2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I do not want to sound insensitive, and I understand that some circumstances are out of some peoples control, but I can't figure out why your guest would continue to produce so many childrren if she cannot afford them?  I hear about this time and time again...I can understand it happening once or twice, but to keep having children when you know that you will have to depend on the state to support them baffels me. 

My husband and I have one child whom we struggle to raise by working alternate shifts, etc.  The thought of bringing another child into this world is not even an option for us because we know that we could not afford it, not to mention the environmental consequences of a growing population...

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context