NFP and Welfare

  • Thread starter Thread starter NFP1Kate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NFP1Kate

Guest
I was listening to a debate the other day about whether or not the use of welfare is a just reason to avoid pregnancy.

I think it may matter just how dependent the couple is on the state and whether or not they are able to provide for the children’s additional needs (like clothing). I’d like to hear some other thoughts.
 
Welfare pays for little these days. I believe it’s a last resort. I doubt that many kids get much in the way of clothing on welfare. Probably a lot of thrift stores and garage sales. Or perhaps with help from family. Just to keep an eye on things, once I qualified for food stamsp for myself. How much did I get? $10 a month. I suppose someone worse off than me would get more. Especially if they did have kids.

On the other hand, I have a cousin who was on welfare for awhile. She had three young sons. None of them old enough to stay home alone. She wanted to work, but the job she got paid minimum wage. After day care for the boys, she had $25 left over for everything else. Since she was working, she no longer qualified for any help, but the welfare office told her she couldn’t quit work in order to start getting benefits again. Nasty decision. 😦
 
ahs said:
^ Haha! 😃

OP,

I don’t think the use of welfare matters at all in a couple’s decision about using NFP/Natural Birth Regulation. Every couple must decide for themselves whether they need to abstain from the marital act during the fertile times for any number of reasons. Having to rely on welfare may indeed be a just reason to do that…but only that couple can decide.
Click to expand...
True.

All I can say is that,* for me,* Yes, it would most definitely be a reason to avoid pregnancy.
 
NFP1Kate said:
I was listening to a debate the other day about whether or not the use of welfare is a just reason to avoid pregnancy.

I think it may matter** just how dependent the couple is on the state and whether or not they are able to provide for the children’s additional needs (like clothing).** I’d like to hear some other thoughts.
Click to expand...
One thought: most parents in America depend on the state to pay for their children’s education.
 
gardenswithkids said:
One thought: most parents in America depend on the state to pay for their children’s education.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

Education isn’t free. Most people either pay for it through their property tax or their landlord does, using part of the rent money.

So although the state may be educating your children, you are paying for it.
 
NFP1Kate said:
I was listening to a debate the other day about whether or not the use of welfare is a just reason to avoid pregnancy.

I think it may matter just how dependent the couple is on the state and whether or not they are able to provide for the children’s additional needs (like clothing). I’d like to hear some other thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think it could be a “just” reason but it may not be for everyone. If American welfare dictates weather or not a couple should be exempt from the command to multiply then what of third world Catholics? Is it a sin to bring forth a baby into poverty?
 
I think that not having the financial ability to care for a child is an acceptable reason for NFP. One has to wonder why two people would get married and start a new life together when they can’t even support themselves. How is being dependent upon others a new life? We are a nation of welfare recipients; are we better for it?
 
Christy_Beth said:
Jesus was born into poverty.
Click to expand...
I always find that an interesting statement. :hmmm:

His mother was married to his father. His father was an craftsman. His father made enough to be able to ask for Mary’s hand in marriage. Remember they were already betrothed when she got pregnant.

It doesn’t sound like Jesus was part of a family that would have received welfare.
 
He was born in a barn. So, ok, there was a reason for that. “There was no room in the inn.” And during his ministry he once said, “The fox has it’s hole, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Or something to that effect. I believe that this was used to show that he was no rich man trying to tell the peons how to live. He lived like one of them.
 
Christy_Beth said:
He was born in a barn.
Click to expand...
I slept in my car once. That doesn’t mean I lived in poverty. It just meant that there wasn’t a room available at the hotel. 🤷
So, ok, there was a reason for that. “There was no room in the inn.” And during his ministry he once said, “The fox has it’s hole, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Or something to that effect. I believe that this was used to show that he was no rich man trying to tell the peons how to live. He lived like one of them.
Click to expand...
Not a rich man, no, but that doesn’t mean he was born into poverty. Not poverty like we mean it.
 
maryjk said:
I always find that an interesting statement. :hmmm:

His mother was married to his father. His father was an craftsman. His father made enough to be able to ask for Mary’s hand in marriage. Remember they were already betrothed when she got pregnant.

It doesn’t sound like Jesus was part of a family that would have received welfare.
Click to expand...
Not only was his father a craftsman…but one of the gifts of the Magi was gold of all things.

They were certainly not poor. He was born in a barn because there was no room at the inn. It was the only place they could find.
 
Kelfa28 said:
Not only was his father a craftsman…but one of the gifts of the Magi was gold of all things.

They were certainly not poor. He was born in a barn because there was no room at the inn. It was the only place they could find.
Click to expand...
Certainly?

Well this very website actually addresses the question.
catholic.com/quickquestions/was-the-holy-family-really-poor

In either case it does not matter. Mary and joseph did not decide to have a child and even if they did the argument about our poor vs their poor etc is silly. Jesus was born under Roman occupation and rule. His people were persecuted so badly that he and his entire family fled to Egypt as a refugee.
Not poor?

There is CERTAINLY more biblical and traditional evidence that they were poor than not.
 
NFP1Kate said:
I was listening to a debate the other day about whether or not the use of welfare is a just reason to avoid pregnancy.

I think it may matter just how dependent the couple is on the state and whether or not they are able to provide for the children’s additional needs (like clothing). I’d like to hear some other thoughts.
Click to expand...
We have to define the idea of what does it mean to be on “welfare” and what are the basic needs of ones family, but in a general sense, I think there is a moral imperative to avoid pregnancy when a couple is unable to meet the basic needs of their current family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top