance" than "your children never should have been born." In fact, it's quite common to talk about necessities in terms of a standard of living. You'll even find it in dictionaries.

[Tao]

Of course you haven't said anything from that angle, I'd just proposed it in the post you are reacting to.

AHEM. From the same post in which I use the word necessary, which you apparently saw:

...

So, I did make it clear multiple times that my advice was for planning to have children. Nowhere did I say or imply "to those of you poor people who have children and not insurance: you're terrible people and you never should have had children" — nor would I. the most I would say is "try to get insurance when you can!"

Whoa now. I was agreeing with you in that line. The antecedent to "that angle" was the idea of looking at families with children who become impoverished. Hence the "of course you haven't said anything about it", it hadn't come up in the thread yet. I was attempting to take a different route to try and express why I disagreed with you. What I perceived as your logic doesn't pan out when applied in a similar setting, so I question its soundness.

Yet as I read your comments, the logic I see you promoting would follow to the conclusion I put forth. You are saying that health insurance is a necessary prerequisite to having children. Thus, if you can't afford the one you can't afford the other. Thus, if situations were such that you can't afford your insurance, you no longer qualify to raise your child. Castigating a young expecting couple for their choice to have a child while poor is the exact same situation, only you don't have to look at the child as you condemn it to non-existence. Effectively 'taking it away' before being born.

Hogwash. I said, "basic health insurance is a necessary part of providing for one's family," not that it's prerequisite to having children. I'm not going to split hairs with you over the definition of necessary when you could easily look at other dictionary definitions that don't logically lead to condemning children to nonexistence. There's quite a leap from "you should have planned for insurance" than "your children never should have been born." In fact, it's quite common to talk about necessities in terms of a standard of living. You'll even find it in dictionaries.

Um again. In my first post in this thread I said "At what point is a couple (or individual) at the point where they cannot care for their child to the point where they should not have had it?" This has been my emphasis since joining the conversation, I was wondering under what conditions it would be impossible to have a child. So for you to chime in about health insurance being necessary, (read:requisite) how else am I to interpret it than a prerequisite to having children? Sure, we can say that something is necessary to maintain a certain standard of living, I'm ok with that, and when it comes to insurance, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly that it is something that everyone who can afford it should seek some out in order to maintain a certain standard of living. For all of that, it still makes no claim that it is impossible to raise children without it.

Forgive me if I've been less than clear in expressing my endeavors to understand, but perhaps we've reached a point where understanding can not be reached.